Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< June 18 June 20 >

June 19

edit

Template:Category unsourced

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Uncited category. Primefac (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Category unsourced with Template:Uncited category.
They both do the exact same thing. The only functional difference is that "Category unsourced" is limited to only one unsourced category while "Uncited category" is capable of multiple.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Articles that are located in a category should at least mention that fact in the article, and thus if there is a lack of a source, just stick a {{cn}} after than mention. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge into {{Uncited category}} after that template has been amended to deal with an unnamed parameter in lieu of |cat1=. It should also be extended to deal with more than 2 categories (5?). Comment: using {{cn}} is no alternative as it gives no indication to the reader what needs citing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge What Michael Bednarek said. --Rob (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Include

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Module:String. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:IZ2UFunctions

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the code of this module by itself should explain why this needs to be deleted without me adding anything other than "not useful for Wikipedia". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:ISBN

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has a modules for checking ISBNs, and it's called Module:Check isxn. It doesn't need this unused module to duplicate that functionality. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deleting it; however, I do think User:Pppery could work a bit on his tone. "Wikipedia already has..." This is years older then the module now used. Code and functionality has evolved and moved around over time. It didn't "duplicate" functionality, rather it came first. Dragons flight (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:IC

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Refundable if/when the creator shows back up. Primefac (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused "work in progress" module made by a user who has been inactive for three years. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Largest cities of Bosnia and Herzegovina

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was histmerged to fix the copy/paste page move. Primefac (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not transcluded into any article, not is it usable for substitution. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:IP

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 July 1. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:FIFA World Cup Hosts

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussion at WP:FOOTY, the benefit of this template is unclear. Firstly, if something like this has to exist, it should link the host federations rather than the national teams. More importantly, I would suggest it is superfluous to Template:FIFA World Cup, which provides useful linking between the tournaments themselves. I can't see why anybody is likely to want to navigate between disparate countries / federations / teams just because they have happened to be hosts. Jellyman (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Miscellaneous pages with authority control identifiers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per {{db-g7}} (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creator and sole contributor wishes to delete. No transclusions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{db-g7}} for this instead of starting a TfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Largest cities navboxes

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator. Misunderstanding. --woodensuperman 15:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are not what a WP:NAVBOX is for. They are articles masquerading as a navboxes, giving additional information regarding population, etc, etc, which is not what a navbox is designed for, and they also include external links and references. For the most part, they also seem to be single use templates, so perhaps they could be substituted, or converted to a different type of markup other than that used for navboxes. --woodensuperman 15:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stupid, pointless nomination. All these templates are well crafted, and highly useful across many articles, with the main point to hide the complicated code away from the main pages, and thus, not scare inexperienced editors. Stop trying to nuke the work of may editors before, just because some technicality was ignored at some point. Nergaal (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an abuse of navboxes. This is not what they are for. This sort of information belongs elsewhere, in an article, etc, but not here. --woodensuperman 15:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. They aren't WP:NAVBOX so the nomination doesn't make much sense (other nomination arguments were added after this post [2]). All examples I examined were only used in a demographics section or similar in an article about the country or region, e.g. Scotland#Demographics, and possibly one or two other general articles. They shouldn't be used as navboxes at the bottom of the cities, and they aren't (if you find an exception then feel free to remove them from those cities). They just happen to have a similar design to {{Navbox}} but they don't even use that template. They use {{Largest cities}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that now, I was clearly being a bit hasty! I think maybe the markup should be changed to stop these looking just like navboxes. The {{Largest cities of Iceland}} looks different to the others - maybe that should be adopted. But I apologise for wasting everyone's time and WITHDRAW my nomination. --woodensuperman 15:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_19&oldid=848300664"