Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 September 8

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< September 7
September 9 >

September 8

edit

Map templates of regions of Western Australia

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australian mapframe templates that are only used in one article each. Subst and delete. SWinxy (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CS Femina-Sport Chișinău sections

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

only one link per this discussion Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting won't do any good. How would having a bunch of red links or links to a general article provide any use to an article when there is nothing to see in the first place or related to the subject? Sidebars are meant to provide navigation. None of these templates and the ones below satisfy the rule of thumb at all. Nor would substituting. There is no information that would serve any value from any of these sidebars at the moment. It would just clutter the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not saying that you need to keep a bunch of red links. Cases for when a red link should or shouldn’t be present in any article text should still apply. I’m simply saying that if you have something like {{Aston Villa departments}} written out on three different pages, you give someone easy access to seeing what major divisions there are. Even if that information were not in the form of a link and would be text only, that seems (to me) like useful information up front. Similar to television show infoboxes and spinoff shows. Now how that might be done technically to generate simple boxed text and images, I don’t have the technical expertise. If a simple substitution won’t do the job, this becomes a bit moot. -2pou (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Den Helder Suns sections

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

only two links per this discussion Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Diósgyőri VTK sections

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

only three links per this discussion Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Recently revised

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 keep. Added to WP:TMC (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only three uses, all of which are very old -> this is clearly no longer serving a useful purpose. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Put it into the bot task list for the bot that dates templates, and add a bot task to automatically remove the template after a month -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add to WP:TMC. I had no idea this even existed because almost nothing links to it. I think this template would be useful for someone looking for a second opinion while working on a WP:GA nomination. It can also be used for regular edits as well, but I wouldn't recommend obscure page use. The template should also be treated like Template:Under construction "If this template page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template.". In the end... its worth giving this template a chance to be seen before making a judgement about how WP:USEFUL it is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think keep and add to WP:TMC per User:Knowledgekid87. I think the problem here is lack of visibility rather than lack of utility. I could see a case for a bot task notifying applicable WikiProjects whenever the template is newly placed, since "hey I just did a major update on this article everything look ok?" is a type of manual notification I sometimes see in the same context. Also agree with 67 above that User:AnomieBOT should probably remove these after a set time period. Folly Mox (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect, could you provide some reasoning behind your opinion? I know WP:USEFUL applies to articles, but the following still can apply here: "Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_8&oldid=1239394865"