Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< August 15
August 17 >

August 16

edit

Template:Luftwaffe

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 23:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link template (in the same vein as recently-deleted GAF) and should be deleted as such. Izno (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2024 (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:Astatine compounds

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. Izno (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:

Has been deleted before in May 2018. Still not enough notable entries, and these are all included in Category:Astatine compounds. 141Pr -\contribs/-

That previous deletion was via Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Template:Astatine compounds. If the template is kept this time, need to include that in its talkpage XFD history. DMacks (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are 4 articles. As long as the articles exist, then it is fair enough to have navigation between them in a template. (Perhaps some articles deserve to be deleted, and if they are and there are only two articles left, then I would support the scrapping of this template). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Graeme Bartlett. We also have Organoastatine compound that should be included (redirect to Organoastatine chemistry, which obviosuly talks substantially about the topic of the chemicals). And astatine monochloride also (redirect to parent-class article that mentions this in a comprehensive list). That makes six links (WP:NAVBOX-guideline criterion #6 is minimum of five). And a navbox lets them be clustered inorganic vs organic, a specific advantage over category mentioned in the guideline. DMacks (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2024 (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:WikiGame

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. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2011. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2024 (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:Barmati Panth

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. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to fail the "should be at least 5 articles included" of WP:NAVBOX, with only Mamaidev and Maheshwari as useful links. The Hinduism, Satpanth, Nizari and Isma'ilism articles linked at the bottom seem indirectly related and do not mention Barmati Panth. Belbury (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2024 (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:Move topicon

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 userfy. There is a rough consensus to delete the template, however I find the argument from the keep camp -- having a working template is useful for demonstration -- compelling, which is why this is being userfied; it will help in future discussions on how RMs should be displayed (TFD is not the location to discuss the issue though). I will note the "it's not a topicon" argument did not hold much weight given that renaming pages is trivial. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions except in one editor's sandbox. Proposed in 2020, apparently, but not used anywhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify on the "proposed in 2020" bit, here's the history as best as I can reconstruct it. In April 2020 Sdkb noted that the RM banner is relatively disruptive from a UX perspective and proposed a change to the banner. Generally there are three main issues with the RM banner which still apply in 2024 which I'll give in order of increasing severity.
  1. Unlike banner issues such as NPOV or inadequate sourcing, page titling is an editorial concern irrelevant to most readers. It contributes to banner blindness, and it immediately distracts the reader from trying to find the information they came to the page for.
  2. It brings a lot of noise to move discussions on highly trafficked pages. Our page titling criteria (e.g. COMMONNAME) and consensus based decision making (i.e. NOTAVOTE) are not well understood by the general public. Having closed a lot of requested moves including the 2020 Kyiv rename, closing becomes harder when you have a high volume of "ILIKEIT" comments and exceptionally so when it is on an active, high-profile, or geopolitical topic. This slows down the RM process and leads to the banner being up even longer which amplifies the first problem.
  3. The current RM banner and process are an effective vector for political campaigns to influence public opinion without actually needing to move the page. As a case study, take the inciting incident for this template which concerned the title of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation which had 4 RMs in 1 month. Biden supporters wanted to focus on the allegation by Tara Reade and pushed for leaving Biden's name out of the title and using the singular rather than the plural; Biden opponents wanted to highlight Biden and other less substantiated allegations by including his name and using the plural. Ultimately I think we got the call right, but the problem wasn't making the right call: for over a week while this RM was active we advertised in Wikipedia's voice, without citation, that a major candidate for public office may have engaged in multiple sexual assaults. I think that's a bad outcome, but it's remarkably easy to pull off: just start a "good-faith" move discussion and you get free advertising for your unverified POV on any page you like no matter how high traffic for 7 days (or longer if it attracts enough noise to make finding a closer difficult).
With all this as background, Netoholic suggested converting the RM notification from a page banner to what MediaWiki calls page status indicators and {{Move topicon}} was my attempt at implementing it. There was a technical problem with the template which caused it to stall out after a request to modify common.css, and given the pandemic at the time and other priorities I think it fell off everyones' radar. For the reasons above, I think it's still a viable initiative and worth keeping around in case someone wants to pick it up. — Wug·a·po·des 22:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur with Wugapodes that it should be kept given the ongoing need to reform the way RMs are advertised. If anyone would like to help out with the common.css issue, I'd love to pick up the initiative again. Sdkb talk 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice subject to the consensus-establishing exercise that actually moves RM to using a template like this. "We might use it" isn't good enough. Izno (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rather hard to develop any new feature if you're required to get the feature approved before you're allowed to create a demo. Sdkb talk 15:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly not being used as a demo, having been created 4 years ago. And I said "subject to the exercise" anyway, which at a gracious review might be interpreted as "whenever you get around to actually working on it again". Which can also be done in a user space sandbox anyway. Izno (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ready to work on it again now. We need help picking up from someone more familiar with CSS here. Sdkb talk 05:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As discussed there, that specific request won't be implemented. RexxS appears to have provided a reasonable way to deal with this problem.
    That said, I think the very fact that discussion existed says to me that your cake (that you want to diminish the importance of a move banner) is not the cake you want (we want to prioritize where this is located in a part of the screen that isn't presently displayed to mobile users and which even desktop users are likely to miss). Those goals are at odds in their core motivation. Izno (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: I picked this up and fixed the CSS in [1]. I found a much simpler non-CSS solution in [2]. Sandbox. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Wugs and Sdkb. Valid problem statement re the current RM signalling, and I don't understand why "we might use it" isn't a good enough reason not to delete a template we might use.
    Apart from the culture at this venue, which does a lot of good work cleaning out genuinely non-useful / abandoned templates, is there anything in guidance or policy that's so strict about untranscluded templates? I'm genuinely curious if this is something that is recommended to contributors, or if people here are just trying to keep the relevant database reports at low populations. Second choice userfy to User:Sdkb/Move topicon. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    isn't a good enough reason not to delete a template we might use. The refrain is common in the sense that WP:OSE is a common refrain at a content discussion (such as AFD). We get people every day claiming a template will be used, despite the usual evidence to the contrary, sometimes decades in the making, that no, that template has not been used.
    if people here are just trying to keep the relevant database reports at low populations. No, it's a point here because people should be able to find the template they want, and not templates they don't want or which have little use. Izno (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That reasoning is a pretty strong argument I hadn't previously considered. Thanks, Izno. Folly Mox (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Folly Mox, the more time I spend at TfD, the more I am coming to the view that, although they won't say it out loud (or perhaps even acknowledge it to themselves), trying to keep the relevant database reports at low populations is precisely the point for some participants. If confusion with other templates was the actual goal, I would expect discussion to focus on factors like whether the name is confusing or whether it has clear documentation. As always, people gravitate rigidly to easy-to-measure metrics to the exclusion of the broader picture. That explains why the "it ought to be used" argument — which would be persuasive under any common-sense consideration, as well as WP:TFD#REASONS' and has no likelihood of being used condition — here just gets a "well it's not" retort. Sdkb talk 15:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TG requires 2 uses: orphaned or used on only one page.
    Wait I submitted an ER to enable this template, Keep if accepted before this TfD closes. Otherwise draftify then delete after 6 months of WP:G13. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would have been nice if someone had troubled themselves to drop a courtesy notice on the bot operator's talk before this had been relisted twice. There is a fundamental problem here, which should have been brought up in earlier discussions. Template:Top icon is a metatemplate used to help build top icons, the little (usually 20x20 pixels) icons in the top-right area of a page. Template:Move topicon is way bigger than 20×20 which can really cause problems with compatibility with other top icons. As the name implies, it should be an icon with no room for messages such as "A requested change to this page's title is under discussion." In other words, just this –   – by itself, with an embedded clickable link – would be a suitable top icon for announcing requested moves in a much less intrusive manner. I've been around long enough to remember the years when the three rationales listed at the top of this section held sway, and for those reasons we did not announce RMs in mainspace. Only after considerable concerns were expressed that RMs were not having adequate participation, did I implement these notices by popular demand. Now consensus seems to be trending the other way, as too many drive-by opinions are causing RM to become a dumpster fire. I'm open to the idea of scaling back to announcing them in mainspace with a top icon, but it should be a legitimate top icon which complies with guidelines. Please rewrite this template to make it compliant. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There. I put a compliant RM top icon on Shangri-La City. Click on it and it takes you to the talk page section hosting the discussion. If you want to replace the current notice template with that, start an RfC at WT:RM to get a consensus, and then I'll make it happen. I see that topicons aren't shown on mobile. I'm not familiar with standards for mobile or what the solution for that might be. Maybe mobile readers don't need to be participating in RM discussions. I don't hardly ever do Wikipedia on mobile, just desk and laptops. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    legitimate top icon which complies with guidelines. Please rewrite this template to make it compliant Done. Sandbox |compliant=1.
    no room for messages but everyone else in Review_of_consensus liked the mbox. Rewrite proponents should start an RfC.
    aren't shown on mobile I just left the mbox showing on mobile. Based on [3], I will also show the mbox on the desktop new design. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Essentially I'm hearing you saying that neither the Mbox metatemplate (used in system messages, and on approximately 3,370,000 pages, or roughly 5% of all pages) nor the Top icon metatemplate (used on approximately 74,000 pages) are acceptable solutions. The Mbox yells too loudly, and the top icon whispers too quietly, so you want to design a new in-between system that talks in a more normal tone of voice. {{coord}} is another well-established "indicator" which has proven compatible with the others. I'm uncomfortable with such a new system being "boldly designed" by some unknown IP rather than an admin or template editor with an established track record. I'm concerned about compatibility with other established page-layout elements. The need for and introduction of a new hybrid meta-template should be given a wider review and obtain a broader consensus at the Village Pump before we boldly introduce it at requested moves, in my view. This new element should not be called a "top icon", because it's not that. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wbm1058: "boldly designed" by some unknown IP What did I boldly design at all? All I did was fix the code of User:Wugapodes's design. The most was fixing mobile and merging the mbox ER.
    It's not me saying that neither ... Top icon metatemplate ... acceptable solutions. I had already changed it to your design at {{Requested move notice/sandbox}} on 20 August. I'm personally fine with it, but as a unknown IP rather than an admin or template editor with an established track record, I can't join you in overruling the consensus of a discussion of 14 editors (mostly supporting). Btw, I reopened the ER, which has been using your design since August 20. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, OK, so you're a co-designer. And the one who's pushing this at the moment. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you rejected the compromise (which is your design except mobile fixes), I will leave you to push the 100%-your-code solution at {{Move topicon/sandbox}}
    Userfy or delete. Work can continue at {{Requested move notice/sandbox}} 142.113.140.146 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. At the least, it should be renamed as it's not an icon. It's wider than a dozen top icons in a row, isn't it? Has the potential of crowding article titles on smaller windows. If we want to use an actual icon to announce requested moves in mainspace, we don't need a new template for that. It can be done by changing the existing template. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2024 (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:Newyorkerize

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 relisted on 2024 August 23. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2024 (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:Hamas history

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 relisted on 2024 August 23. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2024 (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:Palestinian leaders

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. Considering "cleaning the template" would keep the template, I am closing this as keep. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template has poorly defined function per WP:TG. It serves no purpose, has no precedent, and seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information including about their places of birth, their militant operations, their wives, their children, and even their religions. For some reason there is also an assassination-like map attached to the template. It is also unsourced and failed all five of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines namely #4 the existence of its own separate article. It should be deleted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title to history, because that seemed to better describe the content, this template includes more past figures and fewer current / recent than the one you listed above. But I presume I shouldn't move the page yet?
It's basic biographical details, their leadership role, birthplace, date of death, etc. The date of death link to the page about it if it is a page to link. Religious diversity within the group is relevant to the topic.
What do you mean by "unsourced"? Navboxes don't usually include sources? All the info is in the linked pages, with sources. I have left out any information that sources conflicted about in the linked articles, e.g. the dates of birth for many of the leaders of Hamas are disputed, so I've left them out.
How does it fail all of the navbox rules? the only one it seems to fail definitively is the having a matching main page. But a page could be made. Creating a page seems equally valid as deleting a template to solve the problem of "template doesn't have a page".
FourPi (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Catfurball, merge with what? If anything I was thinking it needs to be split, into one for politicians and another for militants. FourPi (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – For this sidebar, I think we might have to do some cleanup like:-
  • Removing the irrelevant stuffs like their religion, their wives & children;
  • Keeping the important things like their places of birth, their militant operations;
  • Adding the major information like their ideology (Islamist, Communist, etc), their political spectrum (Hardline, Centrist, Moderate, etc).
I think there's no issue on other things.
Everyone can add more suggestions to improve this sidebar.
– Thegreatrebellion (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Thegreatrebellion.
Which page do you think it should be linked to? (I was not aware of that rule until Makeandtoss listed it, I had read the relevant parts of the technical guide for navboxes, I hadn't noticed the was also style guide, etc.) The two most relevant pages I have found so far are:
Both of which help to focus the scope a bit, by excluding some of the fringe groups like Islamist anti-Hamas groups in the Gaza Strip. If there is a modern history article that also possibly fits? FourPi (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreatrebellion ideologies probably don't work well on a navbox with no citations, they're too debatable, and extreme or moderate is too subjective.
But I'll expanded all the acronyms, because "Islamic Resistance Movement" and "People's front…" etc. are somewhat obvious? and official names shouldn't lead to edit wars?
I've also added a few of the most relevant shared ideologies as a combined list.
Year founded would also be useful to add.
FourPi (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreatrebellion do you know what they might mean by "cleaned and streamlined" and similar comments? I took off things like flags already. I've tried to match the formatting of the other sidebars but it ends up a mess, so I didn't even save it. Palestine is an unusual place and it doesn't fit well in the same lists, but trying to format existing lists the same way is just messy. Can you identify any other ways to make it neater? FourPi (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreatrebellion: Can you point out to any precedent of a template on a country's leaders spanning multiple eras? Makeandtoss (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most political offices in countries that are well-covered on Wikipedia have templates for leaders that go back to whenever the office was established, e.g. {{Prime Ministers of Israel}} {{US presidents}} {{Prime Ministers of India}} The Indian PM template also includes links to: Spouse of the Prime Minister of India, List of things named after prime ministers of India, List of prime ministers of India by previous experience, etc. For Israel there's a template for every ministry, e.g. {{Israeli Education Ministers}} and they all go back to when then office was established, so {{Palestinian leaders}} goes back to the fist leader of each faction. The sub-lists in {{Palestinian leaders}} are factions who have a current leader, or who are currently active, and each goes back to the first leader (with a few gaps left to fill). FourPi (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Prime Ministers of Israel}} has their time as leader of a state within India in brackets, like {{Palestinian leaders}} has related pages. FourPi (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have {{Template:Palestinian prime ministers}} so this would obviously make no sense and shows how peculiar this scope is without precedent for any other place. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also {{English, Scottish and British monarchs}} going back to 1603 in two countries (they're in columns). Or if you mean the Mandatory Palestine section? some Israeli templates include thatera too, e.g. {{Israeli elections}} includes 5 from before 1948: 1920 Assembly of Representatives election, 1923 Palestinian Legislative Council election, 1925 Assembly of Representatives election, 1931 Assembly of Representatives election, and 1944 Assembly of Representatives election. FourPi (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also lots of templates of a political ideologies that cover leaders through the whole history of the movement, like my idea of matching {{Palestinian leaders}} to the Palestinian nationalism page, e.g. {{Far-right politics in Australia}} goes from Frank Browne (journalist) and Eric Campbell (political activist) from decades ago, to Avi Yemini and Blair Cottrell who are current, there's also {{communism in India}} {{conservatism in Canada}} {{Irish republicanism}} and others. Big topics have matching end bar {{sidebar}} {{fascism sidebar}} {{liberalism}} {{liberalism sidebar}} and sidebar. Obviously they're not identical, but they're different countries and different ideologies. I've included the information most relevant to politics in Palestine. The others all just have a big decorative graphic at the top, but I don't know what you could easily summarize on a map for any of them? There's nothing very relevant that would fit in the small space? The others are sorted into categories of people, orgs, etc. and they don't pair the people with the orgs. But currently {{Palestinian leaders}} sorting by faction is a similar number of lists organized in a way that makes sense. The others couldn't be organized that way because there are too many organizations and not enough owls from each, some Palestinian factions have been around since the 60s but the Australian far right is a lot less s:table. FourPi (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clean or Delete I don't think its a very valuable template, but if its kept it should 100% be dramatically cleaned and streamlined. TimeEngineer (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TimeEngineer can you give some specific suggestions for what your mean by "cleaned and streamlined" please? FourPi (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FourPi (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up (and have someone mentor the template creator?). Honestly, what's the purpose of this template? It doesn't seem helpful and seems to just add clutter to the pages. Mason (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2024 (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:Night White Mountains

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. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single use, poor quality template. Info can by included in the article about the line. The Banner talk 11:50, 16 August 2024 (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:North Wind

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. Izno (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single use, bad quality template. (American railway passing through England?) Info can by included in the article about the line.The Banner talk 11:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removed incorrect links and fixed other ones Zackrules90 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2024 (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:Day White Mountains

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. Izno (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single use, bad quality template. (Seriously, an American railway starting in Germany and crossing into England and Portugal?) Info can by included in the article about the line.The Banner talk 11:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not serious, lol! Removed incorrect links and fixed other ones, thanks! Zackrules90 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2024 (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:Matt Shakman

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 05:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails the WP:NENAN rule of five, with only three existing articles. Does not merit a navbox at this time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2024 (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:Cc-by-sa

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 05:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated transclusionless template, and should thus be deleted.

If kept, this could become a disambiguation page for the various CC BY-SA licenses. But I think a disambiguation page is worse than useless: There is no way to know what license the author intended to use for their work, so only the author can fix the error caused by using this template. A template which can literally only be an unfixable problem when used should be deleted. A link in the deletion summary to Category:Creative Commons copyright templates should be a nice way of ensuring people can find the template they are looking for while preventing problematic transclusions. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:09, 16 August 2024 (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/2024_August_16&oldid=1242750893"