Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 14 April 16 >

April 15[edit]

Template:Canadian federal election, 1988/Calgary West[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All unused as all the election results information is already part of the respective articles for the respective regions in Canada under the election results section. Or part of the election article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Since this nomination, both 1984 Cape Breton templates have been added to the respective articles for the regions. Since these are now single-use these two should be substituted then deleted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2022 (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:1943 shipwrecks[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused with only one link. I took the link and added it to Template:July 1943 shipwrecks where it should have been in the first place. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Deleting the template would wreak havoc with the WikiProject Shipwrecks effort to create a consistent linking format between years and among months within years, because 1) the year-by-year shipwreck templates link to one another (in this case, Template:1942 shipwrecks links to Template:1943 shipwrecks, which in turn links to Template:1944 shipwrecks. Deleting ths template destroys those links, eliminating easy navigation to 1943 and in either direction between 1942 and 1944, and 2) the yearly shipwreck templates also in many cases (especially during the world wars) provide easy links to each month of the year (and therefore it is not true that this template is "unused" because it includes 12 entries, one for each month of 1943), and 3) the "List of shipwrecks" articles these templates link to and support are labeled as "dynamic lists" which are constantly being added to, so inevitably this template will have to be recreated anyway as soon as someone creates a ship article with an otherwise undated wreck sometime in 1943. Unless and until someone coems up with alternative way to easily link shipwreck year and shipwreck months together and to accommodate future "unknown date" shipwreck links, and to apply that new format to all the shiwreck templates that currently use the existing format, this template should remain active. Certainly, no deletion should in any case occur without prior consultation with WikiProject Shipwrecks. Mdnavman (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
  • Move to Template:1940s shipwrecks with years 1940 to 1949. This template is essentially useless with a single entry, it would make much more sense to just combine these into decades. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized that 1943 shipwrecks is already broken down into months, we don't need a single use template for an unknown date ship. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think alot of these shipwrecks by months template need to be merged into one main template either for each year or by decade. Don't need see the need for each month having their own navbox outside of the multiple articles related to the navboxes scope. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These templates need to be redirected to lists of shipwrecks by decade rather than by individual article. A similar thing is done with Template:Years in anime as the years are linked to lists of anime in x year. There are too many ships in x year to make linking to every article in a single template useful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the non-existing links will be automatically sorted out by Template:Shipwrecks navbox footer. Frietjes (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2022 (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:Five pillars box[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Izno (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:27, 16 April 2022 (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:Premier Academy League Group A[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox and out-of-date as the Premier Academy League has been defunct since 2012. This no longer serves its navigational function. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2022 (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:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OF/Myanmar (BGF)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2022 April 22. ✗plicit 23:46, 22 April 2022 (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:NFUser[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there is already an equivalent template somewhere or another. Izno (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2022 (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:Mahathir Mohamad timeline[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now an unused timeline template and unnecessary that duplicates article content in a shorter version. The Mahathir Mohamad article already covers this and template space should not be used for article content. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2022 (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:ITF wheelchair profile[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 11:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by {{ITF profile}}. Letcord (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2022 (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:Amazon Prime Video original films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 11:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't have navboxes for films originally released on a streaming platform. When Template:Netflix and Template:Disney+ Hotstar don't, given how many films there are in them, why should this have, when it also has so many original films? We already have Category:Amazon Prime Video original films and List of Amazon Prime Video original films. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These "original x" templates are really bad in general as they end of being a huge cluster of unrelated links. It is safe to assume that a user who is reading an article on an item in the group will not go on reading more from the navbox as they are not related other than the fact that they were both released by the same entity which most readers just don't care and for them it's just trivial. So other than failing at WP:NAVBOX points 3 and 5, what these navboxs end up to be are just huge. I couldn't find a Template:Warner Bros. original films template (and I really hope there isn't), but I can just imagine the size of such a template. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2022 (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:Expand Saudi Arabia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 11:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Template:Expand these kinds of templates are deprecated. Suggest total removal from pages. Izno (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Template:Stub suffices in terms of small articles. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 April 2022 (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:LtRep1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 03:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. I assume it was part of some edit notice at some point but is no longer. Izno (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2022 (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:Original[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 keep. ✗plicit 12:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist to preserve images for the purpose of Wikisource, so the premise of this template is essentially out of scope. On Wikipedia specifically, it also gives the appearance of WP:OWNership and/or that uses of this template are for personal repositories of images. Izno (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Certain files can't be on Commons for various reasons (Usually {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}) and if we can't put them on Commons, we need to document them just as well on here. Otherwise, at whatever point they can move to Commons it'll be far too late to get the missing files, because we'll have long since hidden all evidence of their existence. This template is identical to its Commons equivalent, and intended to be used for exactly the same purpose: to document a restoration properly.
Deleting this would put numerous Featured Pictures into an awkward state, as this level of documentation is expected there.. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 04:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a file can't be moved to Commons, then it is here. If it is here, then Template:Original isn't needed on it as the file isn't obsolete or kept for historical or archival use. If it can be moved to Commons why does it need to be kept here? Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's bad practice to not keep the original version of historic media, to be compared with the restored one. An example may help: File:Lawson Wood - Parliamentary Recruiting Committee - Your King & Country Need You - Original.jpg is the original of a small set of rules that cannot move to Commons until 2028. It consists of the Original, a lossless copy of the restoration (to allow further editing) and a JPEG copy (because PNGs display as blurry images thanks to a nut fixed bug). If we delete them, the value of the image decreases due to no longer following standard practice for restorations, and we have no process whatsoever in place that would cause images to be undeleted when it was time to move them to Commons. We have to follow Commons procedures for things that will be on Commons, but not yet. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 13:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I know see that File:Lawson Wood - Parliamentary Recruiting Committee - Your King & Country Need You.jpg is the one used. Then my next question is (in this example), why not upload a version and then modify it using the same name (like what has been done at File:Lawson Wood - Parliamentary Recruiting Committee - Your King & Country Need You.png)? --Gonnym (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's considered best practise to keep an unedited copy of the original, unedited file, so they can be easily compared side-to-side. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 16:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adam Cuerden. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOTGALLERY Wikipedia is not a repository (1) of source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are useful only when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia (2) files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, -- can't WikiSource: host the files instead? This could be converted into a Transwiki to WikiSource template. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Adam Cuerden, the template serves a valid purpose. On a sidenote: originals aren't necessarily jpeg files, which is the preferred in-article format. Bammesk (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2022 (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:PT personal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 03:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used meaningfully. Suggest full removal from the pages on which it's transcluded. Izno (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2022 (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:ExampleRFCxxx[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be used meaningfully with essentially no edits in the past decade. Suggest full removal. Izno (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2022 (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:BrokenRFCxxx[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 11:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be used meaningfully with essentially no edits in the past decade. Suggest full removal. Izno (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2022 (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:MLarchive[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 11:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can be replaced trivially with {{archive}} with the appropriate |period=. Izno (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2022 (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:BNSF Railway state wikiprojects[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 11:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use that should probably just be removed. It would be more practical to tag the page of interest with {{WikiProject United States}} with so many apparent projects interested in the page. Izno (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace per nom. Completely agree with the above. If any specific WikiProject feels the need to tag their WikiProject then go ahead and do it normally. The list is collapsible anyways. Gonnym (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2022 (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:Infobox album/genre/Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page was tagged for speedy deletion and untagged. It is only transcluded on one page and I couldn't find similar infobox album templates so it might be an outlier. I'd ask the page creator about its usage but they haven't been actively recently. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the one who nominated it for speedy deletion – it seems like a strange attempt to deal with edit wars with bypassing page protection guidelines. While I really can't find any discussion/consensus on adding this code to templates. The author added it single-handedly to musical artist infobox, album infobox and single infobox. For the latter - the code has been removed and reverted by the author several times, but it has now been removed completely, while for artist+album it's still present in the templates. Also, there's none of the subpages other than the one being reviewed now. I tend to think that this is not a valid way of bypassing the existing page protection guidelines and that such code should be removed from the infoboxes, while the reviewed page should be deleted as well. Solidest (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted, I'll be removing the code from the infobox (if no one does so before). This is a clear situation where a discussion should be held before changing the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not necessary, every other album article uses the standard {{Infobox album}} template, and I can't see any reason why this should be a special case. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2022 (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/2022_April_15&oldid=1084173708"