Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 12 March 14 >

March 13[edit]

Template:Saltillocap[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused character template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Although it may be unused currently, it forms a casing pair with {{saltillo}}, which is used. The reason for using these templates rather than simply typing the characters (or using char-insert) is that with some fonts, it may be difficult for editors to distinguish the saltillo from the ASCII apostrophe, and therefore difficult to proofread an article. Also, people who prefer Unicode periodically go through and 'clean up' the articles, replacing the templates with the characters, so whether the template is used may ebb back and forth. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really is no reason to use templates for Unicode characters which can be easily be entered. Gonnym (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's still unused two weeks later. It makes little sense to keep templates based on ungrounded speculation of the future. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this might be better merged into {{saltillo}} with a caps= parameter. It is used for the same purpose, and merging them makes it less likely to show up as unused, even though it is undoubtedly useful. Definitely should not be deleted as character entry is so technology dependent and wikignomes of both the human and electronic variety converting these types of templates to plain text seriously undersells their actual usefulness. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 19:04, 15 March 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:Lang-mis[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template originally speedy-nominated but apparently something about that broke or disturbed something at WP:CfD; see User talk:Trappist the monk § Help!. So, nominating here. This template is not used. This template is patently wrong. Hiberno-English is not a language that has been coded by the ISO 639-3 custodians. Because of that, using mis (the ISO 639-3 code for uncoded languages) is inappropriate – Hiberno-English is not the only uncoded language that en.wiki recognizes.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite get rid of Hiberno-English and rewrite it for specifiable language, link to ISO 639:m and the missing language table entry as the language link gloss for why this is "mis".
 [[{{{langlink|{{{lang}}}}}}|{{{lang}}}]]<sup>[[ISO 639:m#mis|?]]</sup>: {{{1}}}
so that it works with any missing language, and recategorize to only lang-x templates -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would be useful to standardize the format of missing language presentations, when they are written out in articles for the same functionality as lang-x templates, so rewriting this template to do so would rationalize all the missing language glosses with standard formatting consistent with languages that are coded in ISO 639 for which we have a standard format for. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When would that be used? When formatting text in a language that doesn't have an ISO code, there's no need to advertise (even in a tiny superscript) that the language hasn't got an ISO code: that's completely irrelevant to any text you'll be writing. If you take away the superscript, then the result is similar to what people would write out manually anyway: instead of writing [[Fooian language|Fooian]]: {{lang|mis|bar}}, they would now write {{lang-mis|lang=Fooian|langlink=Fooian language|bar}}. That's a tad more complicated, but it's got one small advantage: it may allow for some monitoring, so that if an ISO code eventually gets created, it will be easier to track down those uses and replace them accordingly. – Uanfala (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then we could just drop the question mark, and format it as you wrote, allowing for RTL formatting from {{lang}} etc. Which would allow tracking, and consistent formatting -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:23, 13 March 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:Heads of GRU[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Navbox of the heads of the GRU (Soviet Union) and GRU. Nigej (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And add to the articles. Useful navbox. And should be divided into two groups to disassociate the GRU under the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is to be used, someone should split the list row into two rows, one for USSR one for Russia -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As usual, I find adding templates to articles because they show up at TfD as unused to be counterproductive; if the templates were truly useful, they would not have become unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the improvements adding these to articles. --Izno (talk) 20:50, 15 March 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:Château-Salins communes[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. Izno (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Navbox for the former Arrondissement of Château-Salins, now merged into Arrondissement of Sarrebourg-Château-Salins. Nigej (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As usual, I find adding templates to articles because they show up at TfD as unused to be counterproductive; if the templates were truly useful, they would not have become unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need to keep navigation for a former Arrondissement. if someone wants to create a new navbox for the merged Arrondissement, go ahead, but this isn't it. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 15 March 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:Russian Orbital Segment[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 04:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. I found this via Template:ISSs/file info. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:23, 13 March 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:SLRT lines[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused other than in one archived talk page as it is superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Singapore LRT. Gonnym (talk) 07:09, 13 March 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:STLinkLR bullet[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 04:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail icon template. Gonnym (talk) 07:11, 13 March 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:SMRT style[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 04:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail style template. Gonnym (talk) 07:13, 13 March 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:Palma Metro color[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 04:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Palma Metro. Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 13 March 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:Usage checker for category header template[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 04:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category template. Gonnym (talk) 07:18, 13 March 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:Cnbox[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 04:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template. We already have plenty of templates for collapsible content. Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 13 March 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:Musical instruments[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 14:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a fairly controversial decision, but I believe that this template covers too broad a subject to be considered useful. Not many pages actually use this template, preferring to use the more relevant ones. (For example, brass instruments use Template:Brass instruments, the clarinet family uses Template:Clarinet, percussion instruments use Template:Percussion instruments, etc.) There also exists the Template:Musical instruments sidebar which does seem to actually be a bit more helpful. So basically, this template is already doubled. Thoughts? Why? I Ask (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

full usage report. If the template is really not used (like the report shows) then keeping it is pointless. It should either be used or not, not barely used. Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Having navboxes like {{Brass instruments}} and {{Musical instruments}} in the same article is more likely to confuse than help readers. Realistically someone in a Brass instrument article is much more likely to want to navigate to other brass instruments. Nigej (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reduce in scope to the headers and miscellaneous items. Izno (talk) 18:55, 13 March 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:Liberal Arts and Sciences Institutions in Europe[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 14:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, categories, or documentation. It is not clear what qualifies as a "liberal arts and sciences institution". Some of the linked articles do not mention liberal arts, let alone "liberal arts and sciences", in the body of the article or their categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have List of liberal arts colleges but as noted the inclusion criteria for that list and for the navbox are unclear. Nigej (talk) 15:04, 13 March 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:Northern (train operating company) route 13[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 14:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Route diagram for a route operated by Northern Trains, but there is no article for this route to be placed in. The stops on the route are listed in text in the Northern Trains article, with no space to put this template. If any of these belong in some other article, I will be happy to withdraw the nomination once they are transcluded. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 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:Rugby squad player 3[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 14:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming discussion links, or documentation. No substantive edits since creation in 2013. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 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:RussiaTimeZone[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 14:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This template has been replaced by {{Russia Time Zone Wikidata}} in the templates that used it in the past. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 13 March 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:Sfr-r[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 14:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or documentation. This template appears to have accidentally blanked in 2013, but nobody has noticed, so it's a good bet that this template is not used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 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 film/Wikidata[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 14:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only 1 user's sandbox. If they wish to keep it move to their sandbox. In general, only {{Infobox film}} should be used and any wikidata integration should be requested and discussed on its talk page. Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't share the nominator's opinion about /Wikidata versions of templates, but regardless the lack of use is a sufficient reason for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:16, 14 March 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:2017 NASL spring season results[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. Izno (talk) 18:29, 13 March 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_March_13&oldid=1078230750"