Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< July 6 July 8 >

July 7

edit

Template:Villages in Hisar District

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) 23:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only one transclusion in this entire template. Serves no navigational purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2021 (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:Villages in Alwar tehsil of Alwar district of Rajasthan

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) 23:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template is nothing but text. No transclusions, links, etc. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2021 (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:Villages in Sanganer Tehsil

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only linked to four articles. Rest is nothing but text. Not helpful in navigation. Very doubtful outside those four, the rest will be created into articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2021 (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:Uw-ani

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) 12:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this has the potential to be a useful template, I think this 14 year old template is unknown and unused in recent years. Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seemingly abandoned 2007 proposal, has never seen actual use. I question the value of bringing templates into active use as a response to deletion nominations claiming they are unused; any decision to advertise a template for this purpose should be made because the people of 2021 thought it was needed, not because someone happened to a discover a 17-year-old relic. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:33, 9 July 2021 (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).

Grenada Election Templates

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and redundant as the articles use a different table for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2021 (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).

British Virgin Islands Election Templates

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and redundant as the articles use a different table for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2021 (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:Turks and Caicos Islands general election, 2007

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and redundant as the articles use a different table for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2021 (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).

Cayman Election Templates

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused and redundant as the articles use a different table for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2021 (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:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines general election, 2010

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. 2010 general election article uses a different table for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2021 (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:Saint Lucian general election, 2006

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used and the articles use different tables for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2021 (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:Saint Kitts legislative election, 2004

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as the election article uses a different table. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2021 (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:Netherlands Antilles parliamentary election, 2002

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2002 is unused. 2006 and 2010 template should be substituted onto the respective election articles per the standard on other Netherlands Antilles election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2021 (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:2007 Trinidad and Tobago general election

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used on the election results as the articles use a different table for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2021 (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:Jamaica legislative election, 2007

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2007 article uses a different table for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2021 (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:Bermudian general election, 2007

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2007 article uses a different table for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2021 (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:Bahamas general election, 2012 comprehensive

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see the point of this template. It contains too much information that I don't think is necessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2021 (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:Anguillan general election, 2010

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used on the respective mainspaces it was created for as different tables are used for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2021 (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).

Hatian Election Templates

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose substituting the template information on the respective articles per the standard on Haitian election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (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).

Dominican Republic Election Templates

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2004 and 2008 are unused. 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2012 should be substitued on the election articles for those years as it's done on virtually all other DR election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2021 (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:Barbadian general election, 2008

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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Used on the wrong article and the election articles used a different table. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2021 (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 artist1

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; deleted as G2 by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no reason for a separate infobox from {{infobox artist}}. Testing should go in the template sandbox, not another template entirely. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:21, 7 July 2021 (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:Parenthetical referencing editnotice

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) 18:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template, just like parenthetical referencing, is deprecated. I believe it should be moved to the holding cell and kept there until the references for articles it's used for are appropriately converted and then deleted. It should not be removed before the conversion since it currently acts as a good list of pages requiring this conversion. --Trialpears (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the articles haven't been converted yet, then maybe this nomination is premature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing In my experience placing templates in the holding cell is a really good way to make sure template related tasks aren't forgotten and the template gets dealt with properly afterwards. Even templates requiring significant work are usually handled within a few months which probably significantly significantly faster than it would be otherwise. If it isn't placed in the holding cell there would also be likely the last steps in the cleanup process such as removing incoming links and actually deleting the template do not occur for a long time even after it being orphaned. I really don't see any negatives with placing it in the holding cell either. --Trialpears (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that this needs to be prioritized over other work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a rationale against deletion WAID. ;) Izno (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holding cell and delete. To move this along. In the 3 weeks it's been here no one has raised any valid objection to placing this in the holding cell to help facilitate the removal of parenthetical referencing. I support the proposed nomination. Gonnym (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2021 (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:Electoral systems

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) 15:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Electoral systems with Template:Voting.
Big overlap between these two templates. The style of {{Voting}} is the one used by Template:Elections and Template:Political campaigning. Gonnym (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As merge would potentially end up with a very large template I would suggest it's better to keep the collapsed section style of {{Electoral systems}} – the alternative is a template significantly longer than a page. If we want to keep the style of {{Voting}}, I think it might be best to keep them separate – electoral systems are a sub-topic of voting, but also a very large topic in itself. Number 57 18:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If they should be separate than they should not have overlapping links as that makes navigating with them unnecessarily harder. I'm ok with such a result as well. Gonnym (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While these templates do have topics that overlap, the are very different. Electoral systems are about how elections are done. Voting is how voting in those electoral systems are conducted. There is a clear distinction between the two. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2021 (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).
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) 18:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a useful navigation template - this is an excessive listing of cities that hardly anyone will use to navigate between articles. Most if not all of the articles here would not benefit from having the template added. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would not. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting opinion. At what point in your mind it would become useful? --Zaheen (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It won't become useful even if you wiped half of that template clean. Because no information can be gained it, hence making it useless in terms of navagation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "no information can be gained from it". It is clearly a navigational template where US cities are categorized according to their population in decreasing order. I would point out that if somebody wants to browse the cities of the US in terms of most populous to less populous cities, this navigational box quite evidently provides an excellent means of doing so. So there is a potential use for it. How is it useless then? Also, there are many other similar population-based city list navboxes like this for other countries. I created this navbox after being inspired by those. Are they also useless? In that case, shouldn't they be deleted as well? --Zaheen (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are not but this is clutter. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur. According to you, many other navboxes built on exactly the same principle and containing many, many links are not useless, but this particular one, even after a hypothetical cleanup and improvement, would be completely useless? Are you sure this is not a case of rushing to delete based on a subjective definition of what is or isn't useful/messy/[insert vague and dismissive negative adjective], and throwing the baby out with the bathwater? --Zaheen (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, navboxes such as these can potentially increase readership of articles of US cities, perhaps even lead to their improvement. This kind of navbox is certainly viewed as useful by many different contributors, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many of them for other countries without getting deleted. One can as easily accuse this navbox of causing template creep as one can see its potential benefits, as per WP:NBFILL. It depends on whether one has an overly aggressive deletionist and pessimistic perspective to produce dead on arrival outcomes or an open-minded, optimistic, contributionist perspective regarding navboxes.--Zaheen (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a template for a single subject, then there doesn't need to be more of them. One is enough. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I don't understand what you mean by "there doesn't need to be more" than "a template for a single subject" and "one is enough"? Are you referring to a rule or a policy? How does this relate to this discussion? Perhaps it would be more helpful to write clear, elaborate messages pertinent to the matter at hand, instead of cryptic, vague, over-generalized one-liners open to various interpretations. --Zaheen (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:NAVBOX, articles in a navbox should refer to each other. By the nature of this topic, the articles in the navbox only relate to the topic, not to each other. --Bsherr (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But according to WP:NAVBOX, a good navbox does not have to meet ALL the criteria mentioned in the characteristics list. Isn't it cherry-picking to propose the deletion of this particular navbox because it doesn't meet one criterion? Besides, there are many cities in country X navboxes on wikipedia based on population. Should they all be deleted as well because they do not meet this single criterion? I am trying to find the rationale here. --Zaheen (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Perhaps they should all be deleted too. But they're not nominated, so I am only advancing an opinion as to the template that is nominated. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates explains that there are advantages and disadvantages to each of these. I think the list and category are adequate without the navbox, because the threshold of 100k is arbitrary and navigation between the constituent articles is unlikely. The criterion that the articles mention each other is reflective of this, rather than being the sole rationale. But perhaps I should ask, why do you think the navbox is necessary given that there is a list and a category already? --Bsherr (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox in question with its compact and horizontal orientation of items offers a summary overview of as well as a quick way to browse the most populous US cities above a certain threshold, which is less cumbersome than browsing up and down a long, comprehensive, vertically-oriented table (which is still accessible from the topbar of the navbox if the user wants to have more comprehensive info about all of these cities). Browsing a category page on the most populous US cities (does it really exist?) would be similarly burdensome. This is not an innovative navbox. Similar navboxes exist for cities in other countries. And a navbox specifically for most populous US cities similar to this one exists in at least 30 other languages. An auto-collapsed navbox tucked away at the end of an article facilitating browsing among the most populous US cities is hardly a nuisance and at the same time offers the benefits over a list or a category page I just mentioned above. --Zaheen (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2021 (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:Baseball at the 2020 Summer Olympics group tables

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) 23:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or content - see template history. Was created then substituted and blanked by another editor. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It actually won't because the template is rendered useless because a different table is used for the Baseball standings at the Olympics. And there are no translucsions because it's not used anywhere. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tables aren't different. They were actually copied from the template — and are used here.
I'm sure more pages would have used them if the |showteam= option was still available, but it isn't when using transclusions of both Module:Sports table and Template:Linescore.
For functionality reasons, a template should be used in this case for the tables. the linescores can stay in their place. Deancarmeli (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you click edit it goes straight to editing Baseball at the 2020 Summer Olympics because it links it to the mainspace as the template coding is different. The tables are different as it isn't using the template for discussion which was a table before being blanked. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know it doesn't use the blanked template anymore. That's what this discussion is about. I'm saying it SHOULD use the template because the switch away from it caused a loss of table functionalities. Deancarmeli (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can dredge up the old discussions if really necessary, but the general consensus starting in early 2020 was that templates such as these should not be used, instead the information should be stored in the primary article and then transcluded via LST everywhere else. The fact that the functionality of this particular template is not what one editor prefers is a matter to be discussed at the module talk, not to go against the general precedent set last year. (for what it's worth, I agree with Deancarmeli that there probably should be some sort of bolding action available for these types of templates, but since it would affect dozens if not hundreds of uses it shouldn't be hacked for just this one instance) Primefac (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. it's preferable to keep the tables in the article instead of having dozens of table templates. Frietjes (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2021 (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:Rosters within Cleveland Indians organization

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 2021 July 18. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2021 (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:Wikipedia books by quality

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) 12:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another template that should be deleted with the deprecation of the Book: namespace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2021 (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:Balikpapan

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 merge to Template:East Balikpapan. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only linked to three articles. Four out of six subdistricts in the template are text. Doesn't aid in navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2021 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_7&oldid=1035087989"