Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< March 13 March 15 >

March 14

edit

Template:Possibly non-free 2D art

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) 06:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; redundant to {{Non-free 2D art}}; not linked anywhere; created by a now-banned user (though not in violation of any blocks). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - {{Non-free 2D art}} says "the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or their heirs." which would seem to cover the "possibly" aspect of the template being discussed. Unused since 2013. Nigej (talk) 09:16, 15 March 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:Many uncited categories

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) 06:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this; {{Uncited category}} has similar functionality so this is just a different aesthetic. Unused. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. {{Uncited category}} allows 2 uncited categories, this one 6. The author says in an edit summary that "It works, but this is now a fundamentally different template". However no one's used it in the 3 years of its existence, so 2 is presumably enough, and in any case it seems to me that it would be much better to expand the main template to handle more than 2, rather that having a duplicate. Nigej (talk) 09:13, 15 March 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:ThomasEp

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) 06:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this; unused. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:55, 14 March 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:History of the United States and Template:Periods in US history

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. It's been a while (on that talk page) and no dissents.

Propose merging Template:History of the United States with Template:Periods in US history.
See full discussion and proposal at Template talk:History of the United States#Merging templates. —GoldRingChip 22:51, 14 March 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:China–North Korea relations

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. Izno (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another template barely used. Not many notability articles exist in regards to the relations between North Korea and China. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Noting it is transcluded in 10 Main space articles. I personally am of the view that every bilateral pair should be created generally, but especially in the case of North Korea, PRC is without doubt their most important ally, and this template provides important navigating between these articles Shushugah (talk) 22:10, 16 March 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:The Descent

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) 17:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on talk page, only two links remain and does not meet guidelines defined in MOS:FILM#Navigation. Engineerchange (talk) 21:52, 14 March 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:Louisville skyscrapers

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:Louisville skyscrapers. Izno (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of an already existing tempate. Zonafan39 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 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:RTL Group

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. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:RTL Group with Template:Bertelsmann.
Significant overlap between the two templates. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 17:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 17:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments were made since the last relisting, and the discussion remains deadlocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 15:32, 14 March 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:Video games by country

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 March 25. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 25 March 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:China–Pakistan relations

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. Izno (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barely used in most of the articles listed in the template. Not many articles of notability exist about China and Pakistan's relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template has relevant use even if currently low usage. The fact it's not used in many of the articles it links to, doesn't preclude that it will/could in the future. Shushugah (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We may have differing views of utility of templates. From a policy point of view, ie WP:TFD#REASONS, I am not seeing why it needs to be deleted. It currently is transcluded in 14 separate mainspace articles, where users would realistically see this template. Shushugah (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically? Yes. But how many of those articles are linked within the template? Only a few of them. That is the issue with these templates I have nominated. They're just created for this purpose of creation. Only a few articles have the importance of the relations between the nations such as the eponymous article, the trade agreement, and Xi Jinping's visit to Pakistan. Much of China and Pakistan's relations articles are about power plants, dams, nuclear reactors, or the borders of the countries. Again, not many notability articles exist about their relations that can justify in keeping the template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. I am inclined to generally agree that any article linked in a template, should transclude the template. That's not a hard rule though. Some templates even have red links, while others abhor them. For most of these templates we're discussing, I'd prefer if a general policy was drafted at WP:WikiProject International Relations.
2. The fact this template already is transcluded in 14 articles is more than good enough for me. If someone wants to investigate the extra links in the template itself, and either remove them, or update the articles by transcluding the templates, they're welcome to do that. I considered doing that myself directly, but didn't want to appear like I am inflating the numbers by doing so, before we establish consensus of what to do with the templates. Shushugah (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11 articles is still low though. This template is largely unused as stated in the database reports of unused templates. We can go back and forth on this point, but not every country in the world needs a navigational relations template with all the countries in the world. In this regard, there are way too many that lack the notability of having one and many of them are Pakistan related. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to be a strategic geopolitical relationship from what I know off the top of my head. More can definitely be written. Also the 11 pages are definitely enough to justify a navbox.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:31, 17 March 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:Iran–Pakistan relations

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. Izno (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barely used in most of the articles listed in the template. Not many articles of notability exist about Iran and Pakistan's relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, here: fa:الگو:روابط_ایران_و_پاکستان Shushugah (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it warrants keeping. The Farsi version is the same as the English one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Similar to my rationale above, Iran and Pakistan are both neighbouring countries and share a (historically significant) bilateral relationship. I don't think the template fails as far as notability is concerned. Mar4d (talk) 02:17, 20 March 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:Pakistan–Soviet Union relations

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 March 22. Izno (talk) 06:31, 22 March 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:Pakistan–Russia relations

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 March 22. Izno (talk) 06:31, 22 March 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:Taxonomy/Pompilus (wasp)

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 and delete Template:Taxonomy/Pompilus. Izno (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate of Template:Taxonomy/Pompilus (wasp). But I am not sure which one should be kept. Main page (ie Pompilus) is changed to DAB Estopedist1 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a template that is more effort than just writing the 2 characters. It is used in 200 articles, so should subst and delete it Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:00, 14 March 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:Familytree1

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) 17:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and no clear use/documentation. Not edited since 2012. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:45, 14 March 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:FaZe Studios

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) 17:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad navbox; FaZe Studios is a redirect to FaZe Clan which already has {{FaZe Clan}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:44, 14 March 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:Error/sandy

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) 17:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused apparent duplicate sandbox for template {{Error}}; created in 2017 and not edited since. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:42, 14 March 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:Dp cadj2

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) 17:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created in 2008, I'm assuming that all-such necessary disambiguation pages have already been created. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:38, 14 March 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:Dp cadj

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) 17:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created in 2008 and last seriously edited in 2009, I'm assuming that all-such necessary disambiguation pages have already been created. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. "This template is for creating a disambiguation page quickly for a country adjectival that has no associated homonymic "people of" or language article." No, I don't understand that either. Nigej (talk) 09:51, 14 March 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:Defunct category

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) 17:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused - we don't do this with categories. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:35, 14 March 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:Cite jjournal

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 speedy delete. Clearly created in error Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; should not be a template either way (a single citation). Elli (talk | contribs) 06:33, 14 March 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:Citation/COinS2

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) 17:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (appears to be a test from 2009?) Elli (talk | contribs) 06:30, 14 March 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:COVID-19 pandemic in Croatia

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) 17:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template with very limited use and no transclusions. Only a few useful links (the main page and the timeline) which does not justify such a template. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:26, 14 March 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:WikiProject Lahore Invitation

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 G8 by Maile66 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects * Pppery * it has begun... 01:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WikiProject Lahore and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 14#WikiProject Lahore * Pppery * it has begun... 01:34, 14 March 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_March_14&oldid=1014076447"