Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 August 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 17
August 19 >

August 18

edit

Template:Witchcraft sidebar

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This duplicates the content at all the linked templates, and futher confuses the issues currently going on at Witchcraft and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Witchcraft by lumping together and confusing the traditional, global and historical vs neopagan definitions of Witchcraft. For instance it lumps together healers with those who do harm. It's just not needed and is an escalation of an ongoing dispute. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional) started by the same user. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep while there needs to be significant cleanup in the Wicca, Witchcraft, and Paganism navboxes; the majority are footer-boxes. This is one of two side-boxes, the other is explicitly focused on Wicca, which falls within one distinct sub-category. Nominator persists in conflating different subjects without reliable sources and in the face of reliable sources. Darker Dreams (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If one want to dispute specific particulars of content of the template, the place to have that discussion is the template's talk page. There's certainly a valid navigational use for a template like this and, as WP:DELCONTENT notes, [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the duplication of navigation. Izno (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sidebar template provides easier navigation between the regional aritlces, recently expanded to include Witchcraft in the Middle East and improvements to Asian witchcraft. Reading the wind on Talk:Witchcraft, I expect Witchcraft in North America to appear soon, to complement Witchcraft in Latin America. Really a useful template. Skyerise (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try, otherwise it looks like this will be closed as "no consensus"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment, this useful and topical navbox for Wikipedia's witchcraft collection adjoins and enhances the neutral balance of the Witchcraft article which, itself, has long purposely demeaned millions of women who either now or in the past identify as witches, an article which has somehow added to and further built the propaganda used to murder tens of thousands of intelligent and peaceful women in the not-so-long-ago past (an article which is a curse on Wikipedia, to coin a phrase). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whenever there's a navbox there can be a sidebar, and the navbox is not in dispute, but the particular arrangement of the sidebar (Maybe? Still?) is, so the dispute actually centers around how to design the sidebar which is a content matter that invokes the "XfD is not cleanup" logic. Individual issues can be taken to the template talk page. All in all, it is highly justified to have a sidebar for this topic, to aid navigation.—Alalch E. 16:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Izno. It duplicates the navigational purpose of Template:Witchcraft, a better collection of links. Additional thoughts: normally, a topic doesn't have both a sidebar and a navbox. Occasionally, there will be reasons to have both. Sidebars are particularly well-suited to subjects that lack images and infoboxes. But that's not the case for witchcraft-related pages, and thus a navbox is more appropriate. SWinxy (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are regional daughter articles, which readers should not have to scroll to the bottom for. Also, many, many topics have both, so your "normally" needs to show a policy or guideline basis. Skyerise (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "normally" bit wasn't a reason for deleting. It was an additional comment. My deletion rationale is per Izno. SWinxy (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Skyerise is correct, many topics have both side and footer navboxes. This topic seems suitable for both. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-10A

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. As a note, the citation information has been copied to Template:RCTS-LocosLNER Primefac (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused citation templates. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:34, 18 August 2023 (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:Unicode chart

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. There appears to be some interest in converting this to a wrapper and shifting the focus to improving the module it invokes. NPASR if after a few months this doesn't pan out and the template is still unused with no likelihood of that changing (i.e. discussions/work stall out). Primefac (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Marked as "Under construction. Not fit for mainspace. 01 Oct 2022". Created by a now-indefinitely-blocked editor. A template with this same name was previously deleted, but I do not know if it was the same as this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That module has multiple editors in good standing, and even more talk page contributors. It's a bit moribund right now, but I will try to make a push at WP:WikiProject Writing systems to see if we can't get it fully up on its feet. It would actually be a huge development in terms of being able to present Unicode on Wikipedia, and a tremendous help to maintenance. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 18:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This should either be converted into a template wrapper for {{#invoke:Unicode chart}}, or made a redirect to that module. Since the module would realistically be used almost exclusively in category:Unicode Blocks, I'm not sure whether the template wrapper is really necessary or not. So I'm just going to be WP:BOLD and refactor this into a wrapper for the module, but would support converting to a redirect between namespaces as well if that's what people think would be best. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as the wrapper Vanisaacc created) - template-to-module namespace redirects are generally a bad idea since trying to transclude one will result in the raw code being displayed rather than the module being invoked. I see no further reason to use TfD to interfere with Vanisaac's project. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any real usage for this as all other charts are pretty much single usage templates anyways. Gonnym (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pordenone Calcio squad

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Squad template for a club that was excluded from professional football, all players have been released. Angelo (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_18&oldid=1173762085"