Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< October 15 October 17 >

October 16

edit

Template:Opening theory

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, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Used in the user sandbox of an indefinitely blocked user and on one other article. Not enough uses to warrant keeping a separate template and module. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:59, 16 October 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:Archery women's individual records

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 00:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and we don't create templates for sports records like this or in a format like this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:39, 16 October 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:AutoMapZoom

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. Speedy deleted as it's no longer needed, and I'm the only one that's edited it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: This was replaced by Lua code in Module:Wikidata Infobox, the template can go. I'll speedy delete it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:18, 17 October 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:Avanigadda assebly election, 2014 imagemap

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 00:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election map. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:36, 16 October 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:Australian party shading

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 00:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An unused listing of used Australian political party template color coding. Templates should not be used in this format. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it were converted to a navbox and used on the template space so that this template is used, would that be a better alternative? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:16, 17 October 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:Cleanup title

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 October 26. Izno (talk) 00:24, 26 October 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:Australian Constitutional Law

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 October 24. ✗plicit 00:49, 24 October 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:Austrade

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 00:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Used on one article, but still doesn't have enough links for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:55, 16 October 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:Asian Women's Volleyball Club Championship

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 00:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused fork of Template:Asian Women's Club Volleyball Championship. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:34, 16 October 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:Art Feminism User Group/Reporting/Metrics2020/Map

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 00:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:07, 16 October 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:CNBC weekday schedule 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the TV guide. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 16 October 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:Armenian companies established in the year

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 October 24. ✗plicit 00:49, 24 October 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:Actinium

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 00:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Can't be substituted per the complexity of the coding but still isn't being used anywhere. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala, these templates have been around since 2004. If it wasn't used then, then it won't be used nearly twenty years later. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Must say, the category points to a systematic availability and some specific usage (as in alloys but not chem formulae). I have never met these in editing elements, must say. In this case, completeness of the set (category) prevails. Still unclear why substitution is not allowed. -DePiep (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The coding doesn't allow for substitution. And if it were to be kept where could these and the other one be used, DePiep and Uanfala? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See how other templates in Category:Chemical element symbol templates (0) are used in articles. Because only 3/121 are unused, there is no need or reason to remove those three. Completeness of the set prevails, since no harm is done.
Now if one would propose to reconsider/redesign the whole set, that's a different question. -DePiep (talk) -DePiep (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if something isn't being used then it qualifies for deletion. We can't just have templates sitting around for no reason. Doesn't matter if it's part of a complete set. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you find that "We can't just have" part? -DePiep (talk) 17:06, 21 October 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:Zambian presidential election, 2015

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 00:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not needed as the election article already features the results in this format. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:14, 16 October 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:Canadian Premier League 2019 table

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this is not a table, but a goalscorers list. Secondly, it has nothing to do with 2019 Canadian Premier League season, is purely fictional and experimental, also apparently not being used anywhere. Centaur271188 (talk) 08:44, 16 October 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).

Module:Main

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. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This module has been made redundant by replacement with Module:Labelled list hatnote. The discussions leading to this change have supported the obsolescence of this module. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 02:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging potentially interested users based on their contributions to related discussions: Pppery, Andy Dingley, Matthiaspaul, Black Falcon, MJL, Anon423, Ahecht, and Gonnym: – {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 02:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. This module was copied and used by numerous other projects (see QID Q16836022), so would it be more prudent to replace the module with a notice to use Module:Labelled list hatnote instead? That would make it easier for those project to know to update their {{main}} template (and if not; to credit the original authors). (responding to ping) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we should not keep modules around just for the sake of other wikis. Lots of other projects blindly copy things from the English Wikipedia, and if they continue to do that, they will blindly copy Nihiltres' update to Template:Main to not use the module, and all will be well. If they don't do that, they are using an out-of-date version of the code, but still no direct problems will occur for the (presumably non-technical) users of {{main}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also a problem of a different nature. The copies of the module on other wikis constitute derivative works, and in order to comply with Wikipedia's license, their creators would have attributed the source and authors. This is typically done by linking to the source of the copying, but if that gets deleted, then the chain of attribution will be broken. In that instance, MJL's suggestion seems like the best solution. – Uanfala (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree wholly with Pppery here regarding MJL's question. --Izno (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it has no use anymore. Also strong opposition to the precedent MJK and Uanfala are trying to implement. Things get copied all the time from en.wiki, if we need to do the work of other projects for them to comply with Wikipedia's license, we will need to shutdown both AfD and TfD. There is absolutely no reason for that. Whoever copies should figure out how they deal with attribution. Gonnym (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; we shouldn't make it needlessly hard for other wikis, but we're not responsible for their templates. I'm happy to implement templates in ways that allow easier internationalization, but I'm not going to hold this up for the sake of wikis that copy us. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 02:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Making a token effort to avoid arbitrarily deleting things in a way that forces a mass violation of the licence terms – what an awful precedent to set! Seriously now, this issue doesn't really arise in AfD: the sort of articles that get deleted there are extremely unlikely to have been translated into other wikis, and there is really no alternative to deletion there as it brings the tangible benefit of not having non-notable articles lying around in mainspace. There's no such corresponding benefit for templates or modules as they're not part of the reader-facing side of the encyclopedia. The goal of this TfD nomination can be achieved by simply marking the module as obsolete; it's not necessary to this end to also expunge its history. – Uanfala (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For purposes of the license it is sufficient to provide a list of authors. Here they are: Nihiltres, Gonnym, Jonesey95, Black Falcon, Qed237, and Mr. Stradivarius. While I agree our practices on the point here at TFD are not the best in general, that's probably more likely to be an improvement to the tools we use to close XFDs/delete pages, again, in the general, rather than attempting to stop one specific TFD on the point (much less XFD). I don't know what the best solution is, but across the board WPians are clearly willing to delete regardless of the license. (NB I know that the license used to be a reason to keep redirects at RFD and to redirect at AFD in lieu of deletion, but the last time I've stopped in those locations and mentioned the license, the deletions went through, so it seems other fora have slipped on the point as well.)

    That aside, I explicitly reject the rationale of this issue doesn't really arise in AfD: the sort of articles that get deleted there are extremely unlikely to have been translated into other wikis, and there is really no alternative to deletion there as it brings the tangible benefit of not having non-notable articles lying around in mainspace as old articles are almost exclusively deleted by AFD, and those are the most likely to have been translated. And there are options even in that case (see WP:ATD). --Izno (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just two minor points. I can't say much about the practices at AfD as I don't have much experience there, but at RfD you will definitely not be able to get a page deleted if its history is needed for attribution. As for AfD-ed articles not being likely to be translated to other projects: my point was to do with people not normally translating articles on non-notable subjects. – Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion regarding the deletion/attribution problem: I wouldn't have any problem if we redirected the module page to Module:Labelled list hatnote as an alternative, a "soft deletion" of sorts that would preserve publicly-visible history, and therefore attribution, for the page. I think plain deletion is better, but I'm quite willing to compromise. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose soft deletion. There's no actual evidence that any problem will be solved by keeping more abandoned relics, and all arguments for retention have been adequately refuted. (Deletion wouldn't cause a copyright violation per Izno, nor meaningfully impede other wikis per my comment above.) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:48, 22 October 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:ŠK Slovan Bratislava squad list

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 00:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and we don't create team rosters on separate templates like this where it isn't a roster box or navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:34, 16 October 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_16&oldid=1051982677"