Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 19 October 21 >

October 20[edit]

Template:Hard Line (Denmark)/meta/abbr[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 procedural close. The templates listed here are already included in the outcome of this TfD, and thus will be merged into the related module - no content will be lost. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused sub-political party templates. Unlikely they will be used in the future like their respective unused sub shortname and color templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. The pattern of which meta-template is used where changes over time as editors revise and improve the forms of displaying data regarding elections and political tenure. Having the full range of templates available allows the display formats to be tested and developed and deployed without having to create a flurry of metadata templates ... but deletion would seriously impede that development. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We already have consensus to abolish the whole "*/meta/<shortname|color|abbrev>" template system. This nomination is a useless bit of rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As Pppery says, we already have consensus to delete this style and replace it with something else. Additionally, we have consensus in TfD to delete unused templates. If these are unused there is no reason to migrate them over to the new style. I'm pretty sure BHG must have commented on a different template as their argument makes no sense. Gonnym (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hold as I'm not sure the modules are done being merged into. Curbon7 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Gonnym, I commented here on the templates nominated here. I am sorry that you don't understand my fairly straightforward comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument might have been straightforward, if the nominated templates were "meta-templates", which they aren't. Gonnym (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are metadata templates, which in this context is abbreviated to "meta". The clue is their names, all of which include /meta/. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 28 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:NCAA Division I FCS independents navbox[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 29. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 29 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:Win Goal 50 Best Player[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 11:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first is unused and both fall under fan cruft. Both templates listings is a ranking from a website not a major award. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - minor website awards, no need for template. GiantSnowman 11:31, 23 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:Ytterbium[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) 00:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and can't be substituted per the complex coding. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also TfD 16 Oct 2021, Actinium
Uanfala, if it hasn't been used once, then there isn't a need to keep. Wikipedia is not a holding place. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template does exactly what is says on the tin and it's part of a well-established system. There are 121 such template, one for reach chemical element. Many have a small number of uses, a few are used a lot, and there's apparently a couple that aren't currently used. Whatever the exact level of use, they form part of an obvious system: any editor who's used one of those templates will expect the others to be available as well. If anybody in the future – in the next two months, or two years, or two decades – attempts to use this template then they'd be frustrated if it didn't exist. Imagine if we had a collection of 121 screwdriver sizes; what you're proposing is that we throw away one of those 121 screwdrivers because nobody is using it at the moment. I see no practical benefit to such an action and I see obvious potential for harm. – Uanfala (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to keep something over the idea that you think it's going to be used. Tfd's are about the templates in current standing. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there's no way in knowing if this is going to be used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(As discussed in parallel at TfD:Actimiunm:) not keep because "someone thinks it's gonna be used": Uanfala mentions that it is part of a series full stop. There is no speedy or automation to have this deleted. -DePiep (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for completeness of the set (category). Strange to have parallel discussions BTW. -DePiep (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no benefit to deletion, we don't need to delete every unused template just because they're unused. Keeping a template for every element is reasonable. (same !vote as here) Elli (talk | contribs) 23:41, 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:Zecca of Venice[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) 00:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant as the article for the subject already has an infobox like this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:56, 20 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:Yoruba name[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) 00:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:55, 20 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:Record producers discography box[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) 00:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

only used in one article so should be substituted in the Richard Landis production discography and deleted Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 20 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:Rlpd[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) 00:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

only used in one article so should be substituted in the Richard Landis production discography and deleted Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 20 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:Shades of brown[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) 12:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ThunderBrine Please ensure the nomination notices are on the template. Thanks! --Izno (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which I've now done. --Izno (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see how brown is a classification of orange. The two are clearly distinct and different colors. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal Would you classify maroon and pink as "clearly distinct and different" colors from red? Would you classify olive and cream as "clearly distinct and different" colors from yellow? Would you classify teal and celeste as "clearly distinct and different" colors from cyan? The same logic applies here. ThunderBrine (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Brown and Orange are both basic color terms that are likely to be used in English when describing other colors. While widely repeated, I've not see sources that actually give spring green, azure, chartreuse as the common name for tertiary colors in the RGB color model, see also talk:Tertiary color#Sources?. PaleAqua (talk) 22:48, 20 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:PAGENAMESUB[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) 13:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is an apparent attempt to create an alias for the Magic Word {{SUBPAGENAME}}. Unnecessary and won't have all the functionality of the Magic Word as it is currently written.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unused for three years. Doesn't seem like it will be used anytime now. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning keep. Nomination shows a lack of wp: before, saying: "won't have all the functionality of the Magic Word" when it does. As for copying the magic word, as an alias, there are reasons where you might want to do exactly that, particularly when writing code where you want specific recursive substitution, or to overcome the magic word's stubborn ability to resist your efforts, often requiring the use of {{{Safesubstitution}}}. BrandonXLF is a proficient script writer and it's hard for me to imagine he's written this template without a good reason for it. As for the template being unused, you can't know that with certainty; right now I'm using this template at two locations (1,2) in manners similar to how it's likely to be used in codeing, and neither of the pages show up when you check "what links here" from the template page. I'm waiting to hear from Brandon, before switching my !vote (depending on what he has to say). Best regards.21:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)--John Cline (talk)
    • I can't remember why I created this template and I can't really think of a reason why I would, keep in mind the template is from 2018 and I was newer to Wikipedia back then. Whatever the reason was, as of now it seems like the template is not necessary to keep and I have no issues with it being deleted.– BrandonXLF (talk) 21:39, 23 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:1999 Mid-South Conference football standings[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 27. Izno (talk) 20:11, 27 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:2005 NAIA independents football 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 relisted on 2021 October 27. Izno (talk) 20:10, 27 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_20&oldid=1052484658"