Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< November 14 November 16 >

November 15

Hebrew letter templates

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) 21:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Hebrew letter templates that aren't needed anymore. Gonnym (talk) 17:52, 15 November 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:QoP

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 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Used only on the creator's user page. This template has articles that are already featured in respective templates about the Israel-Palestine conflict or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, the template is redundant and unlikely to be used outside user space. Although, userfying can be an acceptable alternative. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:00, 15 November 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:Israeli Hockey League seasons

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) 20:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All links are also included in Template:Ice hockey in Israel and both templates are on both pages. This one is redundant. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 15 November 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).

Defunct Israel Baseball League roster templates

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) 21:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roster templates for defunct Israel Baseball League teams. Each only used once on that team's article. Template should be subst to that article and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:54, 15 November 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:Main Page Header

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) 21:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in use. Did Q28 make a mess today? 10:29, 15 November 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:Copyvio/preload

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. As the only contributor to the template, I have chosen to delete it per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can safely assume that this template is no longer in use and has been replaced by another template. Did Q28 make a mess today? 10:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no idea what I wanted to use that template for when I created it 13 years ago, nor what purpose it serves; as the only contributor I have gone ahead and deleted it per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 15 November 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:Govtrack-vote

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) 21:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been used and has no purpose. Did Q28 make a mess today? 10:25, 15 November 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:WPMUNWELCOME

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 November 22. Izno (talk) 21:15, 22 November 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:CUDone

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) 21:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in use. Did Q28 make a mess today? 10:23, 15 November 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:Updatedoc

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) 21:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all the documents updated to the latest format, this template is not needed. Did Q28 make a mess today? 10:21, 15 November 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:Welcome newcomers

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. While this is a subst-only template, the apparent past usage and this discussion's consensus seem to indicate that the template's low use indicates that it is not widely-used enough to merit keeping. I should mention for the record, though, that WikiCleanerMan was not the nominator of this draft, and should not receive grief for it. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused welcome template. Did Q28 make a mess today? 10:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is it unused? The old description on the template page says it is a substitution template. There were atleast a few uses in 2019, and other uses might have already been removed by whoever was welcomed. Multiple users seem to have substed this over the decades. [1] -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose widely use......wish User:WikiCleanerMan actually did reasarch before delete spam all the time--Moxy- 13:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moxy, if personal attacking is the way to go over someone who didn't nominate this, then your vote should be discounted based on that alone. And delete spam is not a thing and if you think it is then I am not the only one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    yup....as long as your aware of how it looks to others.Moxy- 14:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith - WikiCleaner is frequently seen here, yes, but not all of their nominations are closed as delete and they haven't done anything wrong/against policy. Remagoxer (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't help but feel that this is just too dated. copyleft encyclopedia that will always belong to everyone – first of all, this isn't technically true, the intellectual property of Wikipedia is not public domain, and the term copyleft is not widely known so is not helpful. Secondly, the main link in the template is to Wikipedia:Community portal, and while there's nothing wrong with the community portal, it's not the first thing new editors need to read. I don't think it's as useful as Template:Welcome, which links to actual tutorials like Help:Introduction which should help people get up to speed more quickly. User:GKFXtalk 19:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GKFX. Separately, the < dozen uses pretty apparently indicate this is not in fact "widely used" as Moxy claims. --Izno (talk) 21:14, 22 November 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:Hbrbbet

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) 21:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute and delete because the WP:NIQQUD has been solved. Did Q28 make a mess today? 10:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've replaced usages already as the template's creator has noted it should be done. Gonnym (talk) 17:56, 15 November 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:Latest preview software release/w3m and other unused preview software release templates

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 11:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; replaced in w3m by Wikidata template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; replaced in Liferea by Wikidata template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; replaced in Konversation by Wikidata template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; replaced in GnuCash by Wikidata template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; replaced in GNU Privacy Guard by Wikidata template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; replaced in FileZilla by Wikidata template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; replaced in Dillo by Wikidata template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; replaced in Amaya (web editor) by a Wikidata template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:44, 15 November 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).

Unused subpages of Template:PeruNews

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) 20:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused since 2007. This set of subpages was orphaned by this edit in 2007, and they do not appear to have been used since then. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:46, 15 November 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).

All unused subpages of Template:NHint

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) 20:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused set of subtemplates. The parent template is used over 100 times; it appears that whatever these templates were intended to do, the functionality has been implemented in the parent template or in a related template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:39, 15 November 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:Brazil glossary term

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 Moved without redirect to User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Brazil glossary term with comment "Userfy with no redirect left behind, in consideration of [[WP:TFD#Template:Brazil glossary term]]." by Mathglot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. May have a good merge target if it were used at Template:Glossary term. Izno (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge. Proposed merge target does not have the capacity to replace the current content of template. This appears to be part of a larger project involving WP:Brazil-G that has fairly recent edits, so if User:Mathglot still has any sort of future plans for its use, it would need to be kept. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 01:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this isn't a merge discussion, though of course you comment in that vein. Even so, "capacity" is something we can change, so it's not much of a concern whatsoever. --Izno (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question – Hi, I'm a little confused; can someone clarify what "unused" means in the context of a tempate? When I look at "What links here", I see 21 links. What exactly are the criteria for something that is used? Does it have to be in mainspace? Or, does "use" include "Wikipedia talk" space, but not after the discussion is archived? Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on the context. For a template that looks like it's intended for mainspace, it's unused in mainspace, so I called it unused. Izno (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unused means not used on any article or some other space where template use is deemed appropriate or necessary. I don't see any article using this particular template where it is needed to define or make note of Brazilian terminology. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha. I actually thought such things were prohibited from mainspace, and so I carefully limited it to Talk spaces. So it seems that I've ironically set it up for deletion, due to misunderstanding the limitations of glossary style templates, or an excess of care trying to stay within a guideline that doesn't exist. I'll go revisit this, and see if it makes sense in the articles where I originally conceived this, notably, the articles related to Operation Car Wash, and its many tentacles, and the supporting articles related to obscure (to us) topics of Brazilian law.
    It may raise an additional issue of whether any glossary term template is ever allowable anywhere, given that an inline blue-link could be used instead. I suppose that's o/t here but ought to be raised somewhere. Not surprisingly, I support them in certain cases, but I guess I'll have to save the reasons why for the other discussion. Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually thought... Of course that's how that works. :D I don't think we need these glossary sidebox templates at all. Either the glossary should exist in mainspace with appropriate linkage and redirects (modulo WP:NOTDICTIONARY), or (soft) redirects to Wiktionary should exist, or simply we should link Wiktionary directly. Or... the topics linked are actually suitable for an article or subtopic of some other article in which case it should be added with non-dictionary content. (Most likely some mix of the two.) Izno (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, I have zero desire to send users to a WP-space glossary of any sort whatsoever. Anyway, maybe SMcCandlish would like to chime in, since he's been glossing around and understands how glossaries on en.wp work. Izno (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need templates for this, even for glossaries that are in the right place, and this one's not used for any mainspace purposes. Nor should it be, to direct someone to WP-space pages. We don't need templates like this for internal discussions, either. Maybe more to the underlying central point, we should not have glossary articles in WP space to begin with (except as temporary drafts), but in mainspace. So, that page should be cleaned up (e.g. to remove inappropriate WP:SELFREFs) and moved to something like Glossary of Brazil.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish:, and are you okay with a purported "Glossary of Brazil" having Portuguese words in it that are never used in English sources at all? Wouldn't that be deletable as not appropriate for en-wiki? The fact is, we encourage translation of articles from other languages, and certain aspects of translation such as technical terms present particular problems; this prompted the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil/PLG Glossary, which is not intended for general readers of Wikipedia, but strictly as a tool for translation from Brazilian Portuguese to English (perhaps it should be a subpage of WP:Translation instead) and doesn't seem appropriate to mainspace to me; does it to you? Or, do you think it should be deleted entirely? What then, of the pt → en translator looking for exactly this kind of assistance? It would seem a shame to remove it. There are all sorts of pages that are intended for supporting maintenance and development of the encyclopedia in WP-space, why shouldn't this one live there? Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English is another one; it would be inappropriate to move that to Main space, and it would be inappropriate to move the Brazil glossary to mainspace for exactly the same reason, in my opinion.
    Note that as the page is designed as a translation tool, and *not* as a dictionary, it is does not serve the same purpose as Wiktionary, and provides both cultural background in some cases, discussions of similarities and differences between Anglo-Saxon and Brazilian institutions and laws, and translation tips for particular circumstances; see for example, Sítio de Atibaia, or Vara— almost none of this would be appropriate at Wiktionary, but is of great utility to a translator (or at least, is meant to be).
    If glossaries shouldn't be in WP-space, then do we move Wikipedia:Glossary and Wikipedia:Directories and indexes to main space? That's a rhetorical question; the answer should clearly be 'no' as they are not public-facing but editor-facing pages, and we shouldn't delete them from WP-space, either. Or do you think we should? Mathglot (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How to clean up the mis-placed article isn't on-topic for this forum, and I didn't get specific about it. Briefly: Yes, it should not contain terms that never appear in any English-language sources, since those are not of relevance to en.wikipedia readers. How much research have you done to ascertain whether any of the terms in that glossary qualify for such an exclusion? If paring them out would eliminate most of the work, then maybe it should not be an article, and might be better as a subpage of WP:Translation, and with a clearer name like "WP:Translation/Tips for translating from Brazilian Portuguese", so it can't be confused with a glossary article. However, if we have an article (or section) on differences between Brazilian and original/European Portuguese, much of this material (perhaps in compressed form) could actually be appropriate there. Back to on-topic: Regardless, we have no purpose for a template that floats around as a sidebar alerting people to entries at that page. I get the impression that someone saw sister-project link templates in an article's "See also" section and thought "Wouldn't it be cool if we had this for use internally between wikiprojects?" The answer to which is "No, it would be uncool." Never invent infrastructure for its own sake, and especially, especially not by mimicking infrastructure that is useful in one context for one purpose in a way that is useless in a new context and for a completely different purpose. PS: WP:Directories and indexes isn't a glossary but an internal list of lists; and something like a compressed version of WP:Glossary actually could be a viable mainspace article, if the topic of Wikipedia's dense internal lingo has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources (it has) and if the article about Wikipedia itself would get over-long by including that material as a new section (it would).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfied to my sandbox. Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 23 November 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:Cross-wiki user

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 November 24. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 24 November 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:Incubator multi

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:Incubator. (non-admin closure) User:GKFXtalk 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only two pages for linking to incubator. Should probably use Template:Incubator multiple times if necessary. Izno (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Don't get me wrong. I don't expect this to be a particularly widely used template, but I don't think this would work with 4 seperate uses of {{Incubator}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should scrutinize carefully any places where incubator is linked so prominently... Izno (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this template be the perfect mechanism for having a tracking category for just that purpose? If {{Incubator}} had a warning in its documentation that it should not be used multiple times on a page in favor of {{Incubator multi}}, that would seem to be the perfect way of bringing extra attention to those pages that should have that extra level of scrutiny. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 06:06, 15 November 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_November_15&oldid=1056911905"