Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 28

< April 27	April 29 >

April 28

Track listing templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 00:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rare (Selena Gomez album) track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Future Nostalgia (Dua Lipa album) track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 5 songs for each of these track listing templates have articles, and yet they are each transcluded in only 2 of them. The fact that one can navigate to and from each of the 5 as well as the album articles, which is the best place to go for the full track listing, from the artist navboxes make these navigationally redundant. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd say that a template should have minimum two transclusions for it to be useful as a template, but this doesn't show the importance of needing a template. Just do a copy and paste. It's not that hard with just 2 transclusions. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 00:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: remember to subst the templates in the articles containing the transclusion before you delete. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The same links are already provided in the respective artist navboxes. Also, as per Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples, a separate track listing is unnecessary. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2020 (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:Todo-Plain

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Todo-Plain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, probably replaced by other templates? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2020 (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:Other uses2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 2020 May 15. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Other_uses2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Uw-infobox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 2020 May 7. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Not watching

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 2020 May 5. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not_watching (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Please_ping (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:NZR locomotive list

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. For the benefit of the talk page discussions, I will be subst'ing the existing transclusions. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NZR locomotive list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been made redundant by the decision to remove "stock lists" from Wikipedia articles. It should be deleted --LJ Holden 06:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better move to proper location, if any, as plain content in article realm. PPEMES (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A few (what I assume are) stock lists are still in-use. Should these be removed or is it just a subst' needed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's still some stock lists in "use" but they really should be removed too. Cheers --LJ Holden 03:05, 28 April 2020 (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:Resurrection appearances

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 2020 May 15. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resurrection_appearances (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Internet slang variants

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 21:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Internet slang variants (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Internet slang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Internet slang variants with Template:Internet slang.
The {{Internet slang variants}} is redundant with the {{Internet slang}}. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 14:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. PPEMES (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template:Internet slang variants is about whole "languages" (so to speak). Template:Internet slang, on the other hand, is a very problematic navigation template: It contains what could be called slang words used on the Internet, but also neologisms (i.e. cyberbullying, cyberstalking) that aren't really slang, and things that flatly aren't slang (i.e. memes, 4chan, Anonymous). It's not clear to me that Template:Internet slang actually has any utility as a navbox, firstly, because these concepts are so dissimilar, and secondly, because Category:Internet slang contains, as of writing, 172 members, so there seems to be no apparent selection criteria. --Bsherr (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2020 (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:PakistanSuperLeagueProgression

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 21:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Module:PakistanSuperLeagueProgression (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use module, should be merged with the article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though it is only used on one article (devoted to specific year), it doesn't appear to be designed exclusively for that (can be used for any year). --Bsherr (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the fact that other years don't use this template mean that the one year that does use it doesn't need to? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:21, 28 April 2020 (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:G8-Justice

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 00:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:G8-Justice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

G8 is defunct. No need for such navigation. Störm (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and retool to the remaining G7 countries.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd just like to point out that this template is part of a series. There are 8 other templates relating to the G8 bloc.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 16:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Most or all of these should probably be merged. I'd merge the above nominated template with Template:Current G8 Leaders for starters. PPEMES (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It IS notable to link G8 countries together. However I really don't see why the justice ministers of G8 countries need mutual links. I just don't think the association is notable enough to warrant a template. That information should only be included on one page, and not a template. So, regardless of G(n), I think this template should be deleted.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Tom (LT). It's not a defining attribute of the subjects. Indeed, there doesn't seem to be a related category. --Bsherr (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (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).