Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 9 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; could potentially be used on South Yorkshire Railway but there's a different template already under the "Blackburn Valley Line" section and the two don't match. Mackensen (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though two simpler templates, one showing (just) the original line, the other showing (just) the Blackburn Valley extension are now being used in the main text, rather than this one that combined the two lines.
But this template may have a use illustrating which bits of the line still exist, compared to which have been removed. So, to see what people think, as a trial I've tried putting the template at the end of the article, to see whether think it may be useful there. If it does find a long-term home there, then the template could perhaps be renamed "SYR remains".
I'd prefer if it wasn't deleted, because in some future version of the article maybe somebody might want a template of the whole system, and a certain amount of work has gone in to creating it (far from all mine). Perhaps it could be kept and shown in an item on the talk page, if it doesn't find a current home in the article? Jheald (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it turns out that the template indeed isn't wanted any more, please move it to a subpage of the SYR talk page, eg to Talk:South Yorkshire Railway/SYR remains, and transclude it in a new item "Old template" on that talk page. Thanks. Jheald (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely oppose that request. If you personally want it, it can be moved to your sandbox. Gonnym (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Why, out of interest? What's the harm in leaving it where somebody else can find it? Anyway, it's currently in use. Jheald (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because a sub-page of a talk page should not be created for things like that. When something isn't used that a sign that the community does not want it or has no need for it. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2022 (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).
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. No prejudice against recreation/restoration if a use is found (either by the article being written or a consensus to include the diagram in a related article). Primefac (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. These rail route diagram are for a line that does not have an article; Tehran Metro, the redirect target for Tehran Metro Line 6 does not contain any route diagrams. Not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Template:Tehran Metro Line 6 Map: Will certainly be usable in the future since a separate article for this line is clearly notable. Almost all other lines already have an article.
    Delete Template:Tehran Metro Line 6 route: Redundant to the other one and less detailed --PhiH (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Not usable" is purely subjective. And there is precedent for including only some RDTs in the system page but moving others onto the individual lines where those (sub) pages exist. Useddenim (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To those voting keep, which one should be kept? The templates appear essentially identical to me. We generally do not keep two templates that do the same thing. These templates were created on the same day by the same editor, who appears to have not known how to move a page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both or userfy. Per WP:Write the article first. Nigej (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as after a week (and almost 3 years) still not used. Gonnym (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2022 (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).
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. No prejudice against restoration for the purposes of converting/seeding the content of an article. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used on over 256 articles and way too big to navigate and scroll through easily. This is one of those high-risk templates given the number of transclusions and we should let the categories for Indian legislation articles be the better way to navigate. Outside of the high-risk status, we don't need a template for every single piece of legislation especially when it adds all of the nation's laws. If not deletion, then probably split the template for the respective categories such as finance, criminal, etc. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By trimming I mean create individual navboxes for the types of legislation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but as I said, there's no parent article for those. There's no articles like Consumer laws in India (or whatever), so they'd fail an important aspect of WP:NAVBOX. Nigej (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the navbox as it currently is cannot be kept. It is huge and will only get bigger as time goes on. I'm actually leaning here maybe to no navbox at all as not everything needs one. Do other countries have one? How do they handle this? I've looked at random US pages like Great American Outdoors Act which don't use one. Gonnym (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See {{UK legislation}} which mainly categorizes by date, rather than topic. However, although there's a category structure at Category:Acts of the Parliament of India by year, there aren't actually any articles at that level, so nothing to link to. As you say, the best option may simply be to delete it. Nigej (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no strong opinions on what to do. One last relist for more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Aside from my nomination, I think so far there is a consensus to delete from Nigej's and Gonnym's comments above. And splitting/trimming the template isn't viable either due to there being a lack of articles for the respective categories for the legislation. Deletion should be granted as this is too large to navigate comfortably when browsing. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, seems like a good start for a list article organized by topic (as opposed to date). so, maybe repurpose as a list article. but, I agree, as a navbox, it's too large to be useful. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2022 (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).

2021 IPL match templates

edit

IPL group stage templates

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) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (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).