Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 4 February 6 >

February 5[edit]

Template:Pp-reset[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/keep/delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These three unused templates are redundant to {{pp}}. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect / Delete No point having duplicate templates to maintain especially when I am not aware of a single page which has been office protected (I am only aware of it through the policy page), so its not as if they are used often either. Terasail[✉️] 00:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, I think these templates should be left as they are. The module which creates these appears to directly check which template is being called in order to serve the correct banner and since they are individually selected based on which template is transcluded it is probably best to keep things the way they are unless a better solution is provided (I am not the best with modules so I may have misunderstood the nuance of the module here though). Terasail[✉️] 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as module creator. You could say the same for all the protection templates implemented by Module:Protection banner; they are all essentially the same template, with different default arguments. So you can write {{pp-vandalism|office}}, and it will behave exactly the same as {{pp-office}}. This means that it doesn't make sense to nominate just {{pp-reset}}, {{pp-office}} and {{pp-office-dmca}} for being redundant to {{pp}}, as there are other protection templates that behave in exactly the same way. See here for the full list. I can see the argument that making people write {{pp|vandalism}} is cleaner than allowing them to write both {{pp|vandalism}} and {{pp-vandalism}}, but getting rid of the ability to write {{pp-vandalism}} etc. is going to require at least a few bots to be updated. This seems like a lot of hassle for little appreciable gain. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I agree with Mr. Stradivarius on the general principle of pp-xx wrappers being useful, but not when they are unused. I would also support removing these from the module as well, for the same reason. In the extremely unlikely event that a page gets protected as an office action and a protection banner is needed, one can be created manually. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reset and office-dcma, keep office. I agree that we shouldn't have templates that are unused (or so rarely used as these clearly are), but I think there is probably value in having a basic version of pp which indicates the office angle. Having specific items for "we blanked the page" and "we blanked the page because of copyvio" are, however, entirely unnecessary. Izno (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reset and office-dcma, keep office I don't believe any of these templates have ever been used judging from User:WMFOffice protection log which only has one entry from the Fram incident. Of course there are other accounts that could have performed office actions, but it at least shows us that it's incredibly rare. That being said I feel like it's appropriate to have at least some support for office protection in case they they want to use it. --Trialpears (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2023 (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:Khulna-Dhaka line[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) 03:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All three BothUseddenim (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC) unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused, no corresponding mainspace articles. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both could be added to Khulna railway station (although they should be cleaned up). Useddenim (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both I am as usual opposed to the idea of giving unused content a second shot at life because it's in a template - if it were truly desired by the editors of the article(s) Useddennim suggested it could belong on it wouldn't have become unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:08, 11 February 2023 (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:Fatehabad–Kaptai line[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) 14:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused with no articles for use. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; without station and line articles there's nothing to navigate. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could go on List of railway lines in Bangladesh. Useddenim (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both I am as usual opposed to the idea of giving unused content a second shot at life because it's in a template - if it were truly desired by the editors of the article(s) Useddennim suggested it could belong on it wouldn't have become unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though it is now transcluded at List of railway lines in Bangladesh I'm opposed to adding these maps to general list articles as that can lead to unnecessary bloat. Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2023 (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:Edmonton–Drumheller train 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. Izno (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Just a route of the train stops in local communities instead of stations. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Via Rail discontinued the Edmonton–Drumheller service in 1981. The concept is notable but the template needs an article. Mackensen (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both I am as usual opposed to the idea of giving unused content a second shot at life because it's in a template - if it were truly desired by the editors of the article(s) Useddennim suggested it could belong on it wouldn't have become unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on the general case of being unused, I find that statement untrue, as a zeaolous edit-warrior could just remove them without people noticing; which is how we end up with duplicate templates. Thus templates become used, but were useful, and should have been used.. This is not a keep opinion in this case. I just find the general statement to be rather a poor reason for deletion. -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2023 (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:UGM Bus Route[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) 03:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be a Trans Jogja bus route; no blue links and the route itself probably isn't notable. Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will attach it to UGM Wikipedia to explain the University Bus Route. It's not the same with Trans Jogja since it only serves the university. So Keep the template as valuable information and need many contributions to developing it. Thoriq85 (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2023 (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:Guerneville Branch[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) 13:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No links to route stations or a mainspace for use. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tagging with {{transclusionless}} is abusing that system. Route templates are not articles and should not be linked to. They are templates that should be transcluded into articles. If no article wants to transclude them, that tends to be a sign these are unwanted or offer no real value. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym. Izno (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, per above. if there is no parent article for these, then no need to keep them. WP is not a repository for unused rail maps. Frietjes (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2023 (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:Bakersfield Subdivision[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) 13:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused with no articles for use. The mainspace article link is a redirect to this template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tagging with {{transclusionless}} is abusing that system. Route templates are not articles and should not be linked to. They are templates that should be transcluded into articles. If no article wants to transclude them, that tends to be a sign these are unwanted or offer no real value. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym. Izno (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, per above. if there is no parent article for these, then no need to keep them. WP is not a repository for unused rail maps. Frietjes (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2023 (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:Black Butte Subdivision[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. But, allow recreation if a parent article can be identified for translusion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pending better analysis of potential usefulness. {{Los Nietos Subdivision}}, for example, is linked from an article, which is often done with these route diagram templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jonesey95. These should all be tagged with {{transclusionless}}. Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are all linked from a respective template. Normally, rail templates are to be used on articles. It doesn't make sense why railway templates need to be linked from another rail template when if they if links to articles exist on respective templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Tagging with {{transclusionless}} is abusing that system. Route templates are not articles and should not be linked to. They are templates that should be transcluded into articles. If no article wants to transclude them, that tends to be a sign these are unwanted or offer no real value. Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym. Izno (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, per above. if there is no parent article for these, then no need to keep them. WP is not a repository for unused rail maps. Frietjes (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2023 (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:Olive Subdivision[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) 13:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All unused. I added the River Subdivision to the main Metrolink article before realizing it was the wrong place. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These are all transclusionless templates with valid inbound links from the article space (and other templates). I've added {{transclusionless}} to all five. Mackensen (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Tagging with {{transclusionless}} is abusing that system. Route templates are not articles and should not be linked to. They are templates that should be transcluded into articles. If no article wants to transclude them, that tends to be a sign these are unwanted or offer no real value. Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym. Izno (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, per above. if there is no parent article for these, then no need to keep them. WP is not a repository for unused rail maps. Frietjes (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2023 (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:PNR Northrail[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) 03:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am as usual opposed to the idea of giving unused content a second shot at life because it's in a template - if it were truly desired by the editors of PNR North Main Line it wouldn't have become unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still unused. Hachijo8 was also active during this discussion so if it was wanted, it would have been used by now. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2023 (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:2000 Summer Olympics men's football group A 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 delete. Izno (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution. Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stong oppose: These templates were created – I may not have created these, but I have created many similar ones – in order to minimize maintenance and maximize completeness of articles, so that updates only had to be done in one place, and that completeness could be obtained by a small effort (transcluding the template). Has someone actually gone through the trouble of duplicating the code in them in order to maximize maintenance? That should be reverted. And which article is "the parent article"? Each template was obviously transcluded by more than one article. Total madness. Geez. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    no duplication, the parent article is Football at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament which has <section /> for WP:LST. madness is having over 30 templates when you can use WP:LST and have all the match information in one place. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 20:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and convert articles to use the WP:LST method of section transclusion instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2023 (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:2006 Winter Olympics men's ice hockey group A 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution. Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2023 (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:2006 Winter Olympics women's ice hockey group A 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution. Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2023 (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:PLAAF Civilian cadre badges[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) 17:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article content with no template parameters. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2023 (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:San Gabriel Subdivision[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) 16:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not transcluded (not linked) into an article by the time the listing ends. Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2023 (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:Downlink selected page[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 2023 February 12. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:58, 12 February 2023 (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:Indonesian selected picture[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) 16:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all of these were deleted, but apparently not. We don't really do selected X banners for portals any more because the banners were deemed to contribute to banner blindness while having very little value with their main use being to advertise the portal. This template is also only used once. --Trialpears (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2023 (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:NI selected image[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) 16:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all of these were deleted, but apparently not. We don't really do selected X banners for portals any more because the banners were deemed to contribute to banner blindness while having very little value with their main use being to advertise the portal. This template is also only used once. --Trialpears (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2023 (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/2023_February_5&oldid=1140335375"