Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< June 27 June 29 >

June 28

Template:Calendar/TFD

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subpage of {{Calendar}} that was never utilized that was intended to be utilized for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2019 (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:Cs1 function

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Citation Style 1 templates, the parameters subscription= and registration= are deprecated. Since the nominated template is only used on documentation for templates that transclude {{Subscription required}} or {{Registration required}}, this purpose of template is deprecated and following the directions in this template are now inaccurate since using the subscription= or registration= parameters in Citation Style 1 templates now returns a red warning message stating that the aforementioned parameters are now deprecated. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't the text be changed in those transclusions that show deprecated parameters?

for {{subscription required}}:
change from:
{{cs1 function|by use of {{para|subscription|yes}} and {{para|via}}}}
to
{{cs1 function|by use of {{para|url-access|subscription}} and {{para|via}}}}
for {{registration required}}:
change from:
{{cs1 function|by use of {{para|registration|yes}} and {{para|via}}}}
to
{{cs1 function|by use of {{para|url-access|registration}} and {{para|via}}}}
for {{HighBeam}} – remove {{cs1 function}} from the doc page; as an aside, {{HighBeam}} should probably be the subject of some discussion somewhere because HighBeam is apparently defunct; where it is used, {{HighBeam}} is often coupled with a link to an archive of HighBeam's teaser page (a paragraph or maybe two from the source but no way to see the rest)
for {{InfoTrac}} (another template that perhaps deserves discussion because not used anywhere) modify the {{cs1 function}} transclusion on the doc page as described for {{subscription required}}
for {{Subscription or libraries}}, delete (because cs1|2 has never supported the 'libraries' component of that template; or, change:
from
{{cs1 function|by use of {{para|subscription|yes}} and {{para|via}}}}
to
{{cs1 function|by use of {{para|via}}}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trappist the monk: You'll have to pardon me in the fact that I don't understand what you meant in your previous comment. But either way, in a nutshell, if this template can be updated to provide accuracy information to its viewers without telling them to do something that has been deprecated, I'm all for this template staying around. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it that you don't understand?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trappist the monk: Never mind on that. I just tested what you suggested on some of the respective pages, and it makes sense to me. So ... with that being said, I formerly withdraw this nomination to implement what you are suggesting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (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:African Union

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. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:African Union with Template:Life in the African Union.
The contents in Life in African Union can to fit in African Union Template and more to it.Manabimasu (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge, the navbox has a better layout. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clone in vertical form and expand - template:African Union is a horizontal footer template, and there needs to be a vertical template equivalent. Change name to template:African Union sidebox or similar -ApexUnderground (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 28 June 2019 (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
).

Speedway in Poland navboxes

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Team Speedway Polish Championship seasons, Template:Polish speedway teams, Template:Speedway Ekstraliga and Template:Speedway Ekstraliga seasons with Template:Speedway in Poland.
Procedural nomination on behalf of

WP:PM with the following rationale: "It is essentially the same template and would be more beneficial to have just the one." Trialpears (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose, I don't see significant overlap or link duplicate between these navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2019 (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:Charlotte 49ers softball coach navbox

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also propose deleting-

Navbox with just one or two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two links is still not enough for a navigation template. --Gonnym (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as mentioned at
    WP:NAV-WITHIN "They should not be too small. A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections" MarnetteD|Talk 17:17, 5 July 2019 (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:Ridel High

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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The band's navigational template consists of five links: the band's article, three member articles and a member redirect to a different band that already link between themselves making this template unnecessary and

WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 28 June 2019 (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:Re-Volts

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The band's navigational template consists of three links: the band's article and two member articles that already link between themselves making this template unnecessary and

WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 3 links is not enough for a navigation template. --Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2019 (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:Confucius Peace Prize

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 2019 July 16. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 16 July 2019 (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:2017 Campeonato Paulista Group A

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at

WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:45, 1 July 2019 (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/2019_June_28&oldid=955602088"