Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 29

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) 18:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Forrest Fang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two navigable entries; no reason to still exist. The removed articles were redirected due to failing notability, and the artist themselves is of questionable notability (see their bare-bones article with only AllMusic database listings as citations). All were created by the now-blocked editor Soul Crusher, who was partially blocked over and had concerns about the notability of nearly every single one of the thousands upon thousands of articles they created over the years raised with them on multiple occasions, including at ANI. Ss112 17:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No great navigation function, and I have a suspicion the artist and the two remaining albums are non-notable, too. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No useful purpose. Nigej (talk) 20:31, 6 November 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).

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 convert to navbox. I will note that this has already happened, so if there are uses where it is not located at the bottom of the page, it should be shifted. No prejudice against moving to a more appropriate name if desired. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Zoroastrianism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This existed as a redirect to {{Zoroastrianism sidebar}}, but was recently turned into a separate navbox template and added to articles. Some editors have objected, and have reverted it to a redirect, without, however, clearing all the template's transclusions, which has resulted in the old sidebar suddenly appearing instead of a navbox at the bottoms of the articles that use the template.

This is a procedural nomination, and I don't have an opinion. Either the template is kept, in which case it should then be moved to {{Zoroastrianism navbox}} or something similar, or it's not kept, in which case it should be reverted back to a redirect, but in a way that doesn't create another horrible mess. – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to Manzarene, HistoryofIran, LouisAragon. – Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

It should stay as a redirect, the template made by the user was not an improvement and mostly cherry-picked. Also, I'm pretty sure I cleared at least 90% of the template's transclusions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh drats: the couple of transclusions I checked were all at the end of articles, but now I see that there are a large number of instances of the template at the top, where it's used as a sidebar. So yeah, it was a mess either way, probably a bigger one with the creator's edits. I'll replace all uses of this template where a sidebar is intended with a direct transclusion of {{Zoroastrianism sidebar}} – that's a better way to invoke a template anyway, and it will leave only the small number of navbox uses of {{Zoroastrianism}}. – Uanfala (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the transclusions in article space: 2/3 were for the sidebar; the remaining 36 are instances of the navbox. On a side note, and quite apart from the question of the selection of articles for inclusion, I think that a navbox is in principle better as it removes clutter from the top sections of articles (many of them have images there, and some have infoboxes). – Uanfala (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make into Navbar - It's basically almost always better to have a navbar than a sidebox - real estate down the side is almost always an issue, whereas it's fine to have even several navbars. If editors are happy with a navbar in this case I would go for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its looks good to me now. Serv181920 (talk) 15:44, 5 November 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).

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 at MFD. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Processes/Wikipedia processes

Single use; should be Subst: then deleted. (Note: despite the name, this is a templte) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, I think this would be better discussed at WP:MFD per the first bullet. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 29 October 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).

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) 18:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Disclaimers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, outside the user-space of two no-longer-active editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke it per nom. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:47, 31 October 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).

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 November 11. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Talk_header_preload (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Usercomment (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).

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Narcos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With the episodes article redirected, this navbox provides almost no further use. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm - it was strange with List of Narcos characters being redirected seemingly without discussion a month ago as well? As it stands with those 2 deleted pages, we are still at 5 different pages included. I don't really have a stake in it but see less of a reason to delete on the surface. DLManiac (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article was created by a blocked editor, and this was the state of the article. Mostly just tables and not at all at a MOS:TV standard. Dozens of these articles are redirected for similar reasons. As for the episodes article, I provided a reason as to why that was redirected. The rule of five is only a rule of thumb, and such a minimal article provides no further navigational benefit. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, connects 5 articles which is enough for a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 9 November 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).