Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 9

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 keep. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:EngvarB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use British English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:EngvarB with Template:Use British English.
These templates are redundant to each other. {{EngvarA}} redirects to {{Use American English}}, {{EngvarO}} redirects to {{Use Oxford spelling}}, etc. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - So what has changed since the last 2 times this template was proposed for deletion? I presume you've already read those discussions, so must have a good reason for deciding it needs to be merged now. BilCat (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't know there were previous discussions regarding the EngvarB templates. Why there are so controversies with two 100% similar templates? I am sure that we have to merge the two similar templates. The categories should be merged as well. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps read the documentation first? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  

  @Soumya-8974: Each of the templates has on its talk page links to previous TfDs involving that template, as required by WP:TFD/AI#Keep, Redirect, or No consensus. It is conventional to look for those and read them before filing a TfD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both: per my comments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 6#Template:EngvarB, {{EngvarB}} is a temporary-use template for use when the specific variant cannot yet be identified, its doc makes this clear; and per my comments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 6#No-display English variant types: the main purpose of {{Use British English}} is to give an indication to bots and scripts as to which variant is the preferred one for the article. The two templates also categorise the page into different trees: {{EngvarB}} into subcats of Category:EngvarB, and {{Use British English}} into subcats of Category:Use British English. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: {{EngvarB}} says "We don't know what spelling this article uses, but it is not American." {{Use British English}} says "This article is written in British English spelling, use it for contributions." These two templates have different purposes, and should not be merged.Techie3 (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if both are kept then this script really needs to stop modifying {{Use British English}} to {{EngvarB}}. I have mentioned this before but got no response. Keith D (talk) 11:33, 16 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Treasure (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insufficient content to justify a navigational template. Most of the subjects included don't have articles and the 'Related topics' field contains very loosely related articles: the group's label, and two survival shows in violation of WP:FILMNAV. Only two single albums to link, leaving the template with basically nothing to navigate. ƏXPLICIT 13:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 9 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; deleted as G2 by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Naveen mavi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not an actual template and the subject is not notable Praxidicae (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not an actual template, I don’t foresee it’s usefulness Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 12:35, 9 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. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Category in year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now unused. This template is another relic of the days before {{Navseasoncats}}, when creating navigation boxes for chronology categories required various degrees of complex markup. In 2019, it was converted[1] to a wrapper around Navseasoncats, which made it redundant: it's simpler to just call Navseasoncats directly. I have today replaced the last uses of this template with Navseasoncats (see e,g. [2]), so it is now unused. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging contributors to this template: @Tom.Reding, Plastikspork, Frietjes, Peter coxhead, PanchoS, TheDJ, WOSlinker, Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3, Rkitko, and Primefac. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or Redirect to {{Navseasoncats}} to inform those more familiar with the old template of the supersession.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tom.Reding, I'd prefer NOT to redirect. Without a redirect the redlinked template page will show a note about the deletion which links here, and this deletion discussion is likely to be more informative than the doc page about Navseasoncats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. In response to Tom.Reding's alternative of redirection, although redirection often makes sense, I think that this is a fairly esoteric area of the wiki, and those familiar with the old approach and template will be aware of, or easily find, the new one. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Outmoded and no longer used. --RL0919 (talk) 05:29, 11 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to the hatnote of {{excerpt}}. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose These are not the same thing at all. Template:Transcluded is a note saying this is transcluded, and Template:Excerpt actually does the transclusion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: {{Excerpt}} has a hatnote that says "This section is an excerpt of foo", which is similar to the note of {{transcluded}}. If you're not that conceived, see the examples of the usage of {{Excerpt}}. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:25, 9 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).