Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 November 29

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. ✗plicit 03:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Girlfriends Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two links including the title page and a redirect. No navigation here. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No navigation and no sourced content showing a relation with the only real blue link. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 6 December 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. ✗plicit 03:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:1CA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

From the page creation log, this appears to be an "easy" way to link to T13's 1-click archiver, which has since been replaced by Evad37's version anyway. However, it only has 19 transclusions, so I think it would be reasonable to subst and delete (given the creator being indeffed and there being a new version available). Primefac (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:02, 1 December 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. ✗plicit 12:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:8px (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 10 article-space uses, and most of them are in weird spots like infoboxes. Not really sure it is giving the intended effect, and clearly is not very popular. I genuinely can't see this as being a useful template, and if anything is just cluttering up other template calls. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since it seems to be performing as expected at ESNE Radio and 9Gem, providing a new line and a space before the subsequent content. If Keep is not the consensus outcome, this template should be redirected to {{clear}} or {{br}}, not simply deleted. There are times when a div is needed in order to prevent content from staying on the same line or floating to the right. If this template were simply removed at 9Gem, for example, text that is currently rendered on a new line would end up on the same line, clearly contrary to editors' intent. If it is kept, it could benefit from a better name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to ask the silly question, Jonesey95, but why can't we delete and replace with {{br}}? "Put this thing on a new line" is exactly what <br /> is used for; why does it need to be an 8px span? Primefac (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We certainly can replace it, if the consensus is that a line break with added white space is not desirable as formatting. My point was that this template, at least in some places, inserts a line break with some space above the following text, and I didn't see another template that did so. I don't really care either way; I just didn't want there to be a misperception that this template is completely redundant to {{br}} or {{clear}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better to use list markup with padding like this than to not use list markup with lists. the ESNE Radio example is particularly bad because the content is only visually aligned, which is bad for my screen reader. the cells should be split instead. if you are going to redirect it, it would be better to redirect it to {{paragraph break}}, which doesn't include the "clear:all". Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with basic replacement a la clear or br if necessary. This falls solely into a basic "style" template, which we really should avoid. "I want more space" is rarely valid at a high level. Subst first on the user pages using it where we basically don't care. Izno (talk) 06:25, 7 December 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 relisted on 2022 December 7. Izno (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Downtown_Seattle (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(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. ✗plicit 13:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Women prime ministers of Finland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unnecessary template. Fram (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ironically sexist by singling out these politicians just because they are female. It also fails the 5-article minimum. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:00, 5 December 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 relisted on 2022 December 6. ✗plicit 10:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:HMM_example (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).