Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 7

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) 00:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ACR page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The majority of this template's function was deleted in an earlier TFD in 2020 Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_27#Template:ACR_top. Now it is a simple {{{2|}}}, which does not need a template. Izno (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not necessary. CRwikiCA talk 18:05, 11 April 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).

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) 00:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sfdisc list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sfdisc sfd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for a process marked historical 5 years ago and which hasn't apparently been used in 15 years. Izno (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, there is no documentation nor note that it is a historical template. CRwikiCA talk 18:07, 11 April 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).

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) 23:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not generally necessary. In today's day and age users are expected to be WP:BOLD and archive things themselves, or avail themselves of the standard archiving bot functionality to archive the contents of a section.

Current use indicates no one is using it (with only 3 ancient transclusions). Izno (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment one would expect that this would not have many uses, as when it is used, and then the discussion is archived, the template would be removed. And one should expect that not all users are conversant on how to do that, so would not be able to archive successfully. Also, archival will probably resulting in a TAG:BLANKING that will pop up on edit patrolling, that may affect how some users regard doing anything like archival, and dealing with EPs with UW-blank notices. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it should probably be merged with {{ArchivingSoon}} and other archival request templates though. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:59, 8 April 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).

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) 13:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby group A standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby group B standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game A1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game A2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game A3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game A4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game A5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game A6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game B1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game B2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game B3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game B4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game B5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game B6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game C1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game C2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game D1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game D2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game E1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby game E2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby convenience template navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Category:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby group standings templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Category:2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby convenience templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per the current convention for Olympics and Paralympics articles, the game and standings templates should be hosted in the parent article, and not in individual templates. if consensus changes over LST vs templates, we can always put all the matches and standings into a single template with a switch so we don't need to watch 20 templates per event. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom and previous discussions. Nigej (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:56, 8 April 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).

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) 13:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ifu s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ifu w (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only about a dozen times, all in the 2009-2010 timeframe. Clearly this has fallen out of favor, if it ever was in favor. Izno (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you subst the uses, and delete from any docco, then I think this could go. And IFU has been renamed to FFU, and also as I do not work at IFU any more. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issue with substing. Izno (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subst per Graeme Bartlett. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:57, 8 April 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).

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) 13:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BLP top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BLP bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in over 15 years. Izno (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Izno: I have no idea if anyone is using this in their process, but the template is supposed to be subst'ed so just looking for transclusions isn't necessarily going to tell you whether anyone is using it anywhere. --B (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Only about a dozen potentials and I'd guess in that count only the 15-year old BLPN archives used it. Izno (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd say subst on those discussion pages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:59, 8 April 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).

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) 13:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used only twice in nearly a decade of existence. A handmade note is sufficient, at most. Izno (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• How would you know? By virtue of the way it is used, it is supposed to be removed from the discussion. --B (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It has existing transclusions on two pages created by the author of the template. That indicates to me that it's not being used the way you think it's supposed to be used.

  Even were the inconsistency not on display, in today's day and age users are expected to be WP:BOLD and archive things themselves, or avail themselves of the standard archiving bot functionality to archive the contents of a section. We do not need a template to indicate everything a user might do. Izno (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:56, 8 April 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).

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) 13:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lint-whitelist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not generally necessary; template editors are sufficiently knowledgeable that this template isn't needed, and for everywhere else it might actually be needed a wikitext comment will suffice (I don't expect those to exist). Izno (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or the relevant template portions could be includeonly'd. As template creator I endorse deletion of this template as not required in it's current form. It is however in use, and those usages should ideally be resolved before deletion.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:55, 8 April 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).

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) 13:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Archive inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on 3 pages in the past 15 years. Clearly not a needed template and ultimately more complicated than simply linking to a specific archive with normal wikitext. Izno (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:55, 8 April 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).

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) 13:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Discussion centralize top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Discussion centralize bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently a very special case version of {{discussion top}} to close WP:MULTI discussions, but in the decade it's existed it's been used on 3 pages. Clearly unneeded. Izno (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:55, 8 April 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).

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 April 14. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Poll_bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Archive_bottom (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 relisted on 2023 April 14. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Poll_top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Closed_rfc_top (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 keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:World Championships in Athletics category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Redundant template. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add to categories. I made it in 2019 at Template talk:Navseasoncats/Archive 1#Nations at the XXXX World Championships in Athletics. The categories use {{Navseasoncats}} which was improved but there are still several problems. Category:1980 World Championships in Athletics shows grey unlinked years for 1975–1979 but the only year with a championship was 1976 (it has no category since there was only one event). Category:2017 World Championships in Athletics shows grey for 2020–2023 because the name changed from World Championships in Athletics to World Athletics Championships (it wasn't held in 2020 and 2021). Category:2023 World Athletics Championships shows grey for 2024–2028 but only 2025 and 2027 have scheduled championships. {{World Championships in Athletics category header}} shows all 20 championship categories which is more than we usually do in category navigation but not excessive, and it will only add a link every two years (2021 was pushed to 2022 by COVID-19). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• keep it is better than the navseasoncats. I've added it to those cats that had gray years. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:10, 8 April 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).