Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No transclusions or incoming links. Note that this is not a userbox, and it is unrelated to its parent page, so I am sending it to TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP with Template:WikiProject banner shell.
Propose merging Template:BLP others with Template:WikiProject banner shell.

These templates are not used outside of the banner shell, so it might be simpler if that template produced these messages instead of calling separate templates. This will not affect the display or functionality of the templates — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused other than in one example. Subst there and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused other than in an abandoned user sandbox. Subst there and delete templates as previous usages in article space has been replaced. Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This language template has been depreciated, both {{Lang-pa}} and {{Lang-pan}} are being replaced with {{Langx}}. Absolutiva (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The disambiguation page is no longer useful or needed. Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template {{Lang-crh}} was deleted by replacing with {{Langx}}. Absolutiva (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not against eventually getting rid of this, but this currently isn't suitable for langx. This might be converted in the next phase, after the current replacement of templates is finished. Gonnym (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Talkfact with Template:Fake citation needed.
These templates are duplicates. {{talkfact}} just has |nice=yes to change the wording, and {{fake citation needed}} has namespace detection. The merge target follows WP:TPN's "standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization", and the source can be a shortcut. 174.94.28.189 (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move {{Talkfact}} to {{Talk fact}} which is where it should have been. The two templates display similarly but have different functions. I, for example, want to be able to find all the documentation, by using "what links here" on {{Fake citation needed}}. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
"What links here" indents redirects so that function would remain after any merger. Furthermore, at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Fake_citation_needed&limit=500, the majority of transclusions are outside templatespace (documentation) and apparently inside discussions. 174.94.28.189 (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be bitey with this newly created navbox, but it contains just one link in its body that goes to an article other than the main article for the navbox. It is not yet useful for navigation. I have no objection to its recreation when there are articles to navigate among. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!! Currently drafting up pages for all the books and will have them up over the next week. GossieGoodTimes (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create the articles first, then the navboxes. The fact that books exist, does not mean the article will pass WP:GNG. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Gonnym said, create the articles first. Navboxes exist to navigate between articles that exist, so there's no value in the navbox existing before the articles do — there's no guarantee that every book in the series will automatically qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the series as a whole, and no guarantee that you'll get every article in place promptly, so you need to ensure that good, keepable articles about every book exist first, and then create the navbox to link them together second, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! Thank you for your guidance GossieGoodTimes (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. Created in April 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a work in progress still. I don't think simply being unused is a valid justification for deletion. If the template has no prospective use then yeah. Awesome Aasim 20:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now that this is mostly finished I don't think there is a good reason for deletion. The template is dependent on another module Module:Countdown2 for functionality. I created it because the first countdown module is a bit complicated. This one you can spit in any date and it will give the appropriate countdown (or hide it) for that module. Awesome Aasim 01:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or documentation. There are two incoming links from discussions; one says that the template is a draft, and the other says that it does not appear to be finished. The category that is intended to be used by this template does not exist. It appears to be an abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jonesey95, essentially, the idea was that Rcat shell could automatically detect and place rcats such as protection level etc. Implementing this would means removing them from the rcat shell, leaving it empty - therefore, I made this template to be placed when there are no manual rcats. It would also be useful for tracking rcats that don't have any helpful rcats that describe its purpose. Unfortunately, discussion stalled so I never went ahead with creating the associated category. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant sidebar-type template as the navbox Template:Opinion polling for United Kingdom elections is better served for navigation to articles about polls for UK elections. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite useful in many cases like Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Better to just remove it from the articles where it isn't useful rather than as a blanket policy. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though even then I can't think of a time I've run into it outside of UK polling articles anyway. Pretty useful navigational template Bejakyo (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obtrusive template which does not help to navigate articles on national UK elections. Better left to templates. Nothing more than a sidebar taking up space. For instance, on the 1802 United Kingdom general election article it appears next to the election infobox but in the middle in the top part of the article. And it appears like that for many articles. Navigation for election articles is best left for templates like navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not had this issue, and would disagree with it's removal Bejakyo (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this is screwing up the layout of election pages way more for me, sorry. Liverals (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a tiny box that does what navboxes already do. Not having any issue with it personally doesn't mean it should remain. Navboxes are far better than this template for transcluding election article links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aware that as an IP I don't have a !vote here, but my 2¢ in case it helps: I find these types of navigation aids useful. I'd like more of them in more places covering more subjects! When you're idly browsing the 'pedia, which I do more often than is healthy, this type of thing is great to have in an article.
But... this one is indeed intrusive. It gets in the way on a number of articles and isn't usefully responsive (a problem we have with a number of templates here). Where it appears is a bit random because of that, which negates much of its usefulness.
Perhaps there's a third way between keep and delete? Could it be combined into the infobox that appears in each article? Or 'docked' somewhere (I have no idea what I mean by this, I admit)? And I know the infobox has "<-- last election | next election -->" navigation, but the previous two and the next two is really useful, honestly! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the realm of unwieldy, as evidenced by the inaccessible hacks used for the megachurches listed in the United States section. Moreover, these probably don't have a whole ton of correlation to each other, failing items 1, 2, 3, and 5 at WP:NAVBOX. We have a category already as alternative for this kind of list as well as a variety of "list of largest churches". Izno (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]