Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 30

May 30[]

Template:Promotional singles[]

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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This template has been subject to two previous deletion discussions, in March 2011 here and again in July 2011 [User_talk:Nikmek99#Nomination_for_deletion_of_Template:Promotional_Singles_2 here] as well as a merge discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_16#Template:Infobox_promotional_single here. The template would rely on consensus that we're agreeing to promotional singles being included in the infobox of which there is no consensus or apparent discussion. There is no appetite for including promotional/limited release or countdown singles in the infobox, largely because they are so poorly defined and/or referenced and often contentious. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I don't understand why everybody keeps bloating the infoboxes with less significant information. Promo singles definition is vague in many cases. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: I left a warning on the creator's talk page asking why they had created this without consensus. As stated above, the difference between actual singles and promotional singles is not always obvious... and sometimes a promotional single later gets an official release (e.g. "Hair (Little Mix song)"), would it then be listed twice in the infobox? It's unnecessary expansion of the infobox with non-essential information that can easily be included as prose if it has sources. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with all the comments so far – "promotional singles" are not well-defined and can change. This is something for the main body of the article with sources if noteworthy, but not additional clutter for the infobox. Also, the accepted practice of "You are well-advised to seek the opinions of other ors before embarking on a design of a new infobox or redesign of an existing one" was not even attempted (Help:Designing infoboxes). A minimum amount of research would show that promo singles are controversial and should not be implemented without some discussion. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Thank you for taking this to TfD. I share the concerns presented above and agree that the template should be deleted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The concept itself seems dubious. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete often hard to establish (especially without sources specifically indicating this type of release), plus promotional singles at times get full-fledged single releases. SNUGGUMS (talk / s) 21:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:2019 Georgetown Hoyas men's soccer navbox[]

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Per past discussions (for example here and here, and TFDs here and here), there is a consensus to not have seasonal/championship winning squad templates outside international football, as there are too many competitions for this to be viable. Instead, this squad information belongs in articles such as 2019 Georgetown Hoyas men's soccer team. Some of these templates also have a small number of links, as only a few squad members have an article. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 09:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep, this is merely an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, when a GNG consensus was reached on college national championship articles. I'd like to ask the nominator to not make disruptive s. Thanks. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Disagree that it is an "IDONTLIKEIT nomination", this is consistent with previous discussions and consensus on navboxes (and therefore I do not see how it is disruptive). Also, I'm not sure how GNG applies to the template namespace, what discussion are you referring to? These squads are already present on many season articles, and not everything needs a navbox. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
      • When referring to GNG, he is referring to several discussions at WP:CHOOPS, WP:CFB, WP:COLLEGEBASEBALL, and other American sports WikiProjects. (See here and here for a few examples). KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. These are basically just partially complete rosters of team members, and such information is better handled as plain text in the team/season article in question. --Jayron32 20:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This content is better placed in articles as roster lists, with exception of high-level squads which may either be ed, or used in multiple articles, or need specific protections, and therefore benefit as a template. There's really no need for templates and, once entered, the roster lists are not likely to be changed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominator is making a startling conclusion between American college athletics and international club football. In college sports WikiProjects, it's normal to make navboxes specifically for players and coaches in recognized championship teams in popular sports since there is only one major championship in the highest divisions similar to that of Super Bowl, World Series, and NBA Finals championship navboxes since it generally viewed as a rare accomplishment to win such competitions. The main reason we don't do that for traditional club football teams is due to high amount of competitions each team plays in a season such as their country's domestic leagues and cups and continental competitions, so it's hard to decide which trophies count as major enough to deserve a navbox and which ones don't. The reason we do have navboxes for each squad participating in international tournaments such as the World Cup and European Championship for example is because it is considered a high accomplishment to even participate in them and represent your national team, let alone win. I can understand your frustration from a European perspective, but from an American one they are alright and perfectly fine. So, I'll tag @TonyTheTiger: (who helped start the navboxes) and everyone else at the college soccer WikiProject so you can hear their opinions. (Cobyan02069 — GauchoDude — GWFrog — swimmer33 — Jay eyem — US Referee — Joeykai — Bigredlance — 18pittsone:) You can also ask the communities in Category:WikiProject College sports too if you would like. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Comparing these navboxes to the Club World Cup is inaccurate - These are much more comparable to anything in Category:NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament champions navigational boxes for example. There is a consensus for American college sports championships navboxes see Category:American college sports championship team navigational boxes Joeykai (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kante4 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I share some of the concerns of the nom; I think some of these articles have some potential template creep issues, and there seems to be a consensus that only international tournaments should have these templates. I don't know that I entirely agree with that, but those tournaments are infrequent enough that they won't clog up an article. The same could be said for this tournament, however. And most of the articles that use these templates don't have creep issues and are unlikely to in the future. I don't see a compelling reason to delete other than the fact that these are college soccer templates (as opposed to something like basketball, for example). If we don't even keep something like Champions League winning squads, I don't see a compelling reason to keep these either. Plus a big issue with a lot of these is that they often don't show the entire team, since a lot of the players don't have articles. I'm leaning towards delete for these, unless one of these teams has a particular notability about which I am unaware. Jay eyem (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    • If we are going based on whether all of the players should have bluelinks or not, then shouldn't most of the non-league squad navboxes be deleted as well? Also, the navboxes exist to link notable players and coaches who participated in an important and highly noteworthy NCAA championship team and that is only if multiple players and coaches have bluelinks. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm not even sure why we have squad nav-boxes for non WP:FPL teams. However, these are at least current squads as opposed to historical squads, and some of these teams have a chance at being promoted to a fully-professional league. I dispute the idea that this tournament is important or noteworthy for the sport or even to college sports as a whole; the only NCAA championships where this situation would give me pause are football, men's basketball, and women's basketball. And while there don't appear to be any template creep issues here, I don't see a compelling reason for their inclusion. I really don't feel strongly towards deletion, but it's the way I'm leaning. Jay eyem (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure if comment is the appropriate header here, but I figured its the best way to put in my two cents. Per Joeykai above, I think NCAA champions get nav boxes. Basketball, and football obviously have the most coverage, and college soccer coverage is growing. I think it might be a delete now, but later become something that is clearly kept as coverage of college soccer on wikipedia grows. That would alleviate the complaints about the navboxes being a bit threadbare. However, the argument pointed out by Jay eyem saying that if there aren't Champions' League navboxes, there certainly doesn't need to be college soccer navboxes, really resonates with me. College soccer is clearly much less prestigious than the Champions League. I don't feel particularly strongly either way. Swimmer33 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The difference between something like basketball and American football vs. college soccer is sort of where this makes a difference for me. There's substantially more coverage for their tournaments than any other NCAA tournament, so I can see keeping those championship team navboxes, easy. Certainly at the moment I don't feel the same way for college soccer. I think these navboxes are kind of harmless, but my opinion also isn't strong either way. Jay eyem (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Many of these are partial rosters. A template with 3-4 players isn't a team. These should be deleted - at the very least the ones with under 10 players should be deleted. The ones with nearly a full team could maybe be kept (and maybe include the missing players not listed (without article links)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedPatchBoys (talkcontribs) 21:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete each project should set its own policy. Although I disagree with WP:HOCKEY on not having a lot of templates, I feel each sport is different. In this case, it seems WP:FOOTBALL has a policy. However, I disagree with RedPatchBoys. If a template has 4 blue links it is useful for navigational purposes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, per prior consensus at TFD and WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:Customs services[]

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 merge/delete. I have deleted the less comprehensive template (custom services) and moved the more comprehensive template (customs) to the more specific name (custom services, as suggested) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A more comprehensive but exactly same template exists as Template:Customs. Therefore there is no need for this template and I propose to have it deleted. The original creator is inactive and there have been insignificant activity on this template as well. Greateasterner (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, there is no need for two templates. But in case either is deleted, it needs to be made sure the templates are switched because each template is used in plenty of articles. So perhaps merge to Template:Customs so the fix is automatic. --Pudeo (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think deleting the nominated template would allow for the other remaining template to be cleaner as there is less redirects, since all the articles linked on the nominated template can be found on the other template too. Besides, there are many articles that have both templates which means a manual cleanup at these pages have to be undertaken even after deleting or merging the template, which I can undertake after consensus has been reached. Greateasterner (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to Customs Services. These two templates do the same thing and as per Pudeo it makes sense to merge them. They should be merged to "Customs services" because I think that is a much more specific and well-defined title than "customs".--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:MNC color and Template:MNC legend[]

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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Propose deleting – These templates appear to have been created for the sole purpose of inserting a background color in table headers on two pages: List of National Monuments of Chile by region and List of National Monuments of Chile in Aysén Region. I removed the templates from the latter of these pages initially because one of them was causing lint errors with a <span> tag. I then noticed through the hastemplates: search operator that only one other page was using either template, so I removed it from that page as well. I also note that neither template has been maintained since 2012, and that the original author (Diego Grez-Cañete) was banned permanently in 2015. Since these templates were created for a very small purpose and were causing at least one page to generate errors, I propose they simply be deleted. I have placed tfd tags on them, but I have not notified the author due to the aforementioned ban. Dylan38 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Now that they've been removed from those two articles, there's no need to keep them. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:Romance languages[]

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 seperate. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Romance languages with Template:Italic languages.
Do you think this template should be merged with the {{Italic languages}} template, since all the Romance languages descend from Vulgar Latin, an Italic language, or should they remain separate, because this template has many more articles linking to it (158), than the {{Italic languages}} template (only 26)? PK2 (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep separate. These are about separate topics and have well-defined scopes that makes them easy to navigate. One is about romance languages throughout Europe. One is just about languages spoken in Italy. I don't think creating an even larger template is useful for readers and I think the current navboxes do an adequate job.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't disagree with Tom (LT) about keeping these templates separate but the reason I started this discussion is because I want to start a debate on whether or not these two templates should be merged into one or kept separate, because the {{Romance languages}} template has many more articles linking to it (158), than the {{Italic languages}} template (only 26), and also most of the articles on the Italic languages template (excluding Latin) themselves have less articles linking to them then the articles on the Romance languages template. Also, I forgot to mention in my first comment that the Italic languages template (the template that I created myself) is about the ancient Italic languages that were spoken in parts of present-day Italy before the Roman expansion in Italy (e.g. the Roman Republic), whereas the Romance languages template is about the Romance languages that descend from Vulgar Latin (from the 6th to the 9th centuries AD), one of the ancient languages, that are currently (or were formerly, but have since become extinct) spoken in Southern Europe, and since Christopher Columbus' discovery of the New World during his first voyage in 1492, parts of Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Oceania. I think I will do with this template what most users want me to do with it after 7 days -- PK2 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's better if they're separate: the Romance navbox is already pretty big, and the distinction between the two topics is notionally (if not genetically) very clear-cut. – Uanfala (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I would keep them separate for the reasons stated above (e.g., the Romance languages box is pretty big, and Italic languages is a well-defined topic). Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep separate. While all Romance languages are Italic languages, people seldom use "Italic languages" to refer to the Romance languages. When talking about "Italic languages", people often think of Latin and some extinct languages. Jonashtand (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:Aircraft Lessors[]

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 but rename, refactor, and expand Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Fails WP:NAVBOX purpose. Either redefine it or delete it as it is unnecessary to rank. Störm (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep but rename. I think the overall topic is notable (aircraft lessors), so the template should be kept but the ranking removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • KEEP, rename. Fair enough to remove rank, perhaps rename template navguide as 'major' aircraft lessors? --Conrad Kilroy (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: If kept this should be a general template. Any selection is completely bias and WP:OR. --Gonnym (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:Bavarian Royal Family[]

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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This template is rotten in the core. It lists dozens of living people as princes and princesses despite there being no indication that they all call themselves so or that reliable sources identify them as such. It supposes that there is a defined entity called "Bavarian royal family" or "House of Wittelsbach" and further supposes that all these people associate themselves with this group. And even if verifiability and living people considerations were not issues, this navbox is useless because only 13 out of 51 names (by my count) are linked. The rest are bare names of people who may well distance themselves from any pretended royal status for professional or ideological reasons. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support deletion for the cogent reasons given by the nominator.Smeat75 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bavaria is not a separate country, it is part of Germany, which is a federal republic. There is no Bavarian royal family. Guy (help!) 21:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There WAS a Bavarian royal family, However that was when Germany was an empire and Bavaria was it Constituent states, just like the Free State of Bavaria of modern Germany which retain it own Ministers-President. ชาวไทย (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned by the nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename family member The template is useful for sorting the living family members, just get rid of the title (which seem to be the cause of nomination) AND get rid of the unlink, extended member. ชาวไทย (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • If we get rid of the unlinked, it's incomplete and misleading; if we keep them, it does not work as a navigational aid. Surtsicna (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, how about rename to House of Wittelsbach? PPEMES (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I've explored that possibility in my opening comment, PPEMES. It does not solve anything. Surtsicna (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure your comments on that refutes it. PPEMES (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
That's alright. I just wish there was more of an explanation of how it is not a major WP:V and WP:BLP concern to group all these people under the name of a former royal house without any indication that they associate themselves with it or claim a royal status. Wittelsbach is not even their family name. Surtsicna (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless as a navigation template. We should not in the business of inventing royal titles for people that they do not hold in real life, and we certainly shouldn't be indulging the idea that the abolition of the Bavarian monarchy somehow didn't happen. Kahastok talk 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, not useful. if someone wants to create more useful one, go for it, but this one is not useful with all the unlinked entries. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. Duplication of Template:House of Wittelsbach. DrKay (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:House of Wittelsbach. Based on my conversations with Germans, most of them don't realize that these people are still around. Allan Rice (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
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).

Furka Cogwheel Steam Railway s-line templates[]

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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

s-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for the Furka Cogwheel Steam Railway. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Furka Cogwheel Steam Railway. All transclusions replaced. There are two dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: Added a missing {{collapse bottom}} that was causing formatting issues on the main WP:TFD page. Mz7 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, no longer needed (note, I removed the collapsing, since there are only two things being collapsed). Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
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).