Template:The Nadas
- 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. Izno (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation template for band The Nadas. The listed albums are not individually notable and redirect to the band article, meaning the template no longer serves a purpose. Lennart97 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2021 (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 merge to Template:R from former name. Izno (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:R from historic name with Template:R from former name.
The categories for former names and historic names were merged a few months ago. The previous TfD outcome indicated that if the categories were merged, there would be no prejudice against merging the templates as well; it's the logical follow-on step. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 18:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the reasoning I gave last time; the distinction between "historic" and "former" is arbitrary at best and superfluous at worst. It's best to just tag relevant "historic" names as printworthy. No amount of documentation or distinguished use is really going to solve these problems. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:28, 28 March 2021 (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 Merge as suggested. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are way too many of these navboxes, with many having too few entries to warrant a navbox. I recommend condensing into navboxes by decade and century. Only going up to 1959 because after that we cover enough earthquakes for a navbox system to be useful, although some lists in this era are missing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @LaundryPizza03: You forgot to tag the templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I noticed that 1946 in particular links 9 different articles, what is your threshold of "too few entries"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete them all I don't see how these are related apart from the defining characteristic of being earthquakes. Surely our category structure can hold this information instead. I just don't see any navigational value provided by these navboxes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NENAN (an essay) says that "A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the "rule of five"" but that's just a single view of course, other's have different ideas - but that's the purpose of this discussion. These are navboxes (WP:NAVBOX)" so the question is whether these navboxes aid navigation or whether a different structure would be better (per nom) or even (per Tom) whether they don't aid navigation sufficiently to be worth keeping at all - after all ((Earthquakes by year)) also exists. Also seems to me that someone in say 2020 Elazığ earthquake is likely to be more interested in ((Earthquakes in Turkey)) rather than in earthquakes that happened in the same calendar year thousands of miles away. Worth noting that eg ((Earthquakes in 2020)) is already split by month so combining these into decades would fit in with that style eg ((Earthquakes in the 1950s)) split by year. Nigej (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We can easily combine the list of earthquakes with the template for earthquake articles this way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Given the quantity and the fact these are all used, I am relisting and will be adding the appropriate tags shortly.
LaundryPizza03, please take better care of that in the future.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to
((Earthquakes in the 1800s)), ((Earthquakes in the 1900s (decade))), ((Earthquakes in the 1910s)), ((Earthquakes in the 1920s)), ... preserving years as redirects for simplicity. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- After reflection, merge per Frietjes. Not totally sold on preserving redirects, but I'm not going to stress about it. --Izno (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2021 (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).
Template:Str gtr str
- 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) 15:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, very limited in functionality compared to what a Lua version would do. User:GKFXtalk 15:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. That implementation is terrifying, as is all string manipulation in wikitext. Izno (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2021 (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).
Template:Triple soft redirect
- 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. Izno (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This template has no actual usage, other than in Template:Triple soft redirect/test. JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - New. Will eventually find use, mayhaps only in the userspace or projectspace. It might be reasonable to consider merging this with ((double soft redirect)), as that would likely be easy, cause few issues, and even be a net positive. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not used anywhere meaningful, nor is it "new" (it has existed since 2019). There is no reason to believe that this template will ever accrue meaningful use, given that it hasn't in the the year and four months it has existed. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pppery: Any objection to merging it with ((double soft redirect))? Double soft redirect finds uses on pages like Fm790. Adding a 3rd parameter which adds the option of a third item in the list might come in handy and does no harm. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to a merge, just don't generally see the point of merging functionality from unused templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I stumbled upon it this past December, which is why I misconceived it as a "new" template. I could probably dig around and find a couple places in the userspace or projectspace to use it. I suppose I find the novelty of it appealing at the end of the day; been itching to organically find a spot to use this. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Godsy: Why not merge this and ((double soft redirect)) into ((soft redirect))? Duplicating templates rather than putting all necessary functionality in one makes it harder to navigate the codebase. User:GKFXtalk 15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Struggling to see the point of a merge, since it's unused - and it presumably would need a rename to ((Multiple soft redirect)) or something similar. Nigej (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, if needed we can create
((multiple soft redirect)) per above. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2021 (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 keep after removing the redundancy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicated by content in ((History of video games)) (note: I foolishly added this template to about twenty pages before realizing this). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Argubly I think the country block in the history of VG template should be removed. Not all the respective country articles have history sections (yet), so the history template is not the best place to catalog them, but the country template is appropriate to link them. Possibly, there is a nested navbox aspect here that should be done to potentially link the country one into the history one --Masem (t) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Masem I'd be good with any of those options. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Masem. --Izno (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just modified the ((History of video games)) as to do the split that I proposed, so that the original template is transcluded into this, thus avoiding the duplication issue. --Masem (t) 19:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, the duplication has been eliminated. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2021 (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).