Tennis hall of fame by country
- 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) 04:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:International Tennis Hall of Fame members lists all members of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. These navboxes then break it out by country. They are completely redundant. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. One template is enough. No need for individual templates for each country for each member. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:24, 1 June 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).
Category:Brazil Basketball Olympics squad navigational boxes
- 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) 21:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting navboxes for teams that finished lower than third place in the tournament. Such templates are subject to WP:TCREEP and were previously deleted per April 22, 2020, June 7, 2019, March 29, 2019 (first, second and third) discussions. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all It's just a list of athletes. Nothing notable other than that they participated in the Summer Olympics for Brazil. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Apologies, didn't know these shouldn't exist for squads below third place. Happy for any I created to be speedy-deleted. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:43, 31 May 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 delete after replacing with ((noprint)) or the noprint class. But, feel free to redirect these after we are sure they have been entirely cleaned up. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These templates aren't working and havn't worked since 2013 following T50052. Following that ticket support was dropped for hiding text through Category:Exclude in print (also nominated here). When appropriate uses should be migrated over to ((noprint)) which hides things using the noprint CSS class.
There is currently no way to only display something in print. Hence ((Only in print)) will simply be removed. As far as I can tell basically all transclusions comes from a dubious use at ((doi)) which would break links in PDF versions if it worked properly.
This system is mainly in use for the Download as PDF and Printable versions found in the sidebar. It is also used for book generation by PediaPress. I've tested it using their previews and the above is accurate for all three of these methods. I contacted PediaPress about this a week ago to make sure no issues would occur on their side from this change (which it shouldn't) and they have not responded. --Trialpears (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Template:Only in print per nom. Redirect Template:Hide in print to Template:Noprint. Wrong venue for Category:Exclude in print; per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Listing a template, ((catfd)) only applies to
template-populated tracking categories
, which this isn't (but I would support deleting that as well if it were properly proposed at CfD) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pppery A simple redirect won't be appropriate since ((Hide in print)) often is coupled with ((Only in print)) where manual action is needed. It also has some subtle differences which could break tables if the conversion is not done manually.
- I am well aware of the rules for what should go where but choose to ignore them in this case. I believe the more technical audience would have more opinions on Category:Exclude in print and that it would be unnecessary to fork this discussion to two places. If you think there would be an actual benefit in nominating it at CfD I'm happy to withdraw it and renominate it. For the time being I've dropped a note at WT:CFD in case the CfD crowd is interested. --Trialpears (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My point about Template:Hide in print is that I think the end result should be a redirect rather than a redlink. If transclusions need to be replaced manually first, that is fine with me. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that people using templates such as ((hdl)) are being mysteriously pointed here with TFD notices. Uncle G (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle G, that's because that template use these templates (both of them hence the double notice). --Trialpears (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- People, Trialpears, can we not find a way to tag the templates that are under discussion and not others that are not? Not just in this case but in every case? Tagging every template that transcludes those listed here is ... well, unwelcome. I'm assuming that ((doi)) is not being proposed for deletion, right? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Justlettersandnumbers It's not possible to disable transclusions used in other templates without disabling all transclusions. I have disabled the notice at ((Only in print)) since that one should be redundant to the notice at ((Hide in print)) in most cases. --Trialpears (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Template:Noprint does not always work in replacing Template:Hide in print; I tried it at Template:Deadliest typhoons, where the argument text is supposed to appear as a table row, but under Noprint it becomes fostered content and appears outside the table. The markup in question is a table row:
((hide in print|1=!colspan=5((!)) <small>Main article: [[List of tropical cyclone records]]</small>))
- What does work is replacing that markup with
!colspan=5|<span class="noprint"><small>Main article: [[List of tropical cyclone records]]</small></span>
- but that would probably leave a blank table row in the noprint case. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, this will have to be done manually for cases like this. --Trialpears (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can set the row to noprint as I have just done. Izno (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what more should be said here. This system doesn't and will never work, replacement is possible, but it will require manual attention on a significant amount of pages. I don't see anyone disputing this or advocating for an other solution over the past 3 weeks. --Trialpears (talk) 09:44, 1 June 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:Zoologist
- 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) 02:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike in botany, there is no such thing as a "standard author abbreviation" in zoology and the ICZN does not recommend abbreviating author names. The most common practice is to simply use the full surname for any author. This template is adding false information to articles and needs to be deleted. For more information see Author citation (zoology) and the ICZN code itself. Nosferattus (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there are some tendencies to a system that resembled accepted abbreviations for botanists, just something I notice in the literature, and there is quite a bit of usage and content on wikipedia that refers to those informal conventions. In their context, a worker's field, it is often obvious who an authority is; there is a value maintaining that familiarity when it is linked. ~ cygnis insignis 01:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You're both right; the effect of the ICZN code (see its chapter 11) is for the author's surname to be used as the identifier (disambiguated with initials if need be). Such a recognised authority surname is certainly worth identifying in a zoologist's article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chiswick Chap: Recognized by who? It's entirely original research based on misconception. I don't see how it provides any useful information to the reader. The subject's surname is already given in every article and use of surnames (or abbreviations) is not standardized. If anything, we are misleading the reader, especially by citing the "standard abbreviation" to the ICZN code. Nosferattus (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- By the ICZN. And there is absolutely no call for essay-length rudeness here, this is source-based. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chiswick Chap: I'm not sure what about my argument was rude, but I certainly didn't intend for it to be, and I sincerely apologize if it came across as such. I still believe that the statement made by the template is misleading original research. Can you point me to the specific statement in the ICZN code that supports the template's claim? I don't see anything in Article 51 that supports or discourages any author name style, other than the statement that "If the surname and forename(s) of an author are liable to be confused, these should be distinguished as in scientific bibliographies" which only applies to a small fraction of author names. Nosferattus (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Recognised by the sources we use. "entirely original research" is a very absolute statement, I strongly doubt that a consensus for deletion could be achieved on that premise. ~ cygnis insignis 18:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Without commenting on whether these are widely accepted identifiers or not, I doubt these templates are particularly useful. The author abbreviation is basically always the surname or initial + surname. If the purpose is for readers to identify them in a list of publications I think that's completely unnecessary since that would be trivial to figure out. Also worth noting these are often placed in conjunction with ((botanist)) with basically the same text which looks really bad. --Trialpears (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: One more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete zoologists don't have unique author abbreviations. Usually only a surname is given in citing a zoological authority. That works OK when there is only one person with a given surname publishing on a particular group of animals in a given time period. If there are multiple people with the same surname working on the same group of animals at the same time they can be distinguished with an initial. But even if say, "A. Smith" and "B. Smith" both published on a particular family of insects in the 1960's, doesn't mean that there isn't some other "A. Smith" or "B. Smith" that published on fish or lizards in the 1800's. Botanists have a standardized system of unique abbreviations. Only one botanist can have the abbreviation "Smith"; other can be distinguished by one ("A.Smith") or more ("A.B.Smith") initials. If unique initials run out, the next botanist would get an abbreviation such as "A.B.Smith (bis)". Zoologists don't have this system of unique abbreviations. Plantdrew (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Plantdrew. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:54, 5 June 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 mid/nonLua
- 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) 21:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template is dependant on a feature that is not going to be enabled on WMF wikis; see phab:T254782. (Same as TfD/2021 May 10 § Template:Str_rightc/nonLua.) User:GKFXtalk 12:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would suggest to Guarapiranga (talk · contribs) to contribute non-LUA versions of templates to the Templates Wikia instead; or if WikiSource accepts source code it might go there. (does SourceForge or GitHub, etc. accept WikiCoding?) -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Unopposed* The template is not in use. It was created bc often Lua, in spite of its ample flexibility and efficiency in targeted tasks, has very strict limits when applied hundreds of times on the same page.
- 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:Humans
- 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar unused in mainspace. Izno (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. I'm sure there is a humans-related template that is better used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it predates the mass roll-out of sidebar, so is a hand coded table, that is incorrectly not float:right ; since it is in this format, it clearly isn't used, as it would have been converted between 2006 and 2010 if it were used by someone coming along and making it a sidebar. There's a weird out of date draft sitting at Talk:Humanity/Draft that uses it that hasn't been truly edited since 2006 and that probably should also be deleted or re-userfied back to user:Goethean/Humanity, where it originated and who was the only major contributor. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 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:2016NHRep
- 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) 23:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Used in only 3 places which are unlikely to need an update with the election 5 years past. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 00:50, 31 May 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:History of Phitsanulok Province
- 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused sidebar in mainspace. Izno (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The articles linked in the template are better off not on a template and quite a few linked are not part of the history of Thailand in the general sense. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I raised some issues with the template and removed its uses in 2019; the changes don't appear to have been disputed. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 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).