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).
Only three links. Not enough for navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2022 (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 2022 April 16. ✗plicit 23:50, 16 April 2022 (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:Trilateral meeting leaders
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 2022 April 16. ✗plicit 23:48, 16 April 2022 (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).
Just three articles linked. Not enough for a template. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It only being on 3 articles does not mean it should be deleted. I didn't see anything in the policy saying templates have to be transcluded a certain amount of times. Rlink2 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NENAN: "A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the "rule of five": are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used?" Italic text
Delete per nomination. Fails NENAN. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 15:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that this has been relisted twice. This should be the last time this template is of concern at Tfd. The template has not been changed in terms of navigational benefit. NENAN is a rule of thumb that we use. Three links not counting the title for the mainspace article. The one keep vote doesn't address the issue of the nomination. And while my delete vote is based on the merits of the nomination and the template; outside of my vote, the template has no valid reason to be kept. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Template:Insane Championship Wrestling. The latter is also not a particularly large template, and this subtopic can be adequately incorporated into the main template. --Bsherr (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2022 (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:Panorama 2
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. ✗plicit 23:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This template, sparsely used, contravenes MOS:NOHOVER and is not accessible. It is used to display a file, but the caption for the file is only visible upon a pointer hover over the file. It should be orphaned by replacement with a more appropriate file template, then deleted. Bsherr (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since this the ONLY template that automatically adjusts wide images with the window's width. The images on mobiles are adversely affected if it is not used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.126.255 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2022 (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:Bo Bice
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. ✗plicit 23:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NENAN. 3 was redirected as a non-notable album, and the tour was a multi-artist collab of which he was not the primary focus. This leaves the template to navigate only three articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. --Bsherr (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2022 (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 speedy keep. Per WP:CSK. Nominator proposes to withdraw, in favor of subsequent nomination below, and no other supporters have commented yet. --Bsherr (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Oppose and close Hasn’t this already been discussed at length??? Wasn’t there a huge discussion when the template was nominated for deletion just a few weeks ago??? If I recall correctly, it was not deleted because the article doesn’t need any help growing in byte size. Ironmatic1 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd say let's wait until the conflict is over, whenever that will be. Just three weeks ago it was nominated for deletion and the consensus was to keep it for the time, and while that can change as a result of this Tfd, there is no rush to do so. Few infoboxes exist for a specific conflict on separate template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main reason for keeping on the previous discussion was there were a lot of edits happening at the same and the size of the article itself. Which now do not prevent the merger of the template. In terms of memory it would be less (if merged intoTemplate:Infobox military conflict) instead of more per the previous discussion. - DownTownRich (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge. Therefore the merge nomination should be withdrawn. If you think it should be deleted, then nominate it as a deletion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed the deletion tag. This discussion can be closed and further discussion could be made at the new nomination. DownTownRich (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2022 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 13:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox military conflict could be used instead of having independent template for each conflict that takes place and it would be easier to migrate now since there are no too much edits happening at the moment. DownTownRich (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nomination. Letcord (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as doing this will bloat the article its used in to more than 400,000 bytes. Id rather have a separate template than article which takes forever to load and is bloated to edit. If you really want to replace the template then please split up the article first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article size is a major issue for the main article about the war. I'd say the article size has to be fixed before any substituting is done with this infobox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia:Template namespace, The Template namespace on Wikipedia is used to store templates, which contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages. Hence, Anything that is not Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages should not be in the template namespace. * Pppery *it has begun... 22:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could apply WP:IAR as a way to improve editing for this particular page. Again.... why make things harder for our readers? I am trying to shorten War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) but can not do it alone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87 please explain how substituting and deleting this template would "make things harder for our readers". Letcord (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – The main article is extremely cluttered, and merging the infobox back into the article would make it much more difficult to edit. I don't see a good reason for deleting the template. It would do nothing other than make it significantly more difficult for people to edit the main article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For the same reasons as the Ukraine infobox. These monster articles just do not need these enormous infoboxes to add to their chaos. I'm surprised the nominator has not also put up Template:Syrian civil war infobox for deletion, another even BIGGER single-use template! Imagine what it would do to that article, if we were to delete all single-use templates. Ironmatic1 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: With all due respect, it is a big deal to the editors who edit the articles as overly large articles become overwhelming even to seasoned editors. If you want to get rid of this template then why not help us get rid of the size problem rather than add to it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Huge and bloated article. Unless an article is small enough the infobox template can be used as the source template for sub-templates of that infobox template like this. My reason here are same as the Ukraine infobox one. MarioJump83! 01:49, 12 April 2022 (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 WP:SNOW keep -- there is nothing here that has changed since the previous nomination a few weeks ago. The same arguments are being made, and as the page is still rapidly being edited, they maintain the same validity. A consensus for deletion will not emerge from this discussion and re-running the same discussion from a few weeks ago is not necessary nor productive. (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 22:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having shared infoboxes reduces the creation of multiple infoboxes everytime there is an event, the template already uses features that are available in the Template:Infobox military conflict. The template is extended confirmed protected and so is the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine where it si used which already helps protect from disruptive edits and other matters. Another article which is related to the ongoing war, bring War in Donbas utilizes the Template:Infobox military conflict and other ongoing military conflicts. In short the Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox shloud be deleted and Template:Infobox military conflict be used instead. I had previously listed it as merger but deletions is more suitable. I have also nominated Template:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) infobox as it has similar case as this infobox. DownTownRich (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close See above discussion. It would just bloat up the main article. Felicia(talk) 21:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Using the same template also helps bot users to easily migrate infobox data to Wikidata which is further utilized in other language wikis. Which helps with the expansion of this article into other languages and having updated info crosswiki. - DownTownRich (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A template that is designed to be used once is not a template, it's a subpage. And we don't do subpages in the mainspace. It makes it harder for ordinary people to edit. If the article is too big or too long, it should be split. That's how we handle a large article. We don't arbitrarily make chunks of it into single-use templates. --Bsherr (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have already been here just last month and just today with the merger nomination. We can have the debate later depending on when this conflict ends. Now, just let it be. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close We have just had this discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete If there is disruption/vandalism happening to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, that should be addressed using page protection, not by hiding parts of it away in templates. Letcord (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both have extended protection. This is not about "hiding parts of it away in templates", refer to the previous March discussion linked below. Phiarc (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we already had this discussion. This is about page length and reducing clutter, why get rid of something that makes the job of editing the page easier? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close Why exactly are we having this discussion for the third(!) time now without the situation having changed significantly after the first nomination for deletion? Phiarc (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I reopened it because the reasons raised on the previous discussion are no longer valid (Heavy editing on the main article and large memory caused by the template). From anyone making an input on this template please provide reasoning why you think it should be kept or deleted instead of using we have already discussed this (rather raise those reasons here and why they are still valid). - DownTownRich (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia:Template namespace, The Template namespace on Wikipedia is used to store templates, which contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages. Hence, Anything that is not Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages should not be in the template namespace. * Pppery *it has begun... 22:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTIAR - "'Ignore all rules' does not mean there is necessarily an exception to every rule." Anything which is not 'Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages' is not in the spirit of the Template namespace, and no amount of ignoring the rules will change that. casualdejekyll 18:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll: Just out of curiosity, what is this "spirit of the Template namespace"? Nobody here is suggesting that single use templates in general shouldn't be deleted, there should be defined exceptions to the rule is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Templates are fundamentally for multiple pages. casualdejekyll 14:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep – It is barely even possible to edit the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine page due to all the clutter. The reasons put forward for the nomination are the exact same reasons we should close it.
I see this as a perfect example of WP:IAR. All "Delete" arguments presented in this thread revolve solely around technical principles that weren't meant to solve issues such as this. Strong keep. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if this is really such a pressing issue then why isn't the focus on condensing the main article to make it happen? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This situation is exactly what the prohibition on single-use templates was meant for. * Pppery *it has begun... 23:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an argument other than "because the rules say so"? In my humble opinion, ONLY very large articles (lets say 200,000+ or 250,000 bytes) should be using single-use templates until they are brought down below x size. This makes reading the articles easier and is an extra incentive to have editors split down articles so editing is easier. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does splitting the wikitext off to a template "make reading the articles easier"? The HTML for the article contains the full code for the infobox regardless. If you're having trouble editing the lead section of the article, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and tick "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page", so that you can edit the lead in isolation. Letcord (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion does not actually work because infoboxes are part of the lead. Now, to be fair, the situation in this regard has improved somewhat since the lead in the invasion article used to be much more Wikicode (around 40K in the heyday iirc) and the infobox wikicode also used to be a lot larger (around 30K). So using the separate lead edit link might be somewhat okay to work with nowadays; I haven't tried. It was very annoying before the template was created. Phiarc (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Err, my solution means you don't have to load the whole article to edit the lede. Lede + infobox ≪ Lede + rest of article - infobox. Letcord (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose and Close – Per my arguments in the last deletion discussion. The use of this template makes the main article easier to edit. It's pretty difficult to edit as it is right now, and merging the infobox back in would make the lives of our editors much more miserable. I can't think of a single good reason to do this. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – As others have pointed out, the proposed action has already been discussed and decided upon recently. Quoting WikiCleanerMan: "We can have the debate later depending on when this conflict ends. Now, just let it be." Teemu Leisti (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and snow close Per my comment in the other discussion above, and what so many others have explained. There's no good reason at all to delete this other than to religiously follow the rules. This entire (third!) discussion is ridiculous. Ironmatic1 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close Per above reasons. Vitaium (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep and speedy close This article is bloated, hard to edit due to clutter, and slow to load due to page size. Why we should have discussion about this? Also, the infobox would draw discussions away from the main page. I'm also opposing further debates regarding this template after the war ends because it would end up being the same thing. MarioJump83! 01:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think mass pinging is necessary as there is a notice above the infobox in this highly visible page. MarioJump83! 01:46, 12 April 2022 (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).