May 10

Template:Keiser Seahawks football coach navbox

• Template:Keiser Seahawks football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three total blue links that lead to individual standalone articles and two total transclusions does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keiser Seahawks football navbox

• Template:Keiser Seahawks football navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two total blue links that lead to individual standalone articles and two total transclusions does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Madonna Crusaders football coach navbox

• Template:Madonna Crusaders football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one blue link that goes to a standalone article, not enough to warrant existence of this navbox. It is only transcluded on one mainspace article, which does not meet WP:TG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deleted template

• Template:Deleted template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Underutilized template that is redundant to several other templates and methods. If we need to ensure old revisions are correctly visible, we should use Internet Archive or some other archiving utility and should not rely on the MediaWiki software. Pointless templates are probably going to be depopulated and deleted anyway and having something like this is unhelpful. Awesome Aasim 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator makes assertions without support and make illogical arguments.

"Underutilized template that is redundant to several other templates and methods."

Yes, it's underutilized. You can help fix that by utilizing it. Deleting it would make it non-utilized and non-utilizable.

What other templates and methods? Don't be vague list them all!

"we should use Internet Archive"

OK, go and sort that out, then come back and ask to delete the on-wiki method. Don't break something on the off chance that someone might, perhaps, one day, make something maybe as good or maybe better.

"...probably going to be deleted anyway..."

This statement - what even is it? It's like going out and breaking windows because "they are probably going to be broken anyway." Even if it's true, let them stay unbroken for as long as possible.^[1]

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is this template is underutilized. Why should we be too worried about old revisions? This template has existed since 2011 (almost 13 years to demonstrate that this template has use) and only has 32 active transclusions. This is probably indicative that there is not much prospect for this template. Deprecated templates are already tagged with ((deprecated)). I would not mind redirecting to that. Awesome Aasim 21:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Awesome Aasim, redundant to several other templates and methods What are those? If you are going to claim redundancy, you should be able to point to the specific other templates and methods. Izno (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for all the reasons why we're keeping an article history and not just relying on Internet Archive for everything. 32 transclusions is more than enough to justify keeping it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Chaotic Enby Only 3 of which are on templates. Always consider context to numbers like "it's like 30 times" or "it's transcluded 5". Izno (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point indeed, I missed that part. I assumed that the message was counting transclusions in template space only, but the context helps, I'll be retracting my vote. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What Links Here is actually missing a few transclusions for some reason (probably because those transclusions are wrapped in <includeonly>). ((Expand)) also uses ((Deleted template)) but doesn't show up. Who knows how many other transclusions are missing? Nickps (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This wikitext search indicates that there are 5 pages in the Template namespace which call this template. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I fixed the link because it was broken. I hope you don't mind. I also notified WT:RFD of this discussion due to the RfD template your query found. Nickps (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Transclusion count doesn't take old revisions into account, and those old revisions are precisely the purpose of this template. jlwoodwa (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am simply correcting the completely misleading statement about how often this template is meaningfully used. You'll note no comment in this discussion from me that actually gives an opinion on whether this template should actually exist. Izno (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note a full list of templates containing this template (currently 6) is found at this search. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it doesn't matter in this case, the regex used above is incomplete. This one is probably incomplete too but it shows some of the ways the original could have failed. Nickps (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I was right. The regex above is incomplete. Here's another attempt that's probably wrong too. We really shouldn't be using regex for this. Nickps (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My above comments are pointless. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#What Links Here misses links/transclusions wrapped in includeonly for the reasons regex is a bad idea. Nickps (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2024 Upper Midwest Athletic Conference football standings

Template:Immigration sidebar

• Template:Immigration sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template with no meaningful content, yet may not be suitable for CSD. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 05:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn Appears to have broken this in Special:diff/1212752126, where they replaced all the sidebar parameters with "list" parameters for some reason? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been moved/merged to the navigational box ((Immigration)), and after that the sidebar template is deprecated. There's certainly a possibility of rescue. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 10:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has nothing to do with a merge or depreciation, the templates have always worked like this. ((immigration)) can display either a navbox or a sidebar, depending upon which parameters you pass to it. ((Immigration sidebar)) just calls the sidebar version of ((immigration)). The sidebar code for ((immigration)) was broken about a month ago for some reason. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. All I did was revert the last edit, which had locked the navbox from opening. Please watch out that when deleting the sidebar that the ((Immigration)) navbox isn't deleted (it is linked to the sidebar for some reason). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn It looks like people have been going back and forth breaking the infobox to fix the side bar and vice versa. You broke the sidebar but fixed the navbox, jarble broke the navbox to fix the sidebar, 2603:8001:... broke the sidebar to fix the navbox etc. I've edited the template so hopefully both versions will work, and added a bit of documentation to warn people to check both versions of the template. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing them as far as possible. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the sidebar and the footer, 86.23.109.101 has done a fix which shows the content as still existing (see above notes). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Approx

• Template:Approx (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to its doc page, this template exists because the HTML entity ≈ (&approx;) didn't work on WP at some point. Since it works now there's no reason to keep it around anymore. At some point the template also got an abbreviation tooltip if an optional parameter is provided as in ‹See Tfd› ≈. This functionality is very rarely used [1] and is redundant when ((approx.)) exists. The uses of the template that don't use the abbreviation parameter can all be either subst:ed or replaced with the HTML entity without consequence. Nickps (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kinddddddddddd of inclined to make this a subst-only template, without the inclusion of the ((abbr)) thing going on. The only pause given is the similarly named ((approx.)) as identified by the nom. But yes, generally tend toward the "we don't generally need a 'living' template" end of the spectrum. Izno (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]