Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 28



Template:Disenchantment

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Clearly fails WP:NENAN, it includes two links: the parent article and a singular episode article. -- / Alex /21  23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Disenchantment
 * Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 01:01, 3 December 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:Infobox T&W Metro station

 * 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:Infobox station. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Propose merging the above into Template:Infobox station.
 * Infobox T&W Metro station
 * Infobox Manchester Metrolink station
 * Infobox station

Proposing merging these two low-usage UK railway station templates into Infobox station, which follows the July discussion that merged the main GB railway templates.

Sample converts of these templates can be seen in my sandbox, User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox2. I think these look much 'prettier'; Heworth_Interchange is a bit of a mess and the templates horribly out of date.

Data is carried over with two exceptions: "Distance from datum" on the T&W template, which is pretty much trivia especially for an infobox, and "[number of] Escalators", same reason. As for styling changes, consensus from the GB station merge & post-merge discussions should apply, for example the A-Z "List to stations" will be removed. To accommodate for colours on the Manchester set, a Module:Adjacent stations system will be created (already done for T&W at Module:Adjacent stations/Tyne and Wear Metro). For remaining points, see sandbox mockup. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: There is no need to have separate infobox templates for two small systems. I agree with the removal of the two trivia parameters. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, these two templates have no significant differences in functionality.  Cards   84664   02:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Don't see any good reason to have the infoboxes be seperate, and the proposed converts seem OK. Jumpytoo Talk 09:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Long overdue. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: agreed with the above points MJ (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  ETI 15TrSF  ( Chat  Box ) 05:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. WT79 (speak to me &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia/WT79 editing patterns] &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/globalcontribs/WT79 what I been doing]) 18:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge Seems like a good idea. Oaktree b (talk) 03:48, 5 December 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:Balance of Power tracks

 * 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. Valid concerns, no opposition, plenty of precedent in the past for deletion of this type of template. Based on low participation though, this can be considered a soft deletion. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Track listing templates are typically reserved for albums that have articles on the majority, if not all, of its songs. Only a few songs from each album have articles and navigation to them is already provided by the Electric Light Orchestra singles template. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 20:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Balance of Power tracks
 * Out of the Blue tracks
 * Comment Shouldn't other Electric Light Orchestra album track list templates also be nominated then? Most of them have the same issue as Template:Balance of Power tracks and Template:Out of the Blue tracks. Maxorca (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Most likely. I came across these during my review of the daily updates at User:AlexNewArtBot/AlbumSearchResult. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:44, 3 December 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:Most-produced aircraft

 * 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. (non-admin closure) --TheImaCow (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Nominated for discussion and possible deletion here following an initial discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Essentially this falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the concerns brought up in the essay Avoid template creep, plus it duplicates the article we already have: List of most-produced aircraft. Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Most-produced aircraft


 * Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is useful as a list, but not as a template. The nominator explains well why this is. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. BilCat (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly of no encyclopedic use as a navigation tool, just a bunch of indiscriminate links. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. TSRL (talk) 20:51, 29 November 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:Off wiki Covid 19

 * 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 2020 December 7. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Off_wiki_Covid_19
 * 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:Old move

 * 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:Old moves. There was some valid opposition to this merger which seems to have been reconsidered, leaving a fairly straight consensus to merge to the "multi" version of this template family. Regardless of whether the merge involves a switch to Lua (like the multi XfD template) or some other method, it should still be backwards-compatible (at least from the outset) with all extant uses. If this provides too challenging and/or a different solution is needed (per some of the now-removed opposition comments), this discussion can be relisted for more input from the community. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Old move with Template:Old moves.
 * Old move
 * Old moves

Redundant template. The whole setup of Old moves should be replaced with Lua similar to Old XfD multi or Copied. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 12:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment that needs rebuilding of old moves to support formulaic parameterization of multiple inputs, instead of it currently being used to wrap a user generated list (which should also be supported). old move is also missing a parameter to a permalink of the discussion. -- 65.92.246.246 (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The distinction seems to be plural old move requests versus just a singular old move request, but we should try to handle that at just one template. Longer-term, we should move toward automating this sort of thing (perhaps through Twinkle, etc.) so that old moves automatically get listed. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Sdkb.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:54, 4 December 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:Infobox US Supreme Court case

 * 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 redirect and change the target name to Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case, as suggested in the discussion, as it is a clearer name for non-USA editors. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Seems to be an unused fork of Template:Infobox court case modified slightly for SCOTUS cases. I presume creator wasn't aware at the time that Template:Infobox SCOTUS case exists.Proposing to redirect both to Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Infobox US Supreme Court case
 * Infobox US Supreme Court cases


 * Delete, and rename the original template to "Infobox US Supreme Court case". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 28 November 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:Friendly tournaments 2021

 * 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 2020 December 6. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Friendly_tournaments_2021
 * 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:HBO
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 2020 December 5. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * HBO
 * 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).

Country templates part 1
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC) 43 deprecated NSW Country templates replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/NSW TrainLink and Module:Adjacent stations/State Rail Authority. Fleet Lists (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NSW Country color
 * NSW Country lines color
 * NSW Country lines lines
 * NSW Country lines style
 * New South Wales railway stations with suffix
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Binnaway- Werris Creek
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Boggabilla
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Bombala
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Boorowa
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Brewarrina
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Broken Hill
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Cobar
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Crookwell
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Griffith-Yanco
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Gwabegar
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Hay
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Hay closed
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Inverell
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Lake Cargelligo
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Merriwa
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Molong- Dubbo
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Mungindi
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Mungindi north
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Murwillumbah
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/North
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/North Coast
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Oaklands
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Parkes- Narromine
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Sandy Hollow - Gulgong
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Sandy Hollow – Gulgong
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/South
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Stockinbingal- Parkes
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Taralga
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Temora- Roto
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Temora-Roto
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Troy Junction - Merrygoen
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Troy Junction – Merrygoen
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Tumut
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Unanderra-Moss Vale
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/Warren
 * S-line/NSW Country lines left/West
 * S-line/NSW TrainLink left/Mungindi
 * S-line/NSW TrainLink lines left/Mungindi
 * Delete Per nom Jumpytoo Talk 10:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom - but don't we have a CSD criterion for housekeeping? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 29 November 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).