Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 2



Template:Footnote group

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 with possible WP:REFUND if the code is useful for future projects. No one has refuted that it doesn't work or advocated for keeping it. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC) From User talk:DannyS712:
 * Footnote group
 * Footnote group
 * Footnote

There is no point in polluting the template namespace with failed experiments, so this template, and the two modules it depends on, should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This should probably be added to the list: 50.53.22.81 (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Footnote modules
 * It doesn't need to be added, it will get deleted as C1 when its contents get deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, a reworked idea may work if the wiki uses references consistently. (Some changes must be done!) That would although imply that pure ref-tags are never used. If references are packaged into larger constructs like this, then it will block reuse of references in VisualEditor. So in sum I believe this will create too many problems. (It can although be reimplemented as Javascript. I've tried several variants, but they don't create a clean mental model, and they are confusing when used together with the reference popups.) Jeblad (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleting this failed test will not hinder any future proposal to reimplement the same thing using JavaScript. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The author of this template appears to be engaging in multi-project canvassing; see mw:Topic:Vth705gffmdfqtxm. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」☎ Dinoguy1000 19:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's canvassing, since there's no reason that watchers of mw:Extension:Cite would be especially likely to support keeping (or deleting) this template, and the wording is neutral. I agree it's odd, though, especially since this nomination was intended as not-at-all-controversial housekeeping. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:16, 6 September 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:Nassau Broadcasting Partners Radio Stations

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. A larger discussion about this issue may be necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC) No longer a defining characteristic of articles, as company went bankrupt and was sold piecemeal at auction in 2012. Still transcluded on a number of pages, surprisingly, though it probably shouldn't be there. Raymie (t • c) 09:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nassau Broadcasting Partners Radio Stations


 * Understand what you are trying to do. Does this mean that transient-type templates on (say) holding companies should never be instigated. Seems to me that this is part of history. But, yeah, the reader should be warned/notified/be able to tell that the list was no longer current. Ping me, if you answer. Student7


 * in fact, I have a bunch of deliberately historical templates. Like . (Making this one up), how about . Is it less obsolete than Nassau? Student7


 * Keep. This template, like the articles, are normal business history, not unlike political history, or any other type of history in Wikipedia. Student7
 * The problem is that we just typically don't have templates like this for extinct radio groups; even when we do, they are no longer transcluded in station articles (e.g. CBS Radio). Raymie (t • c) 09:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * So every station in CBS Radio is currently owned by CBS? Avoiding ancient stations from (say) the 1930s? Is there some sort of policy/standard that applies here? Even generally?
 * A problem here is that it is hard, or maybe impossible do construct any current template subject to change. They’d ALL have to be like my fake ‘Holy Roman Empire’ above, to avoid massive changes or ultimate deletion. Student7 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * How narrow is this definition? Does it only affect the media? Does it affect places? E.g. Egypt was one part of the Ottoman Empire; for a time, part of the United Arab Republic. It wouldn’t affect EVENTs, I’m thinking. Would it affect people? George Washington was a British colonial officer; then he became an American officer.


 * I suppose it could affect all organizations, public or private. How about ( don’t want to get hung up on this) politics. The Girl Scouts are politically correct today. But they might not be tomorrow. “Honored Confederate Officers” is now an oxymoron! Student7 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: That's a lot of stations. Bankrupt or not, come on.  It's helpful. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 15:50 on August 23, 2020 (UTC) •  #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Former ownership is not a defining characteristic. That doesn't mean it's not relevant. But, concerning when navigation boxes would be appropriate, the conclusion we draw is that readers are not likely to navigate between constituents of this navigation box without visiting the main page for the topic. --Bsherr (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: We generally don't have navboxes for defunct broadcast groups — the general consensus has been that once a station has been divested, that former ownership is no longer a "defining characteristic" for that station. (There are undoubtedly circumstances where former/historical statuses can be a "defining characteristic", but station ownership hasn't usually been considered one of them.) While there may well be some value in compiling a list of Nassau's former stations, the already-extant list on the main Nassau Broadcasting Partners page suffices. Just as not everything needs a navbox, not everything needs to be a navbox. -- WC  Quidditch  ☎   ✎  18:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:36, 2 September 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:Toenail

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) &rarr; Timbaaa talk 12:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Useless, miscellaneous template, history of image file shows it has never really been awarded to many editors. Jerm (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Toenail
 * Delete. That's a clever way of gauging substitutions. Substitute existing uses first, of course. --Bsherr (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 3 September 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).