Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 25



Template:The Nadas

 * 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) 01:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Navigation template for band The Nadas. The listed albums are not individually notable and redirect to the band article, meaning the template no longer serves a purpose. Lennart97 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Nadas
 * delete, navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2021 (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:R from historic name

 * 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:R from former name. Izno (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Propose merging Template:R from historic name with Template:R from former name.
 * R from historic name
 * R from former name

The categories for former names and historic names were merged a few months ago. The previous TfD outcome indicated that if the categories were merged, there would be no prejudice against merging the templates as well; it's the logical follow-on step. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per the reasoning I gave last time; the distinction between "historic" and "former" is arbitrary at best and superfluous at worst. It's best to just tag relevant "historic" names as printworthy. No amount of documentation or distinguished use is really going to solve these problems. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 16:28, 28 March 2021 (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:Earthquakes in 1812

 * 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 as suggested. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC) There are way too many of these navboxes, with many having too few entries to warrant a navbox. I recommend condensing into navboxes by decade and century. Only going up to 1959 because after that we cover enough earthquakes for a navbox system to be useful, although some lists in this era are missing. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 00:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Earthquakes in 1812
 * Earthquakes in 1855
 * Earthquakes in 1868
 * Earthquakes in 1894
 * Earthquakes in 1901
 * Earthquakes in 1902
 * Earthquakes in 1904
 * Earthquakes in 1905
 * Earthquakes in 1906
 * Earthquakes in 1907
 * Earthquakes in 1909
 * Earthquakes in 1911
 * Earthquakes in 1914
 * Earthquakes in 1915
 * Earthquakes in 1917
 * Earthquakes in 1918
 * Earthquakes in 1920
 * Earthquakes in 1921
 * Earthquakes in 1925
 * Earthquakes in 1927
 * Earthquakes in 1929
 * Earthquakes in 1930
 * Earthquakes in 1931
 * Earthquakes in 1932
 * Earthquakes in 1933
 * Earthquakes in 1934
 * Earthquakes in 1935
 * Earthquakes in 1940
 * Earthquakes in 1941
 * Earthquakes in 1942
 * Earthquakes in 1943
 * Earthquakes in 1944
 * Earthquakes in 1946
 * Earthquakes in 1948
 * Earthquakes in 1949
 * Earthquakes in 1952
 * Earthquakes in 1953
 * Earthquakes in 1956
 * Earthquakes in 1957
 * Earthquakes in 1959
 * You forgot to tag the templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I noticed that 1946 in particular links 9 different articles, what is your threshold of "too few entries"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete them all I don't see how these are related apart from the defining characteristic of being earthquakes. Surely our category structure can hold this information instead. I just don't see any navigational value provided by these navboxes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NENAN (an essay) says that "A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the "rule of five"" but that's just a single view of course, other's have different ideas - but that's the purpose of this discussion. These are navboxes (WP:NAVBOX)" so the question is whether these navboxes aid navigation or whether a different structure would be better (per nom) or even (per Tom) whether they don't aid navigation sufficiently to be worth keeping at all - after all Earthquakes by year also exists. Also seems to me that someone in say 2020 Elazığ earthquake is likely to be more interested in Earthquakes in Turkey rather than in earthquakes that happened in the same calendar year thousands of miles away. Worth noting that eg Earthquakes in 2020 is already split by month so combining these into decades would fit in with that style eg Earthquakes in the 1950s split by year. Nigej (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We should merge Earthquakes by year with Earthquakes by year templates then...
 * My idea would be to link things like this:
 * (Earthquakes by year template header) ← Earthquakes in 1932 →
 * We can easily combine the list of earthquakes with the template for earthquake articles this way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the quantity and the fact these are all used, I am relisting and will be adding the appropriate tags shortly. , please take better care of that in the future.
 * Merge Earthquakes by year with Earthquakes by year templates per my suggestion above as these templates are redundant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Linking templates in templates is bad, though linking to the next list down the row is reasonable. A separate set of decades navboxes is much preferable. The years template for templates probably just doesn't need to exist; Category:Earthquakes_in_year_templates is sufficient. --Izno (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * merge to, , , , ... preserving years as redirects for simplicity. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * After reflection, merge per Frietjes. Not totally sold on preserving redirects, but I'm not going to stress about it. --Izno (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2021 (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:Str gtr str

 * 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 <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 15:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Unused, very limited in functionality compared to what a Lua version would do. User:GKFXtalk 15:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Str gtr str


 * Delete. That implementation is terrifying, as is all string manipulation in wikitext. Izno (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2021 (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:Triple soft redirect
<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. Izno (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC) This template has no actual usage, other than in Template:Triple soft redirect/test. JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Triple soft redirect
 * Keep - New. Will eventually find use, mayhaps only in the userspace or projectspace. It might be reasonable to consider merging this with double soft redirect, as that would likely be easy, cause few issues, and even be a net positive. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 18:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not used anywhere meaningful, nor is it "new" (it has existed since 2019). There is no reason to believe that this template will ever accrue meaningful use, given that it hasn't in the the year and four months it has existed. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Any objection to merging it with double soft redirect? Double soft redirect finds uses on pages like . Adding a 3rd parameter which adds the option of a third item in the list might come in handy and does no harm. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 01:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection to a merge, just don't generally see the point of merging functionality from unused templates. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I stumbled upon it this past December, which is why I misconceived it as a "new" template. I could probably dig around and find a couple places in the userspace or projectspace to use it. I suppose I find the novelty of it appealing at the end of the day; been itching to organically find a spot to use this. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 01:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not merge this and double soft redirect into soft redirect? Duplicating templates rather than putting all necessary functionality in one makes it harder to navigate the codebase. User:GKFXtalk 15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Very bad idea; see my comment at Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 17. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 15:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Struggling to see the point of a merge, since it's unused - and it presumably would need a rename to Multiple soft redirect or something similar. Nigej (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * delete, if needed we can create per above. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2021 (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:Video games by country
<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 keep after removing the redundancy Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 15:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Duplicated by content in History of video games (note: I foolishly added this template to about twenty pages before realizing this). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Video games by country

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Argubly I think the country block in the history of VG template should be removed. Not all the respective country articles have history sections (yet), so the history template is not the best place to catalog them, but the country template is appropriate to link them. Possibly, there is a nested navbox aspect here that should be done to potentially link the country one into the history one --M asem (t) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be good with any of those options. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Masem. --Izno (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 15:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have just modified the History of video games as to do the split that I proposed, so that the original template is transcluded into this, thus avoiding the duplication issue. --M asem (t) 19:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * keep, the duplication has been eliminated. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2021 (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).