Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#WAFL link templates

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 September 20. Izno (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{tfd links|Diplomatic_missions_of_Honduras}}

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 14:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Manual of Style|module= |type=merge}}
• {{Tfd links|Style|module= |type=merge}}

Propose merging Template:Manual of Style with Template:Style.

I feel that this page should be merged with Template:Style, because people make edits to one and not the other, thus causing confusion about which pages are actually part of the MoS. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose but will watch the discussion. One is a sidebar navbox and the other is a footer. Two different kinds of creatures and Wikipedia maps. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Is there a way to make them automatically sync? JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The two templates seem to be used more or less on the same pages. I've never noticed the footer - the fact that it's fully collapsed by default doesn't help - but use the sidebar occasionally, presumably because of its prominence. There's no need for two navigation templates for the same MOS, and reducing maintenance burden and confusion by merging would help reallocate editor time to more important tasks. It's possible to sync them up using flexbox or other CSS tricks - but it would be faster and easier just to drop the footer. -- Beland (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• :I do use the bottom navigational template sometimes, as it can be much wider in width than the sidebox at the top which is significantly limited in width, and thus the bottom one is a bit easier to look through for me. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• :They could also draw from a common source of data, similar to how {{t|GATable}} and {{t|Grading scheme}} both use Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC. Though again, that is probably not worth the extra work. ― novov (t c) 05:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose One is a sidebar navbox and the other is a footer.Moxy🍁 15:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose IMO, the sidebar and navbox complement (not duplicate) each other. Miniapolis 00:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – two separate navigational templates for separate usecases (i.e. top and bottom), even though they have the same functionality. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

{{collapse top|A comparison of the sidebox (Template:Style) and footer (Template:Manual of Style) by User:AP 499D25}}

Sidebox:

• Easily accessible since it's at the top of the article
• Works on mobile
• Significantly limited in width, so it may be harder/slower to look through than the footer for some people
• It's much harder to see everything at a glance as you've got to expand dozens of collapsible sections
• Has a search box

Footer:

• A bit harder to find since it's at the very bottom of the article. Desktop users can use the 'end' key to get there in one key press, but mobile users will need to scroll down and expand the very last section of the article to see it
• Works on mobile too, surprisingly (unlike a lot of these other purple footer type templates)
• Not limited in width, i.e. adaptive to the browser window size, so it can be significantly easier to read through than the width-limited sidebox
• Easy to see everything at a glance, as this navigational template is just one giant collapsible box that shows everything at once when you click that 'show' button.
• Has a search box too, albeit at the bottom rather than the top — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

• Delete one of them. I'm more partial to removal of the navbox, since MOS pages rarely have content floating right, but I ultimately have little preference. I don't think it makes sense to have two, certainly. Izno (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• :This is a concerning pov as Template:Wikipedia editor navigation has many administrative nav aids with the same duplicate format. Moxy🍁 07:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The added benefits of each format don't outweigh the redundancy in my opinion. I'd definitely be in favour of keeping the sidebar, not the navbox, as from my experience that is more conveniently positioned. ― novov (t c) 05:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Why not give our editors a choice of their preferred format? Thousands transclude one or the other on user pages. Moxy🍁 07:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, both are fine, separate use cases — Gor1995 𝄞 08:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 a singular template. There is a general consensus that convenience templates help the editor more than it hinders them. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|WAFLW Cla}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFLW EF}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFLW PT}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFLW SF}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFLW Sub}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFLW SD}}

These are link templates only with no special function, which are not sufficiently complex to merit a template. Suggest subst and delete. Izno (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep These, like a lot of similar useful shortcuts, are often used with the subst function, so you can't tell how often they are used. Why are you trying to make things harder for editors? The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Templates which are so simple distract from learning wikitext: bare links are preferable in general so that pages are easy to update. I did not make an argument about how much they are used, but it's true, they aren't used very often. Izno (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• ::As Pope said: if they were subst'd then you can't tell the actual usage. It's not an issue of learning wikitext, it's ease and speed of editing and makes things easier. That's already two editors who edit in the project telling you this. --SuperJew (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• :::Make that three editors (just saw Aspirex replied below) --SuperJew (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:Delete. I've said this before, if links for teams, groups, companies, games, etc., need a template, then why aren't we doing this for every other one that doesn't use a template? While this might seem silly, this is actually a core design philosophy here, either a template should be used for simple links, or plain links and redirects should be used. Looking at 2023 AFL Women's supplementary draft, Template:WAFLW Cla is used there manually, which means that someone took the time and instead of writing a clear link, used the template. This to me is very unhelpful as it makes reading the Wikitext harder. If these templates would have been used in automated way where code takes part of an article titles and from there uses it to find a template, then that would have been a different scenario, which this isn't it. TL/DR: less helpful than plain links with no real added value. Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

::In response to your first comment, there are templates like this for most Australian football teams. Maybe we are just lazy, and you think it's a worthwhile endeavour to punish us lazy people and force us to write out Claremont instead of {{WAFLW Cla}} or {{subst:WAFLW Cla}} everytime. I just don't think you should be able to tell me how I should be editing. Shortcuts are good, especially on mobile. But I wouldn't be surprised if people like you now go and hunt out and try to delete all of the other shortcut templates because of very serious editor reasons. I would very much doubt that many people are reading wikitext without understanding how templates work. The-Pope (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

:::I nominated the two batches I did with the intent to nominate all of them. I stopped because you raised objections about these batches, so we would not have to have the same discussion multiple times over with N batches instead of 2. "There are other ones" is not a defense of this set. Izno (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

::::"There are other ones" is in direct response to Gonnym's "why don't we do it for all" comment. We do do it for all in this topic space. But the "people like you will go and hunt them" was directed at you. Under WP:NPA I removed numerous adjectives from that sentence before posting. The-Pope (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• delete, obfuscates the wikitext with no significant benefit. Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as for WAFL templates, there appears to be no policy against using shortcut templates in the manner in which these templates are being used. The arguments in favour of delete all seem like individuals' editing preferences and 'an alternative exists', and I can't find any policy or guideline which either encourages or precludes this. Therefore I say keep; as pointed out by the Pope, these shortcut templates are a ubiquitous and efficient feature of WP:AFL editing; and their functionality should be so quickly obvious to editors of any experience level that it renders "makes the wikitext harder to read" no more than a minor inconvenience, not a reason for wholesale deletion. Aspirex (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep These templates (and similar ones) are very useful for ease of editing effeciency, and save valuable time. Regarding the issue of making the Wikitext more complex, who exactly is reading the wikitext apart from other editors? And they are either of the project and themselves use the templates in editing and are familiar with it or a one-off look in who it shouldn't really affect at such a level anyway. If it really is such a big issue, the use can be changed to automatic substing via a bot. --SuperJew (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:Keep Similar to reasons that Aspirex, SuperJew, The-Pope have outlined - templates like these save time and adds efficiency and seem pretty useful Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep As others have explained, these shortcuts have utility and value. If there was an explicit policy against their use, then fine, but seemingly there isn't. Storm machine (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the other arguments for keeping the templates, without merging so as not to create a lot more work for ourselves, as the system works. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to a new template like {{tl|AFLW}}, which uses a simple switch statement. There is zero reason to have a dozen templates when one is just as easy to use, and easier to maintain. The merge is trivial, simply replacing a space with a pipe, as shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018_AFL_Women%27s_All-Australian_team&diff=prev&oldid=1245667366 in this edit]. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• :*Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2024_September_13&diff=1245749472&oldid=1245692884 this comment] on the WAFL template discussion, I would support this option as an alternative to keep.
• :Aspirex (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge if kept to a single template for the reasons stated in my comments at {{slink|Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_14|Template:AFLW_WB_and_other_AFLW_link_templates}} – Trappist the monk (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge why have six when one will do the trick? – Teratix ₵ 09:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, make autosubst, neutral on whether to merge or not. Whether or not you think these are useful, the only actual harm they do is clutter up the wikitext on a few pages; keeping, but forcing subst allows them to work as a shortcut without obfuscating the actual wikitext. Quadrantal (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 a singular template. There is a general consensus that convenience templates help the editor more than it hinders them. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|WAFL CC}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL Cla}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL EF}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL EP}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL Fre}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL Frm}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL Imp}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL NF}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL PT}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL Per}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL Rov}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL SF}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL Sub}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL SD}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL Uni}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL Vic}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL VP}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL WCE}}
• {{Tfd links|WAFL WP}}

These are link templates only with no special function, which are not sufficiently complex to merit a template. Suggest subst and delete. Izno (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep These, like a lot of similar useful shortcuts are often used with the subst function, so you can't tell how often they are used. Why are you trying to make things harder for editors? The-Pope (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Templates which are so simple distract from learning wikitext: bare links are preferable in general so that pages are easy to update. I did not make an argument about how much they are used, but it's true, they aren't used very often. Izno (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• ::That said, if it were true they were substed often, Template:WAFL EP wouldn't have 300 links. Izno (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• :::editors use it in different ways. Why do you feel you can demand that other editors edit like you edit? Why are editor assistance shortcuts bad? To make it clear, because I don't know if everyone actually knows what these templates, and many more like them for other leagues, generally do, is they remove the words "Football Club" from being displayed whilst still keeping it in the link, so that prose reads better or tables or lists aren't overwhelmed by repeated Football Club. It's much easier to write {{WAFL SF}} or {{subst:WAFL SF}} than South Fremantle.The-Pope (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

:Delete. (copying my comment from the nomination above this, however, if replying to me, please only reply in one of them) I've said this before, if links for teams, groups, companies, games, etc., need a template, then why aren't we doing this for every other one that doesn't use a template? While this might seem silly, this is actually a core design philosophy here, either a template should be used for simple links, or plain links and redirects should be used. Looking at Perth Football Club, Template:WAFL CC is used there manually, which means that someone took the time and instead of writing a clear link, used the template. This to me is very unhelpful as it makes reading the Wikitext harder. If these templates would have been used in automated way where code takes part of an article titles and from there uses it to find a template, then that would have been a different scenario, which this isn't it. TL/DR: less helpful than plain links with no real added value. Gonnym (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• delete, obfuscates the wikitext with no significant benefit. Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, I don't much care about the outcome of the discussion, but the all the template for deletion warnings make the article 2024 WAFL season almost unreadable, and probably all others before! Please have a look for yourself. How is that improving Wikipedia? Calistemon (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• :@Calistemon I had somewhat meant to use the tiny tag rather than the inline tag and then left it after nominating everything. I have no issue changing that since you've brought it up. Izno (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Question is there a policy against using shortcut templates in the manner in which these templates are being used? So far, the arguments in favour of delete all seem like individuals' editing preferences and 'an alternative exists', and I can't find any policy or guideline which either encourages or precludes this. Certainly I want to keep them if no such policy exists; as pointed out by the Pope, these shortcut templates are a ubiquitous and efficient feature of WP:AFL editing; and their functionality should be so quickly obvious to editors of any experience level that it renders "makes the wikitext harder to read" no more than a minor inconvenience, not a reason for wholesale deletion. Aspirex (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Well, Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• ::I guess that means there isn't. So I advocate for Keep. Aspirex (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep These templates (and similar ones) are very useful for ease of editing effeciency, and save valuable time. Regarding the issue of making the Wikitext more complex, who exactly is reading the wikitext apart from other editors? And they are either of the project and themselves use the templates in editing and are familiar with it or a one-off look in who it shouldn't really affect at such a level anyway. If it really is such a big issue, the use can be changed to automatic substing via a bot. --SuperJew (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:Keep Similar to reasons that Aspirex, SuperJew, The-Pope have outlined - templates like these save time and adds efficiency and seem pretty useful Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep As others have explained, these shortcuts have utility and value. If there was an explicit policy against their use, then fine, but seemingly there isn't. Storm machine (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge if kept. There is no reason to have a dozen of these templates. Merge them to a single template with a switch statement in it. It does not make sense to have a template for a single link, with a single template for each team. If you want to use a template to link to teams in a league and make it easy to change the link when a women's team article is created, something similar to {{tl|Rugby union team}} should work fine. I'll be happy to work on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:*Comment: Merge to a single template, similar to {{tl|AFLW}} (for these, I suggest {{tl|WAFLW}}), which uses a simple switch statement. There is zero reason to have a dozen templates when one is just as easy to use, and easier to maintain. The merge is trivial, simply replacing a space with a pipe, as shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018_AFL_Women%27s_All-Australian_team&diff=prev&oldid=1245667366 in this edit]. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

:*:*Comment I appreciate that you're offering a compromise to the discussion. I would say that I would support such a merge as an outcome of this discussion. Consolidation would bring WP:AFL more into line with other projects' usage of consolidated shorthand templates like Template:Esc and Template:flagIOC – which addresses the original nominator's comment about the simplicity of the individual templates, and the keep-voters' concerns about utility since all it requires is changing a space to a pipe. It doesn't address the 'obfuscates the wikitext' argument (in fact it arguably makes that alleged problem worse), but the prevalence of templates like flagIOC are a clear demonstration of how weak that argument is. I would encourage the WP:AFL keep-voters here to switch to support, and consider that combining these templates opens a few nice opportunities (for example, we could add a mascot=y/n parameter, a year parameter that could make {{AFL|Car|2024}} into a simple shorthand for 2024 Carlton Football Club season).

:*:Aspirex (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the other arguments for keeping the templates, without merging so as not to create a lot more work for ourselves, as the system works. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge if kept to a single template for the reasons stated in my comments at {{slink|Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_14|Template:AFLW_WB_and_other_AFLW_link_templates}} – Trappist the monk (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge why have nineteen when one will do the trick? – Teratix ₵ 09:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Why? Because the obvious name is already taken. {{tl|WAFL}} exists as a navbox. So you either have to move it, then recreate it for this task, then change all the current uses. A lot of work for virtually no benefit. The-Pope (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• ::Not a problem. Rename {{tlx|WAFL}} to {{tlx|West Australian Football League navbox}} with {{tlx|WAFL navbox}} as a redirect. This should be done regardless of the outcome of this discussion because the {{tld|WAFL}} name is cryptic. Per {{slink|WP:Template_namespace|Guidelines}}, {{tld|West Australian Football League navbox}} clearly specifies the template's function. There are [https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=WAFL 46 articles] that transclude {{tld|WAFL}}. All instances of {{tld|WAFL}} can be renamed in a few minutes using AWB. Once renamed, {{tld|WAFL}} becomes free to be a redirect name to {{tlx|West Australian Football League}} though a better name should be chosen so that the name matches the template function; perhaps {{tlx|West Australian Football League club links}}.
• ::—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• :::Honestly this whole thing is a lot of waffle and time wasting for no benefit. All of the editors time would be much better spent focusing on content. --SuperJew (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• :::Your whole theory doesn't vibe with the Wikipedia editing reality either. Let's have a look at leagues, shall we? Both locally and internationally. Australia's major sports: {{tl|AFL}}, {{tl|NRL}}, {{tl|Super Rugby}}, {{tl|A-League Men}}. America's Big 4: {{tl|NBA}}, {{tl|MLB}}, {{tl|NFL}}, {{tl|NHL}}. Europe's soccer Big Five: {{tl|Premier League}}, {{tl|Bundesliga}}, {{tl|Serie A}}, {{tl|Ligue 1}}. Out of 13, only {{tl|La Liga}} is the exception, with 12 out of 13 of the biggest sports leagues the main navbox is named after the name of the league. You really believe that your take is the correct one? (and I'll give you WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), start setting the consensus at the bigger leagues before making a change to a state level league which let's be fair only Aussies care about (and even in Australia only the ones in the West). --SuperJew (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• (copied from above)

:Keep, make autosubst, neutral on whether to merge or not. Whether or not you think these are useful, the only actual harm they do is clutter up the wikitext on a few pages; keeping, but forcing subst allows them to work as a shortcut without obfuscating the actual wikitext. Quadrantal (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

:Keep It's useful during evolving events such as the AFL Draft or AFLW Draft, saves time when updating the pages it as it happens, plus there's already similar shortcuts for AFL teams and also SANFL teams (i.e. { { SANFL NA } } for North Adelaide MGR9883 (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Diplomatic missions of Laos}}

Contains 2 English WP entries, both of which are up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:Now only 1 English entry. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

::Now no English entries. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Incumbent bishop of Lindi}}

No transclusions. Content is a simple wikilink. No documentation, categories, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom, not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Virat Kohli series}}

Not enough coverage for a Sidebar. Half of these articles are irrelevant to the topic. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

: There's also the following template for the same reason,

:* {{Tfd links|Ravichandran Ashwin series}}

: Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Procedural, second template was tagged just nine hours ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Str find word/report|module=Module:}}

Unused and incomplete module according to the comment left ("not fit for mainspace in any form") a year and a half ago. Gonnym (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Str find word/links/doc|module=yes}}

Unused strange documentation. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Infobox film/track|module=Module:}}

Unused tracking module based on the note and this CfD. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 September 20. Izno (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{tfd links|Echuca_V/Line_rail_service}}

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 September 20. Izno (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{tfd links|Ararat_V/Line_rail_service}}
• {{tfd links|Swan_Hill_V/Line_rail_service}}

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 September 20. ✗plicit 13:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{tfd links|HC_VERVA_Litvínov_roster}}

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 03:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Cite braincomms}}

This is a citation template for a single paper and is currently transcluded in only three articles. I don't see a sufficient reason for this to exist, so I propose to subst and delete. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:@SamuelRiv: I noticed that you removed the transclusions of this template after I nominated it. I would recommend reverting yourself and leaving a !vote here instead. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

::Look, the template was being called in a malformed manner anyway, say overloading existing parameters with less precise less preferable ones (namely vauthors), so it would have to be edited no matter what the result here. And whether or not the template should be deleted (I don't care), it should not be used on those article pages as a single source replacement like this (there are very few exceptions for major PD sources from which we have pulled large amounts of content directly). It was drawn to my attention only to check the validity of the source, which I did, and then I validated the citation template, like I do every time I check a source. I am neutral on the TfD, but I'm not neutral on whether any existing template should be misused and malformed in its placement in an article. This is basic maintenance for which I would be doing the exact same thing regardless of the outcome here. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.