Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 April 22#Template:S-line/IT-Eurostar right/Italo

: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 Keep It's snowing, no need to keep this open longer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Unsolved}}

Hello! I'm nominating this template for deletion based on the following points:

1. WP:NOTFAQ: This template doesn't present verified facts but rather poses open-ended questions that encourage speculation rather than presenting established knowledge. Its form doesn't align with the concept of encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a place for forum-styled questions; information should be formatted as neutral prose within the appropriate articles.
2. WP:UNDUE: This template visually highlights the speculative nuances of the unsolved problems, thereby giving it undue weight. Regarding its position, the template is placed before the text of the article/section, which gives it disproportionate visibility compared to the rest of the content and draws attention to unanswered questions. Furthermore, the template presents questions without adequate context and lacks further explanation, and that was the reason why some users noted that it encourages original research (WP:OR).

For these reasons, I believe that this is a redundant template (WP:TMPG). Its intended function can be better achieved in other, more encyclopedic ways. – Aca (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nom. Unencyclopedic. Garion96 10:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Unsolved problems associated with an article's subject can form a major part of its notability. For instance, if someone had established the infinitude of twin primes two centuries ago, then no one would be talking about them today, and the article would just be filled with arguably non-notable information about their precise distribution. Ditto with the infinitude of even perfect numbers, and the nonexistence of odd perfect numbers. To dismiss these problems as "speculative nuances" would be to throw out all the notable work that has gone into them. Perhaps some instances of this template may be WP:UNDUE, but that should be decided on an case-by-case basis. As for WP:NOTFAQ (as well as MOS:QUESTION brought up in an earlier AfD), the whole point is that, unlike the rhetorical questions of a FAQ, these problems have no answer, only notable attempts toward one. LegionMammal978 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Keep Unsolved problems are routinely discussed in scientific papers. Any specific use of the template can be challenged if unsourced, per WP:Verify. Any specific use which does not summarize sources can be challenged. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The rationale is false: when properly used, this template does present verified facts: the fact that certain problems have been noted by reliable sources as unsolved and worth solving. This is completely encyclopedic content and often completely due for the articles it appears in. We have hundreds of articles in :Category:Conjectures, most of them are primarily about unsolved problems, and the template is helpful in many of these articles as providing a nutshell summary of what is unsolved (much like the function of infoboxes in other articles). There have already been seven past discussions of this, none of which produced a consensus to delete; what is new this time?

:Incidentally, the nomination of this template completely broke the formatting of many of the articles that use it. I have put the nomination notice inside noinclude tags, to fix this, but as a result the discussion may become much less visible. I posted a neutral message to WT:WPM to make up for the loss in visibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Technical reply: Noinclude tags are generally used when discussing templates designed to be substituted. Since this template is directly transcluded, I didn't put those tags (i.e., Twinkle didn't). Thank you for posting the notice. – Aca (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, your decision to not putting in the noinclude tags caused broken formatting in hundreds of articles, where (for instance) the template was used at the top of an article after the lead image, and normally floated down, but instead put an intrusive horizontal banner between the lead image and the text of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per above, but change template usage. Although the argument presented in the nomination could hold weight (I'm not going to take a side yet because I haven't thought about it enough), it is most certainly not solved best by deleting the template altogether. If the nominator takes issue with the {{tq|open-ended}} nature of the template's phrasing, perhaps a discussion should be started to change the style of the template to present the {{tq|established knowledge}} that the problem is unsolved rather than potentially reading as posing a question to readers. {{pb}} As for the concern about undue weight, this is patently false. It's not recentism either, because the work done into these problems will remain notable even after they are solved. Things don't become unencyclopedic over time: if it deserves to be in an encyclopedia at one point and then fades into irrelevance, it still should be in the encyclopedia for purposes of historical documentation (and ideally the encyclopedia wouldn't have to change its coverage because it would already be addressing the thing in a historical manner). {{pb}} For that final point, I agree with the nominator that these templates are addressing the unsolved nature of these problems with some recency bias. But as stated above, this doesn't warrant the deletion of the template, just rewording. Gracen (they/them) 17:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@Gracen: I actually support the idea of rewording the template and changing its style. That seems like a more feasible alternative. I guess we can discuss that on the talk page, and this nomination can be closed as WP:SNOWBALL if everyone agrees (@Garion96, @LegionMammal978, @Johnjbarton, @David Eppstein). – Aca (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't see any need for rewording or for changing the style. If the template is used inappropriately in some articles, fix those articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Well, I would suggest:
• :::# Making the border 1px in width to align with the sidebars and infoboxes.
• :::# Converting questions into phrases: "Are there infinitely many amicable numbers?" -> "The existence of infinitely many amicable numbers".
• :::# Removing italics as there is no need to emphasize.
• :::This could be a significant improvement, and the changes are quite minimal. – Aca (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I don't care about border width, but I think the phrasing as a question is better for reader understanding. The issue of italics is unimportant but likely problematic in the many mathematics articles that use this where some mathematics formulas may have been formatted with bare wikiformatting rather than math tags, the use of italics in formulas is semantically meaningful, and flipping italic vs roman is likely to break that formatting. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination does not reflect even slightly actual usage of this template (any more than this past TfD did). --JBL (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Whether a question is unsolved is verifiable. The Riemann hypothesis is unsolved. The P=NP question is unsolved. This proposal fails under its own stated criteria. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• : This is a little off-topic but the usage in mathematics is a bit counterintuitive in some ways. For example the Goldbach conjecture is "unsolved" in the sense that there's no known proof, but the answer is not really in doubt. On the other hand there are people who would call the continuum hypothesis a "solved" question because it's known to be independent of ZFC, but for that one the answer genuinely is in doubt. But none of this is really relevant to whether the template should exist. --Trovatore (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. There are borderline cases, but that's true for most things on Wikipedia; whether a question is unsolved can be settled by the normal sourcing methodology. We could maybe add a note to the documentation (if not already there) saying that the body should contain a sourced assertion that the problem is unsolved, or at least that the template can be removed if this is not present. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this is not a reasonable way to connect the Manual of Style with the template, to which it is used to keep short the unresolved questions quoted from the body of an article. To me, FAQ is meant for the questions asked frequently by the readers or people who read the topic, whereas UNDUE is meant for the one-sided point of view. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The articles on which this template appears usually point at important questions, often very simple-sounding questions, that have remained open for centuries, despite considerable efforts made to resolve them. Nothing undue about that. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Well, the Riemann hypothesis is only a speculation at this point. While not every speculation is encyclopedia worth, some certainly are. Maybe there can be a discussion on how to use the template but the template itself is certainly reasonable. -- Taku (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2025 (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 04:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|NYO&W style}}

Unused, replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/New York, Ontario and Western Railway Cards84664 02:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as original creator – Kind of no point now. Mitch32^{(it's you I like.)} 01:16, 29 April 2025 (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 04:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|East Midlands Trains colour}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-Treno regionale color}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-Intercity color}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-ICN color}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-Eurostar color}}
• {{Tfd links|EuroNight color}}
• {{Tfd links|EuroCity color}}
• {{Tfd links|SuperCity Pendolino color}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-Treno regionale stations}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-Treno regionale lines}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-Intercity stations}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-Intercity lines}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-ICN stations}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-ICN lines}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-Eurostar stations}}
• {{Tfd links|IT-Eurostar lines}}
• {{Tfd links|EuroNight stations}}
• {{Tfd links|EuroNight lines}}
• {{Tfd links|EuroCity stations}}
• {{Tfd links|EuroCity lines}}
• {{Tfd links|EuroCity style}}
• {{Tfd links|SuperCity Pendolino stations}}
• {{Tfd links|SuperCity Pendolino lines}}
• {{Tfd links|Arriva style}}
• {{Tfd links|Railjet stations}}
• {{Tfd links|Railjet lines}}
• {{Tfd links|Railjet style}}
• {{Tfd links|Railjet color}}

Unused Cards84664 01:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Delete. Good job! Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Delete. JackPotte (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2025 (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 04:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|S-line/Railjet right/}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/Railjet left/}}

Unused, replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/České dráhy Cards84664 01:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2025 (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 04:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|S-line/IT-Treno regionale right/}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/IT-Intercity right/}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/IT-Intercity left/}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/IT-ICN right/}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/IT-Eurostar right/Italo}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/IT-Eurostar right/}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/IT-Eurostar left/Italo}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/IT-ICN left/}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/IT-Eurostar left/}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/EuroNight right/}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/EuroNight left/}}
• {{Tfd links|S-line/IT-Treno regionale left/}}

Unused, replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Trenitalia Cards84664 01:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2025 (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. Izno (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|RCD Espanyol seasons}}

No transclusions of this navbox. Redundant to {{tl|RCD Espanyol}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Redundant navigation to the existing navbox. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - it's standard to have a separate seasons navbox, with seasons not being included in the main navbox, see e.g. {{tl|Arsenal F.C. seasons}} and {{tl|Arsenal F.C.}}. GiantSnowman 18:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• : The Arsenal templates are reasonable, since there are so many blue-linked seasons. If the RCD Espanyol template ever gets large enough to be unwieldy, it can be split. For now, the seasons template is entirely redundant, which is a valid deletion reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (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 04:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Oscar nominees 2025}}

Unused. Seems this could get very unwieldy if intended to include all of this year's nominees. No other such template exists. I would think 97th Academy Awards better serves the purpose of what this may be attempting to do. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Strong keep. i can go back to fully filling in the contents, and then posting at the pages for each of the films nominated. but consider for a moment. e.g., in the categories for documentaries, many of the documentaries nominated remain obscure for the average person. how useful would it be, from an encyclopedic point of view, to provide a convenient navbox pointing to each of the films nominated? and thereby open a pathway for interested users to explore: 1) the details of the film itself 2) topics relating to dcumentaries 3) topics relating to the specific subject matter of each documentary.

:and then similarly, to open a pathway for interested users on topics in all of the other categories, i.e such as the commerical and independent films as well, such as eg animations etc etc. Sm8900 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:: So is the goal to list every nominee for every category in one navbox? And we'll have one for every year, and then will we have other navboxes for British Academy Awards, the Golden Globes, Screen Actor Guild Awards, Satellite Awards, etc.? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Actual winners are a better fit for navbox like this. Nominees are just nominees and this is overkill when articles do a better job of listing the information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• delete, over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete not actual winners. Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 25 April 2025 (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.