Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 21#Template:FLR link

: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. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Seattle Sounders FC seasons}}

Redundant to Template:Seattle Sounders FC, as all season links included. --woodensuperman 15:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Lost in Quebec (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose but propose refactoring to cover all three iterations of the Sounders franchise (beyond just the MLS seasons). SounderBruce 18:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :There's noting to expand as none of the earlier seasons have articles. --woodensuperman 09:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::That is being worked on. The earlier seasons would be notable enough and having an existing template to work off of would be helpful. SounderBruce 08:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::This can be considered once the articles have been created. WP:WTAF. --woodensuperman 14:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete redundant navbox. Vestrian24Bio 10:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 10:52, 16 March 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 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• :That's all very well, but that doesn't address the redundancy present here. It can easily be (and in fact already is) handled with a single navbox. --woodensuperman 09:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :It is a bit of an unfair comparison, with the Sounders just listing 16 seasons and Arsenal more then 130 making a separate template more sensible. The Banner talk 15:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep - Per GiantSnowman. Several other club articles adopt this pattern for a separate season template. Svartner (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::That might be the case, but also, several other clubs do not adopt this pattern. In fact it is far more common NOT to split the navboxes (see 88 entries in {{cl|United States soccer team navigational boxes}}, but only 8 entries in {{cl|United States soccer club seasons navigational boxes}}). What we need to determine is what is the appropriate action in this case. We have two options to resolve the redundancy, either delete the season template, or we remove the seasons from the larger template. The navbox is not so large that we need to split into two navboxes, therefore I don't think we do anyone any favours by having discrete navboxes here. --woodensuperman 10:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete No needs to set up a separate template for this as it is (not yet) overly long. The Banner talk 15:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• delete, or remove the season links from the main navbox. having the links in both places is redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Very narrow keep I think. On its own it can stand as a navbox, so what is being argued here is whether it's better to squish it back in to the main navbox (which IMO should completely and totally ditch the honors section as being insufficiently connected for a navbox about a specific team). I'm not really convinced it's necessary to put it back in to the larger navbox, and there's clear discussion about being able to navigate the earlier iterations of the team as well (for which WTAF is not in fact a reasonable citation, since we've already established this template can stand alone). See also User:Izno/Navbox constellations. Izno (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :It's not a matter of squishing it back in, it's already present, so if this season-only navbox is kept, we'd have to remove it (per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL) to avoid the redundancy. And I 100% agree with you regarding the honors section in {{tl|Seattle Sounders FC}}. Have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Seattle_Sounders_FC&diff=prev&oldid=1285872472 removed] (also per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). In fact, the whole navbox could use a bit of work to bring it in line with full bidirectionality per [https://templatetransclusioncheck.toolforge.org/?lang=en&name=Template:Seattle_Sounders_FC the template transclusion tool] --woodensuperman 14:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::BIDIRECTIONAL doesn't forbid redundancy, other bits of our policies do.
• ::Then I think I prefer removing them from the one template, which is the natural followup to a keep here. Izno (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Why not leave everything on the one navbox, surely it is to the most benefit of out readers if all the links are in the same place? --woodensuperman 04:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::As above, there is general intent to making this one larger, and that crosses some arbitrary threshold for size for me. Big navboxes are also bad, which is why I noted my essay on the point. Clearly there are the disorganized big navboxes, but it's also a problem with organized ones for them to have a half dozen navbox|groups in them. And large navboxes (or large quantities of navboxes, an issue with sportspeople particularly) are basically the reason phab:T124168 exists and we can't have nice things. Izno (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – I disagree with {{User link|The Banner}}'s assertion that it's "{{tq|(not yet) overly long}}". Seventeen links is a lot to fit in a navbox that's very large as it is, even without them. Therefore, I agree with {{User link|Frietjes}} and {{User link|Izno}} on removing these links from {{tl|Seattle Sounders FC}}. An {{Para|above}} link to List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons on {{tl|Seattle Sounders FC}} should be a decent compromise for navigational utility. — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think a consensus is going to be reached after a month thus far. I won't be opposed to this being closed as a no consensus, but maybe a wider discussion needs to be had at the Football project if the nominator or anyone else chooses so about usefulness of separate seasons navboxes and why they should or shouldn't be separate from the main team navbox. Unless a consensus was already reached once before on the project talk. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:03, 7 May 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. There is a consensus that the template is unused, and may never have been used. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|FLR link}}

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it exists. Created in January 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose ...It's the FLR version of the templates in :Category:Nomination_link_templates. There's not a lot of FLRs at any one point, so it's sometimes not transcluded. --PresN 15:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::Can you please link to a recent usage? Without documentation, it is difficult to understand how this is used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::@PresN: I went through the Featured list removal candidates archives; none of them seems to have ever used this template, is it needed? Vestrian24Bio 11:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, it's not used in FLRC itself. None of the "X link" templates are used for that. The last use I know of this one was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Featured_content&diff=prev&oldid=1272884506], right after I made it. The entire family of " link" templates was originally made for pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured content, wikiproject pages to list out all the ongoing review processes; that page (and the "Good content" sibling) pretty much always have a few instances of the FAC/GAN/GAR/etc. templates, but there's not usually a lot of FLRs going on at any one time for any one project. The documentation for the whole family should be cleaned up ({{tl|GAN link}} has the most, though not much, but it's been 11 years without any complaints), though I guess ideally it would all be one template. --PresN 22:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Perhaps adding a TemplateData to the documentation could be useful. Vestrian24Bio 06:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• Delete per this template's disuse, and I'm kind of interested in deleting the rest that inspired this one. It's really not a requirement to link both the article and its nomination at the same time for the purposes those seem to be used for, and links are anyway generally just better done as copy-pasting from a URL or the page title (which is why we've tended to delete other link templates in the past). Izno (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• delete, seems like this has never been used. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 30 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) 16:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Cyrillic alphabet sidebar}}

In this TfD and at the talk page, it has been suggested to replace this sidebar with a navbox. The navbox to replace this sidebar is at TM:Cyrillic navbox. Janhrach (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to TM:Cyrillic navbox to avoid breaking pages. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :So you think a giant navbox at the top of the page, will not beak things? Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• Replace and delete. Can't redirect as the placement is completely different, and most likely there are already both of these templates on the same page. Also, "sidebar" is a bad redirect to something that isn't a sidebar. Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I second that the sidebar should be deleted, it is a messier duplicate of List of Cyrillic letters that clutters up the pages it is used on. The proposed navbox is cleaner and has more useful information IMO. Underswamp (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Why you do that I need it to editing Phudeptrai47540370870 (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep for now: The proposed navbox to replace it isn't even close to including all of the information that the sidebar does. 99.69.7.113 (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• :The sidebar includes an excessive number of red links and letters that don't, and never will, have articles dedicated to them. Even if the new navbox didn't exist I would argue to delete the sidebar as it doesn't have encyclopedic value - it isn't helpful to someone trying to learn about the Cyrillic script. I don't think any future navbox or sidebar should try to include all of the information that the current sidebar does. List of Cyrillic letters already exists and presents this information in a clear, annotated way. Underswamp (talk) 16:03, 3 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 23:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Ports of Entry of the People's Republic of China}}

Much of this template seems redundant in addition to having a great many red links to articles that may or may not be notable to have own article.

There's already :Template:Airports in China and :Template:Ports of China. Template:Ports of China already includes notations for ports of entry. This leads to articles with navboxes with many duplicated links (eg. Beijing Capital International Airport uses both the "Airports" and "Ports of Entry of the People's Republic of China" navboxes.)

Marking railway stations be done in the templates in :Category:Templates for railway lines in the People's Republic of China. Not sure about highways.

Link(s) to general POE info should just go into :Template:Transport in China. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Ports of entry is a general concept quite separate from the particular set of facilities in a given mean of transportation, like what we traditionally mean when talking ports (seaports). As an encyclopedic subject, it is a different issue and follow different concerns. Legally, as well, a port of entry and a port are not the same entity and do not get treated the same by law, or get formed the same way. The usefulness of both the main article and the navbox comes from the very nature of the subject, we're not talking about the same thing, and on the following general issues:

:1) Information gathering & overview: this is a subject of interest to understanding transport networks, and listing a very major category like ports of entry together is on its face very useful and encyclopedic to anyone interested in understanding networks as a whole (rather than its individual nodes). Making a central list is similar to making a list of "major railway stations in country X" rather than merely bolding major stations in a given railroad line and hoping the reader will visit every individual line, or making a list of "international airports" rather than simply marking intl airports in a general "list of airports" and hoping the reader will extract the (highly significant) subcategory. An overall article shows in easy access the entire system of legal entry points that a country has determined, and is not by any means equally substituted by fours lists that restrain themselves to a specific means of transport.

:2) Disambiguation. In the context of China, it is also the translation of the term 口岸，which is confusingly often translated as merely "port", even when referring to entry points very far from water. Disambiguating the concept is, quite honestly, very important to understanding transport issues. Most people immediate reaction to hearing ports of entry or "Port of Alashankou" is to think it refers to water ports (or, doubly confusing, to dry ports). This is not an issue in Chinese or the Chinese Wikipedia as it is clear that the concepts and issues involved are not the same. I think part of the problem is simply language-specific expectations about the matter at hand.

:3) Redlinks. The number of ports of entry in a country can be pretty large (although in this case, when you think the size of China, the number is actually fairly small). I am unsure if there are rules regarding the number of existing articles (rather than prima facie notable articles. We've agreed that all major ports and stations are viable and desirable articles) that are necessary before we accept an overall article or box. I am endeavoring to fill the gaps, personally. Is there be a quantum of completion rule needed before the box is accepted?

:4) Extra navboxes. Navboxes are evil, but navboxes are useful. It is a different line of inquiry to seek all other airports in China to all other port of entry in China. Navbox stacking can be a problem, but transport facilities in China are generally not overburdened that I can see.

:5) Generally, I think transport articles in areas not used by the public (airports and ferry ports) are pretty undercovered by Wikipedia, more so (extremely so) in the case of China. It is an area I'm working on, and I plead good will effort in letting an ongoing project work its way. Arrorro (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::If I may add, transferring all ports of entry into the Transport in China box would make it unwieldingly big, I'm guessing. The ports and facilities listed in that box are supposed to be the very largest only. Arrorro (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Just to be clear

::* This proposal is not about deleting the POE article

::* I am not suggesting listing all of the POEs in the Transport in China box

::* This proposal is about deleting the POE template

:: I am proposing that the POE template data would be better integrated into the existing system of transport templates. Possible through the following:

::* Move the seaport/riverport POE ("Water Transport" section) data into the :Template:Ports of China via notations ("* indicates a port of entry")

::* Move the airport POE ("Air Transport" section) data into the :Template:Airports in China via notations ("* indicates a port of entry")

::* Move the railway POE ("Railway Transport" section) data into the individual templates of :Category:Templates for railway lines in the People's Republic of China via notations

::* "Highway Transport" section I'm not sure of, but at least note POEs in the highway articles.

::* Move the miscellaneous links (under the header) into :Template:Transport in China

::* Add a link to the POE article to :Template:Transport in China

::* Rely on the POE article (which will be accessible through links in the templates and transport facility articles) to provide the"complete" (probably trim to just notable ones) list of POEs, instead of duplicating parts of that list in a separate template (as is currently done)

:: So saying that:

:: Concern (1) seems unrelated to the utility of the template because providing a "complete" list is what the POE article is for, not the template.

:: Concern (2) is alleviated by clear language and descriptions ("the Port of Name is a port of entry/dryport/port_type", "the port of entry/dryport/port_type of Name"), and which is more a general concern when referring to POEs, not something that demands a POE template.

:: Concern (3) is general wiki-maintenance thing (WP:EXISTING). I note that you create a lot of red links with the vague assurance that you'll create the articles sometime in the indefinite future. This strikes me as a situation where links should be made as the articles come into existence. This would also avoid the situation where red links in Chinese script are created first and then lazily handled by redirects to the English names.

:: Concern (4) is alleviated by links to the POE article in templates.

:: Concern (5) is unrelated to the template. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 23 March 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 23:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Railway Container Centers of China}}

Identifying notable stations by function would be better as part of a general navigation box for freight rail transport in China, with details in a general article for freight rail transport in China (not "Railway Container Centers of China".) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Or a general navigation box for rail transport in China. There doesn't seem to be one of those. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed strongly about a general box for rail transport. This is a subcategory that is meaningful for legal reasons in China (which is why it exists in Zh W), but it is very much as subcategory. I will roll it in a wider box for rail transport if that's what y'all reckon makes sense (or just widen this one and move the name? Freight stations rather than the specific Container Centers?) Arrorro (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 23 March 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 merge to Template:Cyndi Lauper. ✗plicit 23:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Blue Angel}}

One album, two singles (both of which were re-recorded by Cyndi Lauper anyway). WP:NENAN. Perhaps could merge into {{tl|Cyndi Lauper}}. --woodensuperman 16:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

: Merge - Merge into {{tl|Cyndi Lauper}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 23 March 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 23:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Pandora Papers}}

A list of people otherwise unlinked except for being listed in this leak is not a suitable topic for a navbox. Better left to List of people named in the Pandora Papers. --woodensuperman 15:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 23 March 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 14:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Studio Killers}}

Three links: One album, two singles, already well interlinked. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 13:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• 16px 14px Delete per nom and NENAN. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 14:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:26, 28 March 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 14:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Jackie Chan Adventures}}

Redundant to {{tl|Jackie Chan}}. Only three links anyway, WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 11:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Keep, this is not redundant AHI-3000 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes it is, all the links are included in the larger navbox, therefore the very definition of redundant. --woodensuperman 17:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 23 March 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 14:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Seven Little Fortunes}}

Navigates between a group of actors (without an exact article), seems unnecessary. --woodensuperman 11:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 23 March 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.