Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 18

October 18

Template:Violence against Buddhists

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 00:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Violence against Buddhists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Template:Violence against Muhajirs in Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Violence against Dalits in Tamil Nadu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Persecution of Sikhs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Persecution of Bengali Hindus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per the discussion from the October 10 Tfd of similar templates. The articles linked in these three sidebars are better suited to categories, which allow overlap, subdivision, and more nuance. Also all articles in these templates are already covered by a category related to the scope of the subject matter. For instance, the article, Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent, from the Violence against Buddhists template is not really related to just violence, but also other factors. That would constitute an OR or synth addition to the template.

Pinging users from that discussion if they are interested in taking part in this discussion. Vanamonde93, EarthDude, RegentsPark, UnpetitproleX WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Support: I believe these are too broad to be useful navboxes. I think it would be better to replace them with categories. — EarthDude (Talk) 20:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, per my statements at the previous TfD. I don't believe the violence against Dalits template should be grouped with these - as a collection about caste-based violence, the issues are somewhat different, but I do ultimately support its deletion as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 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.

Template:Saban Universe

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 2025 October 26. ✗plicit 00:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Saban_Universe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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.

Template:Vietnam Television image navigator

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 00:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Vietnam Television image navigator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and is just duplicating the function of navbox Template:Vietnam Television. Not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:10, 18 October 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.

Template:Short 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Short link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is worse than using regular links. If you want to remove disambiguation from the display, you can just use the WP:PIPETRICK. For anything else, a regular link edit will be faster than this. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, pointless templates add to WP:PEIS. Gonnym (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  Details?  Stepho  talk  03:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Replying to every single delete !vote does not help your case. I don't have anything more to say; I was convinced by Gonnym's case for deletion, and saw nothing more to add to it. And am still not convinced by your rebuttal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Considering it is my work that is on trial, it is in my interest to find out why each editor doesn't like it.

  "per nom" could mean you are a deletionist that spent 2 seconds on it and did an automatic "delete". Or it could mean you spent considerable thought on it. Without details there is no dialogue and no hope of resolution.

  Similarly "not convinced by your rebuttal" is no dialogue and there is no hope for resolution. Are you just giving automatic "templates are evil" type votes. Or is there something that I might be able to fix or some reasoning that might convince me that I am on the wrong path? Details are so helpful in a meaningful conversation.  Stepho  talk  00:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tholme (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  Details?  Stepho  talk  03:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Not pointless. I made it to address an issue I have seen a lot in car articles that has been bugging me for years.

  In car articles we often find wiki markup like "Toyota made the [[Toyota Celica|Celica]], [[Toyota Corolla|Corolla]], (long list of other car models ...) and [[Toyota 86|86]]".

  Or in many articles (eg Toyota Celica (A20) we see markup like "The Celica was based on the same floorplan as the [[Toyota Carina (A20)|Carina]]".

  In both cases the pipe trick works but involves duplication of the model names. Anything that is duplicated runs the risk of typing mistakes. There is the tedium of entering it twice. And it is awkward to read when editing manually.

  Compare the first example above using the new template: "Toyota made the {{short link|Toyota|Celica}}, {{short link|Toyota|Corolla}}, (long list ...) and {{short link|Toyota|86}}".

  Compare the 2nd example above: "The Celica was based on the same floorplan as the {{short link|Toyota|Carina|(A20)}}".

  They display only the shortened model names (ie with the manufacturer and model codes trimmed off) but are reasonably natural to read in the markup. The pipe versions are not natural to read in the markup.  Stepho  talk  03:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  I find reading regular text much clearer than split text in a template. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Good point. But compared to what? I find find repeated text hard to read hard to read. The competing forms are:

  "Toyota made the [[Toyota Celica|Celica]] and [[Toyota Corolla|Corolla]]."

  "Toyota made the {{short link|Toyota|Celica}} and {{short link|Toyota|Corolla}}."

  I find the short link form easier to read.  Stepho  talk  23:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  For editors who like spaces, the following also work:

  "Toyota made the {{short link| Toyota| Celica}} and {{short link| Toyota| Corolla}}."

  "Toyota made the {{short link | Toyota | Celica}} and {{short link | Toyota | Corolla}}."  Stepho  talk  00:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: I can see how this template would be useful in situations where you need to link to car models, as Stepho says, and other instances where you need to trim down a link for something in the middle. It might have limited utility, but for me it seems useful enough and removing it would not result in a significant improvement to the wiki. LivelyRatification (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. While there are limited applications for it, I can see the usefulness in those cases. WP:PEIS isn't much of an argument - a handful of these are amount to little in that respect. --Sable232 (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Templates should be used where they actually aid. This does not. (See also MOS:MARKUP where I would assert this is making wikitext more complicated without good cause.) Izno (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• delete, regularly linking markup is easier to understand and doesn't introduce the overhead of going through yet another template. Frietjes (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary complexity 172.97.220.91 (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete overly complicated. just use traditionally wiki markup or the WP:PIPETRICK. Also this is unused. -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:06, 24 October 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.

Template:Bare URL inline

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. ✗plicit 14:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Bare URL inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's annoying when drive-by editors tag bomb pages with this template. In the 1 minute it took them to type this template out, they could've just clicked "Convert" in VisualEditor. It's also redundant to insource:"ref https" insource:/ref>https/ or insource:"ref http" insource:/ref>http/. Keep {{Bare URL PDF}} as the fix isn't as easy. 172.97.220.91 (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep. 7,200 transclusions shows that this template is widely used. It doesn't take 1 minute to type this template, however, I'm sure that clicking convert takes much longer. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Gonnym. And, as we all know, Citoid-based tools like VE convert aren't perfect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep. This template serves the important purpose of notifying other users of errors with these marked citations when one editor does not have the time to do that. I agree with @Pppery that automatic citation generation tools are usually not perfect and it is best to have someone check over their results, which this template is asking for. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep ironic that the nominator cited drive-by editors... Case of a user not liking the way a widely used template is used so they think it should be deleted. -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

"Widely used" isn't a reason to keep. If it were, WP:TFD/H wouldn't exist.

I don't like the way that some people slap on this tag to make others do the cleanup work. Unlike other tags, the cleanup for this tag is easy, fast, and semi-automated, so it's nothing more than an eyesore. 172.97.220.91 (talk) 07:45, 24 October 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.