Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

October 2

edit

Template:Discrimination sidebar

edit
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 This is close, but I think reviewing the arguments through the lens of policy shows a weak consensus to delete here. Starting from the basics, there are eight users in favor of deleting, and 9 users in favor of keeping, but the arguments for keeping seem weaker and less convincing. For example:

  • 2600:4040:2838:FA00:E859:7D90:79A2:2DEB can be discounted as just a vote
  • Sunflowerthomas can be discounted for completely missing the point; sidebars don't show up on mobile either (I verified this myself)
  • Rob Kelk isn't actually opposing deletion, despite making a comment using the bolded word 'Oppose'; they're just providing implementation instructions.

* Pppery * it has begun... 19:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

all the content in this sidebar is in the footer navbox (by construction) so this is providing redundant navigation. The footer navbox is better for page layout as it does not crowd other right floating content like images and infoboxes, so I proposing simply replacing this with the footer navbox where the footer navbox is not directly transcluded. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Easier for readers and more obvious for the sidebar. -ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Infobox vice president styles

edit
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) 06:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only 5 uses. Don’t see any reason this warrants its own wrapper. {{Infobox manner of address}} works just fine. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:Regions of Johannesburg

edit
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 the Regions template as only linking to categories and otherwise duplicating the City template. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Regions of Johannesburg with Template:City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality.
I believe the two templates are meant to show the same information. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination and WikiCleanerMan. Should be a simple enough job given that Regions A through G are already mentioned in the CoJMM navbox. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 17:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Use

edit
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; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template appears conceived to merge the functionality of a large number of datevar and engvar templates, but it is not complete in function or form, and does not integrate into the related existing and complex ecosystem of templates, modules and categories, and it is unlikely it will be. It actually serves little purpose and I found multiple cases of misuse, likely through misunderstanding, while swapping all usage for the traditional counterparts. I raised concerns on the template talk page, where Trappist the monk provided feedback. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this template was created following a consensus at RfD, although I can't find a link to the discussion anywhere. Cremastra, do you happen to remember? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is easy to find via "What links here" in {{use}}'s sidebar (does that still exist in the new UI? it should); see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 20 § Template:Use. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd be fine with a name like {{use style|date=ymd}} or similar, but a plain old {{use}} could stand for practically anything in arbitrary wikitext. Me personally, I'd support a template like this in general but don't see a compelling reason to add it in lieu of something like multi-content revisions for the properties that we currently stuff into the existing templates like this one (which would require as many edits to go forth and change how we do things, just we'd be doing it twice if we added this template in the meantime). Izno (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I expressed at the 2023 RfD that deleting was my second choice after the creation of this "wildcard" template, and it looks like the discussion ended with consensus for that position as well. However, it seems to be causing more problems than it's solving, so it has to go. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Less than or equal to

edit
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. Izno (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The character could be:

  • copied
  • or pasted with "Emoji & Symbols"

instead, though it would make it less easy to type, but is unused regardless. BodhiHarp 15:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The nominator does not make a compelling case for deletion. There is an entire category of similar typing-aid templates, so it's not clear why this one is being singled out. The lack of usage may just indicate that people are substing it. And, as I get tired of having to repeat, as WP:TFD#3 states in bold for emphasis, being unused is not a reason for deletion unless there is also no likelihood of being used. The use case for this typing aid is perfectly plausible. Sdkb talk 15:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt people are substing a template that has no indication whatsoever that it is meant to be subst. What's more likely, is that this just isn't used at all. Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / RemoveRedSky [talk] 16:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_2&oldid=1317697056"