Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 February 5

Only contains two links, Pocketpair and Palworld. Too early for a useful navbox to be created. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON for a template to be useful. cyberdog958^Talk 04:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Thomas

Template:WikiProject Thomas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiProject Animation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Thomas with Template:WikiProject Animation.
WP:Thomas is not a WikiProject, but a task force @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task force. Create |thomas=yes within {{WikiProject Animation}}, then replace all ~330 instances of {{WikiProject Thomas with {{WikiProject Animation|thomas=yes, then delete {{WikiProject Thomas}}. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Task forces belong in the parent project banner. Gonnym (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Thomas is not primarily animated. While it has been since 2009, a large majority of the franchise (such as the RWS books and the first 11 seasons of the TV series) does not use animation. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Thomas was moved to WP:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task force in 2019 per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 30#Turning all inactive TV-show Wikiprojects into WP:WPTV taskforces. The move was not opposed. What's changed since then? Is there consensus for your view? Will you be opening a WP:Requested move back to WP:Thomas? If not, then this TfD is simply housekeeping that's been pending for 5 years. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to Thomas being a task force rather than a WikiProject, as I agree with that part. It's merging it with WikiProject Animation that concerns me; I forgot to mention this in my original opposition, but I think Thomas is more appropriate for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, since Thomas & Friends has branched off into several forms of media past animation and television as a whole. I'm willing to go by a consensus, my comment is merely a suggestion. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiProject Trains|Thomas=yes}} already exists and points to WP:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task force. This is useful for Talk:The Railway Series, for example, which is a book series and not an animation. I think this strengthens the argument for merging {{WikiProject Thomas}} with {{WikiProject Animation}}, as it's a catch-all for non-animation cases. Other projects such as {{WikiProject Television}}, {{WikiProject Children's literature}}, etc., can simply add |Thomas= if they want. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I was completely unaware of this and should've done more research beforehand, so my apologies. I have no more arguments against this, so consider my vote changed to Merge. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Open Access

Template:WikiProject Open Access (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiProject Open (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Open Access with Template:WikiProject Open.
WP:Open Access is not a WikiProject, but an inactive task force @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task force. Create |access=yes within {{WikiProject Open}}, then replace all ~809 instances of {{WikiProject Open Access with {{WikiProject Open|access=yes, then delete {{WikiProject Open Access}}. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support I established the open access project and supported the general open project. The open project never took off, and is inactive. The open access project has mostly moved to d:Wikidata:WikiCite, and in that form, is among the most active Wikidata WikiProjects. I support the merge. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support merge Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Task forces belong in the parent project banner. On a side note, Wikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task force exiting is completely pointless as it has 1 active member listed and doesn't even have a task page. Gonnym (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Bradford

Template:WikiProject Bradford (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiProject Yorkshire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Bradford with Template:WikiProject Yorkshire.
WP:Bradford is not a WikiProject, but a defunct subproject @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Bradford. Create |Bradford=yes within {{WikiProject Yorkshire}}, then replace all ~228 instances of {{WikiProject Bradford with {{WikiProject Yorkshire|Bradford=yes, then delete {{WikiProject Bradford}}. Bradford importance params don't need to be migrated since the WP is defunct. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per reasons given by nominator --Jameboy (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above Tenpop421 (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Bradford is a task force so should use the parent banner template. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religious affiliation in Zambia

Template:Religious affiliation in Zambia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simple single use table. Subst to article and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominant regional languages in Zambia

Template:Dominant regional languages in Zambia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simple single use image with legend. Subst to article and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Annual Education Expenditure in Zambia

Template:Annual Education Expenditure in Zambia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simple single use table. Subst to article and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent Annual Budget Expenditure in Zambia

Template:Recent Annual Budget Expenditure in Zambia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Zambia related table. Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Skrunda Municipality

Template:Skrunda Municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox for a former municipality. It seems the pages have been changed to use {{Kuldīga Municipality}}. Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused time related table. Probably replaced with other code. Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 15:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London Broncos current squad

Template:London Broncos current squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused as London Broncos uses the table directly. Gonnym (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - currently very much used.Fleets (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
update to include London Broncos#2025 squad since that will soon be used in 2025 London Broncos season when the season starts. that is, unless we are talking about merging all of these with the season articles. Frietjes (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pointless to create a template that gets deleted each year. Either just link with a {{Main}} to 2025 London Broncos season or section transclude. Gonnym (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't get deleted, but updated to include the current squad. however, I think a better design would be for 2025 London Broncos season to house the 2025 squad and then transclude that section into the main London Broncos article (and the current squads article if one exists for this league). but, as I said, unless we are talking about merging all of these with the season articles, I would say keep this one for consistency. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes you are right. What I was referring to is what happens at 2023 London Broncos season#2023 squad and 2024 London Broncos season#2024 squad as examples. They have the same table on their pages but no template. So it seems that each year a template is created then the data is manually copied. Better to just not create a template, and transclude directly. Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
on second thought, now that they have been relegated, we should just start housing these in the individual season articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to house these in the individual season articles to avoid the need to copy from the template into the season article at the end of each season. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Odyssey

Template:Odyssey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An inline citation template for an external link resource of the Odyssey. Not currently used in any mainspace articles. Requesting deletion so the navbox of this subject, {{Odyssey navbox}}, may move to this temp's name. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks potentially useful; perhaps it could be renamed to something obvious, like "Template:Odyssey-Perseus". Then editors would still have the option of employing it. Many of us may not have been aware of its existence, although I'm sure the Greek subject editors would have more opportunities than I will. P Aculeius (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move. We have a number of similar templates which generate links to Perseus, such as {{Thucydides}}, {{Iliad}}, {{Cite Plutarch}}, and so on (see Category:Perseus Project templates), many of which seem to have at least some use. As such, I think renaming to "Template:Cite Odyssey" or "Template:Odyssey Perseus" (or similar) and then moving the navbox to "Template:Odyssey" would make the most sense, if moving is what's desired. It's worth noting that the naming situation is the same for {{Iliad}} (Perseus template) and {{Iliad navbox}} (navbox). – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 16 years and not being used means that this isn't wanted or needed. Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, though, as noted above, probably very few editors realised that this template existed. Citations to the Odyssey in the form generated by the template, and with links to Perseus, are common on articles for mythological figures, and so I think this template could quite easily be integrated into existing articles (if desired), helping simplify the wikitext. In cases in which we have citations to the Odyssey without links, the template provides an especially convenient way for editors to add those links, without needing to (using Perseus's site) navigate to the relevant section for each citation, and then copy and paste the URL; the template generates the links automatically. This could save quite a bit of time when adding links to articles with numerous citations to the Odyssey. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations typically ought to be to third-party sources, not citing the material itself, regardless of what it is. While other editors could find it useful, the fact that it has hardly been used or sought after shows our editors have no use for it. I'm sure third-party sources can cover whatever this temp can. There is no point in retaining an unused template on the basis that it could potentially be useful. It either is or is not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice in Greek mythological articles is to cite statements to secondary sources, and then include the citation to the primary source behind that, within the same ref tag; so, pretty much all our articles cite primary sources (in addition to secondary ones). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by I'm sure third-party sources can cover whatever this temp can, but on the usefulness of this template, there is, at a minimum, one reason why it is helpful, which is that it makes adding convenience links easier. I've added my fair share of such links to Greek mythology articles, where they are pretty ubiquitous, and probably would have used such a template when adding links to the Odyssey if I had known about it. If the only concern here is that the template isn't used yet, then I'd be happy to implement it in various articles where it would be helpful; doing so wouldn't take long at all. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Odyssey is a single word, it's not hard to link to. The whole purpose of this template is to cite text from the Odyssey itself, but trying to find a use for a template that has largely been used just for the sake of not putting in the work to find secondary and third-party sources is counterintuitive and takes more work to find the specific chapter's link than it is to cite a different source on the web. There's a reason it has not been used in the 16 years it has been around. Wikipedia is not an indefinite holding space for such templates. If you feel strongly about linking to the Odyssey directly, that would be for an External links section, not as a citation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be that this template isn't useful because we simply shouldn't be citing primary sources at all. However, that's almost certainly never going to happen in this area, as pretty much all of our articles on Greek mythology cite primary sources (both the poorly-written and well-written ones) – the average article looks a bit like Dolius or Assaracus (only citations to primary sources) and the average well-written article looks a bit like Cyclopes (a mix of secondary and primary sources throughout). For a page such as Dolius, I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to use this template to more easily (as explained above) add links to citations to the Odyssey – secondary sources are of course needed, but adding links alone is unquestionably an improvement, and there would be no reason to remove most (or any) of the citations to primary sources once secondary sources have been cited throughout. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Potentially useful, and I'm in favour of anything that makes citations in classical mythology articles more accessible. No preference as to moving. Tenpop421 (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Earth's location

Template:Earth's location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LocationOfEarth-ImageMap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Earth's location with Template:LocationOfEarth-ImageMap.
Not sure if this is the best template to merge to, but we already have many templates on this one here. Interstellarity (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the text template seems much easier to understand and navigate. Keeping these templates separate presents two ways of processing information. Unless they are merged in a very good navigational manner. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Earth's location in the Universe

Template:Earth's location in the Universe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LocationOfEarth-ImageMap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Earth's location in the Universe with Template:LocationOfEarth-ImageMap.
Not sure if this is the best template to merge to, but we already have many templates on this one here. Interstellarity (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]