Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 14

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Hundred (women's) competition results summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and only edit has been creation. Displays error code. If creator intends to work on it, userfication can be granted. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've updated the modules and template is working now, will be added to more pages soon. Vestrian24Bio 09:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vestrian24Bio. Is used in 2025 The Hundred season#Standings now. NLeeuw (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a template for content used on only one page. Why is a custom template format needed here? Why doesn't the format used at 2024 The Hundreds season not suffice? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous editions doesn't have any summary template, this would be added to prior editions soon. Vestrian24Bio 13:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This tends toward WP:NOTGUIDE to me. I'm not sold on this being encyclopedic content in the slightest. Izno (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have Module:sports results which is used "to build match result tables". We don't need an additional summary table on top of that, never mind two. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 13 July 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:Episcopal Church sidebar

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 14:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Episcopal Church sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we already have Template:Episcopal Church in the USA, why do we need a sidebar as well? Frietjes (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unpopular template and not particularly well made. Jahaza (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 13:36, 22 June 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:Cit news

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cit news (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:C news (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, uncommon, and WP:COSTLY. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has obviously not been unused, or it wouldn't have been converted from a redirect into an auto-subst-only template. There are no transclusions at this time because of this auto-substing. This template is the opposite of costly; it makes it so that inadvertent typos that would have to be processed by a human are converted to the right template by a bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews are about 2 per month and 1 per month. This is nothing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page views don't sound like a good indicator of people accidentally making a typo in the template name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have redirects for 'cit journal' or 'ite news' or 'cte news', and we shouldn't have one for those either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the "shouldn't" comes from. From @Jonesey95's comment, it's not "costly". We don't actually know if it's "unused", as it's meant to be replaced, so counting current uses is irrelevant. Is it "uncommon"? I hope so, but "uncommon" isn't the same as useless, and we have many thousands of {{R from typo}} pages. Why "shouldn't" this one just be one more of that kind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep, useful to have these typos auto corrected by a bot, and certainly better than having a redirect. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are plenty of these templates that automatically substitute. I am not sure why this one is any better/worse than the rest. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not encourage sloppy editing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pppery. Tempting, though. --Minoa (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to {{cite news}}. Vestrian24Bio 13:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pppery. Izno (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has long been a push for templates to avoid the "every possible variant" parameters (e.g. {{{occupation|{{{Occupation|{{{Job|{{{job|}}}}}}}}}}}}), and this falls into the same camp; as pppery says we should not be "rewarding" sloppy editing by having these templates. Everyone makes mistakes, and hopefully the user making the mistake fixes it themselves, but for a clear fix like this we don't need a bot to clean up after ourselves. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 13 July 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:Manbalar

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. The transclusion and documentation concerns have been explained/mitigated, with no clear consensus as to whether the template itself (on the merits of its content) should be kept. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is not transclueded anywhere and has no documentation supporting its use. It looks to be entirely useless. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zero Contradictions (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep, I'm not sure why Legend of 14 thinks this is entirely useless. if someone wants to translate an article from the Uzbek Wikipedia, this automatically translates uz:Andoza:Manbalar to Template:Reflist. it's not transcluded anywhere because it is automatically substituted by a bot when it is used, hence the automatic translation. I could see an argument that we don't have many pages being translated from the Uzbek Wikipedia, but this is definitely not "entirely useless". Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there are plenty of these templates that automatically translate from another language. I am not sure why this one is any better/worse than the rest. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find the premise behind this sort of thing fundamentally wrong; we shouldn't go out of our way to provide a veneer over the inherently messy process of translating content and templates from other wikis; that seems likely to encourage people to do it improperly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:04, 14 June 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:Suspended ROC provinces

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. It sounds like there could be cleanup that will improve the template, but if there are still substantive concerns after/if this happens, feel free to renominate. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suspended ROC provinces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a redundant template with very low likelihood of usage and all relevant article links covered by Template:Administrative divisions of Taiwan. The intended aim of the navbox seems to be to list historic ROC provinces, but most if not all of those have very short histories already covered by modern PRC provinces (Template:Province-level divisions of China). Butterdiplomat (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Not really redundant, as there are independent, existed articles of former provinces linked through this template, especially for the Northern and Northeastern provinces that were abolished or changed by the Communist government after 1949, and not included in other Navboxes. The question of whether to merge those articles should be a different topic.—— Eric Liu_{（Talk・Guestbook）} 02:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge navboxes is a better option I think. Vestrian24Bio 12:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the article about modern-day PRC stuff, leaving only former ROC provinces where they have a separate article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:51, 3 July 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:Country data Bengal Sultanate

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 00:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Bengal Sultanate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The flag is fictional. There is no historical evidence or reliable source confirming that this flag was ever used during the Bengal Sultanate period. Chronos.Zx (talk) 05:04, 14 June 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:Regeneration stories

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 00:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Regeneration stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox for an in-universe element that now lacks an article. No navigational use, especially since it contains basically every single time the concept ever appears on-screen, no matter how minor. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Better served by season navboxes. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:14, 19 June 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.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2025 July 22.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.