Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 15

< September 14
September 16 >

September 15

[edit]

Template:Far-right politics in the United States 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; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicative of all our other far-right sidebars and inherently an inappropriate sidebar topic; the topic is very broad, most entries have no ties, and it is not part of a series. We do not need a dozenth far right politics sidebar to stack on all the others, every single entry here is applicable to a better, clearer, and more appropriate sidebar. This topic is too broad to work as a sidebar per WP:SIDEBAR. Many entries are not actually part of the series in that they are generic articles about racism, or minor elements inappropriate for a sidebar. These are not tightly related and easily replaced by the many existing far right templates. Most entries violate WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and almost all violate WP:SIDEBAR. Sidebars are also contentious and there is talk of deprecating them, we don't need more worse ones. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I can understand the point (without agreeing or disagreeing) about the sidebar being too broad as a legitimate critique, but "Sidebars are also contentious and there is talk of deprecating them" is not a reason to delete individual sidebars. That's a larger conversation and separate from this individual sidebar. Many entries are not actually part of the series in that they are generic articles about racism, or minor elements inappropriate for a sidebar Well then, those elements should be removed. However, sections such as "People" and "Organizations and movements", I would think, are the correct direction and application. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was more a generalist point because of how new this is. Those aren't good either, because the people can be added to a better, more specific one. Almost the entire people section is Neo-Nazis, which have their own sidebar. Why would they go in the more generic one? They shouldn't go here, certainly. We have better sidebars for this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite being a very important and contentious topic in Post-1992 US politics, and relevant to current events, the nominator wants to delete this sidebar because... It's "too broad"? The goal of sidebars is usually to collect articles under a broad topic so people can easily access specific topics. Improvements should be made before deletion. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 04:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the purpose of a sidebar. WP:SIDEBAR "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links [...] can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use."
    It's mostly neo-Nazis, which have their own sidebar. The history is completely arbitrary selection of events boldened by extreme WP:RECENTISM, and most all of the entries in "principles" are not about "far-right politics in the united states", but are broad overview articles on non-specific country politics PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: linking the dozen other far-right politics sidebars you referred to would be helpful, PARAKANYAA. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dozenth was a comical exaggeration, but for example we have, among others, {{Christian nationalism US sidebar}} {{Neo-Nazism sidebar}} {{Neo-fascism}} {{Fascism sidebar}} {{Nazism sidebar}} {{Conservatism US}} {{Francoism sidebar}} {{Conservatism sidebar}}. Every single other entry can go in one of these, particularly neo-Nazism, fascism, and neo-fascism. The ones that aren't fascists are already largely in the conservatism US navbox. This is extremely duplicative of all other scopes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, this is useful. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the templates with a high amount of overlap PARANKAYAA provided above, and the POV issues with the term "far-right" in general. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:33, 20 September 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:1963–64 Primeira Divisão table

[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) 20:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be a fork of the table in 1963–64 Primeira Divisão Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 15 September 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:1962–63 Primeira Divisão table

[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) 20:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be a fork of the table in 1962–63 Primeira Divisão Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 15 September 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:San Diego Santa Fe Depot Platform Layout

[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) 20:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused HTML platform layout template. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 18:30, 15 September 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:Old Town Transit Center Platform Layout

[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) 20:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused HTML platform layout template. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it back to Old Town Transit Center for now, though if there is any reason why it shouldn't be there, you are more than welcome to show me where it says so in Wikipedia's consensuses. - SleepTrain456 21:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepTrain456: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC. Consensus was reached that these HTML station layout diagrams are deprecated, thus the reason why they have been being consistently removed across various station articles everwhere. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for the information, @OrdinaryScarlett! - SleepTrain456 22:03, 17 September 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:Article list

[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) 20:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template was provisionally kept three years ago, but it has no transclusions. It appears that the concerns about its usability were valid. I think it can safely be deleted as "not useful". – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No comments after a week and still unused. Gonnym (talk) 06:15, 16 September 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:Campaignbox Crusade of Varna

[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) 20:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by OrionNimrod with the rationale that this is redudnant because Template:Campaignbox Hungarian–Ottoman War exists. See Template talk:Campaignbox Crusade of Varna § Delete, redundant. Casablanca 🪨(T) 12:25, 15 September 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:Major stadiums in Northern Cyprus

[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) 20:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of 13 entries, 10 are red links. Svartner (talk) 03:19, 15 September 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.