Speedway

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 February 21

< February 20
February 22 >

February 21

Template:2017 Rugby League Qualifiers table

not needed, all articles are transcluding from the main 2017 Super 8s article Frietjes (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Route 66 task force

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Route 66 is a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Task forces shouldn't use a separate banner template and instead should use their parent project's banner. The banner already includes this task force parameter: {{WikiProject U.S. Roads|type=US66}}. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—there are articles that are only pertinent to the task force that are not pertinent to the rest of the project. For example, USRD itself will not assess/track/tag the historic sites along US 66 like gas stations because they are not roads, but the US 66 TF would track them because they are related to the general history of US Route 66. It is for exactly that reason that the separate banner was created. Imzadi 1979 → 00:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find that distinction compelling, given that this banner is used on less than 130 pages. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The task force exists as a collaboration between USRD and the US History project. It needs a way to track its articles, and some of its articles are going to be outside of the scope of USRD, its nominal host project. Therefore, the banner exists. If the banner is deleted, the tracking capability of the task force will be affected when those 130 articles are removed from the task force categories. Those are simple facts. The banner has a use, and it does not violate policy. Therefore, there are no grounds to delete it. Thus, it should stay. Imzadi 1979 → 23:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: task forces are usually subgroups of a project, so it seems strange that there are task force articles which aren't of interest to the parent project. maybe there should be an additional parameter like |US66-non-road=y or |US66-only=y to prevent articles using |type=US66 from being categorized with the road articles? Frietjes (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Schizophrenic DALY Rates

No longer used. (It is currently transcluded to one user page but predates that user's activity by 10 years.) – Fayenatic London 12:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Senegal

Only two links to articles, not enough to merit a template. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historically female work

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 speedy delete per G5 SmartSE (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is at best going to be an unmaintainable mess with significant NPOV issues. The problem is what is considered historically female work is going to vary massively by area and time even within the same country. For example in some areas of the UK basically any non technical coal mining job other than getter would have been considered work for women and girls. In others women hardly featured underground. Then it was made literally illegal for women to work underground. So depending on the area hurrier historically female work, never female work or work up until it was made illegal.

This means there is a lot of stuff where its inclusion or lack of inclusion will create POV issues. Size is also an issue. Woman have done a vast range of work over the centuries. ©Geni (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to be derided by you! I welcome all contributions that better refine what is and what is not historically female work by area and time. I think the intention of the template is clear, cover work that is associated with womanhood, often stigmatisingly so. Réalgard (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should start with creating the article Historically female work to tie this navigation template together. With that article in place, we can start to talk about the content of the template. The Banner talk 13:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is a blatant sock of Lau737 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so I will G5. SmartSE (talk) 15:13, 21 February 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:Full party name with color (parenthesis)

Seemingly unused and invokes a function in a nonexistent module Module:Party name with color (parenthesis). Contacted creator of the page on their user talk and have not heard back after 3-4 days. ~ Rusty meow ~ 04:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this can probably be G7'ed, see [1] ~ Rusty meow ~ 00:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Club Hurling Silver Jubilee Team

No article about the team, so any navigation would hang in the air. The Banner talk 02:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_21