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. Might be worth getting input from the WikiProject. If they say it's not worth keeping I don't mind overturning this to delete. Primefac (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rarely used RCAT. Almost all of the redirects tagged with this RCAT are redirects to sections about particular countries in annual Eurovision contest articles. Additionally, the instructions are contradictory: the RCAT says it is for topics that "do[] not meet notability requirements to warrant [their] own article[s]", but then says that it should be tagged with {{R with possibilities}} if the topic could be notable. All of these redirects can be sufficiently handled by {{R to subtopic}} and, as appropriate, {{R to section}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while its current use case is limited, I can see this template being used whenever some items of a list are notable and have standalone pages, but not all of them. Regarding the contradiction, the template makes it clear that tagging {{R with possibilities}}is[i]f the topic could meet the notability requirements in the future, so, not talking about its current (presumably non-notable) state. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It does not serve an evident maintenance purpose, and its informational content (that a redirect is to subsection/subtopic that just also happens to be one of a linear sequence) belongs in the destination article, not in the redirect category. —Quondum 11:33, 21 May 2024 (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.
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 00:20, 23 May 2024 (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.
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) 21:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This group of templates are for creating references to the CODATA list of physical constants. Each one is only used about a dozen times (some more, some less) but I don't see a need to be using a template for that few uses. In addition, we have a dynamic template {{physconst}} that is kept up-to-date with the latest values (which can be used to provide the CODATA reference information). I understand the extant uses are likely for specific time-related value refs (e.g. "in 2010 the value of X was used to find Y") so I would recommend substitution before deletion to keep those references accurate. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
replace with care and delete –
This description should be modified to make it accurate (they are dominantly citation templates):
Template:CODATA1998: This produces a citation only. It is used 6 articles. [safe to subst]
Template:CODATA2002: This produces a citation only. It is used 3 articles. [safe to subst]
Template:CODATA2006: This produces a citation. It is used 11 articles. It also has a url parameter, used in 5 of these. [still needs care]
Template:CODATA2010: This produces a selected value, with a citation footnote. It is used in 1 article, and there only for the citation. [used in 0 articles]
Template:CODATA2014: This produces a citation, not values. It is used 1 article. [used in 0 articles]
Template:CODATA2010cite: This produces a citation only. It is used 3 articles. [used in 0 articles]
Template:CODATA2010-helper: This is used in Template:CODATA2010. [used in 0 articles]
Some of these are not intended to refer to a specific data set, and replacement with {{physconst}}, etc. might be appropriate. Some URLs used with CODATA2006 are bad. So fixing some bitrot is needed. Nevertheless, I agree with Primefac's rationale that these are not general-use templates and almost-unused templates should not exist. Note the additional two templates for deletion at the end of my list. Non-article/template space uses could probably just be subst'ed. —Quondum 21:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated statuses above. Uses of Template:CODATA2006 I still intend to clean up. —Quondum 14:14, 21 May 2024 (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.
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 14:55, 22 May 2024 (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.
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. Izno (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem by the amount of links that the new template will be pretty big. Large navigation templates aren't really user-friendly. Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, all templates except {{Masa languages}} are already pretty large, and merging them all into one template would be unwieldy. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason I decided not to notify User:Abrahamic Faiths about this merge proposal is because they've been retired from working on Wikipedia since mid-2016. PK2 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 15 May 2024 (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.
