Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 February 8

• Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/names (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sub-template. Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NFL defensive back coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NFL defensive line coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NFL linebacker coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NFL offensive line coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NFL quarterback coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NFL running back coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NFL special teams coordinators (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NFL strength and conditioning coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NFL tight end coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NFL wide receiver coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These are minor assistant roles within their respective teams. Head coaches, offensive coordinators, and defensive coordinators have their own articles to connect back to unlike these. It is also tedious to constantly maintain. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I mean, I find them pretty useful at least... I know that alone isn't enough to keep but I think it'd be a shame to get rid of these... BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I still think Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/List of current National Football League staffs should be moved back to mainspace. A lot of the coaches (like the ones in these navboxes) are notable, it's not just a list of random names. Readers can't easily find these staffs anymore without opening up 32 different pages. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, I reference this page a fair bit. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BeanieFan11: I'd say navboxes being useful, even if an article isn't tied to them, is still a valid reason to keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Assumed license (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Category:Files where a release under a free license has been assumed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As of last week, we are officially complete! All uploads without an explicit copyright license have been either claimed or deleted. Any new uploads fall after the cutoff date, so we are all set to delete this template. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you SURE that no uploads prior to the cut-off date remain? If the template has completed it's function than I have no objections to redundant templates being archived. If deleted however, I would appreciate a "file copy" being retained in my userspace. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Warrior-surname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created by a banned user in a spree of creation of surname templates. Templates of this type, say, {{smith-surname}} are useful, because they replace ugly "See also" list of similar surnames (and provide a useful antroponymic insight, i.e., have encyclopedic value in themselves) (see Template:Smith-surname/doc). However this one, after I cleaned it from wrong and unused surnames, became entirely pointless, only listing 1 slavic and 3 Romance surnames, and in fact "See also" would occupy less "real estate" of articles. --Altenmann >talk 02:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]