Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
On this page, the deletion or merging of templates, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.
How to use this page
What not to propose for discussion here
The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
- Stub templates
- Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
- Userboxes
- Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
- Speedy deletion candidates
- If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at Tfd, tag it with {{Db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
- Policy or guideline templates
- Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
- Template redirects
- List at Redirects for discussion.
Reasons to delete a template
- The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
- The template is redundant to a better-designed template
- The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
- The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing
Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.
Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
Listing a template
To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).
I | Tag the template. |
---|---|
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add |
|
II | List the template at Tfd. |
Follow to edit today's Tfd log.
Add this text at the top, just below the If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add Use an edit summary such as Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:
You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:
You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the |
|
III | Notify users. |
Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:
to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects (look on the top of the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion. Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases. |
Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.
Twinkle
Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.
Discussion
Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.
People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.
Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.
Contents
- 1 How to use this page
- 2 Discussion
- 3 Current discussions
- 3.1 April 10
- 3.2 April 9
- 3.3 April 8
- 3.4 April 7
- 3.4.1 Template:CLSU
- 3.4.2 Orphaned Template:Cite pmid and related subpages
- 3.4.3 Template:Barisal Burners Roster
- 3.4.4 Template:Infobox paranormal term
- 3.4.5 Template:HCCD and Template:WestVi
- 3.4.6 Template:Panama Papers leak
- 3.4.7 Template:ACIDnom
- 3.4.8 Template:RMnac
- 3.4.9 Template:Wisconsin Wolfpack seasons
- 3.5 April 6
- 3.5.1 Template:2012 Big West Conference men's soccer navbox
- 3.5.2 Star Parivaar Award templates
- 3.5.3 Template:Chest trauma
- 3.5.4 Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs
- 3.5.5 Template:Airports in Uttar Pradesh
- 3.5.6 Template:ES-FreeSoftwareDistro
- 3.5.7 Template:Santa Clara Broncos navbox
- 3.5.8 Template:Pune Warriors India Roster
- 3.5.9 Template:PonderLindberg2008
- 3.5.10 Template:Khulna Royal Bengal in 2012 Season
- 3.6 April 5
- 3.7 April 4
- 3.8 April 3
- 4 Old discussions
- 4.1 April 2
- 4.2 April 1
- 4.3 March 30
- 4.4 March 27
- 4.4.1 Template:List of computer viruses (Numeric) UI
- 4.4.2 College football national champion navboxes
- 4.4.3 Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs
- 4.4.4 Template:Chest trauma
- 4.4.5 Template:Protected generic image name
- 4.4.6 Template:The Real Housewives of Vancouver
- 4.4.7 Template:BS!
- 4.5 March 24
- 4.6 March 23
- 4.7 March 22
- 4.8 March 15
- 5 Completed discussions
- 6 Archive and Indices
Current discussions
April 10
Template:ColtsFirstPick
- Template:ColtsFirstPick ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I wonder if these and all the NFL first-round picks by team templates are excessive. There are also templates for first-round picks by draft year and separate templates for, in this case, all of the Colts picks by draft year so the same person comes up in three different templates. Categories would be different but it seems excessive that Don McCauley is in Template:1971 NFL Draft (1971 first round), Template:Colts1971DraftPicks (being on the far left, intuitively is the first pick which is generally first round) and in this template. Not every team has a template for each year of picks so I'm just starting with this one template and trying to see if there's a consensus on whether all three are appropriate. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Honestly a template for each draft year for a team seems the most obnoxious. Looking at it as a reader I can't imagine very many people would even care about which Colts were drafted in 1971, let alone use the template. Lizard (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I find these to be useful. Template:Colts1971DraftPicks and similar ones I don't have a strong opinion on and I don't really use, but the first round ones by team should stay.--Yankees10 23:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Yankees10. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't think of a situation in which someone would want to navigate to another first round draft pick only because they were a first round draft pick, and even if some obscure situations exist, they're not frequent enough to justify the navbox cruft. ~ RobTalk 01:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRUFT. No good reason to have this cluttering things up. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This TFD nomination is flawed. There needed to be a discussion at WP:NFL first about whether these templates should exist or not. Not enough users from the project are voting and i'm guessing some don't even realize this is here. Randomly nominating just the Colts one makes no sense. If this is deleted it will be the only team of 32 not to have this type of template.--Yankees10 20:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izkala (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Delete page
- Template:Delete page ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:La ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Delete page with Template:La.
For background, see WP:HD#Templated links with specified deletion rationale. Basically, I asked if there were a way to have {{la}} supply a deletion rationale, e.g. by adding a parameter that would be automatically filled into the rationale box when you clicked the "delete" link. As it's not possible, Edgars2007 created this new template, explained how to use it, and concluded with But it may be better to include in the main {{la}} template, an opinion with which I agree. I'm just seeking further opinions as to whether this would be a good idea, as well as technical assistance in carrying that out. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I have no objection on the merits, but Template La is transcluded pretty much everywhere - 278,112 pages as of just now. It's an easy to remember template with only two characters, and one of the most useful in the entire project. I'd be triple cautious about mucking about with it. Might be better to use a deletion-specific version, such as {{la-d}} or some such. {{lad}} doesn't work, because then you get (Judaeo-Spanish) instead. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose, as per my comments below, as premature and overbroad. We can add the parameter to deletion-specific templates without changing La or impacting its core function. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm having trouble seeing what Delete page even does differently. I would also recommend resolving this TFD as quickly as possible since the deletion template is breaking transclusions all over the project. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Maintain Template La due to its inherent usefulness on notice boards and name the new version with the deletion rationale something different such as {{la-d}}. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment (as "original proposer") Yes, we can close this merge proposal. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- This idea is not to get rid of {{la}} by renaming it or merging it anywhere: the idea is to merge in the feature of {{delete page}}, whereby providing text in a parameter causes that text to be prefilled in the deletion rationale box when you click "delete". Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- This template is usually called from another template - {{afd2}}, as an example. Why ask for a parameter? Could we not add a switch or something that adds the full pagename if the template is on a page beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? The template could then add the parameter. In fact, hold on, {{afd1}} does precisely this - if you delete an article using the toplink, and that article has a properly formatted AFD tag, then the link for the deletion debate is filled into the deletion rationale box. This is exactly what we're trying to do, yes? Except the idea was to do it for redirects? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with switches, so I can't offer an opinion. I'm using it at User:Anomie/Neelix list/frogs, where it's definitely helpful for each line to have a link that takes me directly to a complete deletion page; no other template of which I'm aware has this capability. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then use {{lan}}. It will automatically fill in "G6 - Neelix" as the deletion rationale, rather than wait for a parameter. So you use it as {{lan|Example}} and it will do the rest. I think this will accomplish what you need for this situation, and it will table changes to {{la}} for another day. (And, if lan works, it might serve as proof of concept for those future changes.) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- But what if I want to use this template in a different situation in the future? Won't I have to edit the template? I want a template with which I can replace [[article]] with {{template|article|rationale}} and have the rationale automatically supplied when I click the delete link; find-and-replace is significant here, since I need to be able to make all the changes with a few button clicks in Notepad. As written, {{delete page}} does all this, so if retaining the template instead of merging it is the best way to fulfill my needs, I'm fine with that; I just don't want to get stuck with a template that only works in one situation or a template that doesn't fulfill my needs at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty much. For this list, this specific Neelix-related set of deletions, this template will work. In the future, we can have a longer discussion about amending La or having a deletion-specific template that accepts a parameter (or just make Lan do that). But I think changing a template used on 280k pages is premature, given the number of different circumstances in which La is used. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is meant to be that discussion. Once again, what's wrong with adding a feature to this template, right now? Nobody's given a single example of how adding such a feature would impair anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think we've hit on a few, but I will sum them up. This is a widely-used template, and the proposed feature would be useful in only a small percentage of uses of that template - not enough, I think, to justify adding a parameter and complicating what is supposed to be a very very simple template. Because the La template is called from other templates in most cases (as with Afd, for example), you'd have to use the deletion template and then go back in and edit the La template to add your parameter - which defeats the whole point of adding the function in the first place. It'd be simpler in those circumstances just to type in the rationale in the box. So not only is it more work, but you've knocked another set of pages out of the percentage for which this would be useful. I'm happy to try it out on a small subset of articles - the Neelix redirects are a prime candidate, and the hard-coded rationale fits well there. But I think amending La is too big a change to a widely used template for not nearly enough gain. This is using a hammer where a scalpel would do. It's a good idea, and I think we can implement it in time. But I'm not ready to support a change of this scope. Not this quickly, not to this template. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is meant to be that discussion. Once again, what's wrong with adding a feature to this template, right now? Nobody's given a single example of how adding such a feature would impair anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty much. For this list, this specific Neelix-related set of deletions, this template will work. In the future, we can have a longer discussion about amending La or having a deletion-specific template that accepts a parameter (or just make Lan do that). But I think changing a template used on 280k pages is premature, given the number of different circumstances in which La is used. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- But what if I want to use this template in a different situation in the future? Won't I have to edit the template? I want a template with which I can replace [[article]] with {{template|article|rationale}} and have the rationale automatically supplied when I click the delete link; find-and-replace is significant here, since I need to be able to make all the changes with a few button clicks in Notepad. As written, {{delete page}} does all this, so if retaining the template instead of merging it is the best way to fulfill my needs, I'm fine with that; I just don't want to get stuck with a template that only works in one situation or a template that doesn't fulfill my needs at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then use {{lan}}. It will automatically fill in "G6 - Neelix" as the deletion rationale, rather than wait for a parameter. So you use it as {{lan|Example}} and it will do the rest. I think this will accomplish what you need for this situation, and it will table changes to {{la}} for another day. (And, if lan works, it might serve as proof of concept for those future changes.) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with switches, so I can't offer an opinion. I'm using it at User:Anomie/Neelix list/frogs, where it's definitely helpful for each line to have a link that takes me directly to a complete deletion page; no other template of which I'm aware has this capability. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- This template is usually called from another template - {{afd2}}, as an example. Why ask for a parameter? Could we not add a switch or something that adds the full pagename if the template is on a page beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? The template could then add the parameter. In fact, hold on, {{afd1}} does precisely this - if you delete an article using the toplink, and that article has a properly formatted AFD tag, then the link for the deletion debate is filled into the deletion rationale box. This is exactly what we're trying to do, yes? Except the idea was to do it for redirects? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment if this is merged it should not merge into "Delete page"; however, we have many variations on the lx and xl template sets, so perhaps all of the 'lx' templates should be able to be used this way? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Couldn't we just add a
|rationale=
parameter to {{la}} and all related templates? That's all I'm attempting to request in this merger nomination. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- If that's all you're asking, why not have an RFC on the Talk page instead of disrupting hundreds of thousands of transclusions? You seem to have identified a unique need and are proposing a small addition (just one extra parameter) to a protected template. This is not a TFD merge discussion, except for the fact that you've made it so. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- "This is not..." Did you notice who created the discussion, and what was originally proposed? Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with this kind of process; my template work consists almost entirely of navbox work, and I'm quite the newcomer otherwise to template work, so stop biting me. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Couldn't we just add a
- Support merging and deleting Template:Delete page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: The discussion so far has had a bit of confusion as to what's being proposed. To help reach consensus, let's restrict things to the actual proposal here. The question is whether to add the functionality to specify a deletion rationale into {{la}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment can the adding a "[delete]" link and parameter "|deletelink=yes" also be added to the other page link templates? (ie. {{lt}} , {{lc}} , etc) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Honda international timeline
- Template:Honda international timeline ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Modern Honda vehicles ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Honda international timeline with Template:Modern Honda vehicles.
Redundant template, the latter has covered more models. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Current events/revisedlayout
- Template:Current events/revisedlayout ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Like Portal:Current events/Calendar box (which is currently at MfD), this template is also unused. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment it looks like a skeleton? (ie. substed template) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Scleroprotein disease
- Template:Scleroprotein disease ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I propose that this template is deleted because it adds to 'navbox clutter' on pages and does not help readers navigate between pages.
I propose that this template is instead converted to a table placed on the page Collagen disease, and links provided (if necessary) in the 'see also' sections. I just do not think this template helps readers, and hence am proposing this. I look forward to the opinions of other editors Tom (LT) (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: This template wasn't marked as under discussion for deletion, so I've relisted and placed the appropriate notifications.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 13:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Navbox clutter generally refers to situations large number of navboxes are placed on the same page (for an extreme example, see Michael Jordon#External links which transcludes 48 navboxes). In looking through the target articles in the {{Scleroprotein disease}} navbox, most articles have two navboxes which IMHO is not excessive. The larger a navbox becomes, the harder it becomes to use for navigation. This particular navbox, particularly the vertical height is becoming large, but IMHO, still manageable. Perhaps the layout could be improved to make more efficient use of space. Boghog (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:ESIScore
- Template:ESIScore ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This ESI score is based on original research and does not belong in Wikipedia. If it were based on actually peer-reviewed work, we could include it, but it is solely based on self-published material. jps (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Lol WHAT? ESI is original research? Why don't we delete Earth Similarity Index as well then? Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. Mike V • Talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
|
- Comment if this is kept, can someone add documentation to this? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- CheckUser note: Discussion reopened due to vote fraud. Mike V • Talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. ESI appears to have negligible use or acceptance beyond the individual or group that published it. Most, possibly all, articles using this template are about to be deleted. The creator of the template has been spamming and coat racking ESI across a multitude of articles, and using abusive sock multi-voting to keep & promote it. If we discard the abusive sockmaster vote above, this is currently unanimous for delete. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow more time post-SPI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:HabPlanetScore
- Template:HabPlanetScore ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This particular template is based on original research. No peer-reviewed "habitability scores" are published for planets by Kepler, NASA, etc. jps (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Same reason as TfD above. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. Mike V • Talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
|
-
- The ESI is an artificial construct and is not in WP:MAINSTREAM academic use. jps (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete every article using this has majority delete votes on it (once the sock multivoting is discarded). It's being used to present speculative / fringe data in an Original Research manner. Wildly speculative "habitability" of exoplanets is being promoted in a grossly unencyclopedic manner. Alsee (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow more time post-SPI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
April 9
Template:Findgp*
- Template:Findgp* ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Moribund, in practice deprecated. Specialized "find sources" template for gay pornography-related AFDs, fell into apparently immediate disuse because the sources it added to the standard template were mostly self-published or otherwise failed RS. Now appears primarily or exclusively on article talk pages, where it doesn't belong. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
April 8
Template:Holocaust denial
- Template:Holocaust denial ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
A template likely created in good faith but which clearly runs afoul of WP:NLT. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom, and if anything should be speedy deleted without waiting the full seven days. --Gimubrc (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, but no need to rush a speedy since it already has been removed from talk pages. VQuakr (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Clearly a legal threat. --Dmol (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I can't see how this would possibly be useful. More seriously, anybody who applied this template anywhere would risk being indefinitely blocked for issuing legal threats. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:PHINMA Education Network Inc.
- Template:PHINMA Education Network Inc. ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Delete. Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion 4. The subject of the template does not have an article. Sixth of March 03:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Sahaba
- Template:Sahaba ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
A template makes no sense for a long list. Besides, there is List of Sahabah and Category:Sahabah. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Given that this template has more than a few transclusions, this needs further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 01:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
April 7
Template:CLSU
- Template:CLSU ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Most links lead to the sections of the only article that uses this template. Sixth of March 23:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Cite pmid ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cite pmid/11027440 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (example subpage)
- remaining subpages
Per an RFC to deprecate the cite pmid template structure (similar to a related cite doi structure that has already been TFD'd), {{cite pmid}} has been deprecated. There still remain about 7100 template subpages that are due for deletion. If this TFD is approved, we have access to an admin bot that can do the deletions. -- Netoholic @ 22:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support subpage deletion, oppose deletion of actual template. Given the extensive history of the template itself and links to it, I think we can mark template:cite pmid as template:historical rather than deleting it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- The only way to guarantee editors don't attempt to keep using this (and cite doi) is to delete them. Looking at the page, there's no significant value in keeping it, even as historical value. Most of the incoming links are just from user talk pages. Not sure a few red links are much to worry about. Category:Deprecated templates kept for historical reasons only has 11 entries, and 3 of them are the cite templates. We usually only keep templates when removing them would seriously break archives or other valuable historical pages in the Wikipedia: space. This doesn't seem to be the case here. --Netoholic @ 23:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- You can remove the guts of it which is just a cite journal wrapper anyways and make sure the historical mark is included. Besides, they aren't actually adding more uses, it's just cleanup on the current ones which are largely orphaned and thus a waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The only way to guarantee editors don't attempt to keep using this (and cite doi) is to delete them. Looking at the page, there's no significant value in keeping it, even as historical value. Most of the incoming links are just from user talk pages. Not sure a few red links are much to worry about. Category:Deprecated templates kept for historical reasons only has 11 entries, and 3 of them are the cite templates. We usually only keep templates when removing them would seriously break archives or other valuable historical pages in the Wikipedia: space. This doesn't seem to be the case here. --Netoholic @ 23:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all as it's just a way to turn Wikipedia into a database of PubMed citations, contravening WP:NOT so should have been deleted when it was first created, instead of being deprecated recently -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all. There's been repeated consensus at large-scale RfCs against hiding away references in subpages. I'm indifferent about whether the main template goes the way of the dodo, but if it is kept, all functionality should be removed. ~ RobTalk 13:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support subpage deletion, oppose deletion of actual template. This way when viewing page histories we can still have the link to PMID. I'll !vote the same way for the other cite {id} templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support subpage deletion, oppose deletion of actual template to preserve links to {{cite pmid}} on talk pages. The main attraction to using these templates was that the the citation data was automatically added by a bot. This functionality has since been removed. Very few if any of the underlying data templates were manually created by editors. Hence the risk that these templates will be continued to be used is very low. Boghog (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Barisal Burners Roster
- Template:Barisal Burners Roster ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Dhaka Gladiators Roster ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Duronto Rajshahi Roster ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Khulna Royal Bengal Roster ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Sylhet Royals Roster ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
These cricket teams disbanded in 2013, so a roster template is not needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why are they still in use like at Barisal Burners? If the article wants to template the final team (seems like a poor idea but it's been done) then the template is somewhat usuable. Else, it's not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Infobox paranormal term
- Template:Infobox paranormal term ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Completely unnecessary template. Terms are defined in article text. jps (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No function other than duplication of article text or addition of unsourced commentary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete pretty much just duplicates what's already being said on most pages. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 22:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Where necessary, terms should be defined in the body of an article, as normal. Consider Telepathy which is correctly described by its lead as the "purported transmission of information", while the template provides a conflicting definition with a false sense of authority that is not based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:HCCD and Template:WestVi
- Template:HCCD ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WestVi ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Delete both. No useful navigation. Sixth of March 09:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment HCCD navigates 2 articles -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete HCCD since there are only two articles -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment WestVi navigates 4 articles --- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to {{West Visayas State University}} and strip to just the campus links, since that's the only navigation content in the template. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- How about listifying it to West Visayas State University? Sixth of March 07:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's not a nav footer. There's already "#Campuses" list there anyways. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- How about listifying it to West Visayas State University? Sixth of March 07:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to {{West Visayas State University}} and strip to just the campus links, since that's the only navigation content in the template. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Panama Papers leak
- Template:Panama Papers leak ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I see no purpose for this as a navbox. All the articles in it are clearly linked in the main article at Panama Papers. I'm not sure someone reading about Mauricio Macri is going to see an obvious link to Salman. Jolly Ω Janner 08:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This affair of the Panama Papers has exploded all of a sudden, upcoming events are happening very quickly, so I propose to keep this template in existence, at least up to the moment when it can be said that the affair is a "fait accompli". --Fadesga (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - The main article will inevitably get split due to bloating, and this is still all about a fresh event. Ceosad (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, per the above. I'm very sure that the template is useful, and as the number of articles linked by this leak grows, it'll become even more useful. APerson (talk!) 03:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- DELETE. that is not how templates should be used. there is only one link in it that is specifically about the Panama Papers. All the rest of the links are just articles about involved parties. 203.118.164.184 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with the above, that more related articles may be added. Perhaps after a couple of weeks, this can be revisited if necessary. - Paul2520 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep A template is just an editing convenience – a bit of boilerplate which will naturally evolve over time as this fresh topic develops. Deletion should not be used in a heavy-handed way in such circumstances as this would be disruptive. Better to focus on the content of the template and its usage using ordinary editing, as with the rest of the content. Andrew D. (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Andrew D. At best, a poor nomination. Jusdafax 10:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:ACIDnom
- Template:ACIDnom ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template has been cluttering up talk pages with a note about "current candidate" for a long time (e.g. it's been on Talk:Lake Tahoe since 2009). Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive has been inactive for many years - it now redirects to WP:TAFI. DexDor (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm currently working on a bot request (permalink) that aims to fold this template (and a bunch of other ones) into {{article history}}. It may be useful to run the bot and convert all of these transclusions into article history transclusions before deleting. APerson (talk!) 03:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, but (IMO) that an article was (years ago) a candidate for an improvement drive is so unimportant that it doesn't need to be added to {{article history}}. DexDor (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a template only useful for a defunct process. APerson (talk!) 13:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Another piece of ancient, useless talk page clutter. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:RMnac
- Template:RMnac ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I feel like this gives admin's too much power. Autoconfirmed users have been given the technical ability to move pages, therefore I don't think there should have to be a "special declaration" for a user to determine consensus and move a page at requested moves. — Music1201 talk 00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep being trusted with the technical ability to move pages and being experienced enough to determine consensus are two very different things. The template is simply used because it provides clarification that the closer is not an admin. It doesn't prevent non-admins from closing discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 11:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Like {{nac}}, this is a good way for a non-admin closer to indicate that he or she is familiar with NAC standards, hence the link, when he or she makes a close. Use of the template is not mandatory, though I think it's fair to say it's considered good practice. Either way, it does nothing to give anyone more or less power. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem with this template. The use of an admin is to determine consensus, hence extra powers. A non-admin closing a consensus discussion should be marked, since they haven't been vetted to be able to determine consensus, which is one of the duties of admins. If it is unmarked, people might think an admin closed the discussion. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - this template serves as a gateway to becoming an administrator. Those who use it frequently and without stirring up drama (i.e. successfully) build up a track record that enhances their chances for a successful run for administrator privileges. wbm1058 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Wisconsin Wolfpack seasons
- Template:Wisconsin Wolfpack seasons ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
April 6
WP:EXISTING – The navbox is only used in the 2012 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament article, making it hard to navigate. All others are red-linked. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". GauchoDude (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Edit: Re: No. 4 above, in that there is no article for "Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament", but there somehow is an article for "2012 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament". GauchoDude (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Star Parivaar Award templates
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Sautan ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Sasur ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Saas ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Pita ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Patni ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Pati ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Naya Sadasya (Male) ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Naya Sadasya (Female) ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Mazedaar Sadasya ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Maa ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Khalnayak ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Jodi ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Jethani ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite International Jodi ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Devrani ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Devar ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Bhai ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Bhabhi ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Beti ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Beta ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Behen ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Bahu ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favorite Chota Sadasya ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
The above award categories doesn’t even have their own independent pages and they are all unsourced and fail WP:V. These templates are also been created by known socks Chander (talk · contribs · count), Sukriti3 (talk · contribs · count), Noormohammed satya (talk · contribs · count) and one possible WP:SPA AgunDana (talk · contribs · count). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge all into Template:Star Parivaar Awards. There is a stand-alone article for Star Parivaar Awards, so a corresponding template may be appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- But the article doesn't even mention any of the winners backed with WP:RS. The award itself is of questionable notability being an in-house trophy looting ceremony. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 12:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Chest trauma
- Template:Chest trauma ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Trauma ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Chest trauma with Template:Trauma.
Duplicate scope (and at least 50% of contents!) Contents have better navigational value if included all together. So I propose a merge Tom (LT) (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 12:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs
- Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs with Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs.
No reason to separate named and unnamed medical signs and symptoms (confusing in fact). Would benefit readers to have these located in the same navbox, making navigating less confusing. Tom (LT) (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 12:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Airports in Uttar Pradesh
- Template:Airports in Uttar Pradesh ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant with broader Template:Airports in India present. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:ES-FreeSoftwareDistro
- Template:ES-FreeSoftwareDistro ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Not a type of OS, the distros in the template have no relation from each other apart from the country of origin. We don't have similar templates to this one. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Santa Clara University ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Santa Clara Broncos navbox with Template:Santa Clara University.
These six links can/should be merged into the University template. There isn't enough links for Athletics to have its own template. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 01:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Pune Warriors India Roster
- Template:Pune Warriors India Roster ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This team dissolved in 2013, so a roster isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:PonderLindberg2008
- Template:PonderLindberg2008 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Khulna Royal Bengal in 2012 Season
- Template:Khulna Royal Bengal in 2012 Season ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This team dissolved in 2013, so a roster isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
April 5
Template:I.O.I
- Template:I.O.I ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
The articles linked all relate to Produce 101, and Template:Produce 101 exists, so a second template seems redundant at this point. I.O.I hasn't done much yet and it's a little too soon for a navbox. Random86 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I kind of did warn them about that. lol Anyway I agree with that, there is no need for two let alone one there is just not enough information to put between them. Alicia leo86 (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
April 4
Template:Chelsea F.C. squad 2012 FIFA Club World Cup
- Template:Chelsea F.C. squad 2012 FIFA Club World Cup ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template isn't in use, and I don't think it's notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:1989 Wichita State Shockers College World Series Champions
- Template:1989 Wichita State Shockers College World Series Champions ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
duplicate template; exactly the same as Template:1989 Wichita State Shockers baseball Joeykai (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant, per nom. Billcasey905 (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep and delete the other one; this title is more professional. --Gimubrc (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Rescinded; see below.- @Gimubrc: Deleting the other one and keeping this one isn't an option, due to attribution issues. This is a direct copy-paste duplication of {{1989 Wichita State Shockers baseball}}. You can even see that the creator of this template made an edit on the other immediately before creating this one. ~ RobTalk 18:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Wikitree side box
- Template:Wikitree side box ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
It feels really spammy, and I don't see any particular reason to link to this one website or to have a template for that purpose. It creates the appearance of some sort of connection between Wikipedia and Wikitree. And it links to an open Wiki, violating WP:ELNO. -- Irn (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Author I am on editor on both Wikitree and Wikipedia. The two wikis complement each other: Wikipedia concentrates on notability and biography; Wikitree concentrates on the family tree. Most of the family tree will not be notable and therefore should be excluded in Wikipedia but (in my view) there should be a link to that person's tree on Wikitree. Are you proposing a complete removal of this link or do want want it changed it some way? Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template User I am not sure why you want this wonderful addition deleted from the Wikipedia articles. I looked through the list of Links Normally to be Avoided and I think WikiTree is not a conflict to any of the items, 1 through 19.
1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. The unique resource is the individual's twig on the worldwide WikiTree.
2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. No, not WikiTree.
3 Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. No, not WikiTree.
4 Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming. No, not WikiTree.
5 Individual web pages[6] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. No, not WikiTree.
6 Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[5] See § Sites requiring registration. No, not WikiTree. WikiTree is FREE.
7 Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that work only with a specific browser or in a specific country. No, not WikiTree. WikiTree is a one, worldwide family tree.
8 Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See § Rich media for more details. No, not WikiTree.
9 Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds. WikiTree is not at search engine. It is a family tree.
10 Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists. No, not WikiTree.
11 Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) No, not WikiTree.
12 Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. Our tree includes 11,043,210 profiles edited by 317,151 genealogists from around the world.
13 Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. The template links are directly to the individual's WikiTree profile page.
14 Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers. WikiTree has none of these.
15 Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools.[5] For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates. No, not WikiTree.
16 Sites that are not reliably functional and/or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time. The WikiTree website has been operational since 2008.
17 Affiliate, tracking or referral links, i.e., links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information. No, not WikiTree.
18 External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages. No, not WikiTree.
19 Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.[5][7] No, not WikiTree.
I hope this answers your questions and that you will accept the links to WikiTree pages. Thanks for your consideration. Kitty Cooper-1 Smith KinCityKitty (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Templates of Australian Tours
- Template:Australia Squad 1974 Tour to New Zealand ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Australia Squad 1977 Tour to New Zealand ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Australia Squad 1977 Tour to England ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navigational templates for tours of national cricket teams are never needed. GreenCricket (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all Being part of those touring parties is not a notable, definable characteristic for those players. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Pet Sounds tracks
- Template:Pet Sounds tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:15 Big Ones tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:20/20 tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:All Summer Long tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Beach Boys' Party! tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Endless Summer tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Friends tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:L.A. (Light Album) tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Little Deuce Coupe tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Shut Down Volume 2 tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Smiley Smile tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Summer Days tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Sunflower tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Surf's Up tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Surfer Girl tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Surfin' Safari tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Surfin' U.S.A. tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:The Smile Sessions tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Today! tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Wild Honey tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Another one of the unnecessary templates for The Beach Boys, completely redundant in place of {{Pet Sounds}} which is a much more informative navigational template. —IB [ Poke ] 14:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per precedent; these are redundant when templates for singers and their songs already exist. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as above. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Template:L.A. (Light Album) and Template:Endless Summer because they don't have an album navbox.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
April 3
Template:Important concept
- Template:Important concept ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Essentially duplicates Template:Policy, which are likely to be the only pages where this template would be used. Additionally, it could be mis-used outside the meta-space, so any use of this template must be restricted to non-article space, if in fact the template is kept. Izno (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wait This template is useful and it is different from Template:Policy, I think.--Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 02:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment the WP:Five pillars would seem to sit above policy in the WP:POLICY hierarchy of pillars > principles > polices > guidelines > wikiproject localconsensuses ; it could be renamed to {{five pillars page}} or something -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. While I appreciate that the editor who created this is being helpful, I don't think there's any need for this template when the relevant policies already transclude templates like {{policy}}, and I also have some concerns about potential for confusion. While Wikipedia:Five pillars is an unusually helpful page to direct new editors to the core policies, it's not a policy or guideline. The same is true of Wikipedia:Core content policies. While people hold up the five pillars as some of the most important policies (with good reason!), they have no official status that elevates them above other policies. This template has substantial potential to confuse editors into thinking the five pillars somehow stand above other policies. In fact, it appears to already have done this to the IP above me. ~ RobTalk 05:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete In principle the template is a good idea in that it attempts to highlight important pages for those new to Wikipedia, but often small is good and adding more gumph to the top of a page does not help. An implication of the notice may be that readers can ignore pages which do not carry the message. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, per Wait arguments above. Or relist. -Mardus /talk 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, per Rob and Izno. —zziccardi (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am waiting for the result. If the result is Delete, I have right to appeal.--Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 03:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Shwangtianyuan: I just want to make sure you understand the DRV process and don't have unrealistic expectations there. DRV determines whether consensus was assessed appropriately at the original discussion. It is not a "do-over" of the original discussion. ~ RobTalk 04:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Shwangtianyuan and Mardus: Could you clarify exactly what we're waiting for? I'm a bit confused by your request for more time. More time for what? ~ RobTalk 04:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Until there's enough relevant discussion and votes. -Mardus /talk 13:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Mardus: just to be clear, then, you're not voting to keep? ~ RobTalk 13:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: I'm now voting to Keep, or for the template to be merged into {{Policy}} as an alternative, because the template under discussion is different in nature from the Policy template. I first voted to wait, because it does not appear, as if most of the respondents understood that there is a difference between the two. This template notifies all readers about something important regarding Wikipedia and its values, while the Policy template is primarily meant for editors. -Mardus /talk 13:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Mardus: just to be clear, then, you're not voting to keep? ~ RobTalk 13:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Until there's enough relevant discussion and votes. -Mardus /talk 13:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
About3 & About4
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 merge About3/4 into About as per WP:SNOW. Pinging Nihiltres as requested. If you're not familiar with AWB/regex, let me know. AWB would make this merge very, very simple. ~ RobTalk 17:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:About3 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:About4 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:About ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:About3 and Template:About4 with Template:About.
I've been doing some maintenance on hatnote templates, and these two templates, {{about3}} and {{about4}} (also known as {{two other uses}} and {{three other uses}} respectively) add needless complexity to our hatnote systems. In almost all respects they duplicate {{about}} (they themselves transclude {{about}} to produce their functionality!), but when a certain number of arguments are present, they add a single extra "For X, see Y" argument, almost always in the form "For other uses, see PAGENAME (disambiguation)". In other words, every single one of their transclusions could be replaced with plain {{about}} calls, usually with a single extra parameter containing "other uses" added, e.g. {{about3|...}}
→ {{about|...|other uses}}
.
As a side benefit to reducing the number of hatnote templates out there, it'll in particular reduce the number of hatnote templates that produce their own functionality by transcluding {{about}}, which is a barrier to my converting {{about}} to use a Lua module, letting it offer fancy Module:Hatnote-based features like automatically prettifying Article#Section to Article § Section, and cleaner implementation of the "and" keyword.
For some context:
- {{about}}: ~140,000 transclusions (although note that about 40,000 of those are presumably {{other uses}} transclusions, since it also abuses {{about}}; fixing that's also on my list.)
- {{about3}}: ~1500 transclusions
- {{about4}}: ~140 transclusions
Although this is framed as a "merge" proposal, my goal here is to merge their uses to {{about}} and to delete them (and their redirects) once orphaned, to minimize potential confusion caused by the slight differences in functionality. For that reason, {{about}} has not been tagged as part of this nomination. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support as long as {{About}} can handle the cases set forth by the articles using {{about3}} and {{about4}} (which from what you stated, will be the case). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support since all of the template's functionality is to specify the other uses of an article and to behave in a similar way to {{about}}. DSCrowned(talk) 22:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support. Make sure, then, that subsequent documentation is concise and easy to understand. -Mardus /talk 02:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Mardus: Will do. Overhauling hatnotes is a big project, but to start I'm focusing on simplifying the landscape. Getting rid of needless variants should serve to simplify documentation practically on its own, let alone the syntax used "in the wild". {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Current documentation being complicated is another showing of the complexity of the issue itself (todays hatnote-spaghetti, from an evolution). IOW, one can hardly write a simple & clean documentation for the current situation. Grand redesign will also simplify the stuff to be documented. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Mardus: Will do. Overhauling hatnotes is a big project, but to start I'm focusing on simplifying the landscape. Getting rid of needless variants should serve to simplify documentation practically on its own, let alone the syntax used "in the wild". {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support per Mardus. Getting rid of redundancy is always a good idea, but I've seen so many bad merges, in which the result is a highly confusing and (generally) rather complex template that's a lot harder to use. I support something that really does make the situation easier, but I'll oppose anything that doesn't handle existing cases well or that doesn't make itself simple to use. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support: I was wondering why we had so many nearly redundant hatnote templates a few months ago, and actually was thinking of proposing a merger, but somehow got busy and forgot to. – voidxor 00:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support for all reasons mentioned in the OP. Cleanup the hatnote landscape is an honorable and well-needed aim. -DePiep (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Let's simplify the system. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support: Eliminating redundancies definitely makes sense here. I'm looking forward to seeing the functionality handled by a Lua module. —zziccardi (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note to closer, since this looks certain to close in favour of the nomination: please do not merge or delete the templates directly; instead please tag them with
{{deprecated template|About}}
and ping me in the close. I'll take responsibility for orphaning the templates and deleting them once orphaned; I've got the mop but need to establish consensus for the change. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC) - Support per nom. --Proud User (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Always good to simplify. Liam987 talk 14:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Slavic Orthodox Christianity
- Template:Slavic Orthodox Christianity ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
There is no such thing as "Slavic Orthodox Christianity". That article does not exist and the template it made up of various Eastern Orthodox concepts. Very confusing. Zoupan 18:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I got the idea to create this template from some of the articles about the Russian slavophiles and articles like this one Slavic Orthodox. I did not create this article nor the term nor the other releated articles. So I wonder if the above editor can find a source that says there is no such thing as Slavic Orthodox? Since there is of course Slavic Christianity and Slavic neopaganism, Slavic Muslims and sources that use the term Slavic Orthodox [1], [2], [3]. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 13:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Old discussions
April 2
Template:Uw-crystal
- Template:Uw-crystal ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I think the gist of the template is already covered by the Uw-unsourced series of templates. Do we really need a single-issue notice for something that's already covered by another warning? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 21:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This template is especially useful when people are adding rumors about celebrities, sports signings, etc. that are being reported by sources (possibly even reliable sources), but only as rumors. There is enough difference between this and the unsourced templates to make this very useful. ~ RobTalk 21:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, distinct and relevant. Listef (klat) 10:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I see nothing wrong with this template, at all Mlpearc (open channel) 15:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Scleroprotein disease
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 relisted here. ~ RobTalk 00:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Scleroprotein disease ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I propose that this template is deleted because it adds to 'navbox clutter' on pages and does not help readers navigate between pages.
I propose that this template is instead converted to a table placed on the page Collagen disease, and links provided (if necessary) in the 'see also' sections. I just do not think this template helps readers, and hence am proposing this. I look forward to the opinions of other editors Tom (LT) (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: This template wasn't marked as under discussion for deletion, so I've relisted and placed the appropriate notifications.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 13:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Navbox clutter generally refers to situations large number of navboxes are placed on the same page (for an extreme example, see Michael Jordon#External links which transcludes 48 navboxes). In looking through the target articles in the {{Scleroprotein disease}} navbox, most articles have two navboxes which IMHO is not excessive. The larger a navbox becomes, the harder it becomes to use for navigation. This particular navbox, particularly the vertical height is becoming large, but IMHO, still manageable. Perhaps the layout could be improved to make more efficient use of space. Boghog (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
April 1
Template:ESIScore
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 Relisted here. ~ RobTalk 00:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:ESIScore ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This ESI score is based on original research and does not belong in Wikipedia. If it were based on actually peer-reviewed work, we could include it, but it is solely based on self-published material. jps (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Lol WHAT? ESI is original research? Why don't we delete Earth Similarity Index as well then? Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. Mike V • Talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
|
- Comment if this is kept, can someone add documentation to this? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- CheckUser note: Discussion reopened due to vote fraud. Mike V • Talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. ESI appears to have negligible use or acceptance beyond the individual or group that published it. Most, possibly all, articles using this template are about to be deleted. The creator of the template has been spamming and coat racking ESI across a multitude of articles, and using abusive sock multi-voting to keep & promote it. If we discard the abusive sockmaster vote above, this is currently unanimous for delete. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:HabPlanetScore
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 Relisted here. ~ RobTalk 00:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:HabPlanetScore ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This particular template is based on original research. No peer-reviewed "habitability scores" are published for planets by Kepler, NASA, etc. jps (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Same reason as TfD above. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. Mike V • Talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
|
-
- The ESI is an artificial construct and is not in WP:MAINSTREAM academic use. jps (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete every article using this has majority delete votes on it (once the sock multivoting is discarded). It's being used to present speculative / fringe data in an Original Research manner. Wildly speculative "habitability" of exoplanets is being promoted in a grossly unencyclopedic manner. Alsee (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:2016–17 SEC women's basketball standings
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 00:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:2016–17 SEC women's basketball standings ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
The college basketball season this is for is the better part of a year away. WP:TOOSOON ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Gaddafi backed
- Template:Gaddafi backed ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Inclusion of these very different organizations or vaguely related topics into this controversial template is neither specified, qualified, or quantified, nor is it sourced or comprehensively covered.
Even if a proper article on this topic existed, I doubt this is an appropriate topic for a navbox. We could have myriads of similar templates claiming to collect groups supported by Putin, Erdoğan, the Saud family, U.S. government agencies, etc. p.p. But I'd rather keep navboxes limited to uncontroversially related articles only. I'm however not opposed to listifying these, if properly sourced. PanchoS (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: the Gaddafi government in Libya was particularly notable for it's foreign policy of supporting and financing revolutionary political movements (the article for this is Foreign relations of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi) across the world associated with the Non-Aligned Movement and this was a key aspect to a number of conflicts. This is an uncontroversial fact. Yes, we could have other templates along similar lines, that could be very useful... I think templates on movements the US or Soviet Union supported as part of their foreign policy during the Cold War would be useful. Or even the Saudi royal family. Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The question here should be "Will readers want to navigate from one group supported by Gaddafi to all other groups supported by Gaddafi?" The answer to this is a clear no. While a properly sourced list may work in the mainspace, this doesn't make sense as a navbox. ~ RobTalk 00:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Humor
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 TPH fails to stop the pranksters. Gimubrc (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Humor ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Another easy way to stop all the april fool's pranks today. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - @TenPoundHammer: This would require removing the transclusions from pages using the template. Eyesnore 03:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep that won't stop anything, rather it will hide it all away, making people assume they are serious (assuming, since this isn't carrying such a template, that this is a serious nomination)-- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Article for deletion
Humorous April fools nomination
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 April Fool's. Gimubrc (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Article for deletion ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Easiest way to stop all the jokey april fool's day nominations. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - @TenPoundHammer: Deleting will prevent any further deletion nominations in the mainspace. This is critical. Eyesnore 03:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Transfer to AFD, ovbvioiusuly an AfD matter -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move to WP:AFAFD --TL22 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
March 30
Template:Led Zeppelin IV tracks
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. ~ RobTalk 01:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Led Zeppelin IV tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
duplicates the corresponding navbox. Frietjes (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The {{Led Zeppelin IV}} navbox serves the same purpose. Follows precedent of {{Abbey Road}} and {{Abbey Road tracks}}, among many others. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:See for
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. Unopposed. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:See for ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Two transclusions total and completely redundant to {{for}}. Only difference from {{for}} is that this one has the nonstandard form "See Y for X" rather than the usual "For X, see Y" and doesn't use the standard {{hatnote}} meta-template. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have converted it to {{hatnote}} ; however it is still redundant -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: since this TfD seems uncontroversial, I've gone ahead and replaced the two transclusions, at The Ara Project and Real-time analyzer. I also struck the outdated bits in my nomination above. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:EXISTING -- Two links does not navigate a navbox... 🍀 Corkythehornetfan 🍀 21:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Corky, the navbox now has four blue links. Will you withdraw the nomination? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination – there are now enough links to navigate. 🍀 Corkythehornetfan 🍀 01:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Sahaba
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 relisted here. ~ RobTalk 01:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Sahaba ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
A template makes no sense for a long list. Besides, there is List of Sahabah and Category:Sahabah. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Packers1995DraftPicks
- Template:Packers1995DraftPicks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused. ~ RobTalk 17:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Worcestershire Lines
- Template:Worcestershire Lines ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Worcestershire Railways ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; not at all opposed to userfying if someone decides they want these or will develop an article on this topic. ~ RobTalk 16:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like to try and implement this into some pages (example), however I've never been able to successfully do this, as I'm not particularly au fait with the wikipedia system. Given the work put it, I would appreciate if any guidance could be given to use this in other pages (as well as perhaps develop the article itself), rather than have it deleted. Class172 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Class172: Do you prefer one over the other? They seem to both be basically the same template. I'm happy to withdraw my nomination, but I think it's best to remove whichever one of them you consider the lesser, since they're redundant. As for how to incorporate them into articles, it's really simple! All you have to do is type
{{Worcestershire Lines}}
wherever you want the template. You'd do the same with the Railways template if you decide to use that one instead, just changing the name within the double curly brackets. Hope that helps! ~ RobTalk 22:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)- In the absence of a response from Class172, I'll leave it up to the closing editor which of these should be deleted as redundant and which should be considered withdrawn by me. Personally, I'd prefer to keep {{Worcestershire Lines}} and delete {{Worcestershire Railways}} as redundant, since Lines has less white space. ~ RobTalk 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've userfied both of them at User:Useddenim/Worcester RDT, so it doesn't really matter to me, as long as it's possible to restore (at least) one of them at a future time. Useddenim (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies, I have been away for the past week so haven't been able to keep track with events until now. I would agree that {{Worcestershire Lines}} is probably the better to keep, given as you say it is slightly better designed. We're probably safe to delete the {{Worcestershire Railways}} as it is effectively a duplicate. Over the next month I will be very busy however after that time I will aim to construct some body for the 'Lines' article - which might be best to start in my user area. Class172 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've userfied both of them at User:Useddenim/Worcester RDT, so it doesn't really matter to me, as long as it's possible to restore (at least) one of them at a future time. Useddenim (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- In the absence of a response from Class172, I'll leave it up to the closing editor which of these should be deleted as redundant and which should be considered withdrawn by me. Personally, I'd prefer to keep {{Worcestershire Lines}} and delete {{Worcestershire Railways}} as redundant, since Lines has less white space. ~ RobTalk 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Overseas Security Advisory Council
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 01:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Overseas Security Advisory Council ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Despite its lengthy set-up, this entire templates seems to have never been used. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
March 27
Template:List of computer viruses (Numeric) UI
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. Izkala (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:List of computer viruses (Numeric) UI ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:List of computer viruses (E-K) UI ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, intended for list articles that have since been merged. ~ RobTalk 21:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree per nominator SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 all, replacing with {{College football national champion (championship game era) navbox}} where necessary. ~ RobTalk 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
These navboxes are redundant now that the more inclusive Template:College football national champion (championship game era) navbox has superceded them. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. More comprehensive navbox exists.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Inspiration for their creation was to get rid of e. g. the playoff navbox with 2 teams. Cake (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Cake, because if Cake wants a navbox deleted then there's probably a very good reason. Lizard (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 relisted here. ~ RobTalk 12:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs with Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs.
No reason to separate named and unnamed medical signs and symptoms (confusing in fact). Would benefit readers to have these located in the same navbox, making navigating less confusing. Tom (LT) (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Chest trauma
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 relisted here. ~ RobTalk 12:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Chest trauma ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Trauma ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Chest trauma with Template:Trauma.
Duplicate scope (and at least 50% of contents!) Contents have better navigational value if included all together. So I propose a merge Tom (LT) (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Protected generic image name
- Template:Protected generic image name ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Pp-generic-image ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_March_7#Template:Protected_generic_image_name has decided to deprecate the usage of this method for handling vaguely named files, so this template should be deleted, or if the links are an issue marked as historical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Adding a subtemplate.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment only two people participated in that discussion. I don't think it was adequately advertised to end up with a deprecation outcome. If we can block all COMMONS images from appearing at these highly generic filenames (which has not occurred, since many of the file names are blue with real images instead of placeholders), then the files should never have been deleted in the first place, as the COMMONS versions are inadequately named, and English Wikipedia should not suffer from errors occurring on COMMONS. Unless COMMONS can be clearly salted first, all the protected generic name file pages should be undeleted to prevent article pollution on English Wikipedia; and whenever a page is decided to be overly generic on English Wikipedia, it should be protected to prevent COMMONS bleedthrough, until such a time as COMMONS can be salted for each an every page thus decided. So, these templates should always be needed, as new file names come up, while awaiting salting on COMMONS. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure why you think having these local files does help us any. The point is to not have these vaguely named uploads, merely hiding them behind a placeholder is not really the point and does only create confusion for uploaders.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure why you think that we should block Commons images. That would just create a backlog: the generic placeholders will then need to be renamed so that the Commons images become unblocked. Also, generic file names are regularly blocked on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- That is clearly not the case, since if you look at the FFD discussion all the files with bluelinks are commons files with extremely generic names, which have existed for many years on Commons. We shouldn't be allowing extremely generic files to bleed through to English Wikipedia, if people need to use such files, they should then endeavour to cleanup Commons first and rename those files before using them on English Wikipedia, thus making Commons cleanup its messes first. (including redirects) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- If a file is uploaded on Commons and this file hides a file on Commons, then the local file needs to be deleted or moved away to unshadow the Commons file. What you are proposing is that we should create backlogs simply for the purpose of creating backlogs. Additionally, the upload process needs to be user-friendly. For example, if a user uploads a file, then the user expects that it should be possible to add the file to a page, but you are suggesting that we should make the upload process user-unfriendly by deliberately making so that images won't appear on pages when users upload the pictures. If a user uploads an image with a bad name, then the user still expects it to display on pages. Sure, it should be renamed, but that's a later and less important problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- They are not backlogs as far a English Wikipedia is concerned. That Commons is a mess should not affect English Wikipedia, which should be kept in order. Having these filenames blocked on English Wikipedia keeps English Wikipedia from being disordered. If Commons can't keep its own house in order, its mess should not be allowed to infect English Wikipedia -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Um, yes, there was a {{ShadowsCommons}} backlog before all these files were deleted. There probably would be a future backlog as well as files are continually uploaded to Commons.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- These would never become ShadowCommons backlogs, since any filepage with this template will never allow the commons image through, so there is no backlog on English Wikipedia to fix, as the purpose is to block Commons, instead of just indicating a different file exists on Commons. So no fixing is necessary on English Wikipedia. It is a mess on Commons, instead of English Wikipedia. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Um, yes, there was a {{ShadowsCommons}} backlog before all these files were deleted. There probably would be a future backlog as well as files are continually uploaded to Commons.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- They are not backlogs as far a English Wikipedia is concerned. That Commons is a mess should not affect English Wikipedia, which should be kept in order. Having these filenames blocked on English Wikipedia keeps English Wikipedia from being disordered. If Commons can't keep its own house in order, its mess should not be allowed to infect English Wikipedia -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- If a file is uploaded on Commons and this file hides a file on Commons, then the local file needs to be deleted or moved away to unshadow the Commons file. What you are proposing is that we should create backlogs simply for the purpose of creating backlogs. Additionally, the upload process needs to be user-friendly. For example, if a user uploads a file, then the user expects that it should be possible to add the file to a page, but you are suggesting that we should make the upload process user-unfriendly by deliberately making so that images won't appear on pages when users upload the pictures. If a user uploads an image with a bad name, then the user still expects it to display on pages. Sure, it should be renamed, but that's a later and less important problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- That is clearly not the case, since if you look at the FFD discussion all the files with bluelinks are commons files with extremely generic names, which have existed for many years on Commons. We shouldn't be allowing extremely generic files to bleed through to English Wikipedia, if people need to use such files, they should then endeavour to cleanup Commons first and rename those files before using them on English Wikipedia, thus making Commons cleanup its messes first. (including redirects) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure why you think that we should block Commons images. That would just create a backlog: the generic placeholders will then need to be renamed so that the Commons images become unblocked. Also, generic file names are regularly blocked on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure why you think having these local files does help us any. The point is to not have these vaguely named uploads, merely hiding them behind a placeholder is not really the point and does only create confusion for uploaders.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
And what if the local image blocks a legit Commons image that someone wants to use? That would still create a backlog.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. If other editors disagree with the FfD outcome, they should take that up through WP:Deletion review or similar. In the meantime, the reality is that these templates are completely unused and providing no benefit to the project given the FfD outcome. ~ RobTalk 12:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep and reopen the discussion about its deletion - two editors is not a consensus and the original discussion should not have been closed to begin with. --Gimubrc (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:The Real Housewives of Vancouver
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 12:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:The Real Housewives of Vancouver ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Completely unnecessary navbox. Only two links and only used on one of the two linked articles. AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:BS!
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 12:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:BS! ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Not used in any articles and not part of the current WP:RDT documentation. Only mention outside a user sandbox is in the deprecated part of the transwiki guide. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 03:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
March 24
Template:Redirect5
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 as G7 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Redirect5 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
It's used on only one page (Mu (letter)). It was used on ~5 pages when I first looked, but most of those usages proved improper or needless when I checked them, and so I replaced those usages with {{redirect}}. It implicitly encourages people to add needless text to hatnotes (against the guideline). Having fewer hatnote templates overall makes the system simpler, which is desirable. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep.
Not only has the nominator not proven its lack of usefulness, but the nominator also admitted to orphaning the template out of process. No redirect hatnote template is similar to this for this specific purpose.The template serves to further explain the readers the distinction when the "...redirects here. For ..., see ..." still isn't enough as proven in Mu (letter)'s current reversion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- @Steel1943: There are 5 pages on which I replaced the template. On Marriage, its use was almost certainly a mistake or typo (I corrected the mistake by applying {{redirect4}}), and on the other four its use was unhelpful. Those other four hatnotes did not need the extra context, which should not be added in most cases: the Wikipedia:Hatnote guideline is very clear in saying "Keep explanations to a minimum". I mentioned in the nomination that use of the template generally contradicts the hatnote guideline, which ought to be proof of its general lack of usefulness. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Nihiltres: I think I see what you mean about the pages you edited as I don't think I placed those templates (please correct me if I'm wrong.) However, on Mu (letter), there really is not a clearer way to distinguish why a character that looks exactly like a letter of the alphabet redirects where it does. If I recall, I created the template specifically for Mu (letter) since no other available options sufficed to explain the situation with the non-alphabetic symbol that looks completely identical to an alphabetic symbol redirects there. To the naked eye, an editor could think that the letter M redirects there when it clearly doesn't. There were no other hatnote templates that could be customized in the way I built {{Redirect5}} to explain the situation. In other words, most likely, this template will refer to symbols that looks like alphanumeric symbols that neither represent a standard alphabet letter or number. Instead of recommending this template for deletion, possibly the documentation should be updated instead to explain when specifically this template should be used. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Having reflected on it a little, we can probably replace the Mu case with
{{redirect-distinguish2|Μ|the Latin letter [[M]]}}
, which currently produces as its text "Μ" redirects here. It is not to be confused with the Latin letter M. That seems quite clear as a replacement, given that the user's arrived at "Mu (letter)". {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- @Nihiltres: The issue I see with that hatnote that could still cause confusion is that the "...M redirects here" text still looks like the Latin letter M ... since the Greek and Latin letters look identical. Your idea sets the expectation that all readers have an initiate understanding that the 26-letter alphabet is derived specifically from Latin. The hatnote doesn't help the reader understand that there is a specific difference between Latin and Greek symbols/letters to help them understand and locate the proper topic. To kind of put what I'm saying in a bit more context, I don't think that redirects should ever have to specify what character code made them arrive at the destination page if a character looks identical to another (since that would obviously be far to much), but without basic explanation between the two identical but different characters, readers could still be confused no matter which variation of the character they use. The format in this template allows an option to expand on that explanation without having to use {{Redirect}} or {{Hatnote}} since it could serve a specific purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I may see if there are other pages where this hatnote could be valid to better illustrate my concern regarding the "alphabet" issue. If so, I'll place this template on those pages to show its possible usefulness. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Nihiltres: At this point, it looks like that the template could be placed on all 26 Greek alphabet pages to distinguish them from their Latin counterparts. (I've already added the template to at least Alpha and Beta.) With that being said, it may make sense to change the wording in this template and rename it something like {{Redirect-distinguish3}} or even {{Redirect-distinguish-alphabet}} since the "Redirect-distinguish" text may make more sense, as you pointed out. Using Alpha for example, the hatnote could be adjusted to say "Α", the Greek letter, redirects here. It is not to be confused with the Latin letter A. Then, it can be changed around to customize what alphabet languages are being distinguished from each other. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Having reflected on it a little, we can probably replace the Mu case with
- @Nihiltres: I think I see what you mean about the pages you edited as I don't think I placed those templates (please correct me if I'm wrong.) However, on Mu (letter), there really is not a clearer way to distinguish why a character that looks exactly like a letter of the alphabet redirects where it does. If I recall, I created the template specifically for Mu (letter) since no other available options sufficed to explain the situation with the non-alphabetic symbol that looks completely identical to an alphabetic symbol redirects there. To the naked eye, an editor could think that the letter M redirects there when it clearly doesn't. There were no other hatnote templates that could be customized in the way I built {{Redirect5}} to explain the situation. In other words, most likely, this template will refer to symbols that looks like alphanumeric symbols that neither represent a standard alphabet letter or number. Instead of recommending this template for deletion, possibly the documentation should be updated instead to explain when specifically this template should be used. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Delete or merge into {{Redirect}}. Nom has shown that it is underused. So, this is a good candidate for spring cleaning. (Disposing of the non-essentials.) We can already implement its function using {{Hatnote}} in the rare cases that are needed (like we always do). Or we can get more serious and merge it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or merge into {{Redirect}} or {{Redirect-distinguish2}} per Codename Lisa. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Creator comment: Since I strongly believe that merging will not work in any application as I have adequately described above, and since it seems that this template is going to stay in any fashion, I'm going to remove all remaining transclusions and stick a grand ol' {{Db-g7}} on it. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Unicode
- Template:Unicode ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template was used as a work-around for display of Unicode characters in Internet Explorer 6. Discussion on the talk page concluded this isn't useful any more nowadays. This template should be substituted before deletion. —Ruud 21:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete after substing. Just to note: IE6 was not the problem, it was XP (affecting also Chrome). With MS having dropped support two years ago, there is no reason to maintain this.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
21:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)- MS still support corporate installations of XP. Our article states "As of January 2016, Windows XP desktop market share is 8% (and market share is higher in e.g. China at 26%, India; Asia in general and Africa), making it the fifth most popular after Windows 8.1 and OS X (though some statistics rank it second after Windows 7". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Being the English Language Wikipedia, I don't quite get why China's share is so important here. I think reader share is more significant.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
19:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Being the English Language Wikipedia, I don't quite get why China's share is so important here. I think reader share is more significant.
- MS still support corporate installations of XP. Our article states "As of January 2016, Windows XP desktop market share is 8% (and market share is higher in e.g. China at 26%, India; Asia in general and Africa), making it the fifth most popular after Windows 8.1 and OS X (though some statistics rank it second after Windows 7". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per my reply to Edokter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Edokter: Could you clarify which browsers on XP are affected. IIRC Firefox has never needed this hack, not even on XP. Do the most recent versions of IE and Chrome that run on XP need this?
- @Pigsonthewing: Even if those browsers need this hack, then it's important to consider that:
- Keeping this template around is still going to be pretty useless, as no one is bothering to add it to any articles anymore.
- Chrome support for XP will end April 2016. So if you're still running XP with anything other than Firefox, then having a few Unicode character not showing up is going to be the least of your concerns.
- —Ruud 09:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Ruud Koot, Firefox seems to be the only one handling all unicode correctly, as long as the proper fonts are available. IE, Chrome and Opera all rely on Windows for proper Unicode support, and are more prone to fail.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
15:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ruud Koot, Firefox seems to be the only one handling all unicode correctly, as long as the proper fonts are available. IE, Chrome and Opera all rely on Windows for proper Unicode support, and are more prone to fail.
-
- Weak keep, though I am on XP,
my !vote is more about using a documented template rather than raw html markup—PC-XT+ 02:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC) 02:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)- Oh, are you proposing to remove the class, (and HTML wrapper,) as well? In that case, there would be no raw HTML concern —PC-XT+ 02:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PC-XT: Yes this is about completely removing this hack, so there is not going to be any raw HTML inserted instead of this template. —Ruud 09:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alright. I edited my !vote. This workaround is losing its need as time goes on. It has almost been de facto deprecated by disuse. There are still "many" of us XP users. (I don't use it exclusively, but prefer it for many things. I tend to collect and use old OSes, as my name implies, but I know some who use it almost exclusively.) As argued, most of us tend to have more important concerns than Unicode characters displaying properly. If we do care, we tend to use Firefox or, somewhat rarely, other local workarounds, because unlike wikis, most sites don't let us install such things on them. It is most often just a minor annoyance, now. I still lean towards keep, though probably not for long. Do we have any statistics on what browsers are used by XP visitors? If most are using Firefox, it would strengthen the deletion argument. —PC-XT+ 21:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PC-XT: The relevant group is Windows XP users that haven't switched to an alternative browser (under the assumption that people that were smart enough to switch to Chrome are also smart enough to switch to Firefox next month). In June 2015 the usage share on Wikimedia sites of MSIE 6.0 was 0.25%, of MSIE 7.0 was 0.63%, and of MSIE 8.0 was 1.28% [4]. But keep in mind that the share for IE7 likely includes a lot of Vista users, and the share for IE8 a lot of Win7 users. This is also for all Wikimedia sites; a disproportional percentage of the those requests may well go to projects other than the the English Wikipedia (as XP is disproportionately popular in Asia as Andy pointed out above). —Ruud 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- And by the way, this template is (was) only needed for more exotic Unicode characters. Latin letters with common diacritics, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and Japanese should all be fine without it. —Ruud 23:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm... That's interesting data, but I'll need to think about it. I'm not sure someone who is still using XP but not using IE would necessarily use Firefox, though if they cared about this issue, they would be more likely to. Some just don't seem to get along with Firefox. Many XP users change the user agent string, especially for older browser versions, to something more common. If they pretend to be a different OS, however, these corrections would be disabled, anyway. Wikimedia sites get a lot of traffic, so a small percentage can still be a lot. The HTML page percentage is 1.75% for the two older browser versions. I expect these include more annonymous usage. I certainly don't mind removing this from any characters that don't need to use it. I might go through some transclusions to see if they are needed, myself... —PC-XT+ 07:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 08:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Something else to think about... inaccessibility creep: Wikipedia is becoming harder for older browsers to visit successfully, anyway. I don't think I can even load Wikipedia in IE8-, possably due to pushing a kind of secure connection to anonymous users that was not used when the browsers were made. ("Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage") Many other secure sites have that issue, since the older security was found to be flawed. —PC-XT+ 08:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PC-XT: That's actually a good point. Those browsers statistics are from before we required HTTPS. I think IE6 users won't be able to view Wikipedia anyway today (ssllabs.com). —Ruud 10:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm... That's interesting data, but I'll need to think about it. I'm not sure someone who is still using XP but not using IE would necessarily use Firefox, though if they cared about this issue, they would be more likely to. Some just don't seem to get along with Firefox. Many XP users change the user agent string, especially for older browser versions, to something more common. If they pretend to be a different OS, however, these corrections would be disabled, anyway. Wikimedia sites get a lot of traffic, so a small percentage can still be a lot. The HTML page percentage is 1.75% for the two older browser versions. I expect these include more annonymous usage. I certainly don't mind removing this from any characters that don't need to use it. I might go through some transclusions to see if they are needed, myself... —PC-XT+ 07:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 08:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Something else to think about... inaccessibility creep: Wikipedia is becoming harder for older browsers to visit successfully, anyway. I don't think I can even load Wikipedia in IE8-, possably due to pushing a kind of secure connection to anonymous users that was not used when the browsers were made. ("Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage") Many other secure sites have that issue, since the older security was found to be flawed. —PC-XT+ 08:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alright. I edited my !vote. This workaround is losing its need as time goes on. It has almost been de facto deprecated by disuse. There are still "many" of us XP users. (I don't use it exclusively, but prefer it for many things. I tend to collect and use old OSes, as my name implies, but I know some who use it almost exclusively.) As argued, most of us tend to have more important concerns than Unicode characters displaying properly. If we do care, we tend to use Firefox or, somewhat rarely, other local workarounds, because unlike wikis, most sites don't let us install such things on them. It is most often just a minor annoyance, now. I still lean towards keep, though probably not for long. Do we have any statistics on what browsers are used by XP visitors? If most are using Firefox, it would strengthen the deletion argument. —PC-XT+ 21:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PC-XT: Yes this is about completely removing this hack, so there is not going to be any raw HTML inserted instead of this template. —Ruud 09:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, are you proposing to remove the class, (and HTML wrapper,) as well? In that case, there would be no raw HTML concern —PC-XT+ 02:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep template still appears to have some uses Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that the template has already been disabled and no font is assigned anymore.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
10:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ruud Koot: Please undo your edit that disabled the functionality of this template prior to the TfD. If the TfD closed as delete, it would make sense to change it to pass through and substitute, but that needs consensus. ~ RobTalk 05:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment neutering of template reverted per Rob's request. It may be relevant to the discussion that nobody else seems to have noticed in the week it was neutered. Bazj (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Eh, there's a bit of selection bias going on there. The users that are likely to still be on IE6/Windows XP probably aren't the same users that would be able to find this TfD. ~ RobTalk 17:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- They would probably complain somewhere, most likely WP:VPT.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
18:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- I think it's incredibly likely the typical reader who is using IE6/Windows XP would not know about or be able to navigate to anything outside of the mainspace. At the risk of stereotyping, there's a significant overlap between people who are still using IE6 and people who type "Google" into a Google search bar. ~ RobTalk 18:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Let's not stereotype then. There is absolutely no rationale behind it and it just makes a very poor argument. The more likely reason for having no complaints is that the XP user base has simply become too small. We can't keep supporting obsolete platforms ad infinitum.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
20:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- There's absolutely a rationale for the stereotype; those who adopt new operating systems more slowly are also likely to adopt other technology (such as the MediaWiki platform) more slowly. We can objectively determine XP user base through various reports, and it's still substantial (over 10% worldwide). See here for the number as of February. ~ RobTalk 22:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Let's not stereotype then. There is absolutely no rationale behind it and it just makes a very poor argument. The more likely reason for having no complaints is that the XP user base has simply become too small. We can't keep supporting obsolete platforms ad infinitum.
- I think it's incredibly likely the typical reader who is using IE6/Windows XP would not know about or be able to navigate to anything outside of the mainspace. At the risk of stereotyping, there's a significant overlap between people who are still using IE6 and people who type "Google" into a Google search bar. ~ RobTalk 18:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- They would probably complain somewhere, most likely WP:VPT.
- Eh, there's a bit of selection bias going on there. The users that are likely to still be on IE6/Windows XP probably aren't the same users that would be able to find this TfD. ~ RobTalk 17:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. While I wasn't going to participate actively in the discussion originally, I've already got myself involved, so I might as well formally !vote. The cost of keeping this template is minimal in terms of page complexity, but it ensures 10% of potential users worldwide can see the unicode text contained within the template. That's clearly worth the cost. ~ RobTalk 22:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: While you have likely already made up your mind on this issue and—judging by you failure to read the conversation above—are not really interested in the facts, I find this statement to contain too many inaccuracies to stand unchallenged.
- As mentioned above, we know exactly what the usage share of Windows XP visors was on Wikimedia sites in June 2015: 3.88%. Those using IE6 cannot visit Wikipedia at all today (because of the switch to HTTPS). Those using IE7 are not served any Javascript, including the required piece that makes this template work. Those that use Firefox do not need this template at all. Those using IE8 or Chrome must still have Microsoft Office installed, otherwise the required font is not available. So deleting this template means that in all likelyhood less than 1% of visitors will no longer be able to see some uncommon Unicode characters on some articles. They will still be able to see most common Unicode characters on all articles. Even if we kept this template they will still not be able to see many Unicode characters on many other articles (either because of disuse of this template, or the lack of modern fonts with larger Unicode support).
- The use of this template has turned into a cargo cult science: it is used in many placed where it has no effect for anyone, and is neglected to be used in places where it could potentially be useful to some tiny minority of visitors. It's cluttering the wikitext of many articles with no discernible benefit.
- —Ruud 14:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Potential users =/= actual users, first of all. I believe potential users (people on the platform) is a better measure than actual users (people on the platform accessing Wikimedia currently), personally, but that's my opinion. I like to keep Wikipedia accessible even to those not actively using it yet in the hopes they'll choose to do so in the future. Second, the report you linked isn't a share of users. It's a share of web traffic, which is quite different. It doesn't surprise me at all that people on more modern platforms are more likely to frequently query WikiMedia sites (or actively edit on them, evenly). See above "stereotypes" on adoption of technology. Your 3.88% is likely diluted by larger numbers of page views per user on more modern platforms. Point taken on how IE6 and IE7 already can't access Unicode, even with this template, but as your report shows, IE8 is more common. Microsoft Office was frequently bundled with XP, so I'm not too concerned that eats into the percentage this is helping too much. I understand you don't think the benefits exceed the costs, but I weight the benefits of accessibility for users on older operating systems quite highly, even if their number is relatively small. If XP was a <1% share of total population, that would be a different story, but it's still at 10%. Let's say the amount we're potentially helping are a small fraction - 2%. That's still worth it to me. And I seriously struggle to think of 12 characters of mark-up as "clutter". ~ RobTalk 15:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's twisted logic. A user that views 100 articles is going to be impacted a 100 times more than a user that views 1 article. Page views is the right statistic here. The IE8 usage share also includes Vista and Win7 (as mentioned above), so we cannot directly draw conclusions about its popularity on XP. We're only talking about people that that use XP+IE8 or XP+Chrome. These are not people that are "stuck on an older platform". These are people that are capable of upgrading their browser. They can upgrade to Firefox if they care about Unicode. For people that are truly stuck on an older platform (XP+IE6) the ship has already sailed a few months ago, when we disabled Javascript for them and started requiring HTTPS. Inline template make it harder to edit Wikipedia, especially for new editors, independent of whether they're using the source editor or the visual editor. Readers are not the only people we have to think about, here. —Ruud 15:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Potential users =/= actual users, first of all. I believe potential users (people on the platform) is a better measure than actual users (people on the platform accessing Wikimedia currently), personally, but that's my opinion. I like to keep Wikipedia accessible even to those not actively using it yet in the hopes they'll choose to do so in the future. Second, the report you linked isn't a share of users. It's a share of web traffic, which is quite different. It doesn't surprise me at all that people on more modern platforms are more likely to frequently query WikiMedia sites (or actively edit on them, evenly). See above "stereotypes" on adoption of technology. Your 3.88% is likely diluted by larger numbers of page views per user on more modern platforms. Point taken on how IE6 and IE7 already can't access Unicode, even with this template, but as your report shows, IE8 is more common. Microsoft Office was frequently bundled with XP, so I'm not too concerned that eats into the percentage this is helping too much. I understand you don't think the benefits exceed the costs, but I weight the benefits of accessibility for users on older operating systems quite highly, even if their number is relatively small. If XP was a <1% share of total population, that would be a different story, but it's still at 10%. Let's say the amount we're potentially helping are a small fraction - 2%. That's still worth it to me. And I seriously struggle to think of 12 characters of mark-up as "clutter". ~ RobTalk 15:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Obliterate. Whether it's 1% or 10% of readers, this template does not solve the problem of being able to read Unicode characters, because in many or most cases, Unicode characters are present in articles without this template wrapping them. We can deal with this by either adding this template everywhere that Unicode characters appear, or by removing it from the site entirely and finding another way to solve this problem. Given that this templates creates really ugly wikitext compared to bare Unicode characters, and the fact that 90%+ of editors won't even notice that there is a problem with not using it, I don't think this template is a sustainable nor desirable solution. (I mean, I work as a web developer, I actively edit articles describing Unicode characters, and not even I thought I needed to use it.) I think we should just substitute the bare Unicode character and eliminate this wrapper and the associated CSS and HTML. If we think it is important to support readers with older browsers and server-side assistance is needed to do this, a better way to solve it would be in the MediaWiki software, which could dynamically render Unicode characters it finds in wikicode with an appropriate wrapper. This could be done based on the User-agent HTTP header, and it wouldn't require any work on the part of editors. I'm skeptical this is really necessary or a good investment of time and effort, since better web browsers of one flavor or another are available to everyone for free download, which will provide a much better Wikipedia and general web browsing experience for readers on old operating systems. The best thing to do might be to encourage readers to upgrade or install fonts or whatever is necessary if they are experiencing problems viewing portions of articles. We currently do this via templates like {{Contains special characters}}, so I don't see a strong reason not to substitute and delete the "Unicode" template as proposed. -- Beland (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Pittsburgh basketball
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 14:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Pittsburgh basketball ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
should not have any current roster templates for college teams Joeykai (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 for {{Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments}}, as original rationale for deletion is no longer applicable and opposition has been expressed. Delete for {{Virginia Slims of Albuquerque tournaments}} as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 14:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Also propose deleting
- Template:Virginia Slims of Albuquerque tournaments ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navboxes with just one or two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Virginia Slims of Boston template now contains a sufficient amount of links.--Wolbo (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Railway line header1
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. Izkala (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Railway line header1 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and unedited for over three years. ~ RobTalk 05:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per BU Rob13.
Move the navbox to Template:BS/doc first, so that it's transcluded on most of the pages it links to.Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Edit: I didn't realize the navbox wasn't part of the actual template (which is just CSS styling). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC) - Delete. This template only transcludes {{BS templates navigation}}. Therefore, it only acts as a redirect. On the contrary, the navbar itself is useful, and should have already been included at Wp: Route diagram template. Done. Pldx1 (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
March 23
Template:Nfurd
- Template:Nfurd ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Nrd ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Nfurd with Template:Nrd.
These two templates are dupes of each other. One should be redirected to the other. Not sure which name we should make the default name. {{subst:nfurd}} looks more intuitive to me as a fair use rationale typically is abbreviated as 'FUR', but {{subst:nrd}} is more advertised as it appears on Wikidata and in the documentation for {{Di-no fair use rationale}}. Also, the templates have non-matching protection levels. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- {{nrd}} wasn't listed in the {{Di-no fair use rationale}} documentation back then, I assume I simply didn't find it under that name. Amalthea 10:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why do we have these substitution templates in the first place, by the way? By using Module:Unsubst in {{di-no fair use rationale}}, it would be possible to arrange so that {{subst:di-no fair use rationale}} returns a properly dated {{di-no fair use rationale}} template, and the short abbreviations could then be turned into redirects to {{di-no fair use rationale}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Safesubst or Lua modules weren't around back in the day so there was no better tech, I think. Amalthea 21:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- So should we replace all of these file deletion substitution templates with redirects to the main templates and add Module:Unsubst with correct parameters to the main templates, then? It would maybe be easier if the code only needs to be maintained at one place, but the documentation would need to be adjusted, and there may be other changes needed too (such as parameter names). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Safesubst or Lua modules weren't around back in the day so there was no better tech, I think. Amalthea 21:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why do we have these substitution templates in the first place, by the way? By using Module:Unsubst in {{di-no fair use rationale}}, it would be possible to arrange so that {{subst:di-no fair use rationale}} returns a properly dated {{di-no fair use rationale}} template, and the short abbreviations could then be turned into redirects to {{di-no fair use rationale}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:R from hashtag
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 Withdrawn for now. I'll probably revisit this later. Steel1943 (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:R from hashtag ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Besides the fact that Wikipedia is not social media, the fact of the matter is that since hashtags are used by several different means of social media, there are several cases where specific hashtags mean different things on different social media sites, mean something different when they are used several years later, or even used in a different method than their intended usage. (For example, there was some sort of hashtag that I cannot remember right now that was used when the attacks in Paris last year happened, but whatever that hashtag was, it was actually used for a completely unrelated non-profit organization before the attaches happened.) Since the subjects which these hashtags could refer are potentially ambiguous, I do not believe that marking these redirects as so serves a useful encyclopedic purpose since the subject which the hashtags refer could be ambiguous due to people using them erroneously. Steel1943 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled. (1) Are you advocating deleting the redirects, or just the template and category? Referring to "WP is not social media" is pretty meaningless if you're only looking at the internal workings of WP, not its content. If however you think that readers shouldn't be able to get to Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping from typing Bringbackourgirls into the search box then you're in the wrong place for that discussion. (2) If we take, for example, Bringbackourgirls which is templated as "R from hashtag": as Wikipedia categorises all redirects for maintenance purposes, how would you categorise this redirect within Category:All redirect categories? (3) If there is one hashtag that becomes associated with two different subjects, isn't that a question of where the redirect should be targeted, for discussion on a case-by-case basis (up to and including WP:RFD if necessary), not a question of whether the redirect should have a {{R from hashtag}} applied to it? BencherliteTalk 02:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I put it here, so the ultimate goal with the nomination is to invalidate hashtag redirects as notable via a redirect category for the reasons I presented above. Afterwards, if any such redirects are discovered, then they would probably have to undergo individual WP:RFD nominations. Another issue about the pages currently in the category is that since "#" is not a character that can be used in a title per WP:NCHASHTAG, any redirects in this category aren't true "hashtag tags" since # is not part of the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to delete a redirect, delete the redirect at RFD, if you can. As long as we have these redirects, we need a template and a category for them. Unless you can think of a better template and category for them, this seems fine to me. So I'm opposing because while I can understand what you're trying to do, I disagree with you and you're also trying to do it back to front and in the wrong venue. BencherliteTalk 02:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I put it here, so the ultimate goal with the nomination is to invalidate hashtag redirects as notable via a redirect category for the reasons I presented above. Afterwards, if any such redirects are discovered, then they would probably have to undergo individual WP:RFD nominations. Another issue about the pages currently in the category is that since "#" is not a character that can be used in a title per WP:NCHASHTAG, any redirects in this category aren't true "hashtag tags" since # is not part of the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
March 22
Template:BibISBN/0801857899
- Template:BibISBN/0801857899 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template is broken and not used in any articles. Also adding these other BibISBN templates as well for the same reason:
- Template:BibISBN/0881924393 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:BibISBN/3110171309 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment.
Strictly speaking those templates are not broken - they display perfectly well, they're just book references - I think the issue is that the parent template, Template:BibISBN ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete), isn't working as it should. The reason is that it is based on a German template which has since been updated and so the book references don't always display correctly or even at all. In particular the German version calls three utility programmes or modules called de:Modul:URIutil which I have no idea how to deal with. If someone could help with that, we may be able to create a useful template.All sorted, see below. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC) - Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Firm keep. The main template has now been updated and fixed; the new module works and all the linked pages display correctly. These sub-templates are now linked too. So all sorted.Bermicourt (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Withdraw Last time I talked with @Bermicourt:, these templates weren't working. Now it seems that have been fixed. I'm wondering how/why BibISBN is used instead of ISBN. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strong delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an ISBN database, low or single use templates should be substed into the articles that uses them. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The nom has withdrawn the TfD. In any case, you've misunderstood the purpose of the templates. They're not to create an ISBN database - that's hyperbole. But they are intended for multi-use (not single-use) ISBN refs. Of course in the early stages, they will only have a couple of refs, but over time that will grow. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's exactly the same as Cite DOI and Cite PMID, creating a database of citations with low use based on a product identifier (in this case ISBN, instead of DOI or PubMed) That's probably a worse method of identifying a publication than DOIs, especially since ISBNs are relatively recent, and many books have multiple ISBNs. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Forget Cite DOI, it's deprecated. BibISBN uses the preferred Cite Journal. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's exactly the same as Cite DOI and Cite PMID, creating a database of citations with low use based on a product identifier (in this case ISBN, instead of DOI or PubMed) That's probably a worse method of identifying a publication than DOIs, especially since ISBNs are relatively recent, and many books have multiple ISBNs. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The nom has withdrawn the TfD. In any case, you've misunderstood the purpose of the templates. They're not to create an ISBN database - that's hyperbole. But they are intended for multi-use (not single-use) ISBN refs. Of course in the early stages, they will only have a couple of refs, but over time that will grow. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Used successfully in our Echidna article and if it's not broken, don't delete it. BushelCandle (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- speedy delete per deletion of {{cite isbn}}, this is the same thing with a different name. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- What were the reasons (apart from sheer petulance) that {{cite isbn}} was deleted? Please provide a working link to the valid arguments or your rationale is not fathomable and should be discounted in any assessment of consensus... BushelCandle (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Substitute and delete as per the site-wide consensus developed regarding {{cite isbn}}, {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} (among others). There has repeatedly been consensus developed at large RfCs that these sorts of subtemplates that hide references away should be deprecated and removed. These sorts of templates make it harder for new editors to edit references, and they provide no significant value-added over a bot placing references directly in articles. WP:Local consensus almost certainly applies, although I wouldn't necessarily oppose a closure as "no consensus" to take this to a wider audience and see if this is really the same situation or somehow substantively different. See this RfC for one example of very recent consensus to deprecate for these sorts of templates. ~ RobTalk 19:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
March 15
Template:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. ~ RobTalk 16:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template is an infobox that is only used on one article, and that infobox has now been substed, making this template redundant. epicgenius (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reason I created the template was because the information on the campaign page and the endorsements page remained woefully and perpetually out of sync. This template should not be substed. —LLarson (said & done) 01:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is already substed. It can be transcluded from one page to the other using section transclusion, which I have now done. This template is currently redundant, since it only used on two pages. Also, it is substed on one page, with the transclusion of the substed box to the other page. epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: I was just in the middle of getting it done—thanks for beating me to it! —LLarson (said & done) 02:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- No problem. LLarson do you still wish to keep that infobox template, since both instances of this infobox are now transcluded from the campaign article? epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: It’s time to pull the plug. Thank you again. —LLarson (said & done) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. LLarson do you still wish to keep that infobox template, since both instances of this infobox are now transcluded from the campaign article? epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Epicgenius: I was just in the middle of getting it done—thanks for beating me to it! —LLarson (said & done) 02:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is already substed. It can be transcluded from one page to the other using section transclusion, which I have now done. This template is currently redundant, since it only used on two pages. Also, it is substed on one page, with the transclusion of the substed box to the other page. epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:User Frasier
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. Uncontroversial, given the deletion of the proposed WikiProject in userspace. See this MfD. ~ RobTalk 15:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:User Frasier ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Orphaned unused template for a non-existent WikiProject. Misleading to link to a userspace version of a project. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy the proposed WikiProject is currently in userspace, so this should be moved into a subpage of that proposal page User:Bernstein2291/WikiProject Frasier/Template: User WikiProject Frasier -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy per .39 (and WP:UM) —PC-XT+ 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- As a note to closers, let's wait on the close of the MfD for the "temporary project page" currently residing in userspace. I think it's clear that the outcome of this TfD depends upon that MfD. ~ RobTalk 17:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Venus & Mars tracks
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 as unopposed after ensuring {{Jett Rebel}} is on all relevant articles. ~ RobTalk 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Venus & Mars tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Links to only 2 song articles which probably should be redirected anyway. At the very least, the navigation box {{Jett Rebel}} is certainly simple enough to provide similar navigation without issue. Also, much precedent already set from nominations of similar track list templates because of this redundant navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 Relisted here. ~ RobTalk 05:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Also propose deleting
- Template:Virginia Slims of Albuquerque tournaments ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navboxes with just one or two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Virginia Slims of Boston template now contains a sufficient amount of links.--Wolbo (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Template:Split from and Template:Split to
- Template:Split from ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → Template:Split to
- Template:Split to ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → Template:Split from
Propose switching names of Template:Split from and Template:Split to.
After stumbling upon this for years, I'd really like to figure out now whether I'm right or wrong that these two templates are completely misnamed, and should basically switch names.
Procedurally, if there is consensus, we'll have to go through every single tranclusion and see whether the template was placed following the template's title or the actual wording. Don't worry, we'll figure out a way to get that done. PanchoS (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Find better names for both: I was tripped up like you the first time I found these. However, the crux is the names are ambiguous either way. It depends on how you're looking at it:
-
-
Template Current meaning Proposed meaning {{Split from|Article}}
Article was split from this page This page was split from Article {{Split to|Article}}
Article was split to this page This page was split to Article
-
- Rather than swapping the two names, which is only going to make the situation more confused, I'd come up with new, unambiguous names for both. Maybe Template:Split from here and Template:Split to here, but there are probably no dearth of better names.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 21:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment instead, how about {{was split from}} and {{was split to}} since "split" could indicate an active request, as it is also the present tense form (like {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} instead of {{merged to}} and {{merged from}} -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support I support switching "from" and "to" in these templates as they never made sense to me, they should match the usage of {{merged to }} and {{merged from}} and {{afd-merged-from}} which make more logical sense in my opinion and WP:CONSISTENCY -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- How about split source and split destination? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I take it the template "source" would be for the page where the information originated from and template "destination" for the page where information was placed into ? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Those are my intended meanings. I did not explain in detail as I wanted to see if they were obvious. They have passed a test of one user, which is a good start, but inconclusive. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I take it the template "source" would be for the page where the information originated from and template "destination" for the page where information was placed into ? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- How about split source and split destination? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support I support switching "from" and "to" in these templates as they never made sense to me, they should match the usage of {{merged to }} and {{merged from}} and {{afd-merged-from}} which make more logical sense in my opinion and WP:CONSISTENCY -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is an error in the above table. The actual meanings are:
Template | Meaning |
---|---|
{{Split from|Article}} |
Content was split from this page to Article |
{{Split to|Article}} |
Content was split to this page from Article |
- "Article was split from this page" and "Article was split to this page" don't make sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I always have to check the documentation whenever I use these. I would not support swapping them as it still leaves it ambiguous depending the editor's point of view. I support the proposed renaming of source and destination. --Whpq (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Support(see below; better alternative) renaming to {{Split from here}} and {{Split to here}} since those are unambiguous namings if and only if the redirects go from the current destination to the future destination of the template (i.e. don't swap the redirects). Editors who spent years trying to figure these poorly named templates out shouldn't have the rug pulled out from under them, and the clean-up work to swap redirects would be massive. ~ RobTalk 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- {{Split to here}} implies that the template is for splitting the article back to itself, which makes no sense at all. The reality is, whatever the templates are called, people will get them wrong unless they read the documentation. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? A reasonable reading of {{Split to here}} suggests content was split from somewhere else to the current location. Your reading makes no sense, as you identified. ~ RobTalk 06:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Others have indicated that {{Split from}} and {{Split to}} are confusing and this suggestion just adds "here", which is essentially the same. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that adding here isn't that different. Peter (Southwood) has made an excellent proposal that removes the from and to wording replacing it with much clearer wording of source and destination. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Or we could try {{Split to here from}} with the source article name as a parameter and {{Split from here to}} with destination article name as parameter. Typing a few extra words in an unambiguous template would take far less time than working out what they mean each time with the current names. Getting a bot to replace the old templates is less likely to go wrong if the new ones have clearly different names. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ideally a splitting wizard would do all the splitting, tagging and recording of diffs automatically and the user just has to mark the source text and the destination position and answer any necessary questions, but that is another proposal altogether. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- How do these extra words fix the perceived problem and how would this splitting wizard work? (code wise I mean). Can you put something in the template sandboxes to show how the wizard does all this? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps your perception differs, but to me if it says "split to here from 'Source article name'", I would know that "here" refers to the destination article talk page.
- I wish I could suggest some code. Unfortunately that is outside my current skill set. I don't even know what language a wizard would be coded in. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- How do these extra words fix the perceived problem and how would this splitting wizard work? (code wise I mean). Can you put something in the template sandboxes to show how the wizard does all this? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ideally a splitting wizard would do all the splitting, tagging and recording of diffs automatically and the user just has to mark the source text and the destination position and answer any necessary questions, but that is another proposal altogether. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Or we could try {{Split to here from}} with the source article name as a parameter and {{Split from here to}} with destination article name as parameter. Typing a few extra words in an unambiguous template would take far less time than working out what they mean each time with the current names. Getting a bot to replace the old templates is less likely to go wrong if the new ones have clearly different names. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that adding here isn't that different. Peter (Southwood) has made an excellent proposal that removes the from and to wording replacing it with much clearer wording of source and destination. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Others have indicated that {{Split from}} and {{Split to}} are confusing and this suggestion just adds "here", which is essentially the same. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? A reasonable reading of {{Split to here}} suggests content was split from somewhere else to the current location. Your reading makes no sense, as you identified. ~ RobTalk 06:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- {{Split to here}} implies that the template is for splitting the article back to itself, which makes no sense at all. The reality is, whatever the templates are called, people will get them wrong unless they read the documentation. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Whpq: Which proposal is the "excellent proposal"? I'm not seeing anything other than the suggestion I supported. The "was split from"/"was split to" is clearly ambiguous still, since we don't know whether it was the source article that was split from or the current article. On the other hand, "here" refers directly to the current article to differentiate between names. We could also possibly go with the slightly longer {{Split to this article}}/{{Split from this article}} to be even more clear. ~ RobTalk 14:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- It was "How about split source and split destination?" By using {{split source}} and {{split destination}} wording, we avoid using "to and "from" in any form, and the phrases "source" and "destination" make it very obvious which is for the source article for the split, and which is the destination article for the split. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alternate proposal - So just to make things more confusing, I want to throw out a different proposal. All of the discussion has assumed we need different templates at the source and destination article talk pages. Why? Would it not be easier to have the same template at both the source and destination. The editor dong the split can place the same template in both locations. I suggest something like {{split article|source=source page|destination=destination page...}}>. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support merge as first choice. Sidesteps the issue nicely and reduces redundancy. ~ RobTalk 19:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PanchoS, Pbsouthwood, and AussieLegend: to get some eyes on this before someone comes along and closes the discussion. This proposal is worth discussion before the close. It seems like an obvious winner to me. If I missed any contributors at this TfD, please feel free to ping them as well. ~ RobTalk 21:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support merge as first choice. Sidesteps the issue nicely and reduces redundancy. ~ RobTalk 19:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Nice idea in principle. How would the diffs be handled? what would the display include/look like?• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @BU Rob13: Thanks for pinging me to finally return to this discussion.
I'd like to Reaffirm my original proposal. I don't think I agree with Ketiltrout's position that the naming would be ambiguous either way.{{Split from|that other page}}
IMHO clearly suggests the current page contains content split from that other page, which – while exactly not how it currently works – would be in line with{{merged from}}
and{{afd-merged-from}}
.
Ultimately, I also don't think that the alternate, merge proposal is the best solution – sorry Whpq – as it further complicates the template's usage, offering two mutually exclusive parameters to pick from. A (Twinkle) wizard, as suggested by Pbsouthwood would clearly be awesome, and something we should subsequently propose. It would just be the cherry on the cake, with another, second cherry being: allow rolling both templates into{{Article history}}
.
But even if these cherry toppings were ready by today, we'd still have to get the templates' basic syntax fixed. In the end, I stand by my original proposal to switch the names so they make obvious sense and are in line with{{merged from}}
and{{afd-merged-from}}
. --PanchoS (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- @PanchoS: I don't think I understand your position - what do you mean by "mutually exclusive" parameters? He was suggesting that all template uses contain both the source and destination pages in them, which would then generate text that looks something like "Content from XXXX was split to YYYY". This would display on both pages. Could you explain what part of that involves mutual exclusivity? ~ RobTalk 22:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Well, these templates are placed on the Talk page of the respective article, and we're usually not hardcoding the title of the corresponding page in a template, for the following reason: if the article (together with its Talk page) gets renamed at a later point, we don't unnecessarily want yet another place where the page mover has to correct a parameter. Actually, in order to ensure the attribution chain is never broken, we'd need to put in the page ID of the counterpart (see "Page information" in the Toolbox). But yeah, this doesn't mean the parameters were mutually exclusive. The template could match the given input with the current page name and show only the counterpart. So yes, maybe it's not all too bad, but still I fail to see how
{{Split from|that other page}}
may be considered ambiguous, especially not if the template's output reads "Material included in the associated article page was split from that other page". If I'm not completely mistaken, this is not ambiguous at all. --PanchoS (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Well, these templates are placed on the Talk page of the respective article, and we're usually not hardcoding the title of the corresponding page in a template, for the following reason: if the article (together with its Talk page) gets renamed at a later point, we don't unnecessarily want yet another place where the page mover has to correct a parameter. Actually, in order to ensure the attribution chain is never broken, we'd need to put in the page ID of the counterpart (see "Page information" in the Toolbox). But yeah, this doesn't mean the parameters were mutually exclusive. The template could match the given input with the current page name and show only the counterpart. So yes, maybe it's not all too bad, but still I fail to see how
- @PanchoS: I don't think I understand your position - what do you mean by "mutually exclusive" parameters? He was suggesting that all template uses contain both the source and destination pages in them, which would then generate text that looks something like "Content from XXXX was split to YYYY". This would display on both pages. Could you explain what part of that involves mutual exclusivity? ~ RobTalk 22:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't see any clear "winner" in all of the proposed names. They are either just as ambiguous as the existing names are claimed to be, or they are too long. As for merging the two, that does have some merit, but what would the resultant template be called? {{Split}}? um, no, that wouldn't work. The name still needs to be worked out, regardless of whether you rename or merge. A wizard is really outside the scope of this discussion. There are far too many variables when splitting content from one page to another, and somebody would have to write the code, which is not a 5 minute job, and you have to find someone willing to do it. "Hey Siri, {{split this page for me}}", just won't work.
- we're usually not hardcoding the title of the corresponding page in a template, for the following reason: if the article (together with its Talk page) gets renamed at a later point, we don't unnecessarily want yet another place where the page mover has to correct a parameter. Maybe I've misread you, but we do actually include the source or destination page names when splitting. Redirects mean nothing has to change unless somebody subsequently deletes the redirect. I split List of NCIS episodes 7 years ago and it hasn't been a problem yet.
- For the record, my preference, if there is a need to change (and I'm not yet convinced that there is), would be to set these templates up like {{refimprove}}. {{refimprove section}} is not a stand-alone template. It actually calls {{refimprove}} and needs that template to work, as all the functionality is there. For these templates, both {{split from}} and {{split to}} would call another template, like {{split article}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- merge to create
{{split article}}
as proposed. Frietjes (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC) - Merge as Frietjes (above). Having just divided a long article into several, this twisted my melon man. One template to rule them all! fredgandt 23:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to {{copied}}, which covers both of these cases, and also those where not all of the split content was deleted from the source article. One template is enough, per the above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Completed discussions
-
The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell ()
If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.
Closing discussions
The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions.
To review
Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.
- 2014 December 29 – Infobox MTR station ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), replace as indicated in the discussion
- 2015 March 8 – Interlanguage link multi ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), {{Interlanguage link}}, {{Interlanguage link forced}}, {{Interlanguage link Wikidata}}, {{Link-interwiki}}, {{Red Wikidata link}} ... see discussion.
- Star systems within X-Y light years: move to article space, reformat as an article, replace template transclusions in transcluding articles with a see also or other appropriate link.
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 25–30 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 25-30 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 30–35 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 30-35 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 35–40 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 35-40 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 40–45 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 40-45 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 45–50 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 45-50 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 50–55 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 50-55 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 55–60 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 55-60 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 60–65 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 60-65 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 65–70 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 65-70 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 70–75 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 70-75 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 25–30 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2015 May 2 – Infobox TransAdelaide station ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), replace with {{Infobox station}}
- 2015 June 21 – SL bottom ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), {{SL br}}, {{SL div}}, {{SL file}}, {{SL head}}, {{SL multi}}, {{SL pic}}, {{SL row}}, {{SL sep}}, {{SL size}}, {{SL text}}, {{SL top}}, replace as indicated in the discussion.
- Last diagrams in mainspace (on List of New York City Subway terminals) being replaced slowly at User:Jc86035/sandbox. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
To merge
Templates to be merged into another template.
Arts
- 2015 August 31 – Doctor Who episode list ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - Merge with {{episode list}}, finding a way to avoid using rowspan but still conveying the information required.
Geography, politics and governance
- 2014 March 18 – Infobox Romanian legislature ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox legislative session}} if technically feasible
- 2015 August 2 – Infobox Ukrainian legislative office ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge into {{Infobox officeholder}}
- 2015 September 8 – Infobox historical American political party ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge into {{Infobox political party}} (already a wrapper, but some alterations need to be made before substituting)
- 2015 December 9 – Geologic Ages Inline ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge into {{Period start}}
- 2015 December 19 – Modi ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge {{Modi}} and {{Narendra Modi}}
- 2016 February 26 – Infobox Romanian political party ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Infobox political party}}
Religion
- 2016 February 27 – Infobox Jain deity ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Infobox deity}} per discussion
- Pending discussion at Template talk:Infobox deity on the best way to move forward with this. ~ RobTalk 08:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- 2016 February 24 – Infobox Buddhist temple ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Infobox religious building}} per discussion
- Pending discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism to confirm that User:BU Rob13/Buddhist temple merge is an appropriate way to conduct the merge. ~ RobTalk 08:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Sports
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox non Test cricket team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox cricket team}}
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox women's national cricket team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox cricket team}}
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox Test team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox cricket team}}
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox college inline hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox national roller hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox professional inline hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox Canadian Floorball Championships ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox college field hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 28 – Infobox rugby biography ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 28 – Infobox rugby union biography ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 28 – Infobox Rugby Union biography ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 March 16 – Infobox Country Mediterranean Games ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox country at games}} if technically feasible
- 2014 March 16 – Infobox Country Asian Games ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox country at games}} if technically feasible
- 2014 March 16 – Infobox Commonwealth Youth Games Country ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox country at games}} if technically feasible
- 2014 March 30 – Infobox ATP Challenger Tournament ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
- 2014 March 30 – Infobox ITF Women's Circuit Tournament ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
- 2014 March 30 – Infobox joint Tennis Tournament ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
- 2014 April 8 – Infobox FIM Motocross World Championship ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
- 2014 June 8 – Infobox domestic cricket season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{Infobox cricket season}}
- 2014 June 9 – Infobox Squash WSF Tournament ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{Infobox squash tournament}}
- 2014 June 9 – Infobox rugby football league season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox rugby league season}}
- 2014 June 9 – Infobox football club season2 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox rugby club season}}
- 2014 June 9 – Infobox NRL Team Season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox rugby league team season}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox Pro Bowl ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox NFL championship game ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox NFL single game ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox Belgian Bowl ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox ArenaFootballSingleGameHeader ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox AFLChamp ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 August 2 – Infobox American championship car race report 2 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge into {{Infobox American championship car race report}}
- 2015 August 2 – Infobox VFA season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge with {{Infobox Australian rules football season}}
- 2015 September 13 – Infobox Afbn team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - replace with {{Infobox Afbn team}}
Transport
- 2014 December 15 – EuroRoute ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge with {{YellowRoute}} and {{RedRoute}} into {{Jct}}.
- 2015 March 15 – Infobox UK Bus Corridor ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge with {{Infobox bus line}}
- 2015 May 9 – China line ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge with {{Rail-interchange}} and {{Rail color box}}
- 2015 May 20 – NYCS-bull-small ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge with {{Rail-interchange}}
- 2015 April 26 – Infobox tram ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox train}}
- 2015 May 23 – Taiwan line ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2015 September 8 – Infobox Victorian rail line ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge into {{infobox rail line}} as indicated in the discussion
- 2016 March 25 – Infobox MTR ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Infobox station}} by converting to a wrapper than substituting
Other
- 2013 August 19 – HB Scotland header ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{HS listed building header}}
- 2013 August 19 – HB Scotland row ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{HS listed building row}}
- 2014 April 21 – Infobox dava ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox ancient site}}.
- Starting on a wrapper at {{Infobox dava/sandbox}}. ~ RobTalk 04:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Meta
- 2015 August 30 – Find sources 3 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), 2015 August 30 – Find sources 4 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) and 2015 August 30 – Find sources AFD ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) into {{Find sources}}
- 2015 August 20 – Admin request ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) into {{Admin help}}
- 2016 February 5 – Mission ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge text into appropriate cleanup template
To convert
Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.
- 2015 November 12 – ISO 3166 name DE-HB ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - Convert to Lua per the discussion
- I've started working on this in my sandbox this week, though where can the conversion be discussed? Template talk:ISO 3166 name? SiBr4 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
To substitute
Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.
- 2014 March 30 – Tennis events 2 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
To orphan
These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).
- 2016 March 3 – Egyptian Gods Genealogy ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Ready for deletion
Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.
- None currently