Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
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 May 11
- 3.2 May 10
- 3.2.1 Template:And list
- 3.2.2 Template:The House of Tudor's and Glyndŵr's family tree
- 3.2.3 Template:Darwin-Wedgwood-Galton family tree
- 3.2.4 Template:Metz family tree
- 3.2.5 Template:Nguyễn Lords family tree
- 3.2.6 Template:Winslow family tree
- 3.2.7 Template:Brasseur family tree
- 3.2.8 Template:Falcon 1 launch history
- 3.3 May 9
- 3.3.1 Template:Hrethling
- 3.3.2 Template:House of Eorl
- 3.3.3 Template:Húrin family tree
- 3.3.4 Template:Voldemort family tree
- 3.3.5 Template:Weasley family tree
- 3.3.6 Template:Tookclan family tree
- 3.3.7 Template:Yngling family tree
- 3.3.8 Template:Isildur family tree
- 3.3.9 Template:Cash Carter family tree
- 3.3.10 Template:Dorita Fairlie Bruce Booklist
- 3.3.11 Template:NCAA Beach Volleyball Championship
- 3.3.12 Template:Lighthouse icon
- 3.3.13 Template:Ustareth's family tree
- 3.3.14 Template:Claidi's family tree
- 3.3.15 Template:Twilight's family tree
- 3.3.16 Template:Cat's Eyes
- 3.3.17 Template:Birth date and 21
- 3.4 May 8
- 3.4.1 Template:2016 Summer Olympics Participating National Olympic Committees – Flag-bearers
- 3.4.2 Template:Lmage
- 3.4.3 Template:Dole Hawaii family tree
- 3.4.4 Template:Kilian family tree
- 3.4.5 Template:Family tree of House Tully
- 3.4.6 Template:Location map Central Serbia relief
- 3.4.7 Template:Global Force Wrestling personnel
- 3.4.8 Template:Secondary schools in Hungary
- 3.5 May 7
- 3.6 May 6
- 3.6.1 Template:Google Doodle
- 3.6.2 Template:NYCS 111th
- 3.6.3 Template:Valencia City Bukidnon Mayors
- 3.6.4 Template:Île-de-France tramway Line 1
- 3.6.5 Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2006
- 3.6.6 Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2003
- 3.6.7 Template:Infobox university address
- 3.6.8 Template:Children of Louis XIV
- 3.6.9 Template:Costa Rica Squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship
- 3.6.10 Template:Crime in North America
- 3.6.11 Template:Croxley Rail Link RDT
- 3.6.12 Template:Cork Hurling Team 1980
- 3.6.13 Template:WikiProject New England Patriots
- 3.6.14 Template:San Fernando, Tamaulipas Radio
- 3.6.15 Template:Tamaulipas Radio Markets
- 3.7 May 5
- 3.8 May 4
- 4 Old discussions
- 4.1 May 3
- 4.2 May 2
- 4.3 May 1
- 4.3.1 Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
- 4.3.2 Template:Pufc
- 4.3.3 Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
- 4.3.4 Template:Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry
- 4.3.5 Template:Puf top
- 4.3.6 Template:Puf log
- 4.3.7 Template:Planet Network
- 4.3.8 Template:WikiProject Language revival
- 4.3.9 Template:Rui En
- 4.3.10 Template:Istanbul Open tournaments
- 4.3.11 Template:2019 in space
- 4.4 April 30
- 4.5 April 29
- 4.6 April 28
- 4.7 April 27
- 4.8 April 25
- 4.8.1 Template:Philippines men's national basketball - FIBA Asia 2014 roster
- 4.8.2 Template:NCAA Division I FCS National Champion navbox
- 4.8.3 Template:SoldierSonTrilogyBooks
- 4.8.4 Template:Table of contents
- 4.8.5 Template:Fb team ENPPI Club
- 4.8.6 Template:2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Host Cities
- 4.8.7 Template:The Super Seven Kids Show
- 5 Completed discussions
- 6 Archive and Indices
Current discussions
May 11
Template:Metacritic
- Template:Metacritic ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
As there are many types of Metacritic templates, all the transclusions of this should be substituted and replaced with the following:
<span class="error"><code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;">Error: Please specify which type of Metacritic media this is. ([[:Category:Metacritic templates|Help]])</span></code>
. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:LLUAHSC
- Template:LLUAHSC ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
WP:EXISTING. Mostly red links and redirects, only two actual articles are linked. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 06:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:University of Michigan–Flint
- Template:University of Michigan–Flint ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
WP:EXISTING. Three links -- a newspaper, the chancellor, and the main article. Currently only used in one of those articles (chancellor). Not enough to navigate. 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 00:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with nom on all points. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 06:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enough active links to provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
May 10
Template:And list
- Template:And list ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant template that duplicates functionality of {{Enum}}. As such hardly used; I count only one actual use, to print an error in {{London Gazette}}, which can be replaced with {{enum}} or reworked. Previously deleted for similar reasons. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Why use obscure computer programmers jargon? Especially when it's arguably a poor use of the term.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
- to me it’s short for "enumerate". But if you find the name inadequate and have a better name then creating a redirect makes sense. If you find the name really objectionable then a move, with an RM if it is contentious, is appropriate. There is no need to create, or keep, a duplicate.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:The House of Tudor's and Glyndŵr's family tree
- Template:The House of Tudor's and Glyndŵr's family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
No transclusions. And unreferenced since 2015. Magioladitis (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Darwin-Wedgwood-Galton family tree
- Template:Darwin-Wedgwood-Galton family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
No transclusions. Magioladitis (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Metz family tree
- Template:Metz family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
No transclusions. And unreferenced since 2015. Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Nguyễn Lords family tree
- Template:Nguyễn Lords family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. If we really need family tree we shold just copy te content in the article. Magioladitis (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Winslow family tree
- Template:Winslow family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and unreferenced since 2015. Magioladitis (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Brasseur family tree
- Template:Brasseur family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. I suggest that we subistitute and delete. Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Falcon 1 launch history
- Template:Falcon 1 launch history ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template. Full contents merged today to Falcon 1 along with List of Falcon 1 launches which was this template's only use. — JFG talk 05:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
May 9
Template:Hrethling
- Template:Hrethling ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unreferenced since 2015. Magioladitis (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:House of Eorl
- Template:House of Eorl ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. It can be subsituted and then deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Húrin family tree
- Template:Húrin family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. It can be subsituted and then deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Voldemort family tree
- Template:Voldemort family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. It can be subsituted and then deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Weasley family tree
- Template:Weasley family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. It can be subsituted and then deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Tookclan family tree
- Template:Tookclan family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. It can be subsituted and then deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Yngling family tree
- Template:Yngling family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. It can be subsituted and then deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Isildur family tree
- Template:Isildur family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. It can be subsituted and then deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Cash Carter family tree
- Template:Cash Carter family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. I suggest that we substitute and then delete it. Moreover, it is unreferenced since 2015. Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Dorita Fairlie Bruce Booklist
- Template:Dorita Fairlie Bruce Booklist ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Not enough active links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:NCAA Beach Volleyball Championship
- Template:NCAA Beach Volleyball Championship ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navbox with zero links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion. Simply because this is new and contains the very first NCAA championship, which was awarded yesterday, is no reason for deletion. This was the first of the annual NCAA championships that will populate this template going forward. Why should this new NCAA sport be the only one without a template? Jeff in CA (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment A template's purpose is to navigate between articles. When there are no articles, there is nothing to navigate between. The consensus has long been- Write the articles first then create the template....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Lighthouse icon
- Template:Lighthouse icon ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Used only 3 times and in generally non-standard fashion. There may be a more appropriate template that this could be merged to, but I'm doubtful. Izno (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Ustareth's family tree
- Template:Ustareth's family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. No links. It can be substituted and deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've redirected the article with the transclusion for being of low quality and mostly WP:PLOT. I see no reason to subst, so delete. --Izno (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Claidi's family tree
- Template:Claidi's family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. No links. It can be substituted and then deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've redirected the article with the transclusion for being of low quality and mostly WP:PLOT. I see no reason to subst, so delete. --Izno (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Twilight's family tree
- Template:Twilight's family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion. No links. It can be substituted and deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've redirected the article with the transclusion for being of low quality and mostly WP:PLOT. I see no reason to subst, so delete. --Izno (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Cat's Eyes
- Template:Cat's Eyes ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unnecessary – only two articles listed in the template, which can be linked to each other on the respective article pages. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to me this links 5 articles--the band, its 2 members, and the 2 articles in question (as well as the "related link for a 6th article). Keep. --Izno (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Birth date and 21
- 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 Speedy Delete. Meets G2. → AA (talk) — 15:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Birth date and 21 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This is not a template. Creating discussion because I don't think it fits any of the criteria for speedy deletion that can be applied to templates. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 00:26, 9 May 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).
May 8
Template:2016 Summer Olympics Participating National Olympic Committees – Flag-bearers
- Template:2016 Summer Olympics Participating National Olympic Committees – Flag-bearers ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Was created via an article for creation request but isn't transcluded anywhere and I can see no reason why it would be. We already have a list at 2016 Summer Olympics Parade of Nations and I do't imagine this template will get used on each flag bearer's article - Basement12 (T.C) 23:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete this template is unnecessary as the list is only used on one article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Lmage
- Template:Lmage ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
possibly an attempt to quietly insert vandalism into articles given the history of the article where it was inserted. Frietjes (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Dole Hawaii family tree
- Template:Dole Hawaii family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unreferenced since 2015. No evidence it is accurate. Magioladitis (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Kilian family tree
- Template:Kilian family tree ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unreferenced since 2015. No evidence it is accurate. Magioladitis (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK I just ran through this family on Wikidata and as these are autogenerated in reasonator, these can go now. Probably too unwieldy to have around in Wikimarkup anyway. Jane (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Family tree of House Tully
- 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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Family tree of House Tully ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unreferenced since 2015. No evidence this family tree is accurate. Magioladitis (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have just fully cited this navigation template back to the source novel(s). Can we close this? — TAnthonyTalk 21:36, 8 May 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:Location map Central Serbia relief
- Template:Location map Central Serbia relief ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Location map Cuba relief ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Location map Iberia relief ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Location map Slovakia relief ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Location map Switzerland relief ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
unused and not needed since relief maps are just the secondary map in a standard location map. Frietjes (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Global Force Wrestling personnel
- Template:Global Force Wrestling personnel ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
The main article was deleted afer an AfD discussion. Same reasons, the templase is useless since we don't know who wrestlers are working of the promotion. I ask for deletion. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Secondary schools in Hungary
- Template:Secondary schools in Hungary ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template needs to be divided into multiple such templates by region. Listing all senior high schools in Hungary in a single template would be too much.
IMO the end result should be one template per Hungarian county (with Budapest having its own such template) or one per Hungarian region.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I hope this is the right place for discussion. As I commented on WhisperToMe talk page, I do not have strong opinion on it. In ideal situation (where there are articles about all major schools in Hungary) it would be the only rational option. However, once I was making this Template I noticed that there is not to much articles on this topic so I decided to put them all together, and to include only schools that have articles on English Wikipedia. With more templates we will have much more red links. Of course, it will give the reader information on all high school, but I avoided it back than from aesthetic point of view. My only proposal is that if you decide to make change, instead of deleting current template, you move it to Template:High Schools in Budapest and adapt it for this narrower use.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: That would be a great idea. Moving this template to Budapest, and then detaching the schools not in Budapest and giving them their own templates. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
May 7
Television in the United Kingdom templates
- Template:Television in Scotland ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Television in Wales ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Media in the United Kingdom ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Television in Scotland and Template:Television in Wales with Template:Media in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom currently consists of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, & Scotland. As it currently stands, television in the United Kingdom, or more specifically, England, is already listed in the Media in the UK template. If the Media in the UK template is meant to cover ALL of the UK, then there is NO reason to have separate "Television in..." templates for Ireland, Scotland, & Wales. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have boldly removed the Ireland template from this proposal. Ireland is not part of the UK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as how you DO have a point, I took it one step further & completely removed Ireland from the merger discussion. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Don't merge. {{Media in the United Kingdom}} is intended for national media and it should be kept that way 'cause it's plenty long as it is. We wouldn't have one massive navbox with all of the national and local stations of all 50 states of the US, would we? Izkala (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm calling a straw man argument on that. I could see your point if you were objecting to a template listing the various television broadcasters in the English county (a better analog to states in the US) of, say, Northumberland being merged with the Media in the UK template, but that is NOT this. THIS is something different. Plus, Scotland & Wales technically are countries, alongside their fellow countries Northern Ireland & England, that make up the UK. The thing is, you can't really compare the sub-national structure of the US to that of the UK, as the US is a federal state, whereas the UK is a unitary state, therefore the two of them utilize different sub-national structures. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay? The intricacies of US and British administration wasn't the point; I was drawing an analogy between the size of the two imagined navboxes. If we're gonna split them some way, splitting them between national and local media (be it state-, county- or country-specific) is a sensible option. Smaller, unsectioned navboxes are easier to navigate. Izkala (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if the intricacies of US & UK administration wasn't the point, then why'd you bring it up? Don't bring something up if it's not part of what you're trying to put forth. Oh, and by the way, this discussion from the former talk page for the former Television in England template kinda talks about this type of merger, with @Rangoon11: advocating for merging the TV in England template with the former TV in the UK template. In this situation, I am advocating for merging the TV in Scotland & Wales templates with the Media in the UK template. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay? The intricacies of US and British administration wasn't the point; I was drawing an analogy between the size of the two imagined navboxes. If we're gonna split them some way, splitting them between national and local media (be it state-, county- or country-specific) is a sensible option. Smaller, unsectioned navboxes are easier to navigate. Izkala (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm calling a straw man argument on that. I could see your point if you were objecting to a template listing the various television broadcasters in the English county (a better analog to states in the US) of, say, Northumberland being merged with the Media in the UK template, but that is NOT this. THIS is something different. Plus, Scotland & Wales technically are countries, alongside their fellow countries Northern Ireland & England, that make up the UK. The thing is, you can't really compare the sub-national structure of the US to that of the UK, as the US is a federal state, whereas the UK is a unitary state, therefore the two of them utilize different sub-national structures. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Don't merge but remove Ch 4 & Ch 5. These templates are very different. The UK template doesn't include all UK TV stations; it covers some of the more well-known stations that are available throughout the UK. The Welsh and Scottish templates cover TV stations that are targeted specifically at viewers in Wales or Scotland (and on the most popular Freeview platform are not available in England or N Ireland). (The exceptions to this, Channels 4 and 5, could arguably be removed from these two templates.) -- Dr Greg talk 19:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Sync
- Template:Sync ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a maintenance template with no documentation and no apparent uses that are important and unable to be served by other templates. I'm not sure if it duplicates {{Contradicts other}} or if it's a request to harmonise the exact text (i.e. copy a chunk from one article to another) or to do something else, but if it's the first, we can use the other template, if the second, this isn't really a maintenance-template-needed situation, and if the third, we can use {{cleanup}} with a rationale. Nyttend (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I presume that by "no documentation" you really mean that the documentation explains how to use the template but not why. I think that the purpose of the tag is made a little clearer by the link to Wikipedia:Summary style. It is applied to sections that cover the same subjects as articles and should therefore be summaries of those articles. Sometimes the tag is placed on the article page and sometimes in the summary section. I think that one reasonable use for the tag is to alert editors to "summary" sections that are better than the article itself (e.g., French popular music). In response, one could improve the article or merge it. If the template is kept, its purpose should be made clear in the documentation. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Category:Articles to harmonize has 60 subcategories and less than 100 Articles. If the template is deleted, what becomes of the tagged articles? On the other hand, If the template is kept, its purpose should be made clear in the documentation is very well said by RockMagnetist. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'd say that we can just remove the tag. Perhaps a bit more work, but...a bot could remove each template, leave an explanatory note at the talk page for each templated article, and perhaps even leave a note at the talk page of the user who added it. This will catch any situations in which it's meant for {{contradicts other}}, and we really don't need maintenance templates merely for "the summary section elsewhere is better than this article" or vice versa. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
French local flag templates
- Template:Country data GYF-local ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (French Guiana)
- Template:Country data GPE-local ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (Guadeloupe)
- Template:Country data MTQ-local ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (Martinique)
- Template:Country data SBT ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (Saint Barthélemy)
- Template:Country data STB ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (Saint Barthélemy)
- Template:Country data MAF-local ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (Saint Martin)
- Template:Country data SMT-local ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (Saint Martin)
- Template:Country data SPM-local ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (Saint Pierre and Miquelon)
Only used in Quidster4040's userspace. Most of these flag data templates are redundant, since the corresponding standard ones such as {{Country data French Guiana}} include the local flags as variants, and the template via which the nominated templates are used supports variants. The exception is Saint Martin, whose local flag was removed as dubious. See also User talk:Quidster4040/Archive 8#French territory flag templates. SiBr4 (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Country data Europe map
- Template:Country data Europe map ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Flag template using a map image. It is unused except in two discussions, according to which it was created by John Anderson as a test version of the protected {{Country data Europe}} based on the mistaken belief that the flag of Europe only represents the EU. If still useful for testing, this should be at Template:Country data Europe/sandbox. SiBr4 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Ice-Pick Lodge
- Template:Ice-Pick Lodge ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Only navigates 3 articles. Izno (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
May 6
Template:Google Doodle
- Template:Google Doodle ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I've noticed a couple discussions related to the use of Template:Google Doodle, which is now added to pages linked from Google Doodles. However, this template and policy seem to have been implemented without a consensus, and I have seen several users (e.g. @Gobonobo:) raise questions about whether such a template is needed. Indeed, I feel that there are several drawbacks - they add no encyclopedic value to an article, are highlighting the action of an external party (Google) with no relevance to Wikipedia, and clutter the top of the page. What's the distinction between putting an article on Google Doodle articles versus other high-profile articles (or even FATD) that are likely to draw a lot of new users? It's a slippery slope, and there's no encyclopedic value (unlike the templates for recent news events, or those warning of potential biases) for cluttering the top of the *article page* with another template.
I brought this issue to WP:VP but only got one suggestion to move it here to TfD, and wanted to bring this here for general broader discussion and see if we can reach a consensus one way or another. Rather than needing a consensus for deletion of this template, I think we can use this to gauge if there is a consensus for the addition of such a template to articles linked to from Google. If there's no consensus in favor of adding them, then I think the use of such a template should be deprecated (or at the very least shifted to the talk pages). Also pinging @Stillnotelf: so s/he can chime in here too (we were in a discussion at Talk:Hertha Marks Ayrton; also see Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement/Google Doodle task force.) 2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Waste of time at Sigmund Freud today? Unless we in UK we're not enabled or something. I mean, what is the point? That link to 160th anniversary slide show by Freud Museum could have been added separately. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I see this as similar to {{current event}} and {{high traffic}}. Because the topic is featured as the Google Doodle of the day, means it will receive a enhanced amount of traffic. Thus, there would be likely to encountered edit conflicts, and new users to Wikipedia, so this will inform new users of some aspects of Wikipedia, as well as showing longer time users that they may hit edit conflicts (as {{current event}} already does for other types of high viewership articles) -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- With one big distinction - {{high traffic}} seems to be placed on the **talk page**, rather than on the article itself, and {{current event}} serves an encyclopedic value (informing the reader that the article may be rapidly changing). @Martinevans123: also raises the good point that Google Doodles differ depending on the country and region, and it makes no sense to have a template that will just confuse readers of a given country. The English Wikipedia is supposed to serve readers from around the world and not just those from a given country. At the very least this template should be on the talk page, but I still think it should be historified and/or deleted. Plus there has never been a consensus to slap these on the articles themselves, and I know you're supposed to ignore all rules and all, but it seems like there needs to be a consensus in order to keep adding this template to articles. 128.12.246.6 (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I can see it has a point in terms of {{high traffic}}, and I realise it's only there for a day. But if that's the only reason it's added, it's a bit misleading. Especially if the doodle can't even be seen. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- With one big distinction - {{high traffic}} seems to be placed on the **talk page**, rather than on the article itself, and {{current event}} serves an encyclopedic value (informing the reader that the article may be rapidly changing). @Martinevans123: also raises the good point that Google Doodles differ depending on the country and region, and it makes no sense to have a template that will just confuse readers of a given country. The English Wikipedia is supposed to serve readers from around the world and not just those from a given country. At the very least this template should be on the talk page, but I still think it should be historified and/or deleted. Plus there has never been a consensus to slap these on the articles themselves, and I know you're supposed to ignore all rules and all, but it seems like there needs to be a consensus in order to keep adding this template to articles. 128.12.246.6 (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The Google Doodle template has been a part of Wikipedia. I really enjoy seeing it at the top of wiki articles and don't want it deleted. I think that others can really learn from links it provides them about editing rules and such. Ilikeguys21 (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:NYCS 111th
- Template:NYCS 111th ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS 137th ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS 168th ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS 238th ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS 57th ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS 59th-Columbus ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Broadway Junction Canarsie terminal ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Broadway Junction Jamaica terminal ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Broadway Junction terminal ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Burnside ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Dyckman ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, redundant to {{NYCS time 2}}. ~ RobTalk 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Valencia City Bukidnon Mayors
- Template:Valencia City Bukidnon Mayors ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, replaced by a wikitable in Valencia City, Bukidnon. ~ RobTalk 22:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Île-de-France tramway Line 1
- 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 by nominator, given Useddenim's research. Should not have been removed without consensus. ~ RobTalk 09:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Île-de-France tramway Line 1 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, redundant to File:Tram Paris T1 Plan.svg. ~ RobTalk 22:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - this is not redundant. An RDT like this provides wikilinks to the station articles, and is useful to blind users with screen readers, neither of which are true for the SVG map. The French article uses both the image and their own RDT. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Pi.1415926535. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Only unused because Jmajeremy (talk · contribs) removed it on 17 March 2013 without noting anything in the edit summary. Useddenim (talk) 01:20, 9 May 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:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2006
- Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2006 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2007 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2008 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2009 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2010 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2011 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused. Originally created by a now-banned user. ~ RobTalk 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Templates are current unused, but i can easily imagine the annual article, that will use them - Automotive industry in 20xx. I think that there is high probability, that this article will be created (and template will be used). --Jklamo (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2003
- Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2003 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2004 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2005 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2006 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2007 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2008 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2009 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2010 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World motor vehicle production by country in 2011 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, and unclear what article these would ever be used in. ~ RobTalk 22:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Templates are current unused, but i can easily imagine the annual articles, that will use them - Economy in 20xx or Automotive industry in 20xx. I am bit surprised, that these articles do not exist (but we have 2003 in paleontology). I think that there is high probability, that these articles will exist (and template will be used). --Jklamo (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Infobox university address
- Template:Infobox university address ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
we already have a template for this, it's called {{infobox university}}. if you want to include the street address, you can use |location=
. there is no need to fork an infobox for one additional parameter/feature. Frietjes (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- At worst, delete; at best, merge--the user in question seems to have failed to respond to any of the queries at Template talk:Infobox university#Address from several template editors and has instead decided to fork the template. Maybe to make a WP:POINT? Discussion about the address for a university should continue on the talk page of Infobox university. --Izno (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- My communication at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#RfC: Address is obvious and documented. To say the user in question seems to have failed to respond to any of the queries is about as far from the truth as possible. I am the only one there carrying on a coherent conversation. Starting off a debate with an overt and insulting lie is not a good position. Trackinfo (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I'm assuming this is an innocent mistake with the editor misunderstanding the request to test the new parameter before requesting it be added to a widely-used template. In any case, it's an unneeded fork. ElKevbo (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I would be happy for the technical assistance. I do not have the know how to build templates of this complexity. I took this as a direct instruction to follow WP:TESTCASES from the conversation. There are no transclusions at this time, so it is not really public. But it needs to be in mainspace so all functionality is available (user sandboxes block certain functions). This has been a lengthy process, here is the story: The parameter in question, inserting the "address" for a college or university does not function. There are multiple templates where multiple users have added it and it does not work. I tried to solve it by requesting it be activated. Rather than making an attempt to solve the problem, I encountered a couple of users who expressed their opinion that an address does not belong in the template. I showed the comparison where the address was listed on Infobox school and one went so far as to suggest it should be removed from infobox school. After finding a brick wall in these users, I opened up an RfC for this specific issue. After more than a month of discussion, the RfC was closed with the decision that an address parameter is valid, though a single address is not applicable in some cases. Here's the exact statement from the closing admin "There is clear consensus that the school's address is an appropriate piece of information to include in an infobox, but only in cases where the school/university is located at a single address. In cases where a university is not located at a single address, this information should generally not appear in the infobox. While many "yes" voters did not directly address the issue of spread-out campuses, their rationales frequently emphasized the importance of including objective and non-ambiguous facts in infoboxes. In the case of a spread-out campus, the address is no longer an objective fact. ~ RobTalk 04:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC) That's a reasonable decision that can handled by mere mortal editors on a case by case basis. I again asked for the parameter to be activated and I still get blocked by people who are acting out their opinion that it does not belong, even to the point of misrepresenting the consensus that was declared on the RfC. And now the final message before I created this was more reasonable; that the template needed to be tested. That is what this template is trying to do. So, I am more than willing to have someone with the proper technical knowledge assist in making the address parameter work in the same fashion that it already works in infobox school. When this test template functions, it can be renamed and replace the existing infobox university. Trackinfo (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- On the advice of John of Reading I have moved this to Template:Infobox university/sandbox/address Technical assistance still needed. Trackinfo (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Children of Louis XIV
- Template:Children of Louis XIV ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, created 6 years ago. ~ RobTalk 09:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Costa Rica Squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship
- Template:Costa Rica Squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, no useful navigation, and this team didn't win the tournament so precedent is that they wouldn't get a template. ~ RobTalk 09:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Crime in North America
- Template:Crime in North America ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, and redundant to templates like {{Latin America and the Caribbean topic}}, which accepts an unnamed parameter to display articles, as seen in Crime in El Salvador. ~ RobTalk 09:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment wouldn't that be {{North America topic}} ? -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- NOTE the template is a wrapper template, it calls
{{North America topic |name = Crime in North America |title = [[Crime]] in [[North America]] |prefix = Crime in }}
- -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Croxley Rail Link RDT
- Template:Croxley Rail Link RDT ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant to {{Railways around Watford and Rickmansworth RDT}} ~ RobTalk 09:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - the templates are different; one shows the Croxley link with the parts of the old line which it will reuse, whereas the other covers all the lines past, present and future in the area. What makes them look similar is the colour scheme used. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Lamberhurst: I also should have specified that the template I nominated is entirely unused, and has been since at least April 2014, when the last unused templates database report was pulled. A minor variant that will never be used in an article doesn't warrant its own template. ~ RobTalk 09:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Thanks - I have now put it back into the Croxley article. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Lamberhurst: Why is this preferred to {{Railways around Watford and Rickmansworth RDT}}, which shows more? ~ RobTalk 09:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Because
{{Croxley Rail Link RDT}}
deals specifically with the Croxley line, whereas the other brings together all the different lines in the area including those which have no connection with the Croxley scheme. With railway line articles the usual practice is to have a RDT which deals principally with the route at hand. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Because
- @Lamberhurst: Why is this preferred to {{Railways around Watford and Rickmansworth RDT}}, which shows more? ~ RobTalk 09:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Thanks - I have now put it back into the Croxley article. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Lamberhurst: I also should have specified that the template I nominated is entirely unused, and has been since at least April 2014, when the last unused templates database report was pulled. A minor variant that will never be used in an article doesn't warrant its own template. ~ RobTalk 09:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Cork Hurling Team 1980
- Template:Cork Hurling Team 1980 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Runner-up squad. Should be deleted per precedent. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_28#Template:Cork_Hurling_Team_1979. ~ RobTalk 09:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject New England Patriots
- Template:WikiProject New England Patriots ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template is basically duplicative now that Template:WikiProject National Football League now allows for a patriots parameter that goes to the same WikiProject link. This template only puts the articles into Category:WikiProject New England Patriots articles while the NFL template puts them into Category:New England Patriots articles by quality. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Technically I guess I'm asking for it to be merged into Template:WikiProject National Football League with "patriots=yes". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep WP:WikiProject New England Patriots exists as a separate wikiproject, so it should have its own WikiProject banner available. If you were to merge the WikiProject away into becoming a taskforce of the NFL project, then we could eliminate the banner, but as it is a separate project, it should have a banner available. And I don't think that every Patriots topic necessarily needs to be considered part of the NFL project unless the two projects are merged -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:San Fernando, Tamaulipas Radio
- Template:San Fernando, Tamaulipas Radio ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template had just one transclusion (at XHSFT-FM) and was not an aid to navigation. I rescued two similar templates by moving them for other cities in Mexico, but I don't have a target in mind for this one and it has already been removed from the articles in question with no incoming links whatsoever. Raymie (t • c) 06:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Templates of this type are permitted for markets which have a sizeable number of stations to link, but are not necessary for markets where there are only two stations (there are three links listed, but one of them is just a rebroadcaster of one of the other two, and even one of the two is just a rebroadcaster of a statewide service on which this template hasn't been used at all.) The statewide template {{Tamaulipas Radio}} is sufficient for small markets like this, with no need for a dedicated spinoff. Delete, or redirect to {{Tamaulipas Radio}}. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Bearcat: I should point out I created {{Tamaulipas Radio}} to relieve the duties of this template as well as Ciudad Camargo Radio and Ciudad Miguel Alemán Radio. Those had one and three incoming transclusions, respectively, and I've since moved them to other Mexican cities entirely where navboxes made sense as {{Puerto Vallarta Radio}} (on a state line, so the articles were split between Jalisco and Nayarit) and {{León Radio}} (sufficient number of stations). Raymie (t • c) 03:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Tamaulipas Radio Markets
- Template:Tamaulipas Radio Markets ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Subsumed into Template:Mexico Radio Markets which now links to the same templates and is transcluded in its place. Raymie (t • c) 06:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
May 5
Template:Succisa
- Template:Succisa ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Neelix species template with only 3 links. Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Incomplete and misleading, only lists a handful of Succisa species, would be a sea of red links if complete. Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per Plantdrew. All these Neelix species templates should be speedily deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Manihot
- Template:Manihot ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Neelix species template like others up for deletion Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Incomplete and misleading, only lists 4 of 109 Manihot species, would be a sea of red links if complete. Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per Plantdrew. All these Neelix species templates should be speedily deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Ramalina
- Template:Ramalina ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Neelix species template like the others supported for deletion. Not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Incomplete and misleading, only lists a handful of Ramalina species, would be a sea of red links if complete. Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per Plantdrew. All these Neelix species templates should be speedily deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:M-28
- Template:M-28 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Neelix template related to a highway. Appears unused. Legacypac (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete—these shorts of templates have been deprecated over time, and this one is unused because I removed it from all of the articles based on those past precedents. Imzadi 1979 → 19:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Deprecated template. Dough4872 20:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Leucopogon
- Template:Leucopogon ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Neelix species nav box. Not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Incomplete and misleading, only list about half of Leucopogon species. Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per Plantdrew. All these Neelix species templates should be speedily deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Kaempferia
- Template:Kaempferia ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template by Neelix. Legacypac (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused, misleading (only list 4 of 34 Kaempferia species). 16:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per Plantdrew. All these Neelix species templates should be speedily deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Chris Haw
- Template:Chris Haw ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Neelix Template for one of his favorate authors. Links only three things making it not very helpful. Legacypac (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:SPXS
- Template:SPXS ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
No useful navigation. Sixth of March 04:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tangentially related topics, better in an infobox, not highly related topics -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Champ Lui Pio
- Template:Champ Lui Pio ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
No useful navigation. Sixth of March 04:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Iowa statewide elected officials
- Template:Iowa statewide elected officials ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
unused and not particularly helpful for navigation ~ RobTalk 03:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:LRT route
- Template:LRT route ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:LRT route/Bukit Panjang ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:LRT route/Sengkang ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:LRT route/Punggol ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Needlesly complex single-use template(s). All three sub-pages have been given standardized names and are now transcluded directly. Useddenim (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Absolute deleteKevon kevono (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 13:51 (PT)
May 4
Template:Unonopsis
- Template:Unonopsis ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Neelix template that only links three pages. Not very useful and the pages are already linked in the parent article. Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support deletion; these templates with lists of species are unhelpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- 'Delete" Unhelpful. It's not a complete list of the species in the genus, and if it were complete it would be a sea of red links. Plantdrew (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Akrosida
- Template:Akrosida ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Neelix template that only links two pages. Not very useful. Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support deletion as for all such templates of species lists. Unhelpful; unreferenced (and not able to be referenced); redundant. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful. People are more likely to click through to the genus link in the taxbox to find other species in the genus. Plantdrew (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:California Interstate Highways
- Template:California Interstate Highways ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant to both List of Interstate Highways in California and Category:Interstate Highways in California. Per past precedents, the existence of a list and a category has been deemed to negate the need for the navbox. Such discussions include: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 21, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 6, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 16#Template:Georgia Interstate Highways. Imzadi 1979 → 05:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Per past precedent. Dough4872 10:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per consensus precedent and template guidelines. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 20:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ummmm.... I'd say we'd keep it for a while, but when the time has come, it should be deleted. Kevon kevono (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 14:13 (PT)
- How long is "a while" and why hasn't "the time come" now, Kevon kevono? Imzadi 1979 → 08:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per past precedents cited. Infoboxes on all articles link to the list, and categories are also available for navigation. -- LJ ↗ 14:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Old discussions
May 3
Template:B Flow
- Template:B Flow ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navigation box with only one article. Doesn't aid in navigation between the main article and the song article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- *Do not delete. I have some unfinished work that will be added to Template:B Flow. Icem4k (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- You should finish the work first then create the template. You can always recreate the template when you get it done. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- *Do not delete. I have some unfinished work that will be added to Template:B Flow. Icem4k (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Template:Find a Grave
- Template:Find a Grave ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template is designed to be placed in the external links sections, however, since it's been repeatedly rejected at WP:RSN as a reliable source, including it runs contrary to WP:ELNO. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nominator. Moreover, to keep the template adds legitimacy to the website, particularly for new editors, and causes more experienced editors to revert the addition based on RS.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. We should not make it easier to link to unreliable sources. I agree with Bbb23 that this template gives the appearance, especially to new users, that this is an acceptable source. HighInBC 16:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Adds no value; information is almost always available from a more reliable source.Glendoremus (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Often provides information nearly impossible to find elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Price (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This discussion needs to be advertised widely. The template has over 21,000 transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do not delete. Provided that Find A Grave memorials include useful information not found elsewhere, such as gravestone photos. Billmckern (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- It is eseentially a Wiki. It's user contributed material. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do not delete Find A Grave provides information not found elsewhere. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Could that be because they don't have editorial oversight? This isn't a discussion about blacklisting them. It's only about deleting a template that doesn't belong in the external links sections. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Just yesterday, I had to revert a citation to Find A Grave because it wasn't a reliable source but I still think we should keep the template for one important reason, Find A Grave has photographs of grave sites and a lot of people are interested in them. Photographs of graves also can go on Wikipedia but to do so, copyright holders have to release their rights to share those photos. Copyright holders who upload their photos to Find A Grave only release those rights to Find A Grave and its parent company, Ancestry. According to Find A Grave's terms of service other websites, books, etc. are not supposed to copy images from the website without the copyright holder/uploader's permission. See here. Libertybison (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- So, in other words you like the site. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm saying it's a resource that can provide information readers may want/need to know (images of grave sites) that may not be able to be provided by Wikipedia. Libertybison (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- So could a lot of other sites that are blacklisted.(and no, I'm not suggesting blacklisting it) Which policy, guideline or MOS is your keep vote based on? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Although you cannot simply upload an image from FindAGrave without the copyright holder's permission, it is possible to identify the copyright holder and contact them for release of the image for use on Wikipedia with the appropriate permission, where no other image is available. For instance see: [1], which was released into the Public Domain by the copyright holder [[2]]. NotaBene 鹰百利 Talk 15:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- While I do believe that many FindAGrave users would release the image, it might not be possible to contact with some copyright holders; whether they are infrequent users, deceased, changed email address, etc. Libertybison (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do not delete Please keep the template. Users that follow the link know what find-a-grave is usually-(user-edited), it is a great asset to have it right there on pages. I almost always click-through if it is in an article. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- So, in other words you like the site. Which policy, guideline or MOS is your keep vote based on? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – This has been discussed at length at Template talk:Find a Grave and elsewhere. If the site is not going to be blacklisted, and I don't think it should, deleting the template is counterproductive. Almost everything written at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 5#Template:IMDb name applies here, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Except that some of IMDB is actually done by staff and the site can be used for items like cast, crew, producers, dates etc. So IMDB isn't the same. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do not delete I think some users may be getting a little pedantic. It is hardly a trivial site. Some of the imagery and information available at Find a Grave has been invaluable in my opinion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Which part is pedantic? Following content guidelines, like ELNO? Following policies like RS? I realized some of you like it, but WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason. I've yet to hear a policy based reason for keeping it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Niteshift36 and others are mistaken to form a nexus between RS and EL. Nothing in EL demands the standards of RS. Quite the opposite is stated at WP:ELMAYBE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do not delete It provides useful and important information that often cannot be found elsewhere. However, since there is limited oversight and cross-checking of the information that may not be up to Wikipedia standards, there should be Wikipedia guidelines on how to utilize Find-A-Grave information, for example, restricting it to "External links" and not permitting it as an in line reference.Ira Leviton (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hear hear. Almost invariably, that is how I use Find a Grave (extremely scarce exceptions are direct link to headstone imagery to prove passing dates).--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- And which policy, guideline or MOS is your keep vote based on? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a start? It is not the 1st instance of utilization for a reference, but is/can still be a valid alternative.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- How on Earth does NOTMEMORIAL apply here? That tells us what Wikipedia is not....and nothing in that section looks like it would support keeping this template. BTW, this discussion is about deleting the template, not whether you can use it somewhere.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. I both know and agree. But F.A.G. usage isn't "promoting" any form of website, and isn't "promoting" any form of sale or redirect. Also, "photographs, of gravestones provide useful information, the biographical and other additional details may not be reliable". External link passage is valid - to my mind - but not a primary reference. I won't lose sleep if consensus goes against myself (and others), but pedantic does spring to mind. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Hear hear. Almost invariably, that is how I use Find a Grave (extremely scarce exceptions are direct link to headstone imagery to prove passing dates).--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. External links sections allow some links that would not hold up as reliable sources, for example, IMDb film information. I've used Findagrave in the past and found it helpful and interesting. Although I would definitely look for a better source to support info in an article, the Findagrave site has often pointed me in the correct direction. In the nineteen points listed at WP:ELNO, I really don't see anything that would apply to Findagrave, so I would like to hear the nominator's detail on this "charge". This is a useful template that should remain in place. Stick to sources! Paine 01:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Again, IMDB has been held as a RS for some parts, like cast. It isn't for user added content, such as trivia. That's why IMDB is a different case. As for what part of ELNO, 12 is a good start. Since FindaGrave is user generated content, it's nothing more than a Wiki. I'd also say that 1 also applies. Regardless, it's not a Reliable Source, which means it shouldn't be used, much less given it's own template.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- 12 may apply, but I think 1 is a stretch. It's not a true wiki, and it doesn't even call itself one. External links do not have to live up to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, so continually stressing that point just weakens your argument. Let me just state that the times I used the Find A Grave website as a jumping off point to one or more reliable sources, the information at Find A Grave turned out to be quite reliable. So to be specific, while Find A Grave does not meet Wikipedia's standards, that does not mean it's unreliable as a source of information. Besides, it's just a grave finding site, after all. Stick to sources! Paine 23:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- No, it doesn't call itself a Wiki, which means nothing. I've said "essentially a wiki" and "nothing more than a wiki". Wiki is just a title. Not using "wiki" doesn't prevent it from being user generated content. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It provides useful and important information (photos as primary sources) that often cannot be found elsewhere. Doremo (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- And why does it need a template? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Please see Help:A quick guide to templates to learn why templates are useful. Doremo (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. It seems by now that a substantial majority are in favor of keeping the template. If that is the result, I am certainly ok with it.. Good points are made below concerning other templates (without necessarily relying on "other stuff exists", I think). I do think that if better sources are available for citations, they should be used. The template might better be used as an external link, as someone suggests below. Also, I would not favor a mass deletion of the template links even if the template were deprecated because many of the links are still likely to be useful and any troublesome uses as citations can be individually changed. Donner60 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Michael Bednarek and Paine Ellsworth. ‑‑YodinT 08:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment As the original creator of the template, I would prefer to import the Find-a-grave IDs from the template uses into Wikidata (using P535), then remove the template here. We could then automatically add the link to the infobox, the authority control template, or some other "useful Wikidata stuff" template that will undoubtedly come along. Failing that, I would vote "keep". --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Whether the template is kept or not, these links don't belong in either the infobox or in authority control. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Sources can be reliable for some things and not for others. Agreed find-a-grave is user generated content but it can be a reliable source, for example for photos of grave markers. Yes it's a primary source for that and using it borders on OR, so it must be used carefully. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do not delete. It's a nice amenity, and does no harm. I'm sure the readership likes it. Wahrmund (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Per Paine Ellsworth. Additionally, as a longtime contributor to IMDB, cast lists and other info frequently IS user-added content. I add and edit cast lists all the time. So the distinction between IMDB and FindAGrave isn't correct. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Gravestone photos are of great use in documenting disputes or uncertainty over historical birth and death dates, an unfortunately common situation. I have corrected many biographical articles on Wikipedia with wrong dates. Findagrave is surely the world's largest collection of such photos. In millions of cases, the photo on Findagrave is the only one available anywhere. If deleting the template means that 21,000 articles lose links to the corresponding FAG page, that would be add a lot of inconvenience, requiring the user to individually look up the person on FAG instead of simply following the link. Yes, the other user-supplied material on Findagrave is not reliable. Perhaps use of the template should be limited to cases where a gravestone photo is included on FAG, and unavailable elsewhere? Kestenbaum (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Bbb23, we should not be promoting the use of unreliable sources. Lizard (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep excellent source for what cemetery buried in and images of the tombstone. FAG has a mechanism for making corrections. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: It's no "worse" than IMDB, as others have noted. Muzilon (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, with modifications – Find a Grave pages with photos of gravestones are generally considered reliable for their genealogical data and the template aids in listing such pages. The FindaGrave listings 'maintained' by the Find a Grave webmasters can be considered reliable as well, but the data on such pages is generally available via other sources. The modifications needed are simple – remove the 'author', 'access date', and 'work' parameters. The 'author' parameter is inherently unreliable because FindaGrave relies on the usernames supplied by FindaGrave members; the 'access date' parameter does not add any useful info to the reader unless the link is broken; and, the 'work' parameter simply paraphrases what the author (who may not be RS) has supplied. Also, clarifications on the template usage guidance can be modified and strengthened to say rather explicitly that Find a Grave is considered RS only in limited circumstances. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep As a EL, Find a grave is fine. When it's used us a reference for anything other than where someone is buried, I edit it out of articles on a regular basis. If I had $1 for every time I've done that I'd probably have $100 or more by now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Template is used in external links. And there's no problem in using this site for external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.91 (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Michael Bednarek and Paine Ellsworth. The Find-a-Grave Template provides consistency for readers and editors. Woodlot (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - A very useful template widely used in Medal of Honor articles to link to the Claim to Fame: Medal of Honor Recipients section of FAG. - NQ (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Even if not useful as a reliable source, it is certainly a viable external link... and it's especially useful for those who like to seek out famous graves. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Find-a-Grave is a useful template, and contains information you're an unable to find anywhere else.--Mjs1991 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Fits criterion #4 of WP:ELMAYBE, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Also the only part of WP:ELNO that has been cited is #12, which does not appear to apply. The nominator should cite the relevant point in ELNO that applies. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- 12 applies. It's little more than an open Wiki. It doesn't really meet MAYBE 4 because it's not knowledgeable sources...it's anyone who registers. But clearly, enough of you have ignored that part of the criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:ELMAYBE. Bede735 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep again per ELMAYBE #4 Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a user generated unreliable source. The site does not meet WP:ELMAYBE because the site does not contain information from knowledgeable sources, it only contains user generated material gleaned from other sources or written by the user themselves. The only aspect of the site that is generally up for consideration is the use of photographs of the tomb to establish burial location and date of death. However, if the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then there would highly likely be a reliable source to provide such information. Allowing users to skip appropriate research and just slap in a link to an unreliable source is not something that we should be encouraging. We restrict links to external sites as it was a founding principle of Wikipedia that it should not serve as a directory (WP:PILLARS / WP:NOTDIRECTORY). We are not the internet we are a general encyclopedia providing curious readers with a reliable, neutral and balanced summary of the main points of a topic. If folks want something else - such as pictures of Aldous Huxley's tomb they can use Google who will provide many, not just from Find a Grave, but other sites such as Flickr, or Google Images, and there are a growing number of alternative sites like Tombfinder, and Gravematters. There is nothing that can be found on Find a Grave that can't be found on Google. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep another vote per criteria #4 of WP:ELMAYBE. Especially as photographs can be used to confirm dates. As an EL, WP is not inferring the accuracy or reliability of the content, just the source of information on the internet. Just because information is published in a printed book or journal does not insure its accuracy either. NotaBene 鹰百利 Talk 15:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mixed Keep I can see why it might be inadvisable, since what is carved on tombstones and what is in public records can conflict, but I can't see why a useful resource should be rejected. Material on Findagrave is derived from physical and public records, both primary sources. That should make Findagrave a secondary source. I hate to bring it up, but we also have templates for
{{facebook}}
and{{tumblr}}
, both notoriously unreliable sources which would not be permitted as references, but are still allowed in the External links section. --Auric talk 19:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC) - Keep The contributors of Find-a-Grave are at least as competent as the average wikipedian...Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Helpful and harmless as an external link. While perhaps not the best source of birth and death dates, it's always nice to have a redundant source to confirm what our other source(s) say. Even so-called reliable sources occasionally make mistakes. We shouldn't go on a jihad (crusade) against the good people at Ancestry.com who are just trying to make a living in this increasingly competitive world. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to work for free. wbm1058 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Someone on another website is spreading misinformation. Just for the record: On September 30, 2013, Ancestry.com announced its acquisition of Find a Grave. Site editor Jim Tipton said of the purchase that Ancestry.com had, "...been linking and driving traffic to the site for several years. Burial information is a wonderful source for people researching their family history....” Ancestry.com planned to bolster the resources dedicated to Find a Grave to "...launch a new mobile app, improve customer support, introduce an enhanced edit system for submitting updates to memorials, foreign-language support, and other site improvements."[1]
References
- ^ "Ancestry.com Acquires Find A Grave". Retrieved May 3, 2016.
- Keep — removal would cause mass destruction of references now useful to many thousands of articles. →StaniStani 00:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- keep information can be WP:Verified. Valid as an index of WP:PRIMARY sources. Not sufficient to show notability of course. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Many FAG pages meet WP:ELMAYBE, those that don't should simply not be linked. There is no reason to delete the template itself.--Michael WhiteT·C 01:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Useful info. Find-a-Grave is on a par with WP in terms of accuracy, which is good. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep but suggest an RfC on these sorts of links, whether to Find-a-Grave, IMDB or IAFD. I'm of the opinion that this meets ELMAYBE, but if the community determines that this class of site shouldn't be externally linked then we should make a policy to address all of them. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Deleting this template for linking to an external website will not resolve sourcing issues on poor articles. — Scott • talk 09:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Similar to IMdB in the respect that yes, it's a wiki with user-contributed material, but yes, it is suitable as an external link with all relevant caveats and precautions. Montanabw(talk) 18:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well hold on. What I want to know is not how reliable the info but how good it is. I grant that they don't have an independent fact-checking operation, but entities with independent fact-checking operations are getting fewer and fewer, and it's quite possible that in ten years there just aren't going to be any, IMO. The fact is is that even TIME and the New York Times are not really that reliable anymore and getting less so every year. So just how bad is the info at Find-A-Grave? Here's what I want to know: of 100 entries picked randomly, what percent have a significant error (wrong vital dates, wrong info in the bio, wrong parents name, that sort of thing)? Is it 10%? If 10 of 100 entries have even a single significant error then we have a problem and we maybe shouldn't be linking to this site. If it's 1% we're probably OK, since after all external links are just "Hey, here's something else too, make of it what you will and we don't guarantee it's perfect". So what is , 1% or 10& or what? Herostratus (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The template is an editing convenience. How and where this is used is a separate issue and should not be settled by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep but deprecate I'm afraid Niteshift36 is wrong when he writes that using Find-a-Grave is contrary to WP:ELNO. The site is so full of copyright-violating photos, I believe its use is contrary to WP:ELNEVER. Until the site is blacklisted, there's no reason to delete a template that editors find useful. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- As to "copyright-violating photos", remember their interpretation of fair use is not the same as ours. Fair use does not mean copyright violation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. No doubt some instances of this template fall under WP:ELNO or WP:ELMAYBE, per nom. But many others are squarely within WP:ELYES: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail [...], or other reasons." -- Visviva (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. If you honestly believe removing the template is going to cause people to stop putting a link to a persons find a grave memorial, you are deducing the wrong reason for its current popularity here (find a grave has grown in popularity since being managed through Ancestry.com, so only natural its use will grow here) and the outcome of removing the template. I was brought to this page because someone is replacing all the template links with direct links. I guarantee I am not the only one that will continue to use find a grave as an external link, as opposed to a reference. I've only used them for references for burial date/location information when that information is otherwise unavailable, and only when a picture of the gravestone is provided. These are valid entries in the deceased person's infobox, and sometimes find a grave is the only location for that information. Another negative for removing the template is that removing the template eliminates any hope of standardization for these links when they appear. Take a look at all the non-templated uses out there on the wiki. There are so many different formatting styles that it drives me crazy when I come across one. I've changed many to conform to the template style to reduce the clutter. So, if you remove the template, you are still going to see see plenty of find-a-grave links, but you will also see far more ways of it being spelled out when it is linked.--KMJKWhite (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Remember, Wikipedia is also considered by many to be unreliable. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. For the sake of our readers. It's all been said above. -- Ϫ 11:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful for photos of headstones. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The capsule write-ups detailing subjects' key points of notability are, as far as can be determined, basically reliable, especially for individuals who have no Wikipedia entry, but the indisputably unique primary resources are the photographs of headstones. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Convenient and useful as per above ... GELongstreet (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Provides vital information for an essential activity beloved of so many Wikipedia editors. Where else can one go, conveniently, to get the information you so desperately need to dance on the grave of a notable person? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Useful template. We have many templates that assist in linking to sources where the content may not always be ideal, but that is why we have editors. A photo of a gravestone is a photo of a gravestone, it is a useful primary source.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Of course Wikipedia is not supposed to be based directly on "primary sources". But carving a dead person's name and dates on a big piece of granite, and permanently installing it where anyone can find it and see it, is a form of publication. Like any kind of publication, it may contain errors (e.g. John G. Carlisle's gravestone with the wrong year of birth), but it is at least as public and verifiable as a book in a library. Kestenbaum (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- keep The nomination confuses RS and EL standards. Also we do not require RS for all sources. We require RS to support contentious claims in an article, but there is no blanket ban on non-RS sources in addition to this. As such, Findagrave still has its place. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. A template to a non-reliable source that has in many places got erroneous information? Nah. - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Australian free to air television channels
- Template:Australian free to air television channels ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
WP:TFD #3: Template is not used anywhere on Wikipedia. WP:TFD #2: This template is redundant as its information is found in the article List of digital television channels in Australia and in the navbox Template:Free-to-air television channels in Australia. Before recent editing to keep information relevant, template went unedited for four years. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 05:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Delete' per nom. Navbox and list seem to handle the group well enough. Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Culdcept series
- Template:Culdcept series ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navigates only 3 articles. Izno (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't appear that necessary. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:CT Special Forces series
- Template:CT Special Forces series ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Navigates between only 3 articles. Izno (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed, it is a small and rather insignificant series. Hippo99 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't appear that necessary. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
May 2
Template:Non-free biog-pic
- Template:Non-free biog-pic ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Mistaken image licensing template. It says the image is believed to qualify as fair use because it's a bio-pic for a deceased individual. There's nothing like that in the Fair Use four factors.
It's true that Wikipedia allows the use of fair-use image as biopics only when the individual is dead. But that doesn't make biopics of deceased individual fair use. It's kind of begging the question. damiens.rf 23:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The template's documentation says that the template is used on more than 7000 pages. If the template is deleted, then lots of files will start violating WP:NFCC#10b. If you think that the template refers to an invalid situation, then care should be taken to ensure that deleting the template won't create massive disruption on Wikipedia. If the outcome is deletion, then the template should probably be changed into a warning template which asks for an update of the copyright tag or nomination for deletion of the file.
- Also, when nominating templates for discussion, please add {{subst:tfd}} to the template page so that this is properly advertised. This is particularly important if the template is highly used. If a template is protected so that you can't edit it, then it's appropriate to make an edit request on the talk page. I have tagged this template for you.
- According to WP:NFCC#Rationale, the non-free content criteria are meant to use more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law. If you are suggesting that Wikipedia uses more broadly defined criteria than those permitted under United States copyright law, then it seems that non-free content is being misused on English Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes @Stefan2: This template broadens the fair use factors by stating that being a bio-pic for a deceased individual make it fair use. --damiens.rf 07:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Procedural keep - This license tag tracks the policy provision of WP:NFCI §10, which allows "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." The proper venue to discuss changes to non-free image policy is Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's part of the guideline (WP:NFC). The policy (WP:NFCC) only seems to allow content which is permitted under United States copyright law, based on the wording of WP:NFCC#Rationale. If WP:NFC and WP:NFCC disagree in some situation, then it would seem that WP:NFCC overrules WP:NFC. The nominator seems to think that this copyright tag is incompatible with United States copyright law (and thus with WP:NFCC). If that is the case, then it would seem that it doesn't matter what WP:NFC says.
-
- I note that this template is used more than 8,000 times, and there are probably thousands of similar files which use other copyright tags. Since this affects quite a lot of files, I'm not sure if a TfD should be allowed to decide the outcome without informing various talk pages and noticeboards (probably at least WT:NFC, WT:C, WT:FFD, WP:MCQ, WP:FNN and WP:VPP). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Removing previous comment, This template was split from {{Non-free fair use in}} IIRC, in order to make it more specfic. I don't have any objections to it being merged, provided that the nominator is prepared to retag every single image using it first, as well as providing a comprehensive review of ALL of them Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Non-free fair use}} is already widely misused to tag images of living people, and {{non-free historic image}} for images of dead ones. Merging this into either will widen the practice and, in particular, will complicate efforts to remove images for failing WP:UUI #1. —Cryptic 10:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This template states as one of the criteria for its use that no free alternative is likely available, so it's accurately representing our current policies. TfD is not the appropriate place to try to change that policy. ~ RobTalk 16:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- comment it is true that wikipedia policy is unhinged from "fair use" law, but there has never been a DMCA takedown of a "fair use" file. if you are confused by template language go to template talk; if you do not like "non-free policy", go to the policy page and get a consensus. if the nominator wants to mass delete thousands of images, go for it, but do not "stealth delete" them by venue shopping in obscure locations to subvert policy. the nominator tends to undermine his credibility, and demonstrates he is not neutral, but has an ideology, far from consensus. 198.24.30.100 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- There have been multiple DMCA takedown requests for 'fair use' files:
- wmf:File:DMCA Talitha Getty.pdf - meant to be used in accordance with WP:NFCI §10, except that it was apparently from a commercial source (Special:Diff/413212257).
- wmf:DMCA The Danish Girl - used in accordance with WP:NFCI §4 (Special:Diff/674379952).
- wmf:DMCA Chillerama - used in accordance with WP:NFCI §4 (Special:Diff/423724948).
- wmf:DMCA RIAA Kate Bush - File:Kate Bush Deeper Understanding Sample.ogg, apparently a non-free sound sample for Deeper Understanding, based on the upload log. Deleted as WP:F5, not as a DMCA takedown. Did the WMF decline the takedown request for some reason?
- wmf:DMCA UFC - used in accordance with WP:NFCI §4 (Special:Diff/480794425).
- wmf:DMCA of DMCA LIPTAK - a takedown request for a takedown request, which the Wikimedia Foundation decided to decline.
- There have been multiple DMCA takedown requests for 'fair use' files:
- Keep. There's no problem here. The template says the image is believed to qualify as fair use and it says it's a pic for a deceased individual. It is debatable to what extent being deceased may enhance our claim to fair use, however fair use rationale is certainly not diminished by our more-strict requirement to only use images of deceased individuals. An image being used in compliance with our non-free criteria should pass fair use easily. Alsee (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Alsee, but do you have any evidence that such use (use under WP:NFCI §10) is permitted under United States copyright law? I have never seen any such evidence (and I haven't seen evidence that such use isn't permitted either). I'm not sure that TfD is the right place to determine if WP:NFCI §10 is a correct interpretation of United States copyright law, though. This request affects quite a lot of files and should be handled carefully. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Stefan2, there's very little that can be said with certainty regarding Fair Use until a court rules on it but our non-commercial educational purpose makes for a strong case. Our 15 year history also sets a very strong precedent that our activity is commonly accepted as legitimate and valuable. In any case TFD isn't a place to consider any fundamental revision of non-free policy. Alsee (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note that Wikipedia can't use files if the use depends on the use being non-commercial, see {{db-f3}}. Therefore, Wikipedia can't make use of extended fair use provisions for non-commercial use. However, deletion of this template would affect thousands of files, so I don't think that TFD is the correct forum for this. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Stefan2, there's very little that can be said with certainty regarding Fair Use until a court rules on it but our non-commercial educational purpose makes for a strong case. Our 15 year history also sets a very strong precedent that our activity is commonly accepted as legitimate and valuable. In any case TFD isn't a place to consider any fundamental revision of non-free policy. Alsee (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Alsee, but do you have any evidence that such use (use under WP:NFCI §10) is permitted under United States copyright law? I have never seen any such evidence (and I haven't seen evidence that such use isn't permitted either). I'm not sure that TfD is the right place to determine if WP:NFCI §10 is a correct interpretation of United States copyright law, though. This request affects quite a lot of files and should be handled carefully. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. TFD is not intended for use to change or revoke policy. You want Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as per points above, changing policy should be not by deleting templates. Davidbuddy9 Talk 20:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Important template to flag an image being used with a fair use rationale. Respects that a copyright probably exists and that it is being used under a Fair Use claim. Per Stefan2, this template is not the place for a discussion of copyright law. If there is an issue, the language of the template can be refined at a later time should consensus change. Montanabw(talk) 06:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Split media - processed
- Template:Split media - processed ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Split media ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Split media - processed with Template:Split media.
{{Split media - processed}} gives wrong and dangerous information, and all files which use the template have been split incorrectly and therefore need to be retagged with {{split media}} so that they can be split correctly. I suggest redirecting {{split media - processed}} to {{split media}} as a first fix.
If someone actually follows the instructions in the template, then important source information is lost, so the instructions in the template must never be followed by anyone. Instead, the correct way to split files is described at Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#How to undo a history merge. Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- No objections to megre given that I created {{split media}} in the first place. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- How is current practice any more harmful than moving images to Commons? (And where, for that matter, do you expect to find administrators willing to history split? I'd be surprised if there's a dozen active admins who have ever done even one.) —Cryptic 10:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- The current practice is that files are split by deleting the page, then undeleting each file one at a time and moving them without redirect to different names. This template describes a different process which means destroying the upload history and therefore is very dangerous if someone finds other copies of the image elsewhere on the Internet as it may then be more difficult to tell where the file was first posted.
-
- When files are moved to Commons, the original history is unfortunately also lost, but at least people add an original upload log, something which hasn't been done when this template has been used. However, in the Commons case, this is because of technical limitations. There are no such technical limitations when splitting a file into multiple file names on the same project. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Quite frankly, what on earth the nom. is talking about? (Has he nominated the wrong template?) Looking at this template, it is requesting an admin to delete older image revisions that have nothing to do with the current revision. That's a plausible speedy deletion request. This template has a mandatory reason parameter too. Only this template is best name {{Delete old irrelevant revisions}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no deletion criterion which would allow for the deletion of the old revisions simply because the old revisions mustn't be deleted. Instead, the file should be split so that the old revisions appear under different names. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong! WP:CSD applies to individual revisions too; that's why admins always delete the old revisions of non-free images. (They do it per WP:CSD § F5.) An irrelevant revision (which is subsequently overwritten) lacks source, license, and (where applicable) use rationale. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:F4 says that you can delete files if there is too little information available about its copyright status. If you can obtain this information by inspecting the history of the file information page, then the file appears to be ineligible for deletion under WP:F4. If a FUR is missing, then it would seem that the overwritten revision is non-free, meaning that it can be deleted under WP:F5, or in some cases under WP:F9. --09:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Quite! There needs to be a mean (a template or nomination page) to request for the deletion of the specific revision. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:F4 says that you can delete files if there is too little information available about its copyright status. If you can obtain this information by inspecting the history of the file information page, then the file appears to be ineligible for deletion under WP:F4. If a FUR is missing, then it would seem that the overwritten revision is non-free, meaning that it can be deleted under WP:F5, or in some cases under WP:F9. --09:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong! WP:CSD applies to individual revisions too; that's why admins always delete the old revisions of non-free images. (They do it per WP:CSD § F5.) An irrelevant revision (which is subsequently overwritten) lacks source, license, and (where applicable) use rationale. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no deletion criterion which would allow for the deletion of the old revisions simply because the old revisions mustn't be deleted. Instead, the file should be split so that the old revisions appear under different names. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Opppose (rename or delete and modify SD templates) – At the first glance, the nomination seems to make sense: The procedure has changed; hence this template is now irrelevant. But consider this scenario: User A produces a new slightly different version of File:Diagram P.png but mistakenly uploads it to File:Diagram B.png. Having noticed his mistake, he presses the revert button, bringing the last good revision back. Then, proceeds to upload his new slightly modified version into the correct target, File:Diagram P.png. In such situations, there should be a way to request an admin to delete the mistake. One alternative would be to rename this template as CL suggested. Another would be to add a
|revision=
parameter to all speedy deletion templates for files and delete this template. Fleet Command (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)- Are you suggesting that this should be changed into some kind of WP:G7 template? The ones who have added the template to files haven't used the template in this way. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really see why we must restrict this to the author only. For all we know, User A in my scenario might not be the author of File:Diagram P.png or File:Diagram B.png. Or consider this scenario: User A, having committed the said mistake, never notices his error. User B comes, notices the mistake, reverts to the last good known revision and then has to ask an admin to delete the incorrect file revision. Situation gets even more delicate if File:Diagram B.png is non-free. Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that this should be changed into some kind of WP:G7 template? The ones who have added the template to files haven't used the template in this way. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
May 1
Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
- 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) 12:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Part of WP:PUF, which is no longer active. ~ RobTalk 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't seem to be needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, as a edit notice that isn't necessary anymore. APerson (talk!) 15:24, 2 May 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:Pufc
- Template:Pufc ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Part of WP:PUF, which is no longer active. ~ RobTalk 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Still used on lots of pages. Users might have forgot to remove the template after discussions have been closed. The pages which use the template should be checked for problems before the template is deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete And responding to User:Stefan2, the notice was placed in the caption field of an infobox in three articles, and remained after their discussions closed even though the link to the image was removed. With no image, the caption didn't display. I've removed these tree uses. All the remainders are talk archives, where it never should have been placed in the first place, and it won't do any harm to red link them. If you're really worried, we can request that Anomiebot subst them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Substitution would be better in that case in my opinion. I don't think that it's a good idea to create lots of unnecessary red links in talk page archives. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, page is now in Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted and the bots should have it done shortly. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Oiyarbepsy: For the future, please wait for the TfD to be concluded before orphaning a template, since orphaning a template can influence the result. At this point, there's zero transclusions, so this is open and shut. It may have been less so if transclusions remained, though - who knows. ~ RobTalk 22:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
- 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) 12:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Possibly unfree files is no longer active. Edit notice no longer required. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete after removing the template from the page WP:PUF (we don't want red links there). Doesn't seem to be needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete once the above tidying has been done. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 3 May 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:Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry
- Template:Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Duplicates {{Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha}}. DrKay (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It's a useless template. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- keep it - the Koháry branch is one of three cadet branches of the House of Sachsen-Coburg. There is the ducal line (which became then the British line), there is the belgian line and the Koháry line. There is a template for the Belgian royal family as well as one for the British and ducal line. All of these templates would be just duplicates then. Rovere (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Kohary line is also shown on the same template as the British and ducal line. Hence, it is a duplication. The Belgian royal family template is not a duplication because Prince Lorenz of Belgium and his children are not Saxe-Coburgs, and so the people on that template are different. DrKay (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- keep it - the Koháry branch is one of three cadet branches of the House of Sachsen-Coburg. There is the ducal line (which became then the British line), there is the belgian line and the Koháry line. There is a template for the Belgian royal family as well as one for the British and ducal line. All of these templates would be just duplicates then. Rovere (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Puf top
- Template:Puf top ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Puf bottom ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
There are no more discussions at WP:PUF that need to be closed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Puf log
- Template:Puf log ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
All discussions at WP:PUF are now closed. No one will remove the header on the daily subpages anymore. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This is not something which should be 'removed' on pages - it's a template which is added at the top of all new log pages using {{subst:puf log}}, and the substituted template should remain there forever for easy navigation between different PUF pages. Since it has been substituted on all pages, the template doesn't seem to be needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. No longer necessary to maintain this. ~ RobTalk 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing to substitute as there are no transclusions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Planet Network
- 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) 12:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Planet Network ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navbox only has one link... The1337gamer (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as useless for navigation due to only having two blue links (inclusing title). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:09, 2 May 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:WikiProject Language revival
- 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) 12:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:WikiProject Language revival ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Empty template (content consists only of the template's own name), referring to a WikiProject that doesn't exist. Created erroneously by newcomer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Revise and keep Whether a newbie created the template (and if he did, fair dues, it's not so easy to work out how to do it) this template can easily and usefully be populated. Language Revival is an important area. I agree of course that there is no WikiProject, but a Language Revival template is a good idea. -- Evertype·✆ 12:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Uhm, the purpose of a "WikiProject" template is to note that a page is within the scope of a certain WikiProject. If no such WikiProject exists, what use could the template possibly be? (Beyond duplicating the function of a Category:Language revival on the article page). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete unless such a WikiProject is begun. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete; devoid of content. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-existent wikiproject, and the creator of the template does not seem to be creating a wikiproject. No edits to the WP:COUNCIL proposal page for such a wikiproject either. New editor with misconceptions about how WikiProjects work, speedy delete as DB-TEST -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 08:05, 3 May 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:Rui En
- 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) 12:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Rui En ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
A mass of linkless black text, with only 4 proper links, and 1 improper link. The improper link to L'Oreal is not useful navigation. -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support the template was probably created for filmography purposes. Timmyshin (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Total fancruft and bordering on WP:PROMOTION with the listing of endorsements. I'm ignoring the fact that the original author seems to have a possible COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:59, 4 May 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:Istanbul Open 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 keep. Izkala (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Istanbul Open tournaments ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
NAVBOX with only one entry. If the 2016 tournament is added, then it is 2. Still too few. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The tournament start on 2015, it is normal to have only 2 entry. --Vencin (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 02:24, 1 May 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:2019 in space
- Template:2019 in space ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Way Too soon and essentially blank and unused. This template should be recreated near 2019 when more info is available. Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - agree, way way too soon. Probably recreate near the end of 2018. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:CBALL. jps (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I created the template, just because this series of templates is intimately connected with Category:2019 in space, which someone had already started using (and all of whose members are presumably relevant to the template). All other
xxxx in space
categories have the template, so I was merely trying to observe the standard format for space-year categories. I don't hold strong views either way, I was just trying to be tidy and follow a well-established format. So I'd either keep both the category and the template, or delete both of them. But I would note that the nature of astronomical phenomnena means that they are predictable a long way in advance and people will create articles on eg a comet that will only be visible on Earth several years hence. So I'd suggest that they are OK per WP:CBALL - "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". It's the nature of astronomy that such events are foreseeable further into the future than events subject to human foibles - for instance, Category:Comets in 2018 already has 14 members. Le Deluge (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- The Categories are usually made before the templates are made, however there really is nothing useful to put in this template until a nearer date. Thats why I nominated this template for deletion. Plus these templates can easily be recreated in less then 10 minutes. Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
April 30
Template:Fb team Al-Masry
- Template:Fb team Al-Masry ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
There is already a template for this club (Template:Fb team Al Masry). There is no use for this template. Ben5218 (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The Wikipedia article is Al-Masry SC with a dash, and I think that'd be the better template to use. Regarding the other template, a redirect from Template:Fb team Al Masry to Template:Fb team Al-Masry could work. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:RD medadvice
- 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 Foxj (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:RD medadvice ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template has been formally deprecated since January 2011, and the wording is no longer consistent with WP:RD/G. It has been replaced by {{RD-deleted}}. Tevildo (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
If it's no longer serving a purpose, it seems fair to delete it. Thanks for letting me know Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 06:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete tagged as WP:G7 per above. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:00, 1 May 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:Amsterdam Metro stations
- 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. Izkala (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Amsterdam Metro stations ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Metro ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Amsterdam Metro stations with Template:Metro.
In a recent RM on Talk:Amstelveen Centrum metro station, it was agreed upon that stations served only by line 51 use the [[{{{1}}} tram stop|{{{1}}}]] format and that metro stations shared with NS railways use the [[{{{1}}} station|{{{1}}}]] format. All other stations use the [[{{{1}}} metro station|{{{1}}}]] format. This could be making the template obsolete? Or how should we deal with this? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks like some redirects may be needed, but otherwise Agree. Useddenim (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Keep. Required for {{S-line}}. Useddenim (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)- Strong oppose Do you understand how this series of succession templates work together with s-line templates? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep; required for S-line succession templates. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:12, 2 May 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:Rotterdam Metro stations
- 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. Izkala (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Rotterdam Metro stations ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Metro ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Rotterdam Metro stations with Template:Metro.
As with the Amsterdam Metro station template below, the articles have been moved to new names as per the RM at Talk:Kralingse Zoom metro station. Now all of the metro-only stations use [[{{{1}}} metro station|{{{1}}}]], while those shared with NS railways use [[{{{1}}} station|{{{1}}}]]. In both cases, a merger with the metro template would be ideal. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks like some redirects may be needed, but otherwise Agree. Useddenim (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Keep. Required for {{S-line}}. Useddenim (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)- Strong oppose Do you understand how this series of succession templates works? Templates Rotterdam Metro lines, stations and color, (with the same prefix) work together with s-line templates and are looking for a matching name. Your article renaming now requires you to distinguish between metro stations and tram stops, and any other names that don't fit the default in that stations template. This is not what the Template:Metro does. 00:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep; required for S-line succession templates. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:12, 2 May 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:Puf
- Template:Puf ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
As WP:PUF is now closed, this template can either be marked {{historical}} or redirected to {{ffd}} (for the benefit of people who may still accidentally use this template due to muscle memory or the like) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to
WP:FFDTemplate:Ffd per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)- @Rubbish computer: The nom suggested it be redirected to the template Template:Ffd, not Wikipedia:FFD. Did you mean to be inconsistent? --Izno (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Izno: No, my mistake. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Per nom, redirect to {{ffd}}. --Izno (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redirecting to {{ffd}} seems to be the least confusing solution. However, since {{puf}} and {{ffd}} do not have exactly the same parameters, it's maybe better to change the wikicode to
{{ffd|1={{{1|}}}|log={{{log|{{#time:Y F j|{{{date|}}}}}}}}
. This should ensure that the template also works with {{puf}}'s date parameter, which is missing from the {{ffd}} template. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Not English/dated
- 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) 21:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Not English/dated ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Not used except on user and user talk pages. The changes to Template:Not English by Rayukk were reverted by Jac16888. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete it already, it's been unused for a few months now. -rayukk | talk 07:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:03, 1 May 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:Infobox Indian politician & Businessman
- 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) 12:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Indian politician & Businessman ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unnecessarily stores article content (reference/categories/stub template) in a template. ~ RobTalk 03:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:04, 1 May 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 29
- Template:Batangas City TV ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Dagupan City TV ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Pampanga TV ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Puerto Princessa City TV ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
No useful navigation; only navigate two to three articles each. Sixth of March 00:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge and maybe form Template:Philippine TV. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - there is already a template at Template:Television in the Philippines, but don't know if merging to that template is the best idea, since it's individual stations, and not regions. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:WLS-TV On-air Staff
- Template:WLS-TV On-air Staff ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This is nothing but fan cruft and WikiProject TV Stations does not use navboxes for local TV personalities. Not to mention this goes against WP:NOTTVGUIDE. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 00:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This is probably better accomplished by a category.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have fixed the template such that it can be used without violating NOTTVGUIDE. That leave the claim that it is fancruft--one which I find to be specious; the template is like any other navbox in listing the people working at the company--and the claim that WP:TVSTATIONS gets to decide what kind of navboxes we can or cannot have; another specious claim per WP:LOCALCON. Keep the modified template, which provides an appropriate level of navigation between the staff articles currently on-wiki. --Izno (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- My opinion is the same as my nomination – delete, even with the modifications. It's just fan cruft and isn't common with the local TV station articles on Wikipedia. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan ☔️ 00:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan: I unbolded your vote to avoid a future closer confusing it for an editor other than the nominator. There's no need for a nominator to vote in the discussion. ~ RobTalk 03:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Magic: The Gathering players
- Template:Magic: The Gathering players ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This is misuse of a template for a category and list which already exist (Category:Magic: The Gathering players and list of professional Magic: The Gathering players). This template doesn't provide more specific criteria (such as, for example Template:NBA MVPs does, being a template not of basketball players in general but specifically NBA MVPs); instead, this template is a generic list that is attempting to list MTG player articles on Wikipedia. There's a reason we don't have templates of such genericity as a "basketball players" or "football players" template that is just a list of basketball player and football player articles on Wikipedia: the number of people/articles fitting such a template is constantly growing over time, to unwieldy sizes better served with a category. The template will be frequently out-of-date unless constantly manually synced with every new article, and whenever it does not match up with the category, the POV problem arises of why certain players are listed on the template but not the category. Category:Magic: The Gathering players already does what this template is trying to do, and does it better (more up-to-date with less maintenance required and with more fairness). —Lowellian (reply) 02:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment (and not a !vote): Per WP:CLN this is an example of a bad navbox. Maybe there is another criterion which could be used to organize this template, such as when the players started playing, were born, how many wins they have of a major tournament.... --Izno (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep WP:NOTDUP, the argument that it duplicates the list and category isn't a reason for deletion per se. I'm pretty sure nearly half of the mtg player articles aren't even notable anyways, so it's possble that we could be looking at a much smaller navbox that would be easier to organize.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- (Just for the record, User:Prisencolin is the creator and primary editor of this Magic: The Gathering players template.) If the player has an article on Wikipedia, then presumably, they are notable (if the player is not notable, then the article should have been deleted, per Wikipedia's standards requiring that biographical subjects be notable), in which case, it is POV and biased to arbitrarily exclude them from the infobox. That is one of the fundamental problems of this infobox: it cannot stay neutral without constant maintenance and monitoring that catches every new player article created. It is not even a fair infobox now, excluding multiple players who have articles on Wikipedia. —Lowellian (reply) 23:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete, seems like navbox creep to me, especially when there is already a category. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Semitic topics
- Template:Semitic topics ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This classification is outdated by many decades. See Semitic people for sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I think its useful because there are no other templates that lists such topics in such a defined order. Ninefive6 (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete; article shows that this classification is outdated and nowadays arbitrary. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
April 28
Template:Shipley
- 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) 00:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Shipley ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; no blue links. ~ RobTalk 21:34, 28 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:Scottish civil parish
- 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Scottish civil parish ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, created in 2006. Not sure what this was meant to be. ~ RobTalk 21:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is a lookup table of codes to parish names and populations. Owain (talk) 07:14, 29 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
- Template:HabPlanetScore ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Since last nomination, it has been removed from all pages on Wikipedia and it does not appear to me likely to be used again. jps (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Removed by whom and as a result of what discussion? ~ RobTalk 15:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Strong keep, since it was removed by the nominator from List of potentially habitable exoplanets and List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI, prematurely, assuming the PHA ESI WP:PRIMARY discussion at WT:AST#Is Citing PHL/HEC in violation of WP:SELFPUB? would be in their favor (i.e. consensus remove).Discussion is ongoing, and any AfD prior to a firm conclusion of that discussion is frivolous. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Delete,Keep as a deprecated templateper Davidbuddy9's comments since I was looking at the wrong previously-closed AfD (one of the problems of having many consecutive, frivilous AfDs, against which I still argue). Template was instead removed from List of potentially habitable moons by Davidbuddy9 in a bold update. Template is extremely page-specific, so I don't see it being reappropriated elsewhere. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Admins, please consider I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc for a ban on submitting AfDs as they appear to be abusing this process for some time. Multiple consecutive AfDs submitted around the topics of ESI and the PHA website due to a failure to understand the purpose of AfD, and a failure to wait for consensus on a strongly-felt topic before taking action. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This is simply untrue. jps (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Gliese 667 Cc was not merged. You removed the template from that article as well. K2-3d is another example, Kepler-438b, Kepler-22b etc etc. All had the template removed by you. As for the AfD ban I have to agree with Tom.Reding, you keep renominating the same articles if they have a no consensus close simply to get a different outcome. You also demonstrated on my talk page that you don't understand the current definition of an AfD. Davidbuddy9 Talk 20:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This is simply untrue. jps (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Admins, please consider I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc for a ban on submitting AfDs as they appear to be abusing this process for some time. Multiple consecutive AfDs submitted around the topics of ESI and the PHA website due to a failure to understand the purpose of AfD, and a failure to wait for consensus on a strongly-felt topic before taking action. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no vote stacking currently going on and I do not have active sock puppets if we want to point fingers using the past is not a smart solution here. An RfC is a far more effective way to generate consensus about the use of ESI on Articles templates etc. splitting the conversation into several AfDs, and TfDs is not an effective way to build strong consensus. I've only suggested that a ban on nominating AfD's should be considered, I've never said you should be banned from the conversation. Davidbuddy9 Talk 21:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- But I mean the reasons keep adding up. Davidbuddy9 Talk 23:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Strong keep and restore transclusions, as there is no consensus to remove them. ~ RobTalk 17:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Where would you like the transclusions to be restored to? Which article? jps (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- All transclusions, and all edits made that removed information related to PHA & HEC information should be undone, pending a conclusive outcome of WT:AST#Is Citing PHL/HEC in violation of WP:SELFPUB?. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Most recently, see histories of Wolf 1061c & Kepler-452b. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I've already restored them to List of potentially habitable exoplanets following your removal and edit-warring here.~ RobTalk 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)- This template was not used on that page. Please try to keep up. jps (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Striking some comments here since I mistook another template for this one. ~ RobTalk 17:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, used in this article, until I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc removed it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- What does a removal that was done before the last TfD have to do with this situation? You are muddying the waters and generally behaving like a tendentious editor. jps (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- This template was not used on that page. Please try to keep up. jps (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Where would you like the transclusions to be restored to? Which article? jps (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a deprecated template, this template was widely used in past revisions of astronomy articles, and deleting it could render old versions of articles unreadable. Davidbuddy9 Talk 21:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Also note that this template was not that "Page Specific", It was prevosly used in many Exoplanet articles such as Gliese 667 Cc, Kepler-452b, Kepler-442b, Kepler-438b and probably even more articles used this template in the past. Davidbuddy9 Talk 23:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:UnicodeTitle
- 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) 00:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:UnicodeTitle ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Now unused. Non-functional now that {{Unicode}} has been deleted. ~ RobTalk 12:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Deprecate; Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates transcluded on the most pages shows that the template was used on 13,000 pages in 2013, and deletion would mess up those pages' history. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- How would they be messed up? The template may leak in old revisions, but that is not uncommon for deleted templates. It should not be a consideration in a deletion discussion.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)- @Jc86035: All this template does is display the title of the page in Unicode (which is nonfunctional now). Deleting this template will leave a red template link somewhere on the page in the history, but zero article content will be unreadable. It just adds something that is unsightly in a very, very minor way. ~ RobTalk 15:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- How would they be messed up? The template may leak in old revisions, but that is not uncommon for deleted templates. It should not be a consideration in a deletion discussion.
- 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 27
Template:School block
- Template:School block ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Anonblock ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:School block with Template:Anonblock.
Add the part about class projects to the anonblock template and redirect this to anonblock. For one thing, there's no way we could identify every school in existence as a school IP (and anonblock gets used on some IPs that we know are school IPs). For another thing, having this separate template to point out "this is a school" does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. This template does nothing anonblock doesn't do. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 23:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Prime examples of why we don't need to templates: University of South Florida /16 range and Miami University NAT IP were blocked with anonblock when they should have been blocked with schoolblock. As such, the useful information on the schoolblock template, which apparently would have been quite applicable in the USF case, was not seen. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 05:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Anecdotal evidence of occasional failure to use these templates where they might otherwise have been used does not mean that they are not generally useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That still doesn't answer how having a separate template helps the encyclopedia. If anything, it's a borderline personal attack, saying "you little rascals are childish, that's why we had to block you all." That theory also would explain why sysops are using anonblock on universities; they have more respect for university students (Florida Gulf Coast University seems to be an exception) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day. 17:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep useful for identifying schools and for admins what to do when the block expires (and the vandalism starts again). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- {{Shared IP edu}} does that just fine. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors. 06:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Merge. Redundant to {{anonblock}} and {{Shared IP edu}}. ~ RobTalk 05:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Dirk's argument. I'd also argue that school children might find the message easier to understand than the more technical one about IP addresses. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- School "children" who probably know more about technology than the average adult reading the anonblock template, you mean... There's a reason why I said merge vs. delete; Anonblock could take a few lessons from this school template. If tech savvy teens need simpler language, don't you think some 80 year old man at a public library needs simpler language? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors. 05:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Further rebuttal - You gave me a great idea! Since students need a belittling template with a school house on it because it is more understandable, lets make a template that's easier for middle eastern POV-pushers to understand. Introducting MiddleEastBlock! It uses similar language as the school block template and also has the block reason written in Arabic, so it's easier for them to understand. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors. 04:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment There's not a single one of these keep votes which I haven't refuted. It seems like most of the keepers are just having trouble admitting that their template with the pretty school house on it is redundant, but the fact is it's belittling to the users of these IPs. Bear in mind a good portion of our article content has cone from people who are users of these IPs; even if we have to block them for abuse there is no sense belittling anyone there who clicks the edit button. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors. 05:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The school template has information related to specifically to educational institutions (such as class projects) that would be irrelevant in the majority of IP blocks. clpo13(talk) 20:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- This should be merged into anonblock; there is no way to recognize all school IPs as school IPs, and I see anonblock getting used on school IPs that we recognize as school IPs even. By including this in anonblock, school users will see this information even if their IP is not tagged as belonging to a school. It's not going to kill non-school IP users to read a sentence or two about what to do if someone needs to edit for a school project. I sense another person who's afraid their pretty school house template is going to go away, because I already pointed this issue out, and people are still grasping at straws to keep the template. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors. 03:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Snide comments, even when set in small font, are unlikely to make anyone come around to your point of view. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- If so, how is Donald Trump doing so well? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors. 21:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Snide comments, even when set in small font, are unlikely to make anyone come around to your point of view. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- This should be merged into anonblock; there is no way to recognize all school IPs as school IPs, and I see anonblock getting used on school IPs that we recognize as school IPs even. By including this in anonblock, school users will see this information even if their IP is not tagged as belonging to a school. It's not going to kill non-school IP users to read a sentence or two about what to do if someone needs to edit for a school project. I sense another person who's afraid their pretty school house template is going to go away, because I already pointed this issue out, and people are still grasping at straws to keep the template. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors. 03:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep More information on background/circumstances of block = better for both admins on this side and sysops on the other. Minor inconsistencies in use so far are hardly an indication of functional failure. Anyone who feels 'belittled' by the icon probably shouldn't expose their tender skin to the rarefied air of a collaborative project.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Flora and fauna in Gibraltar
- 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) 00:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Flora and fauna in Gibraltar ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Not used, and the template contains too many links and redlinks. I believe a list with references would be better, and if the content was referenced I'd say "listify" or "split and listify", but that's not the case. jonkerz ♠talk 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete, way too big and no source. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep might encourage the creation of more articles. Ninefive6 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I created the template to encourage people to create articles for the plants, however I also created List of plants in the Gibraltar Botanic Gardens to do the same, as long as one of them survives I'm happy. John Cummings (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Far too large to provide useful navigation. Better as a list, which already exists per the above. ~ RobTalk 05:41, 5 May 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:Animals 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 all per precedent. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Animals tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Atom Heart Mother tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:The Dark Side of the Moon tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:The Division Bell tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:The Final Cut tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:A Momentary Lapse of Reason tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Obscured by Clouds tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:The Piper at the Gates of Dawn tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:A Saucerful of Secrets tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Ummagumma tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:The Wall tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Wish You Were Here tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant to navboxes for these albums, as per precedent. Navigational boxes already exist for all of these. ~ RobTalk 16:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and precedent. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: No other major band has track listings but Pink Floyd. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:10, 5 May 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:Unicode2
- 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. I will subst the remaining transclusions before deleting. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
17:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Unicode2 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template been "under development" for 5+ years. Since {{Unicode}} has been deprecated and slated for deletion, this one should go too. ~ RobTalk 16:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused in the main namespace, and not a suitable solution to the problem. BabelStone (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; anything that's been left fallow that long's probably a good candidate for deletion. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:15, 5 May 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:2016OlympicFieldHockeySchedule
- 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 (non-admin closure). ~ RobTalk 05:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:2016OlympicFieldHockeySchedule ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template not currently being used, as it was used on only one article where it was replaced with a wikitable. No need for a template used on only one article. Qed237 (talk) 15:01, 27 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:Red Star Belgrade squad 1991 European Cup Final
- Template:Red Star Belgrade squad 1991 European Cup Final ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
It is not standard practice to have templates for squads that have reached finals. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Mattythewhite: Isn't in common place to have templates for the winners? This squad won the European Cup in 1991. ~ RobTalk 05:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
April 25
Template:Philippines men's national basketball - FIBA Asia 2014 roster
- 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 02:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Philippines men's national basketball - FIBA Asia 2014 roster ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 25 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).
This template is essentially a duplicate of Template:NCAA Division I-AA/FCS football champion navbox. While the nominated template is older than its duplicate, the new template contains more specific links, is transcluded on more specifically apt articles, and is in keeping stylistically with other analogous templates like Template:College Football National Champion pre-AP Poll navbox, Template:College Football National Champion navbox, and Template:College football national champion (championship game era) navbox Jweiss11 (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete They're basically the same thing so no reason to have two of them. Also, maybe we could copy/paste Template:NCAA Division I-AA/FCS football champion navbox over Template:NCAA Division I FCS National Champion navbox and do some sort of history merge so that we can preserve the history. They're the same thing. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:SoldierSonTrilogyBooks
- 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 02:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:SoldierSonTrilogyBooks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Duplicates content that is already covered by the larger and more useful Template:Robin Hobb. All pages that this template is transcluded on also have the Robin Hobb template so nothing will be lost by deleting this. Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 25 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:Table of contents
- 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 subst and delete. While the usage for educational projects is understandable, this template is simply hard-coding the magic word, and as mentioned in the discussion is very rarely needed. For the sake of any pages I might not have seen that do require the TOC in a specific place, I am subst'ing the current usage. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Table of contents ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
All this template does is place the magic word "TOC" at the specified location. Originally had about 610 transclusions, though I removed the 8 or 9 that were in article space. The rest are either in Wikipedia or User space. The ones in article space simply duplicated the normal placement of the table of contents or, in one case, generated an unneeded table of contents in a very short article. All of the Wikipedia and User space placements seem to be related to Wikipedia coursework by some school. This template just doesn't seem to have any utility and all the placements that I looked at did not require a placement of the TOC magic word at all. While I am not dead set on deletion by any means, I think it does at least bear a look by the community. Safiel (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. It requires the typing of more characters than the magic word, for goodness sake! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. The purpose of this template was to make the markup of automatically-generated course page more understandable to newcomers. The TOC magic word is something that often confuses people looking at markup who are just getting started, so the course pages used a template that more clearly indicates just what it does: adds a table of contents. For new Wiki Ed course pages, that template was not being used directly, but instead transcluded as part of {{start of course timeline}}. I switched it out for the magic word, so that should remove the majority of uses, and avoid adding new uses of it. I still think a template like this makes sense for making markup as user-friendly as possible, but it shouldn't be a big deal to subst it everywhere and delete it if that's what the consensus is.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Convert to a substitution template -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete, WP already does a great job of automatically figuring out where to put the TOC and this just encourages breaking WP:ACCESSIBILITY by misplacing it. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- We have many TOC templates. The default kind would seem to be something that should be accessible through a template, as {{compact TOC}} and {{list TOC}} etc exist -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:54, 30 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:Fb team ENPPI Club
- 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 redirect. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 02:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Fb team ENPPI Club ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
There is already a template for this club (Template:Fb team ENPPI). There is no use for this template. Ben5218 (talk) 06:10, 25 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:2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Host Cities
- 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 (non-admin closure). ~ RobTalk 02:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Host Cities ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
There is minimal need to navigate between these articles about cities solely on the basis of them hosting a women's soccer tournament once. Graham (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete, navbox creep, not a good defining characteristic. Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 29 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:The Super Seven Kids Show
- 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 speedy close. Template speedily deleted. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Template:The Super Seven Kids Show ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Broken, empty, unused template about the Super Seven Kids Show, whose mainspace article has been tagged for speedy deletion as non-notable. Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:22, 25 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).
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}}
- 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 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
- 2016 April 10 – Honda international timeline ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Modern Honda vehicles}}
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}}
- 2016 February 5 – Mission ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge text into appropriate cleanup template
- 2016 March 15 – Split from ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) with {{Split to}} to create {{Split article}}
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.
- None currently
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).
- None currently
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.
- 2015 August 2 – Infobox American championship car race report 2 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge into {{Infobox American championship car race report}}