Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and Modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, 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 and module 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 you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. If it is an unused, hardcoded instance or duplication of another template, tag it with {{Db-t3|~~~~~|name of other template}}.
- 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).
Step | Instructions |
---|---|
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 TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:
|
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 make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts. 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.
After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors
While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.
To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that an template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets, such as "T3" for hardcoded instances.
- Notifying related WikiProjects
WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{Tfdnotice}}
for this.
Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
- Notifying substantial contributors to the template
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)
Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.
Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle
Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. Twinkle 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 March 20
- 3.1.1 Template:Odia language
- 3.1.2 Template:2014–15 A Group table
- 3.1.3 Template:Aerospecs
- 3.1.4 Template:Flag entry
- 3.1.5 Major International Pageants titleholders navboxes
- 3.1.6 Miss Universe Organization titleholders navboxes
- 3.1.7 Template:GNF Protein box
- 3.1.8 Template:Warning antisemitism Arabs
- 3.2 March 19
- 3.2.1 Template:Salem–Vriddhachalam–Cuddalore Port line
- 3.2.2 Template:Sheffield Tigers speedway team 2011
- 3.2.3 Template:Slovak mobile phone companies
- 3.2.4 Template:TOT S.C. squad
- 3.2.5 Template:Thamusemeant
- 3.2.6 Template:Turkey squad 2011 Women's Volleyball European Championship
- 3.2.7 Template:Uniform polyhedron navigator
- 3.2.8 Template:Unicode chart
- 3.2.9 Template:Linggo Bingo sa Hapon
- 3.2.10 Template:Liloa/Piilani/Moana Family Tree
- 3.2.11 Template:Life on Earth
- 3.2.12 Template:Lichen genera taxonomy
- 3.2.13 Template:Legislative buildings of Europe
- 3.2.14 Template:Legal Quays of London
- 3.2.15 Template:La Serena squad
- 3.2.16 Template:LGBT rights in Australia
- 3.2.17 Template:LSD LegCo members
- 3.2.18 Template:La Romana, Dom Rep TV
- 3.2.19 Template:La Ronge Radio
- 3.2.20 Template:List of NBC Red Network Programs from 1926-27
- 3.2.21 Template:List of crambid genera
- 3.2.22 Template:List of rivers of Tajikistan
- 3.2.23 Template:Lists of hills of English counties
- 3.2.24 Template:Lists of women by occupation
- 3.2.25 Template:Los Caminantes
- 3.2.26 Template:Lord High Constable of England
- 3.2.27 Template:Lombard Kingdom
- 3.2.28 Template:Lotto Sport Italia NRFL Premier (soccer)
- 3.2.29 Template:Lotto Sport Italia NRFL Division 1A
- 3.2.30 Template:MalaysiaFedDeleg
- 3.2.31 Template:Major railway stations in the United Kingdom
- 3.2.32 Template:Macedonian Footballer of the Year
- 3.2.33 Template:Super Over
- 3.2.34 Template:Navbox Province of Italy
- 3.2.35 Template:If affirmed
- 3.2.36 Template:Samanid Provinces
- 3.2.37 Template:Bernice Summerfield audios
- 3.2.38 Template:Authority control/BIBSYS
- 3.2.39 Template:4 17/11/2014
- 3.2.40 Template:Infobox official account
- 3.2.41 One Nation party templates
- 3.2.42 Unnecessary file wrappers
- 3.2.43 Template:Urban public transport in Algeria
- 3.3 March 18
- 3.3.1 Template:Municipalities in Tyrol
- 3.3.2 Template:Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation
- 3.3.3 Template:Medellín Radio
- 3.3.4 Template:Minnesota NCAA Division I college baseball venue navbox
- 3.3.5 Template:Miss Russia winners in the Big Four pageants
- 3.3.6 Template:Moldovan Footballer of the Year
- 3.3.7 Template:Moose Jaw Radio
- 3.3.8 Template:Morocco Alaouite Kings
- 3.3.9 Template:MissUSAs
- 3.3.10 Template:Mosques in Lebanon
- 3.3.11 Template:Mosques in Ireland
- 3.3.12 Template:Mosques in Mali
- 3.3.13 Template:Mosques in South Korea
- 3.3.14 Template:Most networked ICT countries
- 3.3.15 Template:Multiple BHCC champions
- 3.3.16 Template:Munich U-Bahn navbox
- 3.3.17 Template:Music venues in the United Kingdom
- 3.3.18 Template:University of Pretoria F.C. squad
- 3.3.19 Template:PTN in Indonesia
- 3.3.20 Template:Nagoya Municipal Subway Kamiiida Line
- 3.3.21 Template:National Super League
- 3.3.22 Template:North Jersey
- 3.3.23 Template:North Wiltshire
- 3.3.24 Template:Green Bay Packers Draft template list
- 3.3.25 Template:Trinity
- 3.3.26 Template:Non-Aligned Movement chairpersons
- 3.3.27 Template:KSH code
- 3.3.28 Template:Nipple anatomy and disorders
- 3.3.29 Template:Niagara River Lions current roster
- 3.3.30 Template:New state and territory proposals Australia
- 3.3.31 Template:New Zealand national football team results
- 3.3.32 Template:Nemzeti Bajnokság I (women's handball) teamlist
- 3.3.33 Template:Nehru - Feroze Gandhi family
- 3.3.34 Template:Neoromance games
- 3.3.35 Template:New Orleans District 13
- 3.3.36 Template:New Orleans District 11
- 3.3.37 Template:New Orleans District 10
- 3.3.38 Module:WLink
- 3.3.39 Module:Format TemplateData dependencies
- 3.3.40 Template:Pentarchy
- 3.3.41 Template:MunicipalityNavigationBar
- 3.3.42 Template:The Young and the Restless characters
- 3.3.43 Template:Display
- 3.4 March 17
- 3.4.1 FEC S-line templates
- 3.4.2 Template:Infobox Inhumans IMAX
- 3.4.3 Template:PDB Gallery
- 3.4.4 Template:Peru TV
- 3.4.5 Template:Railway stations in Nagaland
- 3.4.6 Template:Cleanup-SVG
- 3.4.7 Template:Commonsmaydelete
- 3.4.8 Template:Dfn
- 3.4.9 Template:Etta Bond
- 3.4.10 Template:Bülent Ersoy
- 3.4.11 Template:OE template
- 3.5 March 16
- 3.5.1 Template:Infobox spacecraft
- 3.5.2 Template:Culture of Malaysia
- 3.5.3 Template:Contemporary Art Galleries in London
- 3.5.4 Template:Communist Parties of South America
- 3.5.5 Template:Comics-trades
- 3.5.6 Template:2016–17 Midland Football League Premier Division table
- 3.5.7 Template:Chinese aeroengines
- 3.5.8 Template:Chojnice – Runowo Pomorskie line
- 3.5.9 Template:Dreezy
- 3.5.10 Template:Philippine Piso NGC series
- 3.5.11 Template:Philippine peso NGC bills
- 3.5.12 Template:Philippine peso NGC coins
- 3.5.13 Template:NGC Series banknotes and coins
- 3.5.14 Template:Nippon Professional Draft by year
- 3.5.15 D&RGW S-line templates
- 3.5.16 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad S-line templates
- 3.5.17 Template:Ceres–Negros F.C. squad
- 3.5.18 Template:Catholic Bishops of Pittsburgh
- 3.5.19 Template:C Sharp
- 3.5.20 Template:CSR stations
- 3.5.21 Template:CONCACAF Gold Cup MVP
- 3.5.22 Template:CONCACAF Gold Cup winning managers
- 3.5.23 Unused C.D. Primeiro de Agosto templates
- 3.5.24 Template:Three Men in a Boat
- 3.5.25 Template:CT Corp
- 3.5.26 Template:Canadian federal by-election, May 13, 2002/Saint Boniface
- 3.5.27 Template:1996 New Zealand general election by electorate
- 3.5.28 Template:Bonaire status referendum, 2004
- 3.6 March 15
- 3.6.1 Template:2017 American Southwest Conference football standings
- 3.6.2 Template:2017 CCIW football standings
- 3.6.3 Template:EB Games Expo 2015
- 3.6.4 Template:Jeb Bush series
- 3.6.5 CIS football top10
- 3.6.6 Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/population count
- 3.6.7 Jamaican RDT Templates
- 3.6.8 Template:2019 Faroe Islands Premier League table
- 3.6.9 Template:Tamsalu Parish
- 3.6.10 Unused British Columbia provincial election 2013 templates
- 3.6.11 Template:Trademark-EU
- 3.6.12 Template:Don't subst
- 3.6.13 Template:Anti-government protests in the 21st century
- 3.7 March 14
- 3.7.1 Template:Infobox French commune
- 3.7.2 Template:Infobox German location
- 3.7.3 Template:Infobox U.S. county
- 3.7.4 Template:Basketball change player
- 3.7.5 Template:Tema
- 3.7.6 Template:Version nav
- 3.7.7 Template:ICC Team of the Year
- 3.7.8 Template:Capitals in Pakistan
- 3.7.9 Beyoncé album track list templates
- 3.7.10 Template:Joe Biden series
- 3.7.11 Template:Dinah Jane
- 3.8 March 13
- 3.8.1 Template:Al Smith series
- 3.8.2 Template:John Kasich series
- 3.8.3 Template:Andrew Yang series
- 3.8.4 Template:Jill Stein series
- 3.8.5 Template:Newt Gingrich series
- 3.8.6 Template:Herman Cain series
- 3.8.7 Template:Tulsi Gabbard series
- 3.8.8 Template:Paul Ryan series
- 3.8.9 Template:Mitch McConnell series
- 3.8.10 Template:Gary Johnson series
- 3.8.11 Template:Bill Weld series
- 3.8.12 Template:Elizabeth Warren series
- 3.8.13 Template:Rand Paul series
- 3.8.14 Template:Tim Kaine series
- 3.8.15 Template:Kirsten Gillibrand series
- 3.8.16 Template:Kamala Harris series
- 3.8.17 Template:2015–16 Welsh Premier League table
- 3.8.18 Template:2015–16 Czech First League table
- 3.8.19 Template:2015–16 North-East V AFG table
- 3.8.20 Template:2017 Division III independents football standings
- 3.8.21 Unused 2017–18 Championnat National 3 tables
- 3.8.22 Template:2017–18 Welsh Premier League table
- 3.8.23 Template:2017–18 Czech First League table
- 3.8.24 Template:2017–18 Eredivisie results
- 3.8.25 Template:MSA Formula circuits
- 3.8.26 Template:WWIIUSAircraft
- 3.8.27 Template:Plotter
- 3.8.28 Template:PirateFrown
- 3.8.29 Template:Pirs
- 3.8.30 Template:PersonalAttacksAtScale
- 3.8.31 Template:Parsed time
- 3.8.32 Template:Webcomic deletion
- 3.8.33 Template:Cantitruncated hypercube polytopes
- 3.8.34 Template:Celtic-language media
- 3.8.35 Template:Celestial masses
- 3.8.36 Template:Cape Town City Council seats allocation, 2011
- 3.8.37 Template:Carboniferous epoch nav
- 3.8.38 Template:Caltrain Stops
- 3.8.39 Template:Calgary C-Train map
- 3.8.40 Template:2015 University Athletic Association football standings
- 3.8.41 Template:2015–16 GNAC men's basketball standings
- 3.8.42 Template:2016–17 Atlantic University Sport men's basketball standings
- 3.8.43 Template:2016-17 Canada West men's basketball standings
- 3.8.44 Template:2016-17 Ontario University Athletics men's basketball standings
- 3.8.45 Template:2016-17 RSEQ men's basketball standings
- 3.8.46 Template:2015 NCAA Division I & II men's volleyball Independent standings
- 3.8.47 Template:2015 Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association volleyball standings
- 3.8.48 Template:2015 Conference Carolinas men's volleyball standings
- 3.8.49 Template:2014–15 NBA Southeast standings (preseason)
- 3.8.50 Template:2014–15 NBA Atlantic standings (preseason)
- 3.8.51 Template:2014 Independents women's soccer standings
- 3.8.52 Template:2014 Big South men's soccer standings
- 3.8.53 Template:2014 America East men's soccer standings
- 3.8.54 Template:2013–14 AHL Midwest Division standings
- 3.8.55 Template:2012 NCAA Division I baseball independents standings
- 3.8.56 Template:2011 Northeast Conference men's soccer standings
- 3.8.57 Template:2011 Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference baseball standings
- 3.8.58 Template:2011 Horizon League baseball standings
- 3.8.59 Template:2011 AEC men's soccer standings condensed
- 3.8.60 Module:Wikipedia Requests
- 3.8.61 Template:Pittsburgh Penguins Owners
- 3.8.62 Template:Infobox NRHP
- 3.8.63 Template:HCC World Cup group tables
- 3.8.64 Template:Ron Wyden series
- 3.1 March 20
- 4 Old discussions
- 4.1 March 12
- 4.2 March 11
- 4.3 March 9
- 4.4 March 8
- 4.5 March 7
- 4.5.1 Template:United Kingdom local elections, 1909
- 4.5.2 Template:Tokyo Anime Award for Domestic Feature Film
- 4.5.3 Template:Telford and Wrekin
- 4.5.4 Template:Campaignbox Perso-Ottoman War (1730-1735)
- 4.5.5 Template:Campaignbox Islamic Conquest of Hispania
- 4.5.6 Template:Campaignbox Indian wars and conflicts of Nevada
- 4.5.7 Template:Campaignbox Indian wars and conflicts of Arizona
- 4.5.8 Template:Bengali desserts
- 4.5.9 Template:Balrampur district, Chhattisgarh
- 4.5.10 Template:Aviation accidents and incidents by years templates
- 4.5.11 Template:ESPN Montana
- 4.5.12 Template:Unblock an
- 4.5.13 Template:Infobox drug/simplified
- 4.5.14 Module:See also if exists
- 4.5.15 Template:Railway line header
- 4.5.16 Module:Listify
- 4.5.17 Module:Find sources template pages
- 4.5.18 Template:WorksDecade navigation
- 4.5.19 Template:Old Bara District
- 4.5.20 Template:Cat topic in year
- 4.5.21 Infobox settlement wrappers
- 4.5.22 Template:Infobox Simpsons episode
- 4.6 March 6
- 4.7 March 5
- 4.8 March 4
- 4.9 March 3
- 4.10 March 2
- 5 Completed discussions
- 6 Archive and Indices
Current discussions
March 20
Template:Odia language
Most of the links are red, so it's probably WP:TOOSOON to have this. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2014–15 A Group table
- Template:2014–15 A Group table ( · talk)
- Template:2014–15 A Group championship group table ( · talk)
- Template:2014–15 A Group relegation group table ( · talk)
- Template:2015–16 A Group table ( · talk)
- Template:2018–19 Second Professional Football League (Bulgaria) table ( · talk)
- Template:2018–19 First Professional Football League (Bulgaria) Regular Season table ( · talk)
- Category:Bulgaria football standings templates ( · talk)
- Template:2016–17 North West Counties Football League Premier Division results ( · talk)
- Template:2016–17 North West Counties Football League Division One results ( · talk)
- Template:2016 NASL spring season results ( · talk)
- Template:2016 NASL fall season results ( · talk)
- Template:1939–40 RFL Yorkshire Competition results ( · talk)
- Template:1939–40 RFL Lancashire Competition results ( · talk)
no longer needed after being merged with the article (with attribution) Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Aerospecs
Propose merging Template:Aerospecs and Template:Aircraft specifications with Template:Aircraft specs.
Templates have been marked as deprecated and should be replaced by {{Aircraft specs}}. See also Template talk:Aircraft specifications#Deprecation of this template. Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, over 4,000 pages still use these templates, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Aircraft_specifications, [1], Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Aerospecs, and [2]. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 14:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. Of course they will not be deleted until the many pages that use them have all been transitioned to the new one, however long it takes.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, the templates differ significantly in their input parameters and conversion between them using bots is not feasible. {{Aircraft specifications}} does not specify a prime unit and conversion to {{Aircraft specs}} will require a human editor to look up the original source and identify the original units used to avoid loss of precision. —Gazoth (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody said it was going to be simple.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, it does not need to be a bot move if it can't. Some of the templates in the holding cell, like the football ones, are being converted manually, a few at a time. Secondly, looking at the specific example you gave, that actually can be done by a bot. While the template does not specify a prime unit, looking at North American B-25 Mitchell as an example, the values entered are
|length main=52 ft 11 in
and|length alt=16.13 m
. By using "ft", "in" and "m" a bot can know which value is what. --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)- To be fair, some of the partially filled entries will be less tractable. There is also the issue of accumulated rounding errors in converting from one unit to another and then back again. I think that a bot would be able to convert a good many successfully, but would also need to back off and flag up the ones it has problems with. It would have to be some sophisticated bot! But really, this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, it does not need to be a bot move if it can't. Some of the templates in the holding cell, like the football ones, are being converted manually, a few at a time. Secondly, looking at the specific example you gave, that actually can be done by a bot. While the template does not specify a prime unit, looking at North American B-25 Mitchell as an example, the values entered are
- Nobody said it was going to be simple.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Neither of the old templates can be made to do what the Project team has agreed is needed. The new one can and does.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Flag entry
- Template:Flag entry ( · talk)
- Template:Begin flag gallery ( · talk)
- Template:End flag gallery ( · talk)
- Template:New flag row ( · talk)
Template was marked as deprecated and all uses replaced, so is currently unused. Added related templates. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all - Superseded. Nigej (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete, these have all been replaced by standard galleries. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Major International Pageants Titleholders 2019 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2019 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2018 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2017 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2016 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2015 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2014 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2013 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2012 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2011 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2010 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2009 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2008 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2007 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2006 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2005 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2004 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2003 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2002 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2001 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 2000 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1999 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1998 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1997 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1996 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1995 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1994 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1993 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1992 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1991 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1990 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1989 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1988 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1987 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1986 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1985 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1984 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1983 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1982 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1981 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1980 ( · talk)
- Template:Major International Pageants titleholders 1966 ( · talk)
These templates only have two to four individuals in each of them, the rest being links to all the other templates, or just to the competitions themselves. Complete navbox overkill. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 11:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - each competition has its own list of winners template. There is no need for this one. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - There is also a unified list of winners: Big Four international beauty pageants#Big Four pageant winners by year. Nigej (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2018 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2017 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2016 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2015 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2014 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2013 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2012 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2011 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2010 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2009 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2008 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2007 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2006 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2005 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2004 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2003 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2002 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2001 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 2000 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1999 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1998 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1997 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1996 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1995 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1994 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1993 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1992 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1991 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1990 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1989 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1988 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1987 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1986 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1985 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1984 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1983 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1982 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1981 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1980 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1979 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1978 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1977 ( · talk)
- Template:Miss Universe Organization titleholders 1976 ( · talk)
These templates only have two or three individuals in each of them, the rest being links to all the other templates, or just to the competitions themselves. Complete navbox overkill. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 09:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete and replace with 3 different templates- one for Miss Universe, one for Miss USA and one for Miss Teen USA - while the three belong to the same orginization, for readers that information is less important. Miss Universe is much closer to one of the Big Four international beauty pageants than to a local country-specific competition. --Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Gonnym:, {{MissUniverses}}, {{MissUSAs}} and {{MissTeenUSAs}} already exist. However, I've just spotted a similar template structure for the "Big Four" (see {{Major International Pageants titleholders 1994}}, etc.), and I'm thinking these should probably be deleted too. --woodensuperman 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - per above. Unified list at Miss Universe#Miss Universe Organization titleholders. Nigej (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:GNF Protein box
Propose merging Template:GNF Protein box with Template:Infobox gene.
This template has been marked as deprecated and replaced by {{Infobox gene}} (which is used for proteins also) since august 2018 and has only 11 article transclusions left (and around 70 non-article ones). Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Warning antisemitism Arabs
Very few transclusions, doubtful its useful outside of those pages. Can be substituted and deleted. funplussmart (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:TFD#REASONS. Few transclusions != no transclusions. VQuakr (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The template should be kept for historical reasons (it is transcluded in several talk page discussions). Boghog (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
March 19
Template:Salem–Vriddhachalam–Cuddalore Port line
Unused rail route map. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Useddenim: Do you remember if this was used anywhere? Most of the diagram seems to be duplicated by {{Salem–Virudhachalam line}}, which is in use, but I don't think there's a route diagram for the rest of the line. It's not clear to me if the two apparently discontinuous segments are actually one line. Jc86035 (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Sheffield Tigers speedway team 2011
Unused navbox linking players from a 2011 team. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Such templates are a bad idea. If someone is in the team for 20 years he ends up with 20 templates on his page. Too much surely. This one is unused too. Personally I'd be happy to see all the speedway teams go: Category:Speedway team templates all date from 2006 to 2011 indicating that the idea died out. Nigej (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Slovak mobile phone companies
Unused navbox with only 3 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:TOT S.C. squad
Unused navbox. Claims to be "current" squad, hasn't been updated in 3 years. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - no 'current' squad on the parent article to link it to. GiantSnowman 08:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete per above Hhkohh (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Thamusemeant
Unused navbox. All albums redirect to parent article. No useful navigation. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Everything redirects to the same article. Unused too. Nigej (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Turkey squad 2011 Women's Volleyball European Championship
Unused navbox that links players of the same team from 2011. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
unused navbox. Simplified versions inuse where necessary. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Category:Uniform polyhedra probably suffices. Nigej (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Unicode chart
Unused template reported to be under construction since 2014. Currently consist of nothing more than documentation. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Linggo Bingo sa Hapon
unused navbox with mostly redlinks/plaintext. No useful navigation. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Some undefined list of Philippine TV programmes on the GMA Network but quite what is unclear. Not updated since 2013. Nigej (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Liloa/Piilani/Moana Family Tree
Unused navbox with mostly plainlinks (WP:EXISTING) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep No plainlinks are used. These are explanatory notes/references. The family tree has sources so I have connected it to the intended page so that it is no longer orphaned. There are several other articles this is also intended for. Will fully reference the tree similar to the recently started Template:Kalaniʻōpuʻu, Kamehameha, Kānekapōlei and Peleuli family tree.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Life on Earth
Unused navbox that is way too broad and non-specific. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, no longer unused. Will keep watch on the discussion. Maybe further define 'broad and non-specific', thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Should probably be moved to a better name, like "Template:Extant life phyla and divisions by domain". I know it's not catchy, but it would be more explanatory. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- The visible name, which is really all that counts, is "Extant Life phyla/divisions by domain", which covers the topic well. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Nobody has seen fit to use the template for a (very) long while, with good reason, barring the sudden rush of additions since this TfD came up. We already have very broad templates including Eukaryota; going for everything-that-lives is basically a bridge way too far. We don't need this template. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- The template does the job well and provides a good overview in a manageable size. That it wasn't used doesn't mean it isn't useful, just that nobody took the time to distribute it. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Lichen genera taxonomy
Unused MASSIVE navbox that is way too large to provide any useful navigation. WP:NAVBOXCREEP and WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, this is an absurdly large structure, indeed so large as to be a reductio ad absurdum argument against its own continued existence. It's not practicable and not necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - too big to be of any use. List, categories and smaller templates would work better than this. --Gonnym (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Legislative buildings of Europe
Unused navbox. Most links go to the country's page, not to an article about the building. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Legal Quays of London
unused navbox with mostly WP:REDLINKS Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:La Serena squad
unused navbox with numerous WP:REDLINKS Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and update to match Deportes La Serena#Current squad, and rename as {{Deportes La Serena squad}}. GiantSnowman 08:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if it were updated to match the article, we would be storing article content in an unused template. That doesn't make sense. The only reason to keep this is if it were going to be used in multiple articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: once it is updated we would then add it to the relevant articles, so it's no longer unused. Squad navboxes are common and established (see eg Category:Association football squad navigational boxes by country). GiantSnowman 15:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:LGBT rights in Australia
Unused navbox that seems to duplicate LGBT in Australia Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Bizarrely, much of the content relates to Brazil, so seems to an abandoned attempt. Surplus to {{LGBT in Australia}} which is widely used. Nigej (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:LSD LegCo members
Unused navbox with only 1 link. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, the one link in there isn't in the Legislative Council anymore. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:La Romana, Dom Rep TV
Unused navbox with mostly redlinks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:La Ronge Radio
Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed it. It's used now... just forgot to put the template into its articles... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 07:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:List of NBC Red Network Programs from 1926-27
Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:List of crambid genera
Unused navbox. Uses have been replaced with {{A-Z multipage list}} already. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:List of rivers of Tajikistan
Unused navbox with no parent article (redlink). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and use - the template has enough links for a valid nav template and there are other country river nav templates. --Gonnym (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Lists of hills of English counties
Unused navbox that is almost entirely WP:REDLINKS. WP:EXISTING violation. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- This was created in good faith and in anticipation that, eventually, every county would have a list of hills. However, as only the southern counties are covered to date, it has been replaced, for those counties that are linked, by Template:Hills of Southern England. I've saved a copy of this one in my user space in case lists for the other counties are created. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bermicourt, to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't created in good faith!!! That was never a question in my mind. I was merely stating the facts of its current state. For all I know, every one of those pages existed when the navbox was created but have since been deleted. I want to be clear I'm not suggesting you did ANYTHING wrong. I'm simply pointing out that as the template currently sits it is mostly WP:REDLINKS and thus violates WP:EXISTING. My apologies if you felt I was saying you did something wrong. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Lists of women by occupation
Unused navbox that just links list of women... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Los Caminantes
unused navbox for a musical group of questionable notability. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The articles exist for most but they should probably be redirected anyway thus still making this an unnecessary navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - The navbox is now used. User:The Source Within removed the navboxes from the articles. In any event, AFD comes before TFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as long as the articles are still here - if the articles aren't notable, they should be AfD, but as long as they are still here, this nav templates helps with navigation between them. --Gonnym (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Lord High Constable of England
unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Lombard Kingdom
Unused navbox with numerous redlinks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Lotto Sport Italia NRFL Premier (soccer)
Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate of {{Lotto Sport Italia NRFL Premier}} (which needs updating, but serves a purpose). GiantSnowman 09:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Lotto Sport Italia NRFL Division 1A
Unused navbox with no clear parent article. It appears to link to the 2011 season, but actually links to the division as a whole. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate of {{Lotto Sport Italia NRFL Division 1}} (which needs updating but serves a purpose). GiantSnowman 09:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:MalaysiaFedDeleg
Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Major railway stations in the United Kingdom
Unused navbox that duplicates two other navbox. Those navbox are implemented on the necessary pages. No need for a merged template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Macedonian Footballer of the Year
Unused navbox that is WP:NAVBOXCREEP. Even if added to the articles, all it does is link people with one award in common. WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per rationale here - notable award. Respectfully, the nominator perhaps should stop being so lazy and start adding 'unused' navbox templates to the articles they link... GiantSnowman 09:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Super Over
- Template:Super Over ( · talk)
- Module:Super Over ( · talk)
Template includes ball-by-ball detail which is excessive and no reliable source is providing for verification. SocietyBox (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Added the module, which should clearly suffer the same fate as the template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This is an overly esoteric way of essentially saying X team won in extra time. As the nom says, it fails WP:V. All the cricket scorecards will show that a team beat another team in the super over, and that's all we need to add to matches on WP when that applies. Adding the whole template for a single over for one match is a hugh distraction to the rest of the fixture. If someone wants a more detailed breakdown of what happened, ball by ball, they can find it elsewhere. There's no need to replicate it on WP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete this is just WP:FANCRUFT, no need for such a detailed template on an over of cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I can see some very slight value in keeping it, but only for matches where there is detailed coverage of the match on the article page (including a full scorecard), which would typically only be tournament finals. Using alongside a standard {{Single-innings cricket match}} is completely disproportionate: the Super Over template is 10 lines long, a basic usage of the match template is 5 lines long. Spike 'em (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
And associated template Template:Navbox Province of Italy/testcases. For reasons stated at Template talk:Navbox Province of Italy - overly complicated and unnecessary template; can just have individual province templates. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- There appears to be a misunderstanding here; this is a metatemplate used by indivudal navboxes like Template:Province of Nuoro. Nevertheless, delete, as this template appears to exist only to call on templates used to store data which has no possibility of being changed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- And what will happen to {{Province of Nuoro}} if you do that, Pppery? – it's marked as under consideration for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: It will be converted to call Template:Navbox directly ({{Province of Nuoro}} itself isn't marked as under consideration, it's transcluding a notice from {{Navbox Province of Italy}}, as is standard for TfDs). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I should’ve asked this question here instead of on the template in question:
- @Pppery: Deleting this meta template won't thereby delete the individual templates, right? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Vaselineeeeeeee: No, they'll get converted to call Template:Navbox directly. Also, we seem to be having a discussion fork here, and further discussion should take place at the TfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- So it's transcluding a message that doesn't concern it? Isn't that just a little misleading? I suggest that that should be fixed before we spend any more time deleting templates that appear to be working perfectly well. If someone wants {{Province of Nuoro}} to call {{Navbox}} directly, couldn't they just edit it so that it does so? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's just the way TfD works. As the message clearly states, "the template Navbox Province of Italy ...", which is the template it applies to. The arguments for converting {{Province of Nuoro}} apply just as well to all other uses of the template, which means a TfD is necessary, and the custom is to TfD first to avoid a fait accompli. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- So it's transcluding a message that doesn't concern it? Isn't that just a little misleading? I suggest that that should be fixed before we spend any more time deleting templates that appear to be working perfectly well. If someone wants {{Province of Nuoro}} to call {{Navbox}} directly, couldn't they just edit it so that it does so? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: It will be converted to call Template:Navbox directly ({{Province of Nuoro}} itself isn't marked as under consideration, it's transcluding a notice from {{Navbox Province of Italy}}, as is standard for TfDs). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- And what will happen to {{Province of Nuoro}} if you do that, Pppery? – it's marked as under consideration for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:If affirmed
- Template:If affirmed ( · talk)
- Template:If declined ( · talk)
- Template:Yesno ( · talk)
Propose merging Template:If affirmed and Template:If declined with Template:Yesno.
Duplicate templates, it seems undesirable to me for there not to be a consistent definition of what values been "yes" and what values mean "no". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- If merged then do not call the template yesno. E.g. does "remove", "exclude", "include", "on", "off", "add", "none", means yes or no? Christian75 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Your proposal would affect a template transcluded on almost a quarter of all pages on Wikipedia. Such a huge change needs a much wider discussion than an ordinary TFD; please go to WP:VP/Pr or something of the sort, so that you can get a wider audience. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merge. I think the proposal makes sense. Care must be taken in its implementation, of course. TfD is the correct forum for this discussion, as that's exactly its purpose; posting notice of this discussion at other forums can resolve any concern this this discussion is not visible enough. --Bsherr (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge. Makes sense. Extra care must be taken, and a better name may be needed. Rehman 12:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: While there does appear to be the beginnings of a consensus to merge these three templates, the (currently sole) opposition makes a valid point that a template family that affects 10 million pages should receive a little bit more discussion than is currently present. TFD is the proper location for this discussion to take place, but I will place notices at WT:WPT and WP:VPT in an effort to drum up more comments from potentially interested parties.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- If this can be done without touching anything on yesno, then sure start replacing the others - but touching yesno is pretty much a no-no. — xaosflux Talk 01:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support merger; just don't break anything. @Pppery: Is Module:Yesno relevant to this discussion in any way? The only differences between the module and {{Yesno}} (as far as I can tell) are that "t" and "f" are accepted as true/false inputs in the module and not in {{Yesno}}, and that the module does not handle blank/¬ inputs specially. Jc86035 (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Samanid Provinces
Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose It's used in the Samanid Empire article, and will eventually be used more places in the future. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: The links in this navbox appear to go to articles about modern cities in the region, not to articles about the provinces within the Samanid Empire. I looked at a few of the linked articles, and they do not mention this empire or the city's role in it. This linking may violate MOS:EGG or a similar guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Bernice Summerfield audios
- 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. Now widely used. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- It seems I created this navbox and never got round to adding it to the articles. Will you still want to delete it if I do? Fifty of these pages have no navboxes, despite clearly being closely related (instalments of a single series, with clear boundaries for inclusion). I don't know of any strict rule that navboxes need a parent article, and the Bernice Summerfield one comes pretty close here anyway. If the rule is that strict, dozens of navboxes like Template:Eighth Doctor audios will also have to be deleted, because there isn't an Eighth Doctor audios parent article. —Flax5 15:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is no strict rule that navboxes need a parent article but #4 at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates notes it for good templates. Personally I'd say this was an ideal use of a template, although noting that many of the articles are tagged as perhaps being not notable (but that's another issue). Nigej (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: @Flax5: - If I understand the propose of this template, it is meant for Bernice Summerfield#Audio plays (That should be its own article btw and not inside a character article, two very different articles)? If so, that is a valid and good template which should be added to articles. One question though, I noticed a very large overlap with {{Virgin New Adventures}}. Is that template for the same thing just in a different layout? --Gonnym (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- The {{Virgin New Adventures}} are a series of Doctor Who novels, some featuring Bernice Summerfield, who then became the protagonist of a spin-off novel series also published by Virgin. Big Finish's {{Bernice Summerfield audios}} are a subsequent spin-off series, with a handful of special audio episodes adapting old novels. The former template arranges the novels by the in-universe logic of which characters are featured rather than the real-world production/release history, which might be the source of some of the confusion. —Flax5 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Currently {{Virgin New Adventures}} does not have all the links of {{Bernice Summerfield audios}}, but I'm not sure if that is because it wasn't updated or because they don't belong. If the reason is that they don't belong, then {{Bernice Summerfield audios}} has a use and should be added. I just don't want to see 2 templates, with one having all the links of the other. --Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- They're separate series, the only overlap is the seven articles about VNA novels that were later adapted into audio dramas. I've gone ahead and added the navbox to the correct pages. —Flax5 10:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Currently {{Virgin New Adventures}} does not have all the links of {{Bernice Summerfield audios}}, but I'm not sure if that is because it wasn't updated or because they don't belong. If the reason is that they don't belong, then {{Bernice Summerfield audios}} has a use and should be added. I just don't want to see 2 templates, with one having all the links of the other. --Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- The {{Virgin New Adventures}} are a series of Doctor Who novels, some featuring Bernice Summerfield, who then became the protagonist of a spin-off novel series also published by Virgin. Big Finish's {{Bernice Summerfield audios}} are a subsequent spin-off series, with a handful of special audio episodes adapting old novels. The former template arranges the novels by the in-universe logic of which characters are featured rather than the real-world production/release history, which might be the source of some of the confusion. —Flax5 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: This template now has 57 transclusions in article space. Whatever the opposite of WP:FAITACCOMPLI is, this one has it. Recommend keeping, now that it is useful, as its creator intended. Thanks to Zackmann08 for helping editors navigate this series of articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (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:Authority control/BIBSYS
- Template:Authority control/BIBSYS ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/BNF ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/BPN ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/GKD ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/GND ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/ISNI ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/LCCN ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control - LCCN ( · talk) (a redirect to the template immediately above)
- Template:Authority control/ORCID ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/PND ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/RID ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/SELIBR ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/SWD ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/Scopus ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/ULAN ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/VIAF ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/WORLDCAT-LCCN ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/WORLDCATID ( · talk)
- Template:Authority control/categories ( · talk)
These templates have been, or should have been, unused in article space since the 2013 conversion of {{authority control}} to a Lua module. Any remaining uses should be able to be converted or substituted. See this talk page for a brief discussion about these templates and a link to a five-year-old discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I just checked, and there were only two active transclusions of any of the above templates outside of the pages themselves. In the interest of transparency, I should say that I put nowiki tags around the one that appeared on an archived talk page for the {{Authority control}} template, since the discussion was about the name of the template. I converted the other instance at User:MikeParker to a simple call to {{Authority control}}, which updated the display a bit while preserving the functionality. The only remaining transclusions are of {{Authority control/categories}}, all of which occur within the templates listed above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:4 17/11/2014
Used on one article. Substitute and delete. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 17:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox official account
Not sure what the need or application for this template is, or where such a need would exist here on Wikipedia. This appears to be a template for official accounts, but we generally don't give coverage to official social media accounts and rather cover the person or organization in question instead. Furthermore this template was created as the first edit of a brand new user, and appears to have been copied from some other template. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as unused and unneeded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
One Nation party templates
- Template:One Nation/meta/color ( · talk)
- Template:One Nation (Australia)/meta/color ( · talk)
- Template:Pauline Hanson's One Nation/meta/color ( · talk)
- Template:One Nation (Australia)/meta/shortname ( · talk)
- Template:Pauline Hanson's One Nation/meta/shortname ( · talk)
Propose merging Template:One Nation/meta/color and Template:One Nation (Australia)/meta/color with Template:Pauline Hanson's One Nation/meta/color
Propose merging Template:One Nation (Australia)/meta/shortname with Template:Pauline Hanson's One Nation/meta/shortname.
Outdated and duplicate color templates. All three represent the same political party, albeit one which changed its name in 2015. A mixture of all three templates are linked to in political articles spanning more than 20 years. --Heyitsstevo (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Unnecessary file wrappers
- Template:Now commons dated ( · talk)
- Template:Now Commons ( · talk)
- Template:OP ( · talk)
- Template:OTRS pending ( · talk)
Propose merging Template:Now commons dated and Template:Now Commons
Propose merging Template:OP and Template:OTRS pending.
Needless complexity, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 5#Unnecessary file wrappers {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've noincluded the tfd tags, given that this proposal causes almost no user-visible changes ({{subst:OP}} and {{subst:Now commons dated}}/{{subst:ncd}} will continue to work). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know much about how these work, but either way, at the end of the day I would like to keep the OTRS pending over OP, and redirect OP to OTRS pending. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Keepall of these as they are. The purpose of {{OP}} is that you use {{subst:OP}} to get {{OTRS pending}} with today's date. {{subst:OP}} will expand to {{OTRS pending|year=2019|month=March|day=19}}, Tomorrow, it will have day=20, etc. {{subst:ncd}} works the same way. ({{ncd}} is a redirect to {{subst:now commons dated}}.) Nobody actually types out the full template - they use {{subst:ncd}}. I'm sure that magic could probably be done to make {{subst:OTRS pending}} render as {{OTRS pending|year=2019|month=03|day=19}} and I thought from @Pppery:'s nomination that that is what you were saying you had done. But I just tested it in my sandbox and {{subst:OTRS pending}} renders a subst'd version of the mbox template. --B (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)- @B: I was saying that I will do that if the TfD closes as merge; doing it now would be improperly preempting the outcome of this TfD discussion. See Template:Dfu for an example of what the new style looks like; you can substitute it and it comes to a dated transclusion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Coded at Template:OTRS pending/sandbox {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: Looks good -
Works for me. I think this is fine to do. I don't know that it even needs to be !voted on - since {{subst:OP}} is still going to work, then there is no change in functionality - it's a non-controversial technical improvement to a template with no adverse consequences to anyone. --B (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: Looks good -
Template:Urban public transport in Algeria
Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merge to mass transit in Africa template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per Tom or keep and use --DannyS712 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete not a useful template. The other two links could be added to Template:Rapid transit in Africa. BLAIXX 16:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
March 18
Template:Municipalities in Tyrol
Unused navbox. This duplicates multiple other templates by combining them all into one massive navbox. For example, the first row, Imst District is covered by {{Cities and towns in Imst (district)}}. The second row Innsbruck-Land District is covered by {{Cities and towns in Innsbruck-Land (district)}} etc. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- At least sort out all the articles linked in it with categories, a lot aren't even categorized, perhaps Ser Amantio di Nicolao can help. Personally I think on a global level tiny district templates tend to be of limited use, best to be able to browse larger regions. You can always sub collapse the big template.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Much more useful to browse a state wide area, suggest reintroducing it and sub shrinking it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Surely what we don't need are two parallel systems (Category:Tyrol (state) templates) Either 1 big one or 8 small ones, not both. Generally the district level seems to be preferred for other states. Nigej (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm talking about article categories, ones like Karres aren't even categorized so how are people supposed to navigate the wider area? Dumb. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was aware that your comment related to categories. However the topic at hand is about the template. Karres does include template {{Cities and towns in Imst (district)}} and is in Category:Imst District so I'm clearly missing your point anyway. Nigej (talk)
- Only because Wooden added it after I said the others aren't. Think globally. There's currently no way for people browsing to access these articles from the parent categories.There should at least be a Category:Municipalities of Tyrol. Ser Amantio di Nicolao can you sort out the categories for this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was aware that your comment related to categories. However the topic at hand is about the template. Karres does include template {{Cities and towns in Imst (district)}} and is in Category:Imst District so I'm clearly missing your point anyway. Nigej (talk)
- I'm talking about article categories, ones like Karres aren't even categorized so how are people supposed to navigate the wider area? Dumb. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Surely what we don't need are two parallel systems (Category:Tyrol (state) templates) Either 1 big one or 8 small ones, not both. Generally the district level seems to be preferred for other states. Nigej (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. If the articles for all Austrian municipalities are employing the district level templates, then those are the ones that are needed. We don't need both. --woodensuperman 11:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation
Unused navbox with mostly plaintext, not links. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Unused. Category:Manila Bulletin is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Medellín Radio
Unused navbox that is almost entirely WP:REDLINKS. WP:EXISTING is thus violated. No changes since 2016. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - I've tried cleaning this up and then noticed that all or most of the links are just {{Colombian Radio}}. This template (and any that use this style) is bad as it duplicates links, links to non radio articles and to non-Medellin or even Colombian stations, or articles that don't mention Medellin at all. --Gonnym (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Per above. Nigej (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused navbox linking loosely connected items. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Miss Russia winners in the Big Four pageants
Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Moldovan Footballer of the Year
Unused navbox that links people with 1 common characteristic. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - no longer unused (I've added it to the articles, and the parent article) and is of a fairly common type found in football (see e.g. {{Premier League Player of the Season}}). GiantSnowman 15:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, some articles were added by GiantSnowman Hhkohh (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman and Hhkohh: I have struck the unused part of the nomination, but I still feel that this is WP:NAVBOXCREEP. You have to ask, if you are looking at the page for Serghei Rogaciov, how likely are you to want to jump over to Ion Testemițanu just because they won the same award... In my opinion, not likely... For that reason I'm not going to withdraw the nomination, but do appreciate the update that it is now in use! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, so I did not !vote keep and not ask you to withdraw in this TfD. But I want to wait until other editors (apart from you or GS) commented it. Yes, too many navboxs will cause pages error and disruptive. Also, this kind of navboxs are not very standard. But since the navbox can connect these articles. I cannot vote !keep or !delete for now Hhkohh (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hhkohh, sounds good! My only point was that I'm not going to withdraw this TFD as I have with others. I think this one warrants a discussion. :-) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, so I did not !vote keep and not ask you to withdraw in this TfD. But I want to wait until other editors (apart from you or GS) commented it. Yes, too many navboxs will cause pages error and disruptive. Also, this kind of navboxs are not very standard. But since the navbox can connect these articles. I cannot vote !keep or !delete for now Hhkohh (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman and Hhkohh: I have struck the unused part of the nomination, but I still feel that this is WP:NAVBOXCREEP. You have to ask, if you are looking at the page for Serghei Rogaciov, how likely are you to want to jump over to Ion Testemițanu just because they won the same award... In my opinion, not likely... For that reason I'm not going to withdraw the nomination, but do appreciate the update that it is now in use! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Moose Jaw Radio
Unused navbox linking radio stations in small area. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've remedied the lack of articles using the template. I forgot to add it to the pages when i made the template way back when... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 04:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Morocco Alaouite Kings
Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Seems to have been superseded by {{Rulers of Morocco}}. Nigej (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:MissUSAs
- Template:MissUSAs ( · talk)
Unused navbox that is redundant to multiple, in use templates. {{MissUSAs 1980–1999}}, {{MissUSAs 2000–2019}}, {{Miss USA}} etc. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
DeleteReuse - Overkill. Nigej (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)- Keep. I'd be inclined to delete the others and redirect to this one. No need to arbitrarily split, when a single template would be preferable and offers superior navigation. --woodensuperman 08:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Better than 4 separate ones. What we don't need are 2 parallel lists. Nigej (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nigej, Woodensuperman that seems more than reasonable to me. If you both deem it appropriate, go ahead and make that change and then I will withdraw the TFD. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Better than 4 separate ones. What we don't need are 2 parallel lists. Nigej (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Mosques in Lebanon
Unused navbox with only 4 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Mosques in Ireland
Unused navbox with only 4 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Mosques in Mali
Unused navbox with only 4 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Mosques in South Korea
Unused navbox that violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I've removed the red links, added blue links, and transcluded the template from all articles it links to. Granted, three entries plus the title topic is not very much. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Most networked ICT countries
Unused navbox that links directly to countries, not to a subpage related to this topic. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Unused, more than 10 years out of date, not well refined main article. Nigej (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Multiple BHCC champions
Unused navbox that links people with very loose relationship. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - unused and a decade out of date. Perhaps surplus to {{British Hill Climb Champions}}. Would be better added as content in British Hill Climb Championship. Nigej (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused navbox that simply collates a collation of other navboxes into one. {{Munich U-Bahn U1 navbox}}, {{Munich U-Bahn U2 navbox}}, etc... These are each implemented on the necessary pages. Putting them all in one template is just too much, plus it isn't used. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Music venues in the United Kingdom
First and foremost an unused navbox. Secondly though this template is a disaster. NO offense meant towards anyone... The template is just very confusing. If it were to be used, it would really need to be blown up and started from scratch Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed. An unnavigable jumble. --woodensuperman 09:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Woodensuperman, I appreciate your attempt to clean it up... I see that even after trying to clean it up you reached the same conclusion. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:University of Pretoria F.C. squad
Unused infobox with 25 plaintext names, (not links, not redlinks, just plaintext). The only name linked is the manager. This violates WP:EXISTING. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - does not navigate to anything. --Gonnym (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - another example of where we're trying to maintain a current squad for a relatively minor team. Nigej (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 15:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete per above Hhkohh (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:PTN in Indonesia
Template is just a link to a single article. Doesn't meet WP:TG. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Nagoya Municipal Subway Kamiiida Line
Unused navbox with only 3 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Template:Nagoya Municipal Subway Kamiiida Line・Meitetsu Komaki Line in which it is included. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:National Super League
Unused navbox with mostly redlinks and plaintext. WP:EXISTING. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - these kind of league/competition navboxes can be notable, but I don't think we need this one. GiantSnowman 15:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:North Jersey
Unused navbox. There are are already navboxes in widespread use for each of the counties of New Jersey. No need to this as well. WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:North Wiltshire
Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Green Bay Packers Draft template list
This is used in nemerous navboxes that appear on articles. This links not to the individual articles, but to the templates. This is cross namespace linking that is not done in articles. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. I want to also add that there are more such templates at Category:National Football League draft footer templates. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This template is not displayed when the navboxes that utilize it are deployed on a page (example), and any back end navigational function it may be performing is merely duplicating the already existant category structure at Category:Green Bay Packers draft navigational boxes. I agree with Sabbatino that this should be a bundled nomination of everything in Category:National Football League draft footer templates, as all of those templates are equally non-useful. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's rationale. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Trinity
- Template:Trinity ( · talk)
Unused navbox. Covered both by {{Christian theology}} and {{Christianity footer}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Non-Aligned Movement chairpersons
Unused navbox linking people who held the same position. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Only loosely connected by being "chairpersons" in some undefined way. Nigej (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:KSH code
- Template:KSH code ( · talk)
All this does is provide a 5 digital value that is used by the currently being deleted {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} to format a URL. For example: [http://www.ksh.hu/apps/!cp.hnt2.telep?nn={{KSH code|name={{PAGENAME}}}}]
. Since the template was created in 2014, the values have not been updated a single time. There is no reason to store them in a massive switch statement. This slows down the performance of the page dramatically as it must parse this switch statement up to 3 times depending on how many times it is called. The 5 digit value should just be directly provided by the page that is creating the link. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rewrite to retrieve values from KSH code (P939) instead of storing them locally. That will save us the hassle of having to create a new template, and then use AWB to deploy it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Underlying lk: there is no reason to retrieve the values from Wikidata. This is for a source url. Just put the value in the url, it isn't going to change. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: if deleted, make sure Category:Hungarian settlements with KSH code lacking footnote is deleted as well. --Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Nipple anatomy and disorders
Unused navbox with no parent page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Niagara River Lions current roster
Unused navbox template. The current roster is listed on the parent page using {{Basketball roster header}} etc. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:New state and territory proposals Australia
Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:New Zealand national football team results
Unused navbox with only 1 valid link. WP:EXISTING violated. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 15:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Even the one link (for 2010) redirects to New Zealand national football team results. Nigej (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete unnecessary Hhkohh (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Nemzeti Bajnokság I (women's handball) teamlist
Unused navbox that just links teammates from last season. WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reuse See Category:Hungary handball navigational boxes. Given that no one needs a navbox of this type for old seasons, I would prefer that {{2018–19 Nemzeti Bajnokság I (Women's handball) teamlist}} was moved here (to {{Nemzeti Bajnokság I (women's handball) teamlist}} - the 2018-19 template was created in Sep 2018). I have updated {{Nemzeti Bajnokság I (men's handball) teamlist}} to reflect this style, which was presumably what was intended anyway.Nigej (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Nehru - Feroze Gandhi family
Unused navbox with many redlinks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Neoromance games
Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Unused. No obvious content telling what us a neo-romance game is. Nigej (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:New Orleans District 13
unused navbox with only redlinks and no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:New Orleans District 11
Unused navbox with only redlinks. No clear parent article. Possibly Eastern New Orleans but New Orleans East District (which is the navbox title) does not exist. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:New Orleans District 10
Unused navbox with only 1 link. Parent article (Village de L'Est, New Orleans) is a redirect. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Module:WLink
- Module:WLink ( · talk)
This module has two seperate usecases.
- The use of the ansiPercent function to encode URLs. This should be moved to Module:String as it is a string-formatting function, not one having to do with wikilinks
- The use of the rest module as a former dependency of Module:Format TemplateData (originally called Module:TemplateData): see #Module:Format TemplateData dependencies above
{{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- See one above.
- The Module:Format TemplateData used here is of 2017 and lacks a lot of recent functionality.
- As soon as upgraded to a current version (e.g. to show intermediate headlines on a very long parameter list, which is scrollable as well, navigating to headlines from TOC), all these dependencies will be required again.
- You won't be able to rewrite each new release of Module:TemplateData and insert other function calls again and again.
- Therefore, opposing as in 2018.
- Regards --PerfektesChaos (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Module:Format TemplateData dependencies
- Module:Multilingual ( · talk)
- Module:Text ( · talk)
Imported as dependencies of Module:Format TemplateData (then called Module:TemplateData), which has been rewritten by me to no longer need them, so these modules are now unnecessary. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- See Module talk:Format TemplateData. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @PerfektesChaos: (this was an import request from dewiki). — xaosflux Talk 16:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strange that they weren't pinged in the previous nomination but are now. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @PerfektesChaos: (this was an import request from dewiki). — xaosflux Talk 16:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please note that de:Module:TemplateData does many, many, many things more which you definitely don't have rewritten.
- See doc for the full picture, which has been rewritten here only with a very poor and small piece of available functionality.
- Wrt “Multilingual” issues please see Test case or an internationalized global template on Bihari Wikpedia with Italian description, or Dutch, depending on current user language, or the similar thing in German Wikipedia but with English description.
- Naturally I am opposing, since that is cutting down internationalized templates.
- Note that you are using an 2017 fork of de:Module:TemplateData which lacks a lot of recent features, while the “rewritten” things are left at 2017 functionality and do not support newer developments.
Best, --PerfektesChaos (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Pentarchy
- Template:Pentarchy ( · talk)
- Template:Patriarchates ( · talk)
Propose merging Template:Pentarchy with Template:Patriarchates.
Redundancy. All information provided by Template:Pentarchy is/should already be covered by Template:Patriarchates. PPEMES (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree that "Patriarchates" covers "Pentarchy". The first is very comprehensive and not really that easy to navigate. You have to spend time researching it! "Pentarchy" addresses a considerable smaller scope, is differently named (!), requires almost no study. It is a simple navigational template, classically named. "Patriarchates" is not a classical name, though it may be accurate for that template. Pentarchy meets a simpler need IMO. I would Keep Pentarchy. Student7 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge - {{Patriarchates}} is used in 2 articles, {{Pentarchy}} in 27 or so. Seems crazy to have 2 templates. Patriarchates seems easy enough to use, the 5 patriarchates being given prominence. Nigej (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge if Pentarchy can be redirected here. It's a classic term, used within the Patriarchates template. (Changed my mind. See above) Student7 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
No need for this as Navbox can be used instead. WOSlinker (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Navbox does not do what I wanted, so it is needed. Which policy arguments do you bring forward to support your proposal? Narwaro (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete, not needed, navbox will do the same thing with the proper options set. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, per above. Unused after 10 months. Nigej (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:The Young and the Restless characters
- Template:The Young and the Restless characters ( · talk)
- Template:The Young and the Restless ( · talk)
Propose merging Template:The Young and the Restless characters with Template:The Young and the Restless.
Cast, characters and families lists are mentioned at both. Only the "related articles" section from {{The Young and the Restless}} is unique to that one, and could easily be added to {{The Young and the Restless characters}} to create a single navbox. Should be combined at the shorter title {{The Young and the Restless}} though. --woodensuperman 13:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Display
- Template:Display ( · talk)
- Template:Show by date ( · talk)
Propose merging Template:Display with Template:Show by date.
No need to have two separate templates for the purpose of showing text at specific times. Given that the template is used in MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and therefore a TfD notice would show up on everyone's watchlist, I have noincluded the TfD tag. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Except Template:Display is not intended to be substituted? As indicated by its use in the watchlist notice? :) --Izno (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, meant Template:Show by date. (And, to reply to the edit summary, I decided the TfD tag should be noincluded shortly after starting the discussion) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- If this goes ahead please ensure that Template:Display/watchlist is properly supported and moved to a suitable location — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment {{show by date}} is indeed subject to bot substitution when the by date has passed (e.g. @Anomie:'s ShowByDateSubster), a useful feature that should at least be retained by option if merged to {{display}}. Another possibility is to rename sbd to a variant like {{display-temp}} which will help bots to properly detect instances. Dl2000 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, if this is merged I'm hoping the merge goes the other way: keep {{show by date}} and merge {{display}} to it rather than the other way around. Anomie⚔ 22:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As I was planning to do (I originally proposed this a deletion of Template:Display, but then realized that it did support some features that Template:Show by date didn't. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, if this is merged I'm hoping the merge goes the other way: keep {{show by date}} and merge {{display}} to it rather than the other way around. Anomie⚔ 22:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- On further examination, the templates provide substantially different functions - {{display}} displays one text between two given dates, {{show by date}} displays one of two texts depending on whether a single given date has passed. Not sure how these two distinct behaviours can easily be merged, and combined with the bot substitution differences, would oppose merge as planned. However, this need not prevent development of more elaborate date-sensitive text templates and functions, and without prejudice to making other adjustments such as changing the vaguely-named {{display}} to something like {{show between dates}}. Dl2000 (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could an admin edit the log date on Template:Display? CoolSkittle (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
March 17
FEC S-line templates
- Template:FEC color ( · talk)
- Template:FEC lines ( · talk)
- Template:FEC stations ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/FEC left/AllAboardFlorida ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/FEC left/Brightline ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/FEC left/Main ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/FEC right/AllAboardFlorida ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/FEC right/Brightline ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/FEC right/Dixie Flagler ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/FEC right/Havana Special ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/FEC right/Main ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/FEC right/South Wind ( · talk)
Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Florida East Coast Railway and Module:Adjacent stations/Brightline. All transclusions updated. Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Inhumans IMAX
Propose merging Template:Infobox Inhumans IMAX with Template:Infobox television episode.
only 3 uses. No need for a custom template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Did the nominating research view the articles at all? What basis do they have for "No need for a custom template"? This just seems like a mass deletion because they personally don't like forks. -- /Alex/21 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Alex 21 Has stated in another discussion that his position on this matter is now neutral. U-Mos (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Alex 21: uh... nearly all the parameters are duplicates of the parameters in Template:Infobox television episode. Additionally WP:INFOCOL and I would remind you to WP:AGF and not just assume that I personally don't like the forks... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm allowed to AGF and still state my opinion on what this appears. Compare Inhumans premiere to another episode and note the great amount of difference, given the format's appearance as both a television episode and film. -- /Alex/21 05:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Alex 21: uh... nearly all the parameters are duplicates of the parameters in Template:Infobox television episode. Additionally WP:INFOCOL and I would remind you to WP:AGF and not just assume that I personally don't like the forks... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- So being used in relatively few articles doesn't matter again now? Interesting. U-Mos (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I can smell the straw... -- /Alex/21 11:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Alex, I'd advise caution with your interpretation of any non-keep result, as based on your comments in another thread, you are intent on ignoring the outcome decision, if it isn't a keep. Your alternative solution was not one of the options proposed here by anyone, and for what it's worth, I oppose it. --Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Luckily, that it not what is being discussed here; what's being discussed here is to delete the wrapper that holds the content of this template. -- /Alex/21 14:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- You are free to interpret it as you wish, but what is discussed here is merging/replacing the infobox used, as can be seen by the comments. If you replace this infobox, with a different infobox, that will be gaming the system, which I don't recommend, but do as you wish. --Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Luckily, that it not what is being discussed here; what's being discussed here is to delete the wrapper that holds the content of this template. -- /Alex/21 14:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Alex, I'd advise caution with your interpretation of any non-keep result, as based on your comments in another thread, you are intent on ignoring the outcome decision, if it isn't a keep. Your alternative solution was not one of the options proposed here by anyone, and for what it's worth, I oppose it. --Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I can smell the straw... -- /Alex/21 11:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- So being used in relatively few articles doesn't matter again now? Interesting. U-Mos (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as with Alex 21, please look at the template documentation. It is not simply a fork for a fork, but clearly spelled out that this is a custom infobox pulling formatting and parameters from {{Infobox television}}, {{Infobox television episode}} and {{Infobox film}}.
nearly all the parameters are duplicates of the parameters in Template:Infobox television episode
: yes, for the most part, but not all. As currently used, if merged, 7 of the parameters used to show data related to this unique content would not be valid, thus, rendering the infobox incomplete. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC) - Support. Plenty of television shows have also had film-style premieres; a forked infobox which would only ever be used in three articles seems like the wrong outcome. Alternative solutions would be using a separate, smaller infobox for the film premiere, or simply not presenting that data in an infobox. Another possibility might be modifying {{Infobox television episode}} to accept an embedded infobox as a separate parameter for situations in which episodes had theatrical releases. The original Battlestar Galactica comes to mind as possible use case; Saga of a Star World was both the pilot episode (typically shown in three parts) and released theatrically in various markets, with some editing. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: I can't think of any other example such as the Inhumans case where the intent from the start was to release the episodes theatrically before broadcast. The example you provided isn't quite the same, as from my reading of the article, it was only done to recoup production costs, not with the intent on the onset to be a joint theatrical release and television broadcast. And yes, other series have had "premieres", but more so as a screening. So this is still a wholly unique instance where this custom infobox is warranted. I also very much disagree with your suggestion of
using a separate, smaller infobox for the film premiere, or simply not presenting that data in an infobox
because why should the info need to be split or removed, when this singular infobox covers it all? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)- @Favre1fan93: a single-use or limited-use infobox is an unreasonable outcome and should be avoided at all costs. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Alex 21: I'm not aware of any policy or guideline which commands such an outcome (this would be a much shorter discussion if there were). WP:INFOCOL is neither, but there is much in it which is sensible and carries some weight at TfD. Maintaining a fork of an infobox for a single article imposes an inordinate maintenance cost. Maintaining a fork to represent a couple pieces of information which are easily discussed in the main text does not, in my view, justify that cost. Mackensen (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Favre1fan93: a single-use or limited-use infobox is an unreasonable outcome and should be avoided at all costs. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: I can't think of any other example such as the Inhumans case where the intent from the start was to release the episodes theatrically before broadcast. The example you provided isn't quite the same, as from my reading of the article, it was only done to recoup production costs, not with the intent on the onset to be a joint theatrical release and television broadcast. And yes, other series have had "premieres", but more so as a screening. So this is still a wholly unique instance where this custom infobox is warranted. I also very much disagree with your suggestion of
- Opposing for now per Alex 21 I've taken a look at the use of the template and although it is single use it's different enough to keep. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Mackensen. The article in general needs to decide whether its subject is primarily a film or a TV episode, and exist accordingly rather than attempt to straddle the boundary with a bizarre one-use hybrid template. From a cursory glance, looks like TV to me (ABC Studios/Marvel Television are the production companies listed) - and there'd be no tangible drawback to using the TV episode infobox and putting any other information in the theatrical release section. U-Mos (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree that
The article in general needs to decide whether its subject is primarily a film or a TV episode
. As has been pointed out, yes it is episodes for a TV series, but it's unique production (with IMAX Corp.) and release (on IMAX screens) warrants how it is focused, plus the infobox that has been created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree that
- Support There is no need for a single-use template. If there is some really particular information that you can't shoehorn into an infobox, that's why you have text in an article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm leaning to agree with the supports here. While this episode was released in theaters, it was still always meant to be a two-part television episode. This was only done for a promotional boost. Out of the 7 unique parameters that {{Infobox Inhumans IMAX}} has:
|country=
and|language=
are relevant for any episode infobox. If|starring=
is relevant here, it is relevant for any episode (which the episode infobox has decided against). This just leaves:|executive_producer=
,|distributor=
,|gross=
and|budget=
. However, if we want to treat this as a film, then {{Infobox television}} is already setup for this. Bottom line, this template can use either, but it really shouldn't create a new one just for this. --Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC) - Support Support per nom. Seems to just 1 use and it is difficult to believe that this one is so unique that it requires its own infobox. Nigej (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: This looks like a copy of the "Television episode" template. -Mardus /talk 19:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Mardus: EXACTLY!!! lol. That is the point of the TFD... :-p --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a rather unique case and the infobox is much more helpful than any regualar ones would be. Yes info can be included in the article, but so can any other info that would go in a regular infobox, yet we still have tons of infoboxes, because they're helpful and aide the reader. Neither a film or a TV episode template is a good replacement.★Trekker (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:PDB Gallery
- Template:PDB Gallery ( · talk)
... and all ~2800 subtemplates. Not a valid navbox: contains images rather than links. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Who cares if it's not a valid navbox? It's seemingly not intended as one (you might as well nominate {{Infobox person}} on the same grounds) but as a collapsible gallery that provides useful images without taking up a lot of space. It's being used properly at Vasopressin, for example, and I see no reason to object to that usage. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree with Nyttend as I don't see any issue with this template. If kept, then it will be worth revisiting Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_4#Unused_PDB_gallery_templates: there a subset of this template's subpages got deleted as they were unused at the time: the only thing this achieves is to cripple the template's functionality. – Uanfala (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Replace with gallery if needed and Delete templates - navboxes can't be seen by many of our users. If the images are important to the article (which it seems they are), then they should be shown to those users as well. Use either {{Gallery}} or the <gallery> tag. Also it should follow WP:GALLERY and be placed inside the actual article with prose explaining the gallery and not tucked away at the end without context. --Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I get the impression that this template is actually taking advantage of its invisibility to some users. Instead of displaying a bunch of minor images to everyone, it functionally says "these images are useful, but to a minor extent, so they're configured to be visible only to people who want them and have the right machine". A major problem with gallery sections (in many cases, but not all) is that they waste a bunch of space on irrelevant or minor-relevant images, but because this one has curated subpages, the irrelevant images are avoided (or obvious to anyone editing the page, if you transcluded the wrong subpage) and we don't spend much space on minor-relevant images. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think what your perceive as an advantage is objectively that. The use of this template exploits a problem in the system to create hidden content for some users which they decide are unworthy of this content, and this clearly is not a
visible only to people who want them and have the right machine
case, as no user can opt-in to this on mobile, even if they want to see it. The images are either helpful and should be viewed by everyone, or not and should be removed. As a side note, I'm not sure how the exactly navbox content is hidden, whether it is not loaded at all with the page, or loaded but just not shown. If it is loaded, then those viewing on mobile are wasting bandwidth on images they can't see. --Gonnym (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think what your perceive as an advantage is objectively that. The use of this template exploits a problem in the system to create hidden content for some users which they decide are unworthy of this content, and this clearly is not a
- I get the impression that this template is actually taking advantage of its invisibility to some users. Instead of displaying a bunch of minor images to everyone, it functionally says "these images are useful, but to a minor extent, so they're configured to be visible only to people who want them and have the right machine". A major problem with gallery sections (in many cases, but not all) is that they waste a bunch of space on irrelevant or minor-relevant images, but because this one has curated subpages, the irrelevant images are avoided (or obvious to anyone editing the page, if you transcluded the wrong subpage) and we don't spend much space on minor-relevant images. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think we're going off on a tangent here: the question is whether the information displayed in this template is needed and whether a template is the best way to handle this information. If the answer is yes, then the template should be kept, and it turns out that a navbox isn't the best way to display this content, then the template can be edited to display that content in another manner. That's the advantage of having a template, no? – such a change can be done in a single edit to the template, rather than with edits to each of the 2,927 articles that use it. – Uanfala (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Peru TV
- Template:Peru TV ( · talk)
Unused navbox with mostly plaintext and redlinks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Leaning keep and use - I've cleaned the template so it can now be used. However, some of the articles linked to are from other countries so not sure how valid that list is. --Gonnym (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Removed additional articles which don't mention a TV station/channel/network and channels that don't mention being aired in Peru. While small, it has 7 real links so passes the minimum needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Gonnym. I think this template, whilst having some redlinks, links related articles in a manner helpful to readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Railway stations in Nagaland
Unused navbox with only 1 link Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: This template is used in Dimapur railway station.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep yes, there is one link at present, however this navbox has the potential to be expanded and useful for navigation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. The only mainspace links on this template are Northeast Frontier Railway zone, Railway station, Nagaland, Lumding railway division, and Dimapur railway station. Nagaland and Railway station aren't placed here for navigational purposes, and NFRZ and the railway division are interstate topics (both are headquartered in Assam) linked here to organise the template, so the Dimapur station is literally the only thing placed here for navigation. I could see a value for this template if every other state had a navbox of this sort, but there's no {{Railway stations in Sikkim}}, so the deletion of this template won't create an isolated hole. Should we get several more articles about Nagaland stations, anyone's free to recreate this template, since adding extra stations will mean that it's not a WP:G4 repost. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Cleanup-SVG
- Template:Cleanup-SVG ( · talk)
- Template:Cleanup image ( · talk)
Propose merging Template:Cleanup-SVG with Template:Cleanup image.
Unused currently, and this template could easily be merged back into the other image cleanup template, by making that template accept a parameter as to the media-type. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Provisional keep. It's used by Twinkle, and (barring emergencies, which of course this isn't) we ought not make major changes to Twinkle templates without ensuring that we won't break anything. I agree with your point, so I can support merging once we know that everything's fine. I've left a note at WT:Twinkle asking for input here. Nyttend (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)- No problem at all: right now, Twinkle just does the same thing for both. It's straightforward to remove {{Cleanup SVG}} if this is merged there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge and keep as wrapper. If we merge the content into Template:Cleanup image, Template:Cleanup-SVG would still be a handy shortcut for
{{Cleanup image|type=SVG|1={{{1|}}}}}
. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Commonsmaydelete
Unused, (although typically subst). Do we still need a template like this to inform local users about deletions at Commons, as i thought that was now done by a bot instead? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Potential keep, but I can easily see myself changing my vote. We ought to have a talk-page notice for informing individuals about relevant DRs at Commons. Is there a bot actually doing notifications like this, with or without a substituted template? If so, I'm happy to switch to delete, since a bot doesn't need a subst-only template. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)- User:Community Tech bot does. --Gonnym (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the bot stops functioning or is blocked again, a template may still be needed. Peter James (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Dfn
- Template:Dfn ( · talk)
We currently have the <dfn> tag being used on about 40 pages, and Template:dfn used on about 80 pages. This tag is apparently just for semantic web purposes, and doesn't benefit readers directly. Sometimes we do put semantic web markup inside templates and things, but it seems like most of the time we try not to clutter up the article text; the Manual of Style says to use HTML markup sparingly. The template adds <dfn> tag, but also has the capability of producing a nice tooltip.
If we were to decide that this tag should be used for its intended purpose, that would mean a campaign of adding it to millions of articles, at least to the bolded term in every intro, and possibly to other terms in the article that define important terminology. The fact that it's used on so few articles after 7 years or so of this template being around indicates to me there's not much support for doing that. While I'm an active user of the semantic web, in this case I think it might be better just to go in the other direction and scrub the project of this tag on the theory that it's unnecessary markup.
There remains the question of what to do about the tooltips. As the template documentation warns, the tooltip contents are not accessible to all users. I think that's an argument for not using that functionality at all, and integrating any definitions into the main article text in all cases. The fact that a tooltip aids understanding is probably an indication of sub-optimal writing, which I think is another argument for scrubbing this template.
So here are the options I can think of:
- Declare (by not deleting them) <dfn> and {{dfn}} are beneficial, and advocate putting them on millions of articles.
- Declare (by not deleting them) <dfn> and {{dfn}} are OK to use, but don't promote them.
- Convert all instances of <dfn> and {{dfn}} for consistency, more control over rendering, and easier parsing. Declare (by not deleting it) {{dfn}} as the preferred form.
- Delete all instances of <dfn> and instances of {{dfn}} that don't involve a tooltip.
- Delete all instances of <dfn> and {{dfn}} and integrate tooltip contents into the main article.
I think these are actually ranked from least to most preferable in my view. I'm open to other suggestions if I've missed something or if people don't like any of these choices or have some clever ideas. -- Beland (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (option 2) as potentially useful, and as the correct markup to use for the purpose in question. WP needs to be doing more not less semantic Web stuff as we move into the future and as repurposing of our content broadens, and as we get closer to proper HTML 5 compliance and the site thus gets increasingly easy to machine-parse. Option 3 wouldn't be terrible, but we actually have no real reason to try to get people to stop using plain HTML if they want to. TfD even has a history of deleting HTML-wrapper templates some editors don't think are strictly necessary (albeit that's mostly a very old history, and consensus could have changed, especially given the frequency with which people are using custom CSS and JS these days – we need templates for classes).
Also, wrong venue: Whether or not <dfn> and {{dfn}} should at this time be used more broadly, as a matter of the guidelines advocating them directly, is a matter probably for an RfC at WT:MOS, not a TfD (and probably also advertised at WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:VPTECH, and various other venues). "We're not using it much" isn't really a deletion rationale. And buried at the bottom of a TfD is not the place for a discussion of whether the tooltip system should be dismantled; that's definitely an RfC at VPTECH. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC); clarified, 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC) - I sit somewhere in #2 or #3 for now. I think it would be nice if we could get a wikitext version of this tag, so that we could use it in the lead of an article. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Unless the MediaWiki devs want to give us some new wikimarkup for this, a template is the way to do it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Etta Bond
- Template:Etta Bond ( · talk)
This singer's has zero notable album or singles, there are three notable featured singles, but since she has no notable recordings of her own, so a navigational template is unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Also ExR, which is a band she's in.--Launchballer 11:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Only notable recordings are where she is the guest vocalist, not the primary creator of the material, so WP:UNDUE for a navbox. Related articles are just filler. No justification to keep this. --woodensuperman 13:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Per above. Nigej (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Bülent Ersoy
The singer's navigational template consists of two links, her biography and an album redirect back to the biography. Aspects (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Needs way more content before a navbox is useful. Nigej (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing to navigate. --woodensuperman 13:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:OE template
- Template:OE template ( · talk)
This template consists exclusively of a transclusion of itself, i.e. a "template loop". Since it doesn't contain anything else, the end result is just blank space. I expect the creator was really trying to create something useful; that's why I brought it here instead of speedy-deleting it as a test page. However, the creator's goals haven't been fulfilled and can't be fulfilled without completely starting over. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Relates to some fantasy country called Ostania. Nigej (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seems fake information trying to mimic some sort of infobox settlement style by the look of the parameter names. --Gonnym (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
March 16
Template:Infobox spacecraft
The template documentation says it is being phased out, but I don't see the deletion discussion. If it's being deleted, it should be actually replaced (as per the template doc) with either {{Infobox spaceflight}} for articles about single spacecraft or {{Infobox spacecraft class}} for articles about multiple spacecraft and then deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep , same reason as in Tfd Template:Infobox aircraft + its still used in some articles. --Denniss (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- And as the documentation on that template says - replace with either {{Infobox spaceflight}} for articles about single spacecraft or {{Infobox spacecraft class}} for articles about multiple spacecraft. --Gonnym (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- delete if there are better infoboxes then nuke it. Looks like there's only 5ish real articles using it the rest is sandbox/userpages. -Ravedave (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete convert all remaining transclusions to use the proper template. Denniss your comment completely misses the point of the TFD... You don't keep a template just because it is still in use... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The person who edited the template to indicate that it was "being phased out" gave no hint why, and he retired from Wikipedia four years ago, so we cannot ask him. "Spaceflight" and "spacecraft" are two distinct things, so this template has a role to play. And it's not as if it disrupts Wikipedia in any way. — O'Dea (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Did some digging around to find when and why this happened. Here is the discussion which did have the consensus of the relevant project editors and has not been challenged in over 5 years of the deprecation template being added. Also for 35 articles that still use this, changing to one of the others shouldn't be a problem and would help other editors more easily decide what infobox to use. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete after replacement, per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Delete per nom" is not a convincing argument, Andy; it's just a "like". That might work in social media, but substantial discussion is needed here. The outcome is not decided by numbers of votes, pro or con. — O'Dea (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Very well: Delete after replacement, because the template documentation says it is being phased out, but I don't see the deletion discussion. If it's being deleted, it should be actually replaced (as per the template doc) with either {{Infobox spaceflight}} for articles about single spacecraft or {{Infobox spacecraft class}} for articles about multiple spacecraft and then deleted. Happy now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Delete per nom" is not a convincing argument, Andy; it's just a "like". That might work in social media, but substantial discussion is needed here. The outcome is not decided by numbers of votes, pro or con. — O'Dea (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9#Template:Infobox spacecraft
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - The fact that this was overturned in a recent DRV is enough for me. I agree with O'Dea that "Spaceflight" and "spacecraft" are two distinct things and remind editors here that WP:CCC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- The DRV concerned itself solely with issues of procedure, and says nothing about the merits of the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- There isn't any evidence that this template was a candidate for being phased out then. I also agreed with O'Dea's assessment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- That could be true, if by "no evidence" you mean ignoring the discussion I linked to. --Gonnym (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes there is; you seem to have missed the link posted by Gonnym, above, with timestamp "22:47, 10 February".You're also not giving any reason that the template is actually needed. Finally, O'Dea's
"it's not as if it disrupts Wikipedia in any way"
is an argument of a kind expressly deprecated in WP:HARMLESS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- There isn't any evidence that this template was a candidate for being phased out then. I also agreed with O'Dea's assessment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- The DRV concerned itself solely with issues of procedure, and says nothing about the merits of the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Culture of Malaysia
Unused series navbox. Redundant to Template:Malaysia topics Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Contemporary Art Galleries in London
Unused navbox. Appears to be an abandoned draft. No actual link content. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Communist Parties of South America
Unused navbox. WP:NAVBOXCREEP Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Comics-trades
unused template. Seems to be a way to prep a page? No changes since 2011. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, it's subst'd, which is why there are no transclusions. Used on pages like Locke & Key, The Wicked + The Divine, and Saga (comics), just to give some examples. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2016–17 Midland Football League Premier Division table
Unused table, already placed on the parent article directly. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note Frietjes has merged table to 2016–17 Midland Football League Hhkohh (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete, merged with attribution here per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete per Frietjes comment Hhkohh (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as above. GiantSnowman 10:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with action taken by Frietjes. Drawoh46 (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Chinese aeroengines
unused navbox. About half redlinks and no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could maybe be kept, but only 5 of the links are actually Chinese made parts, so that navbox has very inaccurate information. --Gonnym (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Chojnice – Runowo Pomorskie line
Unused navbox with mostly redlinks. WP:EXISTING & WP:NENAN both apply. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Dreezy
- Template:Dreezy ( · talk)
WP: NENAN, too soon, not enough links. StaticVapor message me! 19:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Philippine Piso NGC series
Unneeded as a template; subst the one transclusion and then delete DannyS712 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It serves as navigation to related wiki pages, i.e., clicking the 20-peso bill points to its main article
Moon Rivers (talk) 11:41 24 February 2019 (UTC +8:00) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Back out close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Unused. Even it is was, it is an overly complex way of linking 12 articles. {{Philippine peso history}} does the job perfectly well. Nigej (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete without substitution. better to navigate through {{Philippine peso history}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Philippine peso NGC bills
Unneeded as a template; subst the one transclusion and then delete DannyS712 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It serves as navigation to related wiki pages, i.e., clicking the 20-peso bill points to its main article
Moon Rivers (talk) 11:42 24 February 2019 (UTC +8:00)
Relisting comment: Back out close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Unused. Even it is was, it is an overly complex way of linking 6 articles. Nigej (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nigej, unused is due to previous bad TfD closure, the bad closure result is deleted, so it is orphaned now. I will cleanup it Hhkohh (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Restored, no longer unused Hhkohh (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- As I said above, I still think it should go. A plain simple template like {{Philippine peso history}}, together with links in the article is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Restored, no longer unused Hhkohh (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete without substitution. better to navigate through {{Philippine peso history}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete no reason to have this as a template. Subst and delete. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Philippine peso NGC coins
Unneeded as a template; subst the one transclusion and then delete DannyS712 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It serves as navigation to related wiki pages, i.e., clicking the one-peso coin points to its main article
Moon Rivers (talk) 11:42 24 February 2019 (UTC +8:00)
Relisting comment: Back out close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete no valid content/image Hhkohh (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete the image was deleted from commons 9 March 2019 so the template now has no content. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete no reason to have this as a template. Subst and delete. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:NGC Series banknotes and coins
Unneeded as a template; subst the one transclusion and then delete DannyS712 (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It serves as navigation to related wiki pages, i.e., clicking the 20-peso bill points to its main article
Moon Rivers (talk) 11:40 24 February 2019 (UTC +8:00) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)- @Moonrivers: your comments on this and other TFDs show you are completely missing the point. No one is saying to delete the content, there is just no reason for there to be a template. Place the image and the link on the one article in question directly, no reason for a template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Back out close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete the image it used was deleted from commons on the 9 March 2019 so the template no longer had any content/function. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete no valid content/image Hhkohh (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete no reason to have this as a template. Subst and delete. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Nippon Professional Draft by year
Nippon Professional Baseball draft doesn't exist; neither should the navbox. DannyS712 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The main article will be created shortly and at present this is the only item that allows users to move between draft pages by year, otherwise the url needs to be manually changed. I'd prefer it remains to allow ease of navigation. Cynikles (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Back out close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
D&RGW S-line templates
- Template:D&RGW color ( · talk)
- Template:D&RGW lines ( · talk)
- Template:D&RGW stations ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/D&RGW left/Rio Grande Zephyr ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/D&RGW right/Rio Grande Zephyr ( · talk)
Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad S-line templates
- Template:ACL color ( · talk)
- Template:ACL lines ( · talk)
- Template:ACL stations ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Abbeville-Dothan ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Anderson-McCormick ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Apopka-Kissimmee ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Augusta-Florence ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/C&WC ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Champion ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Columbia-Wilmington ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Dupont-High Springs ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Elba-Dothan ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Elrod-Myrtle Beach ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Everglades ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Florida Special ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Fort Mason-Sanford ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Gulf Coast Special ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Haines City-Clewiston ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Hartsville-Florence ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/High Springs-Lakeland ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Kissimmee-St. Cloud ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Lassiter Branch ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Miamian ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Montgomery-Waycross ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Norfolk Branch ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Rochelle-Palatka ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Rocky Mount-Kinston ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Sanford-Wilmington ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/South Wind ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/St. Petersburg-Jacksonville ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Wadesboro-Florence ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Wilcox-Newberry ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/Wilson-Wilmington ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL left/main ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Albany-Brunswick ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Albany-Dunnellon ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Apopka-Kissimmee ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Augusta-Florence ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/C&WC ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Champion ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Columbia-Wilmington ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Dupont-High Springs ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Elba-Dothan ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Elrod-Myrtle Beach ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Florida Special ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Fort Mason-Sanford ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Gulf Coast Special ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Haines City-Clewiston ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Hartsville-Florence ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/High Springs-Lakeland ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Kissimmee-St. Cloud ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Lassiter Branch ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Montgomery-Waycross ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Norfolk Branch ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Rochelle-Palatka ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Rocky Mount-Kinston ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Sanford-Wilmington ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/South Wind ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/St. Petersburg-Jacksonville ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Wadesboro-Florence ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Wilcox-Newberry ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/Wilson-Wilmington ( · talk)
- Template:S-line/ACL right/main ( · talk)
Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ceres–Negros F.C. squad
- 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. Now in use. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
unused navbox template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
delete until usingHhkohh (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)- Delete - unused, not maintained. Nigej (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - needs updating and adding to relevant articles, not deleting. I have added to to a few, so it is no longer unused. GiantSnowman 11:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- keep @Zackmann08 and Nigej: using now (added to some articles by GiantSnowman) Hhkohh (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- comment - Given that Category:Philippines football squad navigational boxes has only 1 entry, I'm still doubtful that it's required. Nigej (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- We're not saying every club, though, just ones where there are many notable players (like this). GiantSnowman 12:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- When I look (randomly) at Category:Albanian football squad navigational boxes I find {{KF Apolonia Fier squad}} has 3 blue links but 5 transclusions. {{Besa Kavajë squad}} has 1 Rogers who seems to have left them in 2016. These "current" templates are worse than useless unless someone keeps them up to date. Nigej (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then why not do so yourself? GiantSnowman 14:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- When I look (randomly) at Category:Albanian football squad navigational boxes I find {{KF Apolonia Fier squad}} has 3 blue links but 5 transclusions. {{Besa Kavajë squad}} has 1 Rogers who seems to have left them in 2016. These "current" templates are worse than useless unless someone keeps them up to date. Nigej (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- We're not saying every club, though, just ones where there are many notable players (like this). GiantSnowman 12:53, 18 March 2019 (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:Catholic Bishops of Pittsburgh
Unused timeline template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:C Sharp
- Template:C Sharp ( · talk)
Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Relates to C Sharp (programming language) but is unused and not maintained. Nigej (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:CSR stations
unused template that just produces a plainlink. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Sock was indef banned a while ago. Cards84664 (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- G5 doesn't apply here; the master wasn't blocked at the time the template was created. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - something to do with Canada Southern Railway. unused. Nigej (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:CONCACAF Gold Cup MVP
Unused template with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete until using Hhkohh (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete - no obvious referenced content about the MVP, so must go. Nigej (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:CONCACAF Gold Cup winning managers
This is WP:NAVBOXCREEP at its finest. There is an article about the winning teams, we don't need a navbox linking all the managers... Plus this template isn't even used. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused C.D. Primeiro de Agosto templates
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (basketball) 2001-2002 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (basketball) 2012-2013 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (basketball) 2013-2014 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (basketball) Women's 2012-2013 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (basketball) Women's 2013-2014 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (basketball) Women's 2014-2015 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (football) 1977 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (football) 2015 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (handball) Women's 2011-2012 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (handball) Women's 2012-2013 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (handball) Women's 2013-2014 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (volleyball) 2011-2012 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto (volleyball) Women's 2011-2012 ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto 2002 Africa Clubs Champions Cup 1st Place ( · talk)
- Template:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto 2012-13 ( · talk)
Unused navboxes that all list the playes that were on a certain team in a certain year. Not EVERYTHING needs a navbox. The current team is one thing, but linking every player that was on the team in the same year is just overkill. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all - These sort of template should be reserved for just the most important teams in a sport. Nigej (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all - no need for historical squad templates (and certainly not in soccer). GiantSnowman 10:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete all unnecessary navbox Hhkohh (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Three Men in a Boat
Propose merging Template:Three Men in a Boat with Template:Jerome K. Jerome.
Massive overlap between the two templates. The total set of article involved is 9 or ten, and Template:Three Men in a Boat is basically a reformatted version of Template:Jerome K. Jerome, with 3 extra links. This duplication is a hindrance to navigation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- support JarrahTree 05:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support and a good reason portals should not be built blindly off navboxes. Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Absolutely right, all of the above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:CT Corp
- Template:CT Corp ( · talk)
Only used on a single page, the parent article CT Corp. Almost entirely WP:REDLINKS which violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - replicates CT Corp (which is essentially just a list) as a template. Pointless. Nigej (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Canadian federal by-election, May 13, 2002/Saint Boniface
- Template:Canadian federal by-election, May 13, 2002/Saint Boniface ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal by-election, September 8, 2008/Westmount—Ville-Marie ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal election, 1935/Cartier ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal election, 1988/Regina—Wascana ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal election, 1993/Ottawa—Vanier ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal election, 1993/Regina—Wascana ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal election, 2000/Ottawa—Vanier ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal election, 2000/Winnipeg South Centre ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal election, 2004/Brandon—Souris ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal election, 2004/Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal election, 2004/Saint Boniface ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal election, 2006/Brandon—Souris ( · talk)
- Template:Canadian federal election, 2015/Ottawa Centre ( · talk)
Unused election results template. Per precedent at this tfd... To paraphrase an editor at that TFD: The results of the <insert election year> election are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static
. Same logic applies here, particularly since the template is UNUSED! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: Looks like you made an error in paraphrasing that quote, none of these elections are from 2013. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: I actually intentionally left it. I figured it applied to the specific template. updated so it makes more sense. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete if unused - per nom. Nigej (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:1996 New Zealand general election by electorate
- Template:1996 New Zealand general election by electorate ( · talk)
- Template:2002 New Zealand general election by electorate ( · talk)
- Template:2011 New Zealand general election by electorate ( · talk)
Unused Single-use election results template. Per precedent at this tfd... To paraphrase an editor at that TFD: The results of the <insert election year> election are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static
. Same logic applies here. The tables should be subst directly onto the page and the template deleted. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually they are used. Somehow there has been a naming error which meant that other templates were included on the pages instead of these ones. Thanks you for highlighting this Zackmann08, I have corrected it. Since they now have transclusions I recommend the deletion tags now be removed. Kiwichris (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Kiwichris: nomination update, but per the precedent, they should be subst directly into the article and the template deleted. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Tentative Keep now that the transclusion error caused by renaming has been fixed. I would appreciate an explanation why the results are in a template rather than directly in the article. I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics#Results templates which suggests the template should also be included in 50th New Zealand Parliament and equivalent articles. Is it an oversight that they are not?-gadfium 01:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- keep It’s the convention of the NZ politics task force to use templates for results if they are needed on more than one page. Things invariably change (not the results but names, notability, etc) and not all editors know when the same info needs to be updated in several places. After chasing our tails for years we eventually started using templates and the problems went away apart from the occasional nomination for deletion. Schwede66 18:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Subst and delete per nom. Each seems to be only used once. This sort of information should only appear once. If similar templates are used more than once, this is a sign that one set of the data should be removed, linking to the only set. Nigej (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The idea was that the templates would be housed on both election and nth Parliament pages and that only one edit would be required to update both locations (efficiency in a nutshell). Somehow these templates have erroneously had both their transclusions removed, but can simply be re-added to the respective pages and once again comply with the agreed convention. Kiwichris (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
only one edit would be required to update both locations
What about this template could possibly need updating, given that the results of past elections can't change. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)- The main thing that is updated on these templates are the links. Naming conventions can change and links to biographies and electorates need to be updated to reflect the change. Links are also added as candidates acquire notability and have articles of their own. Kiwichris (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Schwede66. Importantly, if they needed on more than one page, according of the NZ politics they forced to use for template as a result of an election, also the respective pages again comply if convention as been agreed. Links also been added and reflect the change and notability. Sheldybett (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Bonaire status referendum, 2004
- Template:Bonaire status referendum, 2004 ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 1875/New Westminster ( · talk)
- Template:Bulgarian presidential election, 2001 ( · talk)
- Template:Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2009 ( · talk)
- Template:Brussels-Capital Region Parliament election, 2004 ( · talk)
- Template:Brussels-Capital Region Parliament election, 1999 ( · talk)
Unused election template. Per precedent at this tfd. To paraphrase an editor at that TFD: The results of the <insert election year> election are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static
. Same logic applies here, particularly since the template is UNUSED! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
March 15
Template:2017 American Southwest Conference football standings
Unused standing template. There is no parent article for it anyway. 2017 American Southwest Conference football Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2017 CCIW football standings
Unused standing template. There is no parent article for the season 2017 CCIW football standings. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:EB Games Expo 2015
Unused event map. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, now that it is used on the EB Games Expo article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per PhilipTerryGraham. Now in use. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep; I don't envision the nominator nominating it in the present situation. Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)- Nyttend, Tom (LT), PhilipTerryGraham ok so now it is used in ONE article... why does it need a separate template? Just substitute it into the article... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete for a completely different reason. The article covers an annual convention, and this template consists of a floor plan of the various event stations at one specific year's convention. How is this possibly encyclopedic? If we had an article about the professional conference I attended last week, would it help if I created and uploaded a diagram of the vendor area layout, so you could see where conferees could find booths for Kanopy, the Company of Biologists, Credo Reference, and Oxford University Press? No: it demonstrates literally nothing useful for those who were not at the conference. Same here; maybe you could find a third-party source saying that the convention allocated space to Activision, Bandi Namco, Bethesda, EA, EB Games, etc., but even if it's encyclopedic to list all the participants (I'm leaning against that idea), it's altogether useless to provide a map. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Jeb Bush series
More of an unnecessary template that just clutters the page than a template with substantial information. Also only links to Jeb Bush and Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
CIS football top10
- Template:2000 CIS football top10 ( · talk)
- Template:2001 CIS football top10 ( · talk)
- Template:2002 CIS football top10 ( · talk)
- Template:2003 CIS football top10 ( · talk)
- Template:2013 CIS football top10 ( · talk)
- Template:2014 CIS football top10 ( · talk)
- Template:2015 CIS football top10 ( · talk)
- Template:2016 CIS football top10 ( · talk)
Subst and delete. Each template is only used exactly once and is unlikely to be used on any future pages. The templates are just tables so there's no reason for them not to be moved to article space. BLAIXX 20:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Subst and delete per nom. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/population count
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/inland waters area ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/land and inland waters area ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/land area ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/native language Finnish ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/native language Sami ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/native language Swedish ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/native language other ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/native language total ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/population count ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/population count sequence ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/population density ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/sea area ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/tax rate ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/total area ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/total area sequence ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/waters area ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/demography 65 and over ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/demography total ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/demography 15–64 ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/demography 0–14 ( · talk)
Storing data in a template like this creates a number of problems.
1) Ease of access What this means is that if a user wants to update the information (say for example the population), rather than editing the page, just like every other article on Wikipedia, they have to track down the sub template that is being called and then understand how the switch statement works and find the right value to change. For those of us experience with template editing, this is no problem. But Wikipedia is meant to be open for anyone to use. Storing data in this way just makes it more difficult to update.
2) Outdated references with invalid dates If right now I update the value of Imatra's population, I have to update it on {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}}. First, lets assume I am using the same reference as the one that is provided. Well now my access date needs to be updated to today's date. But I'm only updating one value... If I change the reference, I am saying that ALL the values are current as of today's date. But that isn't the case, I'm only updating one value. Furthermore, what if I'm using a different source? I am locked in to using the same source as every other value on the page because that is the source that is being returned by the template.
3) Dangerous precedent Additionally this sets a dangerous precedent. Should we next create a {{Chembox/boiling point}} that contains a massive switch statement with the boiling point of every chemical? Or {{Infobox NFL team/coach}} with a switch statement containing the current coach of every NFL team? That isn't how this works. If you want to change the data, you change it on the article in question.
4) Performance issues With the current implementation of 20 different subtemplates, that means that any time one of these articles loads, it has to parse 20 different switch statements. In somecases, because of the way the error handing is written, the switch statements are parsed multiple times. All to return plaintext numbers or references that can and should be included directly on the page.
The only reason I have heard for keeping these templates is that it makes it easier to update. Well that is just false. It may make it easier to BULK update, but how often are you updating EVERY value in one go? Rarely... And if it needs to be done, WP:BOTs are your answer for bulk updating pages. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- It seems to me that a RfC needs to be had on the general validity of templates used to store data, rather than forking that discussion across multiple TfD noms in which there is no functional difference. Nevertheless, my position has not changed on this matter, so delete. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pppery, no objection from me on opening such an RFC. I'd be happy to help if that is a route you wish to go. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep until replacement (This discussion is somewhat related to an earlier tfd and a discussion in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#To convert (permanent link).)
- The population information of municipalities of Finland is published monthly by Statistics Finland. The information is based on the data in the Finnish Population Information System (Wikidata:Q18694404) maintained by the Population Register Centre. This is pretty much the only (reliable) source for the municipal population information in Finland; you do not need to gather that information from different sources. (And you should not to because the other sources would probably be less reliable.) Moreove, there are no census forms to be filled every x years, nor do the municipalities or any other local authorities conduct their own censuses. (See also Population and housing censuses by country#Finland.) Land survey data (area) is provided by the National Land Survey of Finland in a similar manner. So for each and every municipality the data is published at the same time by a single source, and thus the source of the information for the given date is always the same.
- If you look at the 10-year history of {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}} you will notice that the information has been updated quite frequently, and usually all values have been updated at once. (There may be few exceptions.) That is because that is the easiest way to do it: just fetch the Excel sheet (also other formats available) from Statistics Finland, modify it a bit (a script/bot could be written for this step) and publish it. I just did that a few hours ago and it took me about 30 minutes, and I was just using LibreOffice to open the Excel sheet and plain text editor to modify it. With a script it would probably have been something like two minutes.
- Even though updating a single value of a single municipality is indeed somewhat more difficult (or not possible at all with accurate date and source information) with the template than it is to update individual articles, I do not see that as a problem because there is hardly ever any need to update single values: If the information provided by the template is up-to-date for one municipality, it is up-to-date for all. If it is not, it is almost as easy to update all values at once as it is to update a single value.
- Performance may be an issue sometimes, I agree on that one. But have there been any actual performance issues or is that just theoretical speculation?
- Your reference to boiling points is not valid because that information never changes, so none of my arguments apply to it. And no NFL team probably hires a new coach monthly or even yearly, so that is a bit far-fetched example, too. However, I do agree that this case could be used as a precedent for having a template for some ever-changing numerical data, but is that really a bad thing? Otherwise the Internet is going towards automation of this kind of things, why should Wikipedia go to the opposite direction?
- Please correct me if wrong but I think we all agree that one goal of Wikipedia is to provide reliable, accurate and up-to-date information to its readers. Making updating easier is just a tool to reach that goal.
- These templates have provided accurate and up-to-date data for more than ten years now and I have not heard any complaints until now. So, I do not see any point going back to time when the data lagged years behind and the only way to fix that was endless manual and error-prone editing of simple numerical values.
- At last, I think this kind of structured data should be provided by Wikidata. I.e. I am happy to get rid of these templates once this information actually is fetched from Wikidata. (Or if Wikidata cannot yet provide that information, I am fine with a bot, too, provided that there actually is one.) However, I do not think that "do the dull work of manually updating Halsua, Luhanka and Ähtäri separately every time their population data lags two years behind" or "Someone may implement a Wikidata integration or a bot some day in the future." are decent replacements for these templates. ––Apalsola t • c 23:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC) –– (minor fix) Apalsola t • c 23:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC) –– (one word added) Apalsola t • c 23:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Apalsola, thanks for the well thought out response. For the record, I wasn't trying to be a pain in the ass with my NFL/Boiling point examples. Those were just the best I could come up with. You make excellent points. Boiling points don't change often, nor do NFL coaches. To that end, let me ask, what say you to things like {{Infobox Finnish municipality/land area}} I don't see that being updated all that often (seems more like my NFL coaches example?). Now with {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}} I totally get where you are coming from. I take a different stance on it, but I can at least understand where you are coming from! But with something like land area, total area, etc. Why the need to update those constantly. I would think those would be pretty darn static. Would you agree that at least those ones could be deleted? Might I suggest that there is a middle ground here?
- I confess you almost have me convinced that {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}} should be kept. The fact that Finland issues new counts every year... At least for now that template might be the best way to do it. But, might I be able to convince you that some of these like {{Infobox Finnish municipality/native language Sami}} & {{Infobox Finnish municipality/native language total}} (both with no values changed since 2009) could be deleted and their values subst directly into the articles? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- The National Land Survey of Finland publishes area data every year. As you can see from the data of 2018 and 2019 (in Finnish and Swedish but you probably get the idea), the information does actually change a bit. The main reason is probably post-glacial rebound ("new land" is risen from the sea which affects to the proportion of the land and sea for coastal municipalities) but the municipal borders are also adjusted sometimes. The language information is also published annually by Statistics Finland and it is based on the same data as the population data. ––Apalsola t • c 22:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep until replacement we should deprecate custom data templates and switch to use Wikidata as a backend. However until then the centralized place for updates is better than manual editing the every page. Also if nobody didn't notice the subtemplates aren't used only in infobox but in article text too as dynamic values so deleting the templates will add manual updating work in article text too. About the speed issue: Based on quick testing using the template "Infobox Finnish municipality" adds 20%-25% overhead over plain "Infobox settlement" and the difference in render speed is <0.1s. However the test was done using preview with multiple times and then numbers were checked from the parser profiling data. In real life cases the rendered subtemplates are cached so the effect is pretty much none most of the times. Also if the speed would be the issue then optimizing (=convert it to Lua) the infobox settlement would be the better place to do it as it is the slowest part in this discussion and not the wrapper templates which are used in limited number of the articles. --Zache (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Jamaican RDT Templates
Unused. The first has been replaced by {{Railway-routemap|JAM}}
; the second is a fork of the deprecated {{BS-header}}
. Useddenim (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2019 Faroe Islands Premier League table
- Template:2019 Faroe Islands Premier League table ( · talk)
- Template:2018 Faroe Islands Premier League table ( · talk)
- Template:2017 Faroe Islands Premier League table ( · talk)
- Template:2016 Faroe Islands Premier League table ( · talk)
- Template:2015 Faroe Islands Premier League table ( · talk)
- Category:Faroe Islands football standings templates ( · talk)
single-use table, which should be placed directly in the article per this discussion at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Since 2015 the league tables of Faroe Islands Premier League seasons are made using a template. What's the problem this year? Davidsousa1 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Tamsalu Parish
Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Keepand consider adding to more articles. There is a parent article: Tamsalu Parish, and the template isn't unused anymore. – Uanfala (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)- Thanks to Gonnym for pointing out the parish has now been merged. The larger parish has its dedicated navbox, so this one appears largely redundant. It can be used on the Tamsalu Parish article itself, but that article already contains the same content in list form, so the navbox could probably be deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete? - {{Tamsalu Parish}} is for a former municipality which seems to have been replaced by {{Tapa Parish}} and has all the links of {{{Tamsalu Parish}}. Not a lot to gain from having two templates, showing the same links. Tamsalu Parish should be added to the newer one. --Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused British Columbia provincial election 2013 templates
- 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. Withdrawn as at least some of these are now in use. No prejudice against re-nominating any of them if they are still unused. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Burnaby-Edmonds ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Delta South ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Fort Langley-Aldergrove ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Fraser-Nicola ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Juan de Fuca ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Kamloops-North Thompson ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Kamloops-South Thompson ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Kootenay East ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Kootenay West ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Langley ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Maple Ridge-Mission ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Nelson-Creston ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/New Westminster ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/North Coast ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/North Island ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/North Vancouver-Lonsdale ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/North Vancouver-Seymour ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Peace River North ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Peace River South ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Penticton ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Port Coquitlam ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Port Moody-Coquitlam ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Powell River-Sunshine Coast ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Prince George-Mackenzie ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Prince George-Valemount ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Richmond Centre ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Richmond East ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Saanich North and the Islands ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Saanich South ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Shuswap ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Skeena ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Surrey-Cloverdale ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Surrey-Fleetwood ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Surrey-Newton ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Surrey-Panorama ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Surrey-Tynehead ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Surrey-Whalley ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Vancouver-Fairview ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Vancouver-Hastings ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Vancouver-Kensington ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Vancouver-Kingsway ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Vancouver-Mount Pleasant ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Vancouver-Quilchena ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Vernon-Monashee ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/West Vancouver-Capilano ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/West Vancouver-Sea to Sky ( · talk)
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 2013/Westside-Kelowna ( · talk)
All of these templates are unused and the associated data has already been placed in the article (2013 British Columbia general election) in a much clearer format. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. The point of these templates is not and never has been for the main overview article about the election itself, where the results are indeed much better presented in a table format. The actual purpose, rather, is for the "electoral history" section of each individual district's article (see e.g. Kelowna West) and the "electoral record" section of each MLAs biography (see e.g. Ben Stewart). Those results tables are supposed to be formatted in templatespace just like this, so that those two articles crosslink each other and their results data can't be edited in contradictory ways that diverge from each other, so these are entirely normal. The real problem here isn't that these templates are useless — it's that for some weird reason, this set hasn't actually been applied to the articles, and instead the pages these templates are supposed to be on are currently hardcoding their 2013 results tables in-page instead of actually calling these templates. This can easily be corrected by actually replacing the hardcoded tables with this template, so these should be kept and actually applied — note, as well, that some of their sibling templates in Category:2013 British Columbia general election results by riding are already being used correctly, so literally the only problem here is that the person who created them didn't actually finish the job of applying all of them in the places they were meant to be used. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bearcat, So subst them directly into the articles. Why is there a template for something that is never going to change? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, because if somebody changes the information in one place but not in the other, then the articles will diverge — and they will do so, in all likelihood, without us noticing that there's a divergence. It has to be completely impossible for the MLA's article and the district's article to ever feature so much as a comma of difference in how they present the relevant election results, and the only way we can ensure that need is met is to crosslink the results via one template rather than two separate substitutions of hard coding, so that there's never even the slightest possibility of the respective articles ever contradicting each other at all.
And even more importantly, election results are very routinely presented via templates in many, many political jurisdictions — see Category:Election and referendum result templates if you don't believe me. There's no valid reason to single this set out as a unique case that's different from the standard way of presenting election results everywhere else. The "static information" argument that was raised below is not relevant here, either — there's no established consensus that templates can't be used to present "static" information, because that argument wasn't even the winning consensus-maker there let alone ever having had a consensus line up behind it anywhere else, and outdated sports team rosters aren't an equivalent situation to electon results anyway. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, because if somebody changes the information in one place but not in the other, then the articles will diverge — and they will do so, in all likelihood, without us noticing that there's a divergence. It has to be completely impossible for the MLA's article and the district's article to ever feature so much as a comma of difference in how they present the relevant election results, and the only way we can ensure that need is met is to crosslink the results via one template rather than two separate substitutions of hard coding, so that there's never even the slightest possibility of the respective articles ever contradicting each other at all.
- Bearcat, So subst them directly into the articles. Why is there a template for something that is never going to change? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, per Bearcat's statement. These templates should be hooked into the articles for the politicians whose names are in them, a process that I can help with this weekend. PKT(alk) 17:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Update: I have completed the process of updating all of the templates and connecting them to the articles for their respective ridings and MLAs. @Zackmann08:, thank you for bringing these templates to our attention - they obviously should not have been left the way they were. PKT(alk) 16:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- If kept based on Bearcat's argument, these should be placed in the holding cell (To review) so what was proposed can be tracked like any other TfD result. --Gonnym (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- This discussion is now 12 days old. I recommend this be closed as Keep, now that all of the templates are now in use as they were meant to be. PKT(alk) 00:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This sort of template is not allowed in the template namespace per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 7#Template:TPO2013riders. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pppery, not disagreeing with you, but I'm curious what specific precedent are you establishing with that TFD? Single use? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: Templates are not used when the information has no possibility of being changed (paraphrasing Primefac,
The [results of the 2013 election] are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static
). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)- Pppery, Oh lord, if only we could codify that... User:Zackmann08/unused election templates is just UNUSED election templates... lord knows how many single use ones there are... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: ... and that argument is so good it applies even to election templates with more than one use. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pppery, to be clear, I 100% agree with you! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: ... and that argument is so good it applies even to election templates with more than one use. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pppery, Oh lord, if only we could codify that... User:Zackmann08/unused election templates is just UNUSED election templates... lord knows how many single use ones there are... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: Templates are not used when the information has no possibility of being changed (paraphrasing Primefac,
- That was a statement of Primefac's opinion, not an established Wikipedia consensus. In actual fact, that's exactly the opposite of the standard consensus around use of templates: we use templates for static sets (or sets that change only slightly, such as "winners of notable award" templates that have a new winner added once a year but never have old winners disappear off of them under any circumstances) all the time, with "rapidly fluctuating sets" being exactly where we don't use templates. The consensus around use of templates hinges on whether there's value in permanently crosslinking related topics to each other (e.g. a set that once a person has become a part of, they will always remain a part of permanently, or a situation where we need to avoid the possibility of related articles being edited in a contradictory manner), not on whether the set represented by the template is "static" or "fluctuating". Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bearcat, so are you saying that these unused template should be kept or.... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Did you miss the memo? They ain't unused no more. Got pointed out right in this very discussion, even. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bearcat, gotta own my mistakes. TBH, yes I did miss the memo... :-p Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Did you miss the memo? They ain't unused no more. Got pointed out right in this very discussion, even. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bearcat, so are you saying that these unused template should be kept or.... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pppery, not disagreeing with you, but I'm curious what specific precedent are you establishing with that TFD? Single use? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2019 (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:Trademark-EU
Unused navbox with mostly red links Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge blue links to {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}}. I was about to start de-orphaning this template, since it's a reasonable topic with a good number of blue links, but apparently the reason it's not used is that the other template serves the same purpose, even though it's all IP rather than just trade mark. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Don't subst
- Template:Don't subst ( · talk)
No reason to warn a user about this problem; it automatically corrects itself as the templates substitute to a transclusion of themselves. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep although this template itself was substituted, it has been used, and is an important part of Wikipedia history. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Anti-government protests in the 21st century
This template is a POV and Original research quagmire. For an editor to list a demonstration here, they have to judge the protest as "anti-government" and when they make such a judgment it will almost always be wrong. Almost all protests are trying to lobby their government for different policies. That's just part of the political process, not "anti government". Even Arab Spring, when the peoples of the Middle East topped many a dictator or monarch, they weren't "anti-government" as much as they were promoting different government. The only truly "anti-government" protests - if indeed there have been any notable ones - would have to have been held by anarchists, to be called "anti government". That's not what we have here. My first random clicking among the listed protests turned up 2010 student protest in Dublin, which merely wanted the existing government to do something different with the cost of education. There might be a case for renaming the template for simply "large" or "notable" protests, but its all so subjective the very nature of such a list is dubious, and its usefulness is highly suspect. Delete. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
March 14
Template:Infobox French commune
Proposing merging this with {{Infobox settlement}}. Taken directly from the Infobox settlement documentation: It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera
. Precedent also established with the merging of Infobox Belgium settlement (tfd) & Infobox Hungarian settlement (tfd). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Used in 30,000+ articles, substituting this wrapper has the following disadvantages (which I also gave at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_7#Infobox_settlement_wrappers:
- Loss of consistency between articles about similar topics (municipalities of Austria, settlements of Cape Verde, etc.), e.g. links to higher administrative divisions. Several wrappers link to higher administrative divisions and use specific detailed pushpin maps based on their official geographic code
- Loss of country-specific maintenance tools: several infobox wrappers place articles with (unintentional or vandalic) bad infobox content (like "state = disneyland") in a maintenance category
- Loss of the facility to update population data for hundreds of settlements in one edit, see also this discussion. Markussep Talk 22:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, per all the arguments I stated on the Infobox German location TfD below.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
KeepAbstain because of the two examples given. Editors recall that they saw a certain template used in a certain situation, or they figure there must be such a template, so they search for it. But the template about, say, Belgium has been merged with a template without a single mention of Belgium. This is why we leave behind a redirect when we merge one page into another. Neither one of the given examples of templates for discussion (TFD) gave enough weight about the above two cases where people search for the appropriate template by what they have seen before. One of the TFDs resulted in a merge and the other resulted in a deletion. However, neither left behind a redirect! It seemed to me like some editors thought leaving behind a redirect gave too much validity to the previous template. I'm all for simplification, and in general I think the idea of working towards one template that can cover a lot of ground—here, someone literally—could be the best idea. But that's only true if these merges investigate the meanings behind the parameters to make sure they make sense to merge and then leave redirects or soft redirects (which might be better in this case; the "Keep side" should not make the same mistakes if merge succeeds by demanding to have a redirect if it might cause problems). Sorry that I have to dump this info out of my head and run, but if I can come back I will. However, since I could not take the time to refine my argument, I'm changing my "keep" to "abstain". PS. I'd love to see a spreadsheet that compares the parameters of both templates in question and examine whether there is a one-to-one correspondence for each parameter in the original template. It would show the kind of research that has been done. And in my mind that's a necessary level of research. Geekdiva (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)- Strong keep. This has France-specific parameters, and if you merge it into infobox settlement, you force editors to start using an infobox that's becoming ever more complex. Start thinking of editors who use infoboxes on a daily basis instead of deciding that they're all close enough to merge. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (original nominator) Well time to admit when I'm wrong. Markussep makes a few excellent points. I think that we currently have far too many custom wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}} but I have been painting with too broad a brush. This template is a perfect example of when wrappers SHOULD be used. I would withdraw the nomination but I actually think it will carry more weight if to let this TFD play out to the inevitable keep. Happy to address any other questions/concerns about my change of heart! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Specialised templates for specialised articles requirements is what is needed. scope_creepTalk 00:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox German location
Proposing merging this with {{Infobox settlement}}. Taken directly from the Infobox settlement documentation: It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera
. Precedent also established with the merging of Infobox Belgium settlement (tfd) & Infobox Hungarian settlement (tfd). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Used in 10,000+ articles, substituting this wrapper has the following disadvantages (which I also gave at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_7#Infobox_settlement_wrappers):
- Loss of consistency between articles about similar topics (municipalities of Austria, settlements of Cape Verde, etc.), e.g. links to higher administrative divisions. Several wrappers link to higher administrative divisions and use specific detailed pushpin maps based on their official geographic code
- Loss of country-specific maintenance tools: several infobox wrappers place articles with (unintentional or vandalic) bad infobox content (like "state = disneyland") in a maintenance category
- Loss of the facility to update population data for hundreds of settlements in one edit, see also this discussion. Markussep Talk 22:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Markussep, Appreciate you restating the arguments against. The TFD you referenced above was a bit of a cluster because it involved SO MANY different templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, I would appreciate it if you would show the advantages of substituting these (widely used!) wrappers. I asked the same question here, and haven't seen an answer yet. You quoted above "
It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera
". Well, these wrappers do use {{Infobox settlement}}, and substituting them doesn't change anything on the "front end" of the articles that transclude them. Markussep Talk 08:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)- Markussep, that is a very good point. I'm going to be honest with you... I've been completely turned around on this and French Commune. Given the huge number of articles using these wrappers, I actually now think they should stay. I would withdraw the TFD but I think it will carry more weight if the full discussion plays out resulting in keep. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, I would appreciate it if you would show the advantages of substituting these (widely used!) wrappers. I asked the same question here, and haven't seen an answer yet. You quoted above "
- Markussep, Appreciate you restating the arguments against. The TFD you referenced above was a bit of a cluster because it involved SO MANY different templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. I can say, to add to the points stated by Markussep above, that based on the precedents of Infobox Town AT and similar recent nominations, deleting wrappers increases the maintenance burden, instead of reducing it.
- Austrian articles are now using outdated population figures, despite updated ones being available on Wikidata, and in order to do anything to change that there is now a need to go through a lengthy bot approval procedure.
- Even once the change is implemented, it will be harder to keep track of the way specific fields are populated, and how consistently they draw data from a correct and up do date source.
- Far from making anything easier, the change added a further bureaucratic layer to achieve what could previously be done in a single edit. I don't wish to see the same happen to Germany articles.
- Rather than standardizing infoboxes (which are already wrappers anyway), we should strive to standardize data, encouraging the use of Wikidata as a central repository for reliable statistics. I feel that deleting wrappers is achieving the opposite result.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I completely agree! Actually, I think {{Infobox Town AT}} and its subtemplates should be restored. Markussep Talk 08:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with the above comment. Moving to a generic wrapper is a waste of time. scope_creepTalk 19:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question: How does the proposer suggest dealing with the large amount of custom code and custom parameter work that specifically supports German-language parameters and German locations? I wouldn't want to see this code inserted into Infobox settlement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong keep per Jonesey. It's beyond time to stop merging all infoboxes into massive complex generic ones. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (original nominator) Well time to admit when I'm wrong. Markussep and Jonesey95 make excellent points. I think that we currently have far too many custom wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}} but I have been painting with too broad a brush. This template is a perfect example of when wrappers SHOULD be used. I would withdraw the nomination but I actually think it will carry more weight if to let this TFD play out to the inevitable keep. Happy to address any other questions/concerns about my change of heart! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for changing your mind! Do you also agree now that {{Infobox Town AT}} (see Tfd) was valuable too, and should be restored? Meanwhile, Underlying lk has been uploading 2018 population data for Austrian municipalities to Wikidata (with reference), see for instance Frauenkirchen. If they are ready with that, and there are no copyright issues provided the reference is given as well (@Septembermorgen:?), we could implement retrieving population data from wikidata for Austrian municipalities. Markussep Talk 09:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- The copyright issue should be discussed in Wikidata. Statistcs Austria does not publish under PD (CC0), so it might be (in my opinion it is) a problem to upload these data sets in Wikidata. --Septembermorgen (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Markussep, I am not above having my mind changed. :-) With regards to {{Infobox Town AT}} I standby my feelings there. There were a number of differences. One of the big deciding factors for me changing my mind here was your point about this being use on 10,000+ articles (13,367 transclusions at the moment). AT was MUCH smaller. Plus the fact that they have already been converted, etc... I wouldn't object to you opening a new discussion about it obviously, but my feelings on that one have not changed. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- AT was not that much smaller, with 2,400+ transclusions. If I had had more time I would have opposed stronger against some of the incorrect arguments that were given for deletion. The infobox didn't only exist to facilitate non-English parameters (it also created consistent maps and links to higher administrative divisions, fed articles with invalid content to a maintenance category, fetched population numbers from a subtemplate), it wasn't a mess, it was easy to use and well documented. Yes, they have been converted, which makes it more tedious to revert it. Markussep Talk 19:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox U.S. county
Proposing converting all of these to use {{Infobox settlement}}. Taken directly from the Infobox settlement documentation: It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera
(emphasis added by me). I don't see any reason why this shouldn't use the same template as everything else. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. There is nothing particularly special about the parameters of this template, that it could not be changed into a wrapper of IB settlement.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- After a few minutes of trying, I'm more convinced than ever that this template could be converted into an IB settlement wrapper without any loss of functionality (see Template:Infobox U.S. county/testcases).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Unlike the German infobox above, this one doesn't have any specific code. - Darwinek (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Do you have any idea how much US-specific, county-specific content is in here? For example, it pre-populates two separate maps, it automatically decides whether the largest city ought to be linked, and it has parameters specific to US time zones and congressional districts. Don't force 3000+ articles, and their regular editors, to use a generic template just because you don't see why it's convenient to include these features. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nyttend,
Do you have any idea how much US-specific, county-specific content is in here?
yes... Very little...Don't force 3000+ articles, and their regular editors, to use a generic template just because you don't see why it's convenient to include these features
As an administrator you really should be better able to WP:AGF. Assuming that Idon't see why it's convenient to include these features
is NOT assuming good faith at all. If you want to discuss the merits of the template, I'd love to engage in such a conversation. I've had my mind changed many times before and am happy to engage in discussion, but don't presume that I'm just doing something because I don't like wrapper templates or because I want to force people to use a more complex template. Really as an admin you should know better. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC) - I managed to implement both features (maps and automatic links) using IB settlement within a few minutes of trying. See Template:Infobox U.S. county/testcases.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Details are missing in your test case. 98.186.111.191 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nyttend, I would appreciate a response. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nyttend,
- Keep per Nyttend. Certain US-specific fields are useful, and we can't upmerge all the specific fields from every country into the generic template. However, making it inherit from {{Infobox settlement}} rather than {{Infobox}} would be a good idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Nyttend.Coal town guy (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Coal town guy & King of Hearts what US-Specific code is here that is so valuable? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Infobox U.S. county}} is really clean and slick. The trick to show the county-within-state and state-within-US maps is clever, and becomes a lot more verbose when we use {{Infobox settlement}}. When we use the latter, ZIP codes, area codes, and county seat require two lines, where one of the lines is entirely predictable for all US counties. Templates are meant to avoid duplicating effort; why do the same thing over and over again for each US county? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think a wrapper based on IB settlement would look much different (see Template:Infobox U.S. county/testcases).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Infobox U.S. county}} is really clean and slick. The trick to show the county-within-state and state-within-US maps is clever, and becomes a lot more verbose when we use {{Infobox settlement}}. When we use the latter, ZIP codes, area codes, and county seat require two lines, where one of the lines is entirely predictable for all US counties. Templates are meant to avoid duplicating effort; why do the same thing over and over again for each US county? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Coal town guy & King of Hearts what US-Specific code is here that is so valuable? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Replace with Infobox settlement - unlike the German/France discussions, which at least use settlement as a wrapper and have other specific needs, this infobox is no different than any other settlement infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Most of the world is moving to finer and finer granularity of data along with the software structures that represent that data and it is the only way that we can deeper meaning out the information. scope_creepTalk 00:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - There is no net benefit from this proposed merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Knowledgekid87, WP:INFOCOL pretty well spells out the reason for merging... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Basketball change player
Unused player table Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Rikster2 (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, and the name leaves no clue what it ever would be used for.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Tema
- Template:Tema ( · talk)
Single use raw link. No reason for a template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - provides a broken link to an article in Gazeta Tema. Nigej (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused. Article prose should not be put into a template. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. The template is incorrectly constructed, invoking itself somewhere in the process (a ""), so it can't really do anything. See this revision of WP:SAND, where I transcluded the template amid a little bit of text; it produces two sentences (1.9.0 was a major update for Bedrock Edition, released on February 5, 2019. It added some features from the Village and Pillage update that weren't added in 1.8.0.) and several technical errors. Regardless of whether article prose belongs in a template, this would have to be completely re-done in order to work. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:ICC Team of the Year
Not sure how useful this is to have a list of cricketers named in each ICC's team of the year in a navigation template. It's not a true squad template and isn't defining to the players listed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - how long do we want this to be? One per year has potential, but just one for all three seasons is daft. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per reasons mentioned above. Sa Ga Vaj 18:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete; why would someone specifically need to navigate among a year's top players? I'm not aware of this being ordinary in other sports, e.g. George Brett was a North American Major League Baseball All-Star in thirteen seasons, and he has a category for being an All-Star, but no All-Star navboxes. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Capitals in Pakistan
A navbox that only adds clutter to articles already cluttered with navboxes, without adding any value: the articles it navigates between are a subset of the ones in Template:Pakistani cities, which is structured in the same way (by provinces) and where the capitals are already clearly set off. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. With a country the size of Pakistan, I'm surprised we have a template for all of the largest cities (it's not a small country like Lithuania, where a single template can easily list all major cities), but as long as we have another template that's serving this purpose, we don't need this template. It would help if the other template set off the capitals clearly; they're just marked with miniature asterisks, which are easy to overlook, unlike, say, bold type. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Beyoncé album track list templates
- Template:B'Day (Beyoncé album) tracks ( · talk)
- Template:4 (Beyoncé album) tracks ( · talk)
- Template:Beyoncé (album) tracks ( · talk)
- Template:Lemonade (Beyoncé album) tracks ( · talk)
Redundant to {{Beyoncé songs}}, which provides navigation to all the songs on these albums in one template, even displaying them by album in track order. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. These four are not redundant to the "Beyoncé songs" template because they serve different purposes. One is a complete Navbox and the other four are list shortcuts which get inserted into song Infoboxes. BLAIXX 11:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- The purpose of each is to navigate to the other songs on the albums. No need for both and there is numerous precedent to delete the track list templates over the navigational boxes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Given that Navboxes are not viewable on mobile (which makes up over 50% of Wikipedia's traffic), I'd argue that these track listing templates still serve a purpose to many readers. BLAIXX 18:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- The purpose of each is to navigate to the other songs on the albums. No need for both and there is numerous precedent to delete the track list templates over the navigational boxes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Joe Biden series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Joe Biden. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Dinah Jane
- Template:Dinah Jane ( · talk)
This is a discussion about whether the Novabox Template:Dinah Jane should be reverted or deleted. Feel free to place your thoughts and votes. She currently has only two singles is that enough to hold a stand alone Template? Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I've taken the liberty of copypasting the nominator's comments at the corresponding AfD page, where the nominator originally (and erroneously) tried to place the nomination. As for me, having a template for a artist with two singles and no album seems questionable, but I'm insufficiently template-savvy to feel comfortable turning that into a formal !vote. --Finngall talk 15:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This template needs to be deleted ... She has only released two singles. As far as I am aware a strong novabox for it to be considered notable. Needs more than just two singles ... more so four singles plus, maybe an album, a supporting tour date, etc ... all these would qualify as notable for a novabox template. Ms. Jane I am afraid has not released the music that makes her box notable enough.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The items in the navbox already sufficiently link to and from one another without it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
March 13
Template:Al Smith series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Al Smith. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template, particularly in the Governor of New York section. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- The point of politician templates is so that you do not NEED to read through the article to access related content. It acts essentially like a page guide on the subject. By deleting all of these political templates you are proposing you are not improving user's experience/interface with these articles, you are lessening it. You decrease the topic's direct navigability to users who prefer not to embark on a scavanger hunt through the main article to find related pages.SecretName101 (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please combine deletions of politician templates you have proposed to delete to decrease redundency of seperate conversations.SecretName101 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that these should be consolidated. None of them are based on any Wikipedia policies, and for that reason they should be speedily closed. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bad idea, each template might have a different result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please combine deletions of politician templates you have proposed to delete to decrease redundency of seperate conversations.SecretName101 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- The point of politician templates is so that you do not NEED to read through the article to access related content. It acts essentially like a page guide on the subject. By deleting all of these political templates you are proposing you are not improving user's experience/interface with these articles, you are lessening it. You decrease the topic's direct navigability to users who prefer not to embark on a scavanger hunt through the main article to find related pages.SecretName101 (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: This template is really bad. It is used on only 4 out of the 26 articles it lists so it fails in its sole purpose of navigation. --Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Links to these articles aren't elsewhere conveniently collected like in this sidebar. Perhaps it could do with some pruning. --Bsherr (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. TheSubmarine (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- No deletion is an island. Deletions frequently set precedents. It is valid to use other templates as examples of how the principle/premise upon which this (or other template deletion proposals) are perhaps flawed, and the ramifications potential precedents would have on the existence of similar templates. SecretName101 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As per SecretName101 and TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. This series is especially helpful because it is the only template, category, list, etc. organizing Al Smith-related topics. Even if a separate Al Smith category or template existed, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:John Kasich series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via John Kasich. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template, particularly in the Governor of Ohio section. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x2) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate John Kasich category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Andrew Yang series
Unnecessary and unused template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Andrew Yang. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - only 4 of those links mention him - Andrew Yang, Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign, 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Venture for America. A bit short for a navigation template. Also, no reason to have this as a side bar. --Gonnym (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x3) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I am working on more information gathering on Andrew Yang's published works to create a new article. I will add this article to the template in the following days. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. As per TheSubmarine, political leader sidebars are helpful to navigation in general. However, this sidebar is short and many of its articles are loosely related to Yang. I would change my comment here to Keep if Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 and/or others add more to the template. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Jill Stein series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Jill Stein. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion - No policy basis. WP:NENAN is not a policy. (x2) It's an essay, and one I disagree with. It is of no benefit to the readers to delete, but it is of benefit to the readers to provide these templates. You mass-proposed deletion of templates with no policy basis. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment -- I see no reason why this template should be treated any differently than the others nominated. SashiRolls t · c 21:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This series is beneficial to navigation and is especially helpful because it does not appear that there is another template, list, category, etc. that organizes Stein-related articles. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Newt Gingrich series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Newt Gingrich. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC); edited 23:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete All these links are covered by {{Newt Gingrich}} anyway. No reason to insert another navigational box on the page. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann: as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Tvc 15, you are misreading WP:NOTDUPE. That is discussing the use of both Categories AND Navigation templates. Having both on a page is not duplication. However, having 2 navigation templates that cover the same material, is duplication. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann: as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - this has enough links to warrant a navbox, but it is a lesser duplicate of {{Newt Gingrich}}. --Gonnym (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Further, as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. On the contrary, this sidebar is better organized than the navbox, and usefully consolidates these major topics. --Bsherr (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x3) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x3) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Newt Gingrich category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Herman Cain series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Herman Cain. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x4) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x4) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Herman Cain category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Tulsi Gabbard series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Tulsi Gabbard. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. Winning ordinary elections is not enough. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x5) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Tulsi Gabbard category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Paul Ryan series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Paul Ryan. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Links to these articles aren't elsewhere conveniently collected like in this sidebar. --Bsherr (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Helpful template. --Informant16 (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x5) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x6) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Colonestarrice (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Paul Ryan category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Mitch McConnell series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Mitch McConnell. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep; I think it's potentially useful. Ethanbas (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x6) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x7) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Withdraw as this template is a bit more meaningful now. Will do the same for other navigational boxes that went through a major change after their TFD. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Colonestarrice (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. It is especially beneficial because there is no Category:Mitch McConnell and because the sidebar's content is strong. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. In this instance, I don't think the articles contained in the template can properly be described as a series about Mitch McConnell. Rather, they are merely topics related to him. So this doesn't perform the function of this type of navigational template. --Bsherr (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Gary Johnson series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Gary Johnson and {{Gary Johnson}}. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template, particularly in the Governor of New Mexico section. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - duplicate of {{Gary Johnson}}. --Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Further, as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. As for "NOTDUPE", actually read what it says. I wasn't against having a navigation template, just not a side bar. These navigation templates aren't different than any other bottom navbox and should be placed there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x7) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x8) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Gary Johnson category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Bill Weld series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Bill Weld. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x8) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x9) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. It is especially beneficial because there is no Category:Bill Weld. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Elizabeth Warren series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Elizabeth Warren. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x9) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x10) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Colonestarrice (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Elizabeth Warren category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Rand Paul series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Rand Paul and {{Rand Paul}}. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - duplicate of {{Rand Paul}}. --Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Further, as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. As for "NOTDUPE", actually read what it says. I wasn't against having a navigation template, just not a side bar. These navigation templates aren't different than any other bottom navbox and should be placed there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x10) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x11) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This one specifically. links to only 5 articles, plus one sub-section. All are easily and logically found on the original Rand Paul page, which also has {{Rand Paul}} Hydromania (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. As per TheSubmarine, this sidebar is beneficial to navigation. Although a separate Rand Paul category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE. I will change my comment to Keep if we can WP:IMPROVEIT. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Tim Kaine series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Tim Kaine. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x11) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x12) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. In general, sidebars like these are beneficial to navigation. And although a separate Tim Kaine category exists, this is still not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE. However, this sidebar reads more like a Table of Contents for the main article on Kaine. I do not support Delete here because there are enough articles on Kaine to improve this sidebar. I do not support Keep because the sidebar is currently very weak. Let's WP:IMPROVEIT. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Kirsten Gillibrand series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Kirsten Gillibrand. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep; I think it's potentially useful. Ethanbas (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x12) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x13) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Withdraw as this template is more meaningful now. Will do the same for other navigational boxes that went through a major change after their TFD. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as useful. Applies to all the major presidential candidates listed here; not sure why they're separate noms... ɱ (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. It is especially beneficial because there is no Category:Kirsten Gillibrand. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Kamala Harris series
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Kamala Harris. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x13) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrendonTheWizard: if you are going to spam over a dozen TFDs with the same copied and pasted comment you should at least understand what an essay is... At no point did anyone say that WP:NENAN WAS a policy. So every WP:!VOTE you cast is basically you just saying "keep because I say so"... You haven't actually addressed concerns at all... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: So it's not spam to flag over a dozen templates for deletion without any policy reason to do so? I was initially addressing these individually (see the Jill Stein nomination) by noting how it is of no benefit to the readers to delete these, but then I realized every last nomination is verbatim copied-and-pasted. Your criticism is very, very asymmetrical; perhaps I wouldn't have posted the same reply a dozen times if they didn't post the same nomination text a dozen times? There was no case made that it was either (a) necessary (b) beneficial to delete helpful navboxes; what "concerns" am I supposed to address when they've not raised any that would offer grounds for wholesale deletion, something that should - in all cases - be a last resort, something that should only be done when it's either mandatory per Wikipedia policy or demonstrably in the readers' best interests? I'm speaking from personal experience as a reader first and editor second when I say that I've found these navboxes very useful when looking for articles covering these public figures. Spare me the comments such as "you're basically just saying 'because I say so'" - that's simply made-up nonsense. Am I supposed to counter that it "clutters the page?" The burden is on the one making the claim that it is, which they've not substantiated. Is it an issue that their main BLP articles include links to the contents of their series templates? No. That's the entirety of each and every one of these nominations. That entire reply struck me as being very disingenuous. Lastly, I "don't understand what an essay is?" Aside from the obvious WP:NPA there, in what way does it demonstrate the ignorance of an editor to point out how essays don't hold the same weight as guidelines? There's an argument to be made that referring only to an unvetted opinion as grounds for deletion is equivalent to simply referring to one's own editing philosophy as grounds for deletion, which would be a more literal "because I say so" vote. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- BrendonTheWizard, just because you don't like something that was said, does NOT make it a personal attack bud. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Commentary on the contributor rather than the content is by definition a personal attack. Simple as that. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 09:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- BrendonTheWizard, just because you don't like something that was said, does NOT make it a personal attack bud. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: So it's not spam to flag over a dozen templates for deletion without any policy reason to do so? I was initially addressing these individually (see the Jill Stein nomination) by noting how it is of no benefit to the readers to delete these, but then I realized every last nomination is verbatim copied-and-pasted. Your criticism is very, very asymmetrical; perhaps I wouldn't have posted the same reply a dozen times if they didn't post the same nomination text a dozen times? There was no case made that it was either (a) necessary (b) beneficial to delete helpful navboxes; what "concerns" am I supposed to address when they've not raised any that would offer grounds for wholesale deletion, something that should - in all cases - be a last resort, something that should only be done when it's either mandatory per Wikipedia policy or demonstrably in the readers' best interests? I'm speaking from personal experience as a reader first and editor second when I say that I've found these navboxes very useful when looking for articles covering these public figures. Spare me the comments such as "you're basically just saying 'because I say so'" - that's simply made-up nonsense. Am I supposed to counter that it "clutters the page?" The burden is on the one making the claim that it is, which they've not substantiated. Is it an issue that their main BLP articles include links to the contents of their series templates? No. That's the entirety of each and every one of these nominations. That entire reply struck me as being very disingenuous. Lastly, I "don't understand what an essay is?" Aside from the obvious WP:NPA there, in what way does it demonstrate the ignorance of an editor to point out how essays don't hold the same weight as guidelines? There's an argument to be made that referring only to an unvetted opinion as grounds for deletion is equivalent to simply referring to one's own editing philosophy as grounds for deletion, which would be a more literal "because I say so" vote. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrendonTheWizard: if you are going to spam over a dozen TFDs with the same copied and pasted comment you should at least understand what an essay is... At no point did anyone say that WP:NENAN WAS a policy. So every WP:!VOTE you cast is basically you just saying "keep because I say so"... You haven't actually addressed concerns at all... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x14) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and for the reasons stated by Gonnym --Capriaf
- Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Kamala Harris category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I think it makes navigation easier. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It makes navigation easier. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 12:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2015–16 Welsh Premier League table
Unused sports template. Table has been moved to the main page 2015–16 Welsh Premier League, per this thread at WT:FOOTY. ' Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2015–16 Czech First League table
Unused sports template. Table has been moved to the main page 2015–16 Czech First League, per this thread at WT:FOOTY. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2015–16 North-East V AFG table
- Template:2015–16 North-East V AFG table ( · talk)
- Template:2015–16 North-West V AFG table ( · talk)
- Template:2015–16 South-East V AFG table ( · talk)
- Template:2015–16 South-West V AFG table ( · talk)
Unused sports template. Tables have all been moved to the main pages 2015–16 V AFG, per this thread at WT:FOOTY. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Now substituted in 2015–16 V AFG. Nigej (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2017 Division III independents football standings
Unused sports standing template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
See also this thread at WT:FOOTY.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)- Zackmann08, this one isn't an association football template. Frietjes (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Frietjes: Whoops! Thanks. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, this one isn't an association football template. Frietjes (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused 2017–18 Championnat National 3 tables
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Table ( · talk)
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Bourgogne-Franche-Comté Table ( · talk)
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Brittany Table ( · talk)
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Centre-Val de Loire Table ( · talk)
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Grand Est Table ( · talk)
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Hauts-de-France Table ( · talk)
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Normandy Table ( · talk)
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Nouvelle Aquitaine Table ( · talk)
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Occitanie Table ( · talk)
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Pays de la Loire Table ( · talk)
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur-Corsica Table ( · talk)
- Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Île-de-France Table ( · talk)
Unused tables. These tables are ALL already present on the parent page (2017–18 Championnat National 3). They are just called directly without using one-off templates. no need for these. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- See also this thread at WT:FOOTY--Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. GiantSnowman 11:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete all per nom Hhkohh (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2017–18 Welsh Premier League table
Unused table. Data is already on 2017–18 Welsh Premier League. No reason an unused template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- See also this thread at WT:FOOTY. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, Frietjes (in this discussion) and FOOTY discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2017–18 Czech First League table
Unused table. Data is already on 2017–18 Czech First League. No need for another template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- See also this thread at WT:FOOTY. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, Frietjes (in this discussion) and FOOTY discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2017–18 Eredivisie results
Unused table. Data is already on the parent article 2017–18 Eredivisie. No need for another template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Total nonsense. The data is not on the 2017–18 Eredivisie page. There is a reference to template on that page which causes the data to be displayed on this page. The whole concept of this structure is exactly meant to avoid presence of double data. Someone not understanding modules and templates is one thing. An administrator not understanding this concept and proposing templates for deletion is sad. --Sb008 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Sb008: so many things wrong with what you just said... First of all, if you ACTUALLY look at 2017–18_Eredivisie#Results you will see that it DOES NOT call {{2017–18 Eredivisie results}}. (Per haps you are confusing 2018–19 Eredivisie??). The 2017-18 page directly invokes Module:Sports results. Before you respond go and actually look at the code... I assure you that you are mistaken. As for not understanding modules and templates... I've got a pretty darn good grasp on them, you are simply mistaken. Finally, I'm not an administrator. Not sure where you got that from, but I am most certainly NOT an admin, that is pretty clearly stated on my userpage. If you are going to throw around accusations and no WP:AGF at the very least check your facts bud. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Sb008: by making this edit you are first acknowledging that you were completely wrong with your multiple accusations. Second, you are gaming a TFD which is a violation of policy. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Sb008: so many things wrong with what you just said... First of all, if you ACTUALLY look at 2017–18_Eredivisie#Results you will see that it DOES NOT call {{2017–18 Eredivisie results}}. (Per haps you are confusing 2018–19 Eredivisie??). The 2017-18 page directly invokes Module:Sports results. Before you respond go and actually look at the code... I assure you that you are mistaken. As for not understanding modules and templates... I've got a pretty darn good grasp on them, you are simply mistaken. Finally, I'm not an administrator. Not sure where you got that from, but I am most certainly NOT an admin, that is pretty clearly stated on my userpage. If you are going to throw around accusations and no WP:AGF at the very least check your facts bud. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete per this thread at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Frietjes, would it be fair to say that the thread you linked to applies to a number of the other TFDs above? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, probably so. from my reading of that thread, there is general consensus to merge all of the league tables and league results with the articles, and even stronger consensus when the tables are used in 2 or fewer articles. unless someone starts a new threat at WT:FOOTY and finds a new consensus, this is the most recent discussion on the issue. when merging, my preference is to include editor attribution in the edit summary as I have done with all that I have merged. Frietjes (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Frietjes, Stellar! Thank you much! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, probably so. from my reading of that thread, there is general consensus to merge all of the league tables and league results with the articles, and even stronger consensus when the tables are used in 2 or fewer articles. unless someone starts a new threat at WT:FOOTY and finds a new consensus, this is the most recent discussion on the issue. when merging, my preference is to include editor attribution in the edit summary as I have done with all that I have merged. Frietjes (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Frietjes, would it be fair to say that the thread you linked to applies to a number of the other TFDs above? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08 and Frietjes: Okay, seems I jumped to some conclusions to quick and was wrong. So at this spot my apologies as well. But I like to mention 2 things in my defense. First, it would have helped if there had been a reference to the footy thread in the comment field of the change on the 2017–18 Eredivisie page. Second, the footy thread mentions, as a major reason for the change, vandalism going unnoticed. I can add whatever page to my watch list but never get a notification if the page changes, unless I'm the one who created the page. The 2017–18 Eredivisie page is on my watch list. If I would have gotten notifications at time of the change, it would have helped. --Sb008 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:MSA Formula circuits
Unused navbox. Claims to be "Current" but hasn't been updated since 2015. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:WWIIUSAircraft
Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I created this as an aviation analog to the various WW2 military equipment template such as those for ships, infantry weapons, fighting vehicles, etc. It's probably fairly complete, and I'd like to create/use more of the same for the other nations involved, but the problem is that most aircraft articles seem to already suffer from template-spam, with some having six or more navboxes.
- I personally think it and similar templates could be a useful addition, but I've been hesitant to add yet another navbox to these pages without having some discussion first. If there are no objections to doing so, however, I'll be happy to add this navbox to the appropriate pages and begin creating similar ones for other nations. Russ3Z (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete unlikely that it adds any value and would not be used in aircraft articles so it should be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Plotter
- Template:Plotter ( · talk)
Unused template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete non-functional attempt at making a template front-end for Module:Plotter. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:PirateFrown
- Template:PirateFrown ( · talk)
Unused custom user message from a specific user. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Pirs
- Template:Pirs ( · talk)
Unused custom image. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:PersonalAttacksAtScale
Unused custom user message. Userfy if needed. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Parsed time
- Template:Parsed time ( · talk)
Pretty sure this is a remnant of the old days before modules. It is unused and I don't see any reason it would be used again. Hasn't been touched since 2008. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Webcomic deletion
Unused template and no reason for plaintext template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Cantitruncated hypercube polytopes
Unused table. Data already displayed in much better format on parent page (Petrie polygon) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why it wasn't used, but I (re)linked it. It is useful as a small navigator template between related polytopes. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Celtic-language media
Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Celestial masses
unused custom link formatting Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: we already have {{solar mass}}, {{jupiter mass}}, {{earth mass}}, and {{lunar mass}} templates, which are the most common types. Praemonitus (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Cape Town City Council seats allocation, 2011
Unused election table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused invalid navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Caltrain Stops
Unused table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This template was removed from the Caltrain article in 2013 when content was split to List of Caltrain stations. That article contains an inline table that conveys similar (but not identical) information. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant to the article content and out of date. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Calgary C-Train map
Unused custom map template. If needed, should be placed directly on article page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, unused and does not seem useful. BLAIXX 19:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2015 University Athletic Association football standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the conference was defunct by then.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2015–16 GNAC men's basketball standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete AFAICS, nobody has created any "Great Northwest Athletic Conference men's basketball season" articles yet.—Bagumba (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2016–17 Atlantic University Sport men's basketball standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2016-17 Canada West men's basketball standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2016-17 Ontario University Athletics men's basketball standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2016-17 RSEQ men's basketball standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment, the above 4 (Atlantic, Canada West, Ontario, RSEQ) can probably be combined into a single discussion if it's not too late. All four templates would be useful in the 2017 U Sports Men's Basketball Championship article. BLAIXX 19:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Blaixx: last time I combined them, people were less than please... that's why they are separate this time around. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: The previous TfD was for 40+ templates across various leagues and years. The four I indicated above are all from Canadian men's university basketball in the 2016–17 season. BLAIXX 19:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Blaixx: last time I combined them, people were less than please... that's why they are separate this time around. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2015 NCAA Division I & II men's volleyball Independent standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2015 Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association volleyball standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2015 Conference Carolinas men's volleyball standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2014–15 NBA Southeast standings (preseason)
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This table covers the entire eastern conference, not the Southeast division like it should. Same with the other table that was nominated. Swordman97 talk to me 00:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Tracking exhibition games to this level is WP:FANCRUFT and WP:UNDUE content.—Bagumba (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2014–15 NBA Atlantic standings (preseason)
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Tracking exhibition games to this level is WP:FANCRUFT and WP:UNDUE content.—Bagumba (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2014 Independents women's soccer standings
Unused sports table. Main tournament is redlinked. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2014 Big South men's soccer standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2014 America East men's soccer standings
Unused sports table. Main tournament article doesn't exist. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2013–14 AHL Midwest Division standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. The other 5 templates in the set have already been deleted (former discussion). BLAIXX 19:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2012 NCAA Division I baseball independents standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Now used. Billcasey905 (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Billcasey905, ok it is used on ONE page, why does it need to be a template? Subst it directly onto the page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2011 Northeast Conference men's soccer standings
unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2011 Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference baseball standings
Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Now used. Billcasey905 (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Billcasey905, ok it is used on ONE page, why does it need to be a template? Subst it directly onto the page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2011 Horizon League baseball standings
Unused sports table. Tournament has no article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Now used. Billcasey905 (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Billcasey905, ok it is used on ONE page, why does it need to be a template? Subst it directly onto the page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:2011 AEC men's soccer standings condensed
Unused sports table with redlinked main article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Module:Wikipedia Requests
Given that no Template:Wikipedia Requests subtemplates exist that could be reached by passing more than one parameter (and furthermore, doing so is unreliable because named parameters have an undefined order), this is an unnecessary lua module that could be implemented in Wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep until better understand what this is for. It appears to be part of an external tool Wikipedia Requests which was funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. -- GreenC 14:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Just because it can be re-implemented in Wikitext doesn't mean that it should. Future-proofing is a good thing. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Pittsburgh Penguins Owners
WP:NHL does not create templates for owners, head coaches, championships, etc. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox NRHP
Propose merging Template:Infobox NRHP with Template:Infobox historic site.
These two templates both deal with historic places (per this template's lead). Most of the parameters are already present in {{Infobox historic site}} and the few specific parameters can use the custom parameters available. At the very least {{Infobox NRHP}} should be made into a wrapper, so visually infoboxes on articles about similar subjects will look the same (A US NRHP historic site vs a US non-NRHP site), editors will have an easier time editing as the parameter functions and names will be the same, and maintenance will require less work. As an example of a current maintenance issue - pages using NRHP are placed in Category:Wikipedia page with obscure subdivision, while pages using the other template are not. Fixing or updating the same issue in two different places is a waste of time and resources. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per nom (if that fails to find consensus, then make a wrapper). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge, so long as it addresses the aforementioned issues in a smart way that does not detract from the current format. Pursued as a more general wrapper this would also make it easier to work with state and city designations such as New York City Landmarks, as well as other designations like a "Cultural Resource" by the Massachusetts Historic Commission, both of which have overlap with NHRP but are not automatically under the NHRP banner.--Simtropolitan (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- This template is used in over 65,000 places. Is it really appropriate to use editor time to make this change, particularly since apparently "custom parameters" will have to be used in some (many?) cases? Also, as one who has written or edited hundreds of NRHP articles, I dispute "editors will have an easier time editing" -- I have very rarely, perhaps never, used the other template. . Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Among other things, the template conveys the fact that it's listed on this heritage register, versus others (particularly state and local), which has a significant effect on real-world and on-wiki notability; it's important to convey to bots that this is the case, and reducing it to an implementation of the other will reduce that effect. As these sites are distinctly not the same as other historic sites, causing these infoboxes to have a similar appearance is harmful. Moreover, some of the other template's parameters make no sense with this one. Consider |type= for example — with NRHP sites, the only types are building, site, structure, object, and district, yet we're encouraged to use |type= for "burial mound" or "church" in the historic site infobox's documentation. We've previously rejected |governing body= because it has a technical meaning that's thoroughly useless for Wikipedia articles about NRHP sites (the only options are Federal, State, Local, and Private), so anything else is wrong, and supporting the parameter is outright problematic because it encourages people to supply information that's either wrong or irrelevant. Finally, bear in mind that this is extensively used, and you need to prove that it's going to make things easier before making an entirely unsupported claim: those of us who use it are not likely to find it easy to transition to using a different template, especially if we're going to have to add parameters of some sort to ensure that it continue to be distinct from other infoboxes. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose., per Nyttend, and if I recall, articles on historic sites in other countries still have their own infoboxes. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose., templates aren't my area but I do use "historic site" extensively, for buildings throughout the UK. To me, it's the best for including historic listing (records) information. The NHRP site appears to be wholly-country specific, i.e. the USA, and thus none/few of the parameters that it would require would be useful for the British buildings I cover. KJP1 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. I am not persuaded by the proposal to merge and I see no reason to make it a wrapper. Properties in the US that have more than one historical designation (NRHP, state, local) can easily use the NRHP infobox and include the other designations. Those who have a state and/or local designation only can use the general infobox, which visually shows the differences. There is also a certain distinction that goes with being listed on the national register and I think the NRHP infobox makes the designation stand out. It is also a US-specific register so the infobox doesn't need to reflect those of other counties. Finally, there is a dedicated group of editors who work on the various NRHP pages on Wikipedia and maintain the infobox to the detriment of no other country or groups that make historic designations. Farragutful (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose These templates are widely used (the transclusion count tool seems to be missing atm) and there would need to be a detailed proposal that included typical before-and-after usage rather than a vague suggestion to use custom parameters for anything missing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:BROKE Einbierbitte (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I've been successfully combining "Infobox NRHP" with "Infobox military structure" (as at Fort Delaware) and this should be possible with other templates. The auto-link to the NRHP database is very useful for those sites that are in it. Agree with WP:BROKE RobDuch (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I believe there are over 70k transclusions of this template which is very specific to US historic listings with many variations to handle individual listings, districts, contributing properties, boundary expansions, etc. It is already relatively complicated and I see no benefit to the suggested merge. MB 23:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As some of the other project editors have mentioned, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places has done a lot of work to make Infobox NRHP more useful: getting the parameters just right, support for embedding and various edge cases, adding automatic links to listing pages, creating automatic infobox generators, etc. The supporters seem to have barely acknowledged this, much less come up with a plan for how Infobox historic site could be tweaked to meet those needs. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 15:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I frequently use Infobox NRHP and have found its specifics incredibly useful over Infobox historic site. ɱ (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:HCC World Cup group tables
- 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 G3 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template creator has been using user page / user talk page to concoct a WP:MADEUP cricket tournament and has now started creating articles / templates such as this in main space. Spike 'em (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete see also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Asia Qualifier for his mainspace (moved to draft) and userspace adventures Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have speedy deleted per WP:G3 as this is clearly part of a hoax. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2019 (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:Ron Wyden series
Not a useful template. Also not used in any article. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: I should mention that the only article that used this template was Ron Wyden. This template contains two things: his political positions, which already appears in the same article, and his Senate elections. There's nothing special about any of his elections. We have no idea what he has accomplished as a Senator, let alone as a Representative. Unless there are true highlights we can include in this template, this template will remain useless. Other series templates like Template:Bernie Sanders and Template:Rick Perry have way more important information than just their elections or political positions, so that WP:OTHER argument is not a good reason to keep this template. We do not have to create a sidebar for every single politician. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: I love how you refuse to elaborate on how the template isn't useful and claim it's not being used in any article after removing it from the article it was being used in. It is very common among templates of political figures to contain their elections as well as for there to be a link to their political positions, whether it is a seperate article or part of the main article for the political figure, but Wikipedia isn't known for common sense in every edit. 05:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: LOL. If you bother to look at the template now, you can see a multitude of legislation with separate pages that he's sponsored. Wyden is not the average senator, and no one said anything about creating "a sidebar for every single politician". You now have a multitude of ideas of what he's accomplished as a senator, but continue to go on a crusade against this template. Informant16 (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete Pretty straight forward... The template is not used. No reason for it. WP:NENAN--Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Now it's back on the page. Let's all watch as you retain the same position even if it's no longer true. Informant16 (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Informant16, well apart from the fact that you are blatantly violating WP:AGF you are also trying to game the TFD by changing the templates status in the middle of the discussion. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, have something you made to better navigate the site be called "useless" and see how well you take it. Better yet, have something you did months ago without any controversy at all suddenly rebuked repeatedly via nominating numerous ones you made for deletion. I am gaming the TFD discussion by addressing the concerns of the person who nominated it? I have to wait until the template is deleted before it can be improved to suit his critiques? I find it ironic that you accuse me of trying to "game" a discussion by addressing the concerns of the persons in opposition while calling me the one not assuming good faith. If I try to improve the template during discussion, I'm the bad guy. If I tell you how perfectly fine it is and that it should be left alone, I'm the bad guy. No winning on here. Informant16 (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Informant16, sorry you don't like the way things work around here, but thems the rules my friend. Making statements like
Let's all watch as you retain the same position even if it's no longer true
is a clear violation of WP:AGF. As for having stuff I created deleted, it happens ALL THE TIME!!! If you are going to take it personally, then you aren't going to last here. Discuss the merits of the template, not the motivation of those nominating it. Engaging in personal attacks and questioning the motives of those who disagree with you is absurd. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)- Zackmann08, we've established you believe I engaged in personal attacks, but this wasn't?
you are also trying to game the TFD by changing the templates status in the middle of the discussion.
That wasn't a personal attack? Me changing the template to accommodate the wants of the person who nominated it for deletion and having my motives probed was not in good faith. This was a personal attack and questioned my motive. Informant16 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)- Informant16, That was actually stating a fact. If you want to take it personally that is your call bud. Take care! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- It was fact that I changed the template around after it was nominated. It was opinion that I tried to "game" the discussion. Informant16 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Informant16, That was actually stating a fact. If you want to take it personally that is your call bud. Take care! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, we've established you believe I engaged in personal attacks, but this wasn't?
- Informant16, sorry you don't like the way things work around here, but thems the rules my friend. Making statements like
- Zackmann08, have something you made to better navigate the site be called "useless" and see how well you take it. Better yet, have something you did months ago without any controversy at all suddenly rebuked repeatedly via nominating numerous ones you made for deletion. I am gaming the TFD discussion by addressing the concerns of the person who nominated it? I have to wait until the template is deleted before it can be improved to suit his critiques? I find it ironic that you accuse me of trying to "game" a discussion by addressing the concerns of the persons in opposition while calling me the one not assuming good faith. If I try to improve the template during discussion, I'm the bad guy. If I tell you how perfectly fine it is and that it should be left alone, I'm the bad guy. No winning on here. Informant16 (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Informant16, well apart from the fact that you are blatantly violating WP:AGF you are also trying to game the TFD by changing the templates status in the middle of the discussion. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Now it's back on the page. Let's all watch as you retain the same position even if it's no longer true. Informant16 (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm personally not a big fan of these series templates and prefer {{Navbox}} templates. That being said, there is a long standing process of creating sidebar templates about politicians. If this is to be deleted, I think a broader discussion is needed. For this particular template, it is now used on multiple pages so I think it is worth keeping. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep; I think it's potentially useful. I don't think these templates clutter up the page that much (if at all). Ethanbas (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep it doesn't make sense to claim the template is useless when it has over a dozen pieces of legislation that he cosponsored or was responsible for. Crazyzaku(talk) 0922 March 14, 2019 (UTC)
- Keep As I've commented elsewhere, there are no policy reasons behind these deletion nominations. Our purpose is to benefit the readers, and a template which may be helpful whilst not going against any policies ought not to be deleted. As was noted in the first reply, you can't remove the template from the articles in and proceed to argue "it's not used in any articles." It's hard to defend that as good-faith behavior; I've seen people remove all the citations from articles and then proceed to flag an article as lacking sources and propose deletion, and that's not an acceptable practice. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Withdraw as this template is more meaningful now. Will do the same for other navigational boxes that went through a major change after their TFD. Also, the two templates I mentioned on top were supposed to be Template:Bernie Sanders series and Template:Rick Perry series. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Unlike some other sidebar series navigation templates, the contents of this one aren't a series of articles about the subject. Rather, they're a set of related topics. So the template is misleading. But also, it would be misplaced if included in these articles. --Bsherr (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is misleading to include the legislation of a senator in their template? Even the deletion nominator admitted this format was what exempted the Template:Bernie Sanders from meeting the same fate. His legislation is what defines his positions as a senator and thereby fundamental to one's understanding of what he's accomplished while in office. Informant16 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Old discussions
March 12
Template:Slovak parliamentary election, 2012
Unused election template. Information has already been placed directly on 2012 Slovak parliamentary election. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Make it a redirect, in order to preserve the revision history. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Checco: redirect it to what? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously to 2012 Slovak parliamentary election. --Checco (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Checco, you don't redirect a template to an article... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously to 2012 Slovak parliamentary election. --Checco (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Checco: redirect it to what? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete (or redirect if that is the consensus) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
March 11
Template:Metadata South Africa
- Template:Metadata South Africa ( · talk)
- Subtemplates:
With {{Infobox South African municipality}} being deleted in favor of {{Infobox settlement}} per this tfd I propose that we remove the use of this Metadata template. As has previously been discussed at numerous TFDs, templates are not the proper way to store this bulk data. It should be stored directly on page as part of the template call or in Wikidata. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cymru.lass, Darwinek, Tom (LT), Pigsonthewing, and Gonnym: pinging those who commented on the infobox tfd. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Darwinek (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and previous discussion on similar templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I have moved metadata for Belgian, Austrian and Swiss municipalities, and for Turkish provinces, to Wikidata. I'm in the process of doing the same for German munis. But this sort of work takes time, and it would be nice if someone else felt like helping out instead of leaving a delete vote here and then disappearing. In any case, please *do not* delete the templates until the figures have been properly uploaded to Wikidata.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Underlying lk: we all help out in different ways. Passive agressive comments like
t would be nice if someone else felt like helping out instead of leaving a delete vote here and then disappearing
don't help anything. If the template is to be deleted, then it will be moved to the holding cell while the necessary work takes place. Don't make out like you are the only one putting in the work here. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)- I wasn't the first to point out that Austrian metadata templates were deleted prematurely, and because of that lack of oversight, now we are using outdated and hardcoded statistics. When I asked you how to handle the situation, your reply was 'use AWB' and you left it at that. If you want to delete this template, you need to have a plan on how to replace it with Wikidata figures that doesn't involve simply expecting that other editors will find a way to do it in your stead.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Underlying lk: we all help out in different ways. Passive agressive comments like
- Comment 2: where would we store South Africa's race statistics? For languages we have language used (P2936), but ethnic group (P172) is limited to people, families or fictional characters; using it on entities about places results in a constraint violation. Furthermore: how to retrieve the top 4 most used languages, and sort them appropriately within the templates? In all the cases I dealt so far (population, area and such), {{wikidata}} had to retrieve one value; so no selection or sorting was necessary.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Underlying lk: you would store them on the article page when calling the template, just like every other template on Wikipedia... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the plan is to move everything to Wikidata that's all well and good, but it has to be achievable. If we're just going back to hardcoded statistics within infoboxes, that's hardly an improvement. I'm going to have to oppose.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Holding cell then delete per nom. As per Underlying lk, wait until the data has been moved. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- That works for area/populations, but I don't think the race metadata can be moved to WD (there's no property for it, probably an intentional choice). Languages could be moved, but I wouldn't know how to retrieve them (see above).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @Underlying lk and Tom (LT): for the record, ANY template that goes through TFD is placed in the holding cell if the decision is to delete. NOTHING is EVER just flat out deleted until every use of the template has been resolved... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- That works for area/populations, but I don't think the race metadata can be moved to WD (there's no property for it, probably an intentional choice). Languages could be moved, but I wouldn't know how to retrieve them (see above).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
March 9
Template:PeriodicTable-ImageMap
- Template:PeriodicTable-ImageMap ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (actinides in the periodic table) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (d-block) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (eka-superactinides location) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (electron configuration lanthanides) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (f-block) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (metalloid)/Periodic table ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (metals and nonmetals)/into image ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (p-block) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (p-block trend) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (period 5) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (period 6) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (period 7) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (post-transition metals) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (s-block) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (standard atomic weight) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (superactinides) ( · talk)
- Template:Periodic table (superactinides location) ( · talk)
Unused periodic table templates that are redundant to {{Periodic table}} among others. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, your TFD nomination broke almost all of these templates. It is your responsibility as nominator to ensure that the TFD template does not interfere with the template's function. (Probably nominations like this should be speedily closed). As to the templates themselves, they are all linked from Template:Periodic table templates and most of them are not redundant to Template:Periodic table. Many of them are useful and interesting diagrams in their own right, or potential other ways to represent parts of (or the entire) periodic table. Keep all, no convincing argument for deletion has been presented. —Kusma (t·c) 21:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Kusma. Have a use.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete all- I was waiting for members of the actual project to see if these were deprecated or not, as we've recently deleted a lot of old, unused, and deprecated templates, one of which was a periodic table. But seeing that Kusma has given a baseless argument which has gained a "per Kusma" vote, I'm forced to comment early. Template:Periodic table templates is a navigation maintenance template that is supposed to navigate between templates that can be used, and is not linked to from any article - see the documentation which readsThis overview is intended for Template space (documentation & overview) only. It should not show in articles
. A template that is not used, is not useful to anyone. If the template does not have an article it can be shown on, it usually means that the template is not needed or unwanted or replaced by a different template. --Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)- Updating vote: Delete all except {{Periodic table (metals and nonmetals)/into image}}. DePiep has not addressed my concerns over the others he listed to keep nor do the other voters who commented as "Keep all" and "Per DePiep", as they have not even noticed he did not list all the templates in his keep vote, which shows that even the lack of actual research on their part. The templates that they argue can be used, have still not be used on those pages, and for good reasons, as those pages of either have a different template or a table doing the same thing. Just saying something can be used, but not showing how or where it can, does not make it usable or a reason to keep. --Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nor WT:ELEMENTS not the creator(s) were notified. Another careless sloppy drive-by nomination. The Kusma note about broken templates is over 14 hrs old and no response from the nom (someone else had to clean it up). I can predict that the nom does not return to digest arguments or engage in the discussion, as happened with previous TfDs you mention (like this one). -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Gonnym:
A template that is not used, is not useful to anyone. If the template does not have an article it can be shown on, it usually means that the template is not needed or unwanted or replaced by a different template.
This unfortunately seems to be a common misconception. I do not understand how you can claim that the templates are not "used" or not "useful" just because they have no transclusions. I have used some of these very templates in the past (as a reader), looking through Template:Periodic table templates and learning things by looking at different ways of presenting the data. Diagrams like these are useful and interesting in their own right, and unlike navboxes, should not be deleted just because no article is currently using them. We do not delete all currently unused images in c:Category:Periodic table and its subcats either. Instead, we categorize them nicely to make them easy to use in the future (and the template navbox does that for the templates). What exactly is the advantage of deleting any of these? —Kusma (t·c) 14:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)- Something you disagree with is not a misconception. On the contrary, look at most of the TfD results and you'll see that it is actually much more the norm. But since you asked for me to explain why, I'm happy to. First lets look at this from a technical perspective. A template that is not transcluded (or even as a wrongly used as hidden link in an article) is WP:ORPHAN, meaning that users unfamiliar with its exact name don't know how to find it. But lets say it was even used as a link inside a nav template that is used on articles (which this specific TfD template aren't), then even then it would not be available to most of en.wiki's readers as navboxes are not shown on mobile. Other than the technical issues, we have the core issue itself - why is the template orphaned? That can be one of several causes - a template that was not added to an article, but an article exists that it should be added to; a template that was added but later removed by mistake or vandalism; a template that was added but later removed as it was replaced by something else; a template that was not added to an article, as no article exists for the subject. For the first 2, the template should be added, however, for the other two, there is no reason at all to keep the template. If any user still wants that template, nothing is stopping them from userfying it to their own userspace. In the nomination above, per DePiep, some can be deleted (were probably replaced by other templates, which is also T3). For others, I'm waiting for his response as some at least seem to be either replaced by tables, or need to replace tables; and others seem to have been replaced by a merged template. Once he replies, I'll be able to adjust my !vote. --Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym, "no transclusions" is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The interaction of templates and mobile view should be improved by fixing mobile view, not by deleting templates (although I personally wouldn't be sad if all navboxes were deleted, but that is a different question). You have not addressed my main point about diagrams that are just like images, only in template space. They can be used without being transcluded, and linking to them from an article is not wrong, only uncommon. Their wikilinks and formatting can make them more useful than images. —Kusma (t·c) 16:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if something is written in an essay, then I guess it knows better. I really don't care what a group of editors wrote in an essay, as it holds no weight in any discussion. And again, it is also incorrect, as seen in dozens of TfD results just this month alone. Regarding your "lets fix mobile first" - that is a non-argument. We can't do it here, and I'm doubtful anything will be done in the near future. Also, templates are not images. If you want this to be an SVG, then covert it to an SVG and then it will be under a different page - Wikipedia:Files for discussion, which at the top of the page has the two first options listed as "Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version." and "Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.", which coincidentally, is what I'm arguing that these templates are, regardless of your attempts to change the meaning of the world "used". --Gonnym (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym, converting the diagrams to SVG would make them worse for our purposes, so I am arguing we should not do that. But yeah, as orphaned SVGs we could keep them forever per c:COM:EDUSE. You are correct that referring to mobile view is neither an argument for nor an argument against deleting untranscluded templates. As to "use", Debbie Does Dallas uses File:Debbie Does Dallas.ogv, although it doesn't include it. The same can happen to pages in the template namespace. —Kusma (t·c) 19:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Genuine question, do you read the links you post? Do you realize that c:COM:EDUSE is a commons policy for files located on commons and not for files located on en.wiki? You do understand that these are two different things right? Also, while you for some reason are intent to keep on raising the image issues (which, as you know, is not even closely related to the current discussion you are de-railing), just notice that the file you linked to is actually is in use in two other wikis.
- Of course I read the links I post, and I am aware that I linked to the Commons, in an apparently unsuccessful attempt to illustrate my point :) But if you don't understand me, that is fine, I can give up. I don't understand the benefit of deleting templates that are potentially useful but not currently transcluded, and nobody has tried to make me understand that so far. —Kusma (t·c) 16:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Genuine question, do you read the links you post? Do you realize that c:COM:EDUSE is a commons policy for files located on commons and not for files located on en.wiki? You do understand that these are two different things right? Also, while you for some reason are intent to keep on raising the image issues (which, as you know, is not even closely related to the current discussion you are de-railing), just notice that the file you linked to is actually is in use in two other wikis.
- Gonnym, converting the diagrams to SVG would make them worse for our purposes, so I am arguing we should not do that. But yeah, as orphaned SVGs we could keep them forever per c:COM:EDUSE. You are correct that referring to mobile view is neither an argument for nor an argument against deleting untranscluded templates. As to "use", Debbie Does Dallas uses File:Debbie Does Dallas.ogv, although it doesn't include it. The same can happen to pages in the template namespace. —Kusma (t·c) 19:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if something is written in an essay, then I guess it knows better. I really don't care what a group of editors wrote in an essay, as it holds no weight in any discussion. And again, it is also incorrect, as seen in dozens of TfD results just this month alone. Regarding your "lets fix mobile first" - that is a non-argument. We can't do it here, and I'm doubtful anything will be done in the near future. Also, templates are not images. If you want this to be an SVG, then covert it to an SVG and then it will be under a different page - Wikipedia:Files for discussion, which at the top of the page has the two first options listed as "Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version." and "Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.", which coincidentally, is what I'm arguing that these templates are, regardless of your attempts to change the meaning of the world "used". --Gonnym (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym, "no transclusions" is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The interaction of templates and mobile view should be improved by fixing mobile view, not by deleting templates (although I personally wouldn't be sad if all navboxes were deleted, but that is a different question). You have not addressed my main point about diagrams that are just like images, only in template space. They can be used without being transcluded, and linking to them from an article is not wrong, only uncommon. Their wikilinks and formatting can make them more useful than images. —Kusma (t·c) 16:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Something you disagree with is not a misconception. On the contrary, look at most of the TfD results and you'll see that it is actually much more the norm. But since you asked for me to explain why, I'm happy to. First lets look at this from a technical perspective. A template that is not transcluded (or even as a wrongly used as hidden link in an article) is WP:ORPHAN, meaning that users unfamiliar with its exact name don't know how to find it. But lets say it was even used as a link inside a nav template that is used on articles (which this specific TfD template aren't), then even then it would not be available to most of en.wiki's readers as navboxes are not shown on mobile. Other than the technical issues, we have the core issue itself - why is the template orphaned? That can be one of several causes - a template that was not added to an article, but an article exists that it should be added to; a template that was added but later removed by mistake or vandalism; a template that was added but later removed as it was replaced by something else; a template that was not added to an article, as no article exists for the subject. For the first 2, the template should be added, however, for the other two, there is no reason at all to keep the template. If any user still wants that template, nothing is stopping them from userfying it to their own userspace. In the nomination above, per DePiep, some can be deleted (were probably replaced by other templates, which is also T3). For others, I'm waiting for his response as some at least seem to be either replaced by tables, or need to replace tables; and others seem to have been replaced by a merged template. Once he replies, I'll be able to adjust my !vote. --Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- re Gonnym
DePiep has not addressed my concerns
. As I have noted, this TfD was broken by the nom before it even opened. I pointed out flaws and asked for a correction, but the nom evaded engagement (while they found time to deflect & divert while sayinganytime DePiep gets involved, I tend to just walk away
(while actually making one, two more posts). This "walking away" is the problematic behaviour with nom Zackmann, leaving behind a crippled discussion. (See this TfD: nominate with bad argument, being corrected on this, do not engage, still steering the TfD as involved editor.
- So in this case, I asked for a correction in their nom, and for some reason Zackmann uses my contribution as an excuse to put a sloppy TfD here before I edited and then walk away from responsibility. Again Zackmann left it to others to clean up the mess, including having to correct a false nominating statement. (We know how tricky it is to expect a closing admin to find and discard such an error: cannot trust that to happen). So I would have to argue with an willingly absent nom and so convince a closer? No thanks, I don't want to be kicked to jump through hoops. So I propose procedural closing as no consensus since the nom did not follow through on their nomination, instead misforming the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep argued selection below. Nom statement "redundant to {{Periodic table}} among others" is incorrect and obviously unchecked (I note that Zackmann is a TemplateEditor. Tiring that they did not took time to check their statement, nor can we expect that it will be corrected. Here the same nom stated "Not clear what it would be used for" while the template is documented (today the statement is not corrected). This nomination again is expecting from other editors to clean things up, fix edits and correct the nom, or enlighten the nom, while the nom will not self-correct or express any acknowledgement at all. All in all, this absense of engagement pollutes the discussion).
- To be kept:
- {{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}} - implementing linked cell-clicks, no replacement.
- {{Periodic table (f-block)}} - no replacement. Information useful. Keep, merge possible.
- {{Periodic table (electron configuration lanthanides)}} - no replacement. Information useful. Has usability.
- {{Periodic table (metals and nonmetals)/into image}} - Tool, used to turn wikitable into image.
- {{Periodic table (s-block)}} - has no replacement, could be useful in eponymous article.
- {{Periodic table (p-block)}} - has no replacement, could be useful in eponymous article.
- {{Periodic table (d-block)}} - has no replacement, could be useful in eponymous article.
- {{Periodic table (period 5)}} - has no replacement, could be useful in eponymous article.
- {{Periodic table (period 6)}} - has no replacement, could be useful in eponymous article.
- {{Periodic table (period 7)}} - has no replacement, could be useful in eponymous article.
- DePiep (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at Block (periodic table)#s-block, it already has a S-, P-, D- and F- block sections and the table used {{Periodic table (blocks)}} already has the blocks color coded. It seems to me that this template already fulfills what these 4 templates do and there does not seem to be enough text for stand-alone article for these sections. Regarding {{Periodic table (period 5)}}, {{Periodic table (period 6)}} and {{Periodic table (period 7)}}, looking at the articles Period 5 element#Elements and their properties/Period 6 element#Atomic characteristics/Period 7 element#Elements - these use a tables that shows the same thing as the template. Is the template going to replace these tables? Are the tables better? Regarding {{Periodic table (electron configuration lanthanides)}}, why isn't it used on Electron shell? Could you also explain where {{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}} is used, as I couldn't understand. As always, thanks for the clarification DePiep.--Gonnym (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- What a surprise that DePiep would resort to personal attacks rather than discussing the merits of the template which are UNUSED. I have been offline for the last 24 hours without internet access, that is why I didn't respond. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, no personal attack. I am addressing your behaviour/absence in the discussion(s).
I have been offline for the last 24 hours
: does not explain why you left your TfD nom here with ~18 templates broken, WikiProjects & creator(s) unnotified, and even now you still have not corrected nor struck your incorrect nom statement. (for this TfD only; other TfD's already mentioned skipped for now). So, Zackman, my question is: are you gonne respond on content, and so strike your incorrect nom statement for starters? -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)- Zackmann08, DePiep has mentioned the merits of several of the templates, and several people here explained (again) that "no transclusions" is not always a good reason to delete a template. Your nomination was of poor quality (not only did you break most of the templates although I recently warned you about the exact same issue, but it is also factually incorrect: the templates are not all redundant). If you can't do a better job, you should not be making any TFD nominations at all instead of the hundreds you have been flooding TFD with. Discussing the quality of your TFD work is not a personal attack. —Kusma (t·c) 21:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Kusma this probably warrants further discussion outside of the TFD. Feel free to drop me a message on my talk page. First, you are correct about me breaking the templates with the nomination. That is my bad and I own that. I of course can blame Wp:TWINKLE for some of these, but I understand that is a cop out. You point is well made that I need to start being more careful that my TFD nominations don't break a template. As for the personal attacks, DePiep has a LONG history of them. See their lengthy block history as well as the fact that they are currently on probation. Statements such as
Another careless sloppy drive-by nomination
,I can predict that the nom does not return to digest arguments or engage in the discussion
andThis nomination again is expecting from other editors to clean things up, fix edits and correct the nom, or enlighten the nom, while the nom will not self-correct or express any acknowledgement at all. All in all, this absense of engagement pollutes the discussion
In my opinion ARE personal. Did I break the template? Yes I did. I broke a template that ISN'T USED by mistake and in a way that took about half a second to fix. I don't think that warranted the multiple personal attacks that were directed at me as a result. If you as an admin feel differently, I respect that. As for this particular TFD, anytime DePiep gets involved, I tend to just walk away as they are incapable of having a calm conversation. If the templates are used then there is no reason for them to be deleted. Simply making that point would have been more than enough. Oh well. Walking away from this TFD. Feel free to ping me directly on my talk page if you have further feedback. Happy to take any advice you have. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Kusma this probably warrants further discussion outside of the TFD. Feel free to drop me a message on my talk page. First, you are correct about me breaking the templates with the nomination. That is my bad and I own that. I of course can blame Wp:TWINKLE for some of these, but I understand that is a cop out. You point is well made that I need to start being more careful that my TFD nominations don't break a template. As for the personal attacks, DePiep has a LONG history of them. See their lengthy block history as well as the fact that they are currently on probation. Statements such as
- Zackmann08, DePiep has mentioned the merits of several of the templates, and several people here explained (again) that "no transclusions" is not always a good reason to delete a template. Your nomination was of poor quality (not only did you break most of the templates although I recently warned you about the exact same issue, but it is also factually incorrect: the templates are not all redundant). If you can't do a better job, you should not be making any TFD nominations at all instead of the hundreds you have been flooding TFD with. Discussing the quality of your TFD work is not a personal attack. —Kusma (t·c) 21:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- KEEP ALL. Each of these templates have a use, no matter how miniscule it may appear to be to users who aren't actually in WP:ELEM. Similarly to what DePiep has said prior, each of the templates highlight a specific pattern found in the periodic table that cannot be substituted for a general periodic table that applies to every subject. You want a periodic table with the atomic weight and no more? Don't look further than {{Periodic table (standard atomic weight)}}. Also, {{Periodic table (navbox isotopes)}} has no replacement and is a speedily keep in my opinion. While these templates may not be broad enough to be applicable in innumerable places, they exist to capture trends and focus on specifics in the periodic table, even if it's just a period. They are also very helpful in talkpage discussion. (Also the nomination was extremely messy and the nominator didn't care to provide any logic behind his nomination besides that they are "redundant".) UtopianPoyzin (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per DePiep. Even if they are not currently in use, it cannot be said that they are absolutely useless. Quoting WP:TFD#REASONS, we can delete if
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
, but it seems likely that these templates can in fact be used. Kusma and DePiep raise valid points suggesting that they are not redundant, and suggest possible usage, for example, in period 5 element or s-block; therefore, there is insufficient justification for deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:CD Palestino squad
Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Unused these templates have risk of falling rapidly out of date.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge with {{Palestino squad}}. GiantSnowman 13:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per above, template name is useful for this purpose. Borgarde (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:User ABAP-2
- Template:User ABAP-2 ( · talk)
Unused custom userbox. PLEASE READ before voting There are currently, 1349 unused custom userbox templates that were created more than 1 year ago. Before I consider doing a big bulk nomination, I wanted to send up a test balloon with this specific template. Obviously this conversation is only on whether to delete this one specific template, but I would appreciate if anyone who comments on this discussion could also comment on the additional unused Userbox templates. My thought is that if a custom userbox template was created more than a year ago and has no uses, there really isn't a reason to keep it. Any user can create a custom {{Userbox}} on their page anytime they want. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Userfy all to User:UBX. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all > 3 years old (or some arbitary time setpoint). We aren't a social media site (WP:NOT). These don't support our core encyclopedic mission. If these haven't been used in several years since they were created, they should be removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge entire series - I Support Tom's position in general, though I would say, that if a template is part of a series of 1-5, and one of the series is used, then maybe all 5 should be kept. looking at the code, these 5 different templates should really just become 1 template with a
|1=
parameter added so you can set the level 1-5. I'd actually more support a merger for ABAP-1 to ABAP-5. --Gonnym (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)- Template:User ABAP/sandbox is an example of how this works (as a side note, this also makes sure that the text used is the same. The level 2 template uses "coder" instead of "programmer"). --Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural keep. It makes sense to do a test nomination for an ordinary-sized batch of templates, but when there are 1,348 items in addition to the one that you've nominated, it's a big enough problem (if it's a problem at all) that it really ought to be addressed at the Village Pump. With such a large batch, we need broader input than can be obtained here; if a big discussion concludes in favor of deleting or userfying them, they can be deleted without a further XFD. By the way, userboxes don't belong here at all; they go to MFD. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Sediment transport
unused navbox with no clear criteria connecting pages. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Deletealternate template in use. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)- Tom (LT), which is this alternative template? – Uanfala (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- My meaning is {{Glaciers}}, which contains links to part of this template.--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, glacial forms of sediment transport will obviously be mentioned in both templates, but besides this there's no overlap between the two. – Uanfala (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- My meaning is {{Glaciers}}, which contains links to part of this template.--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Tom (LT), which is this alternative template? – Uanfala (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: a well-defined topic (Sediment transport) with no other navbox to compete with. – Uanfala (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:SJFA West Division One
Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge with {{SJFA West Region}}. GiantSnowman 13:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:QMJHL trophies
Unused navbox with no parent article Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge. I fail to understand the nominator's rationale that it is unused, when transcluded to 20+ articles. It also has a parent article at the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. It should merged into {{QMJHL}}, as the league does not need multiple navboxes. Flibirigit (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: [4] actually it is transcluded on ZERO articles. Links are not transclusions and the parent article would be Quebec Major Junior Hockey League trophies which does not exist... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: any response to your unsubstantiated accusation? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: [4] actually it is transcluded on ZERO articles. Links are not transclusions and the parent article would be Quebec Major Junior Hockey League trophies which does not exist... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- My vote to merge has not changed. The parent article the league. Consensus at WikiProject Ice Hockey when these articles were created was not have separate articles. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: thats fine, but your statement
I fail to understand the nominator's rationale that it is unused, when transcluded to 20+ articles.
is just false... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: thats fine, but your statement
- My vote to merge has not changed. The parent article the league. Consensus at WikiProject Ice Hockey when these articles were created was not have separate articles. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not used, but there are 20+ articles where it easily and reasonably could be used. I'm perfectly fine with a merger, too, as removing "trophy" from each link would reduce the needed space by a significant amount. Wikiproject consensus notwithstanding, these articles exist, so there's no good reason to say that they mustn't be linked by a template; the only reason we should refuse to link them (as opposed to removing them from a template where they don't fit, or deleting a poorly made template) is if they get deleted in the future. Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Per above, the guidelines for deletion says (emphasis theirs) "The template is not used [...] and has no likelihood of being used". I believe this template is likely to be used though I would support a merge as well. BLAIXX 15:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Steelers1946DraftPicks
Unused navbox with no navigational links Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Unused and not a navbox that should be.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment the navbox is not unused but is only listed on 2-3 pages at this time, at the time it fails for the amount of links.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Navbox is now fully used. As far as this entire class of navboxes as a concept, a broader discussion would have to take place at WT:NFL before we should be taking any action there. Additionally, any WP:ACCESS concerns that may exist here actually involve a different template, not this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ejgreen77: I opposed the rest of these TfDs but on this one (at the moment) he has a point as only 3 pages are linked to this one, I thought 5 was the minimum.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note while this is now used, it is mostly plaintext and redlinks. Only actually links 2 pages. WP:NENAN. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Seconding Ejgreen77 with the fact that further discussion should take place at WT:NFL, for there are a large amount of templates of this style and category that will need to be taken into account if we delete a small portion of the templates but not all of the templates. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Polish Radio Stations before WW2
Unused navbox with no parent page Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm leaning keep and use here. This is a small group with 5 blue links and 5 possible future links with a related scope. While a parent page would indeed be better for the subject "Polish radio during World War 2", I doubt we'd ever get that article. --Gonnym (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Use has potential navigation benefit for readers, as per Gonnym. Keep and use. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
March 8
Template:Average temperature table
This seems totally redundant to Template:Weather Box/Module:Weather box. Also note that some of the subtemplates are making calls to a user's module sandbox. Only in use on 1 page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Replace uses with Template:Weather box if possible. @Johnuniq: can Weather Box handle this? --Gonnym (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like an experiment as people tried different things to see what would work for {{weather box}}. Let's wait to hear from Erutuon who will know what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Huh? This is very different from Template:Weather box. It generates the basic table structure for the six tables in List of cities by average temperature: a table caption and set of table headers followed by rows, followed by the end-of-table syntax. It could be renamed if the name isn't clear. If it isn't kept, the basic table structure will have to be duplicated in the six tables in List of cities by average temperature, which is not ideal since it's laborious and prone to error. — Eru·tuon 23:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Daylight saving in time zone/techdoc
unused supplementary documentation Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Unused supplementary documentation as per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - When is documentation "unused"? How would you know? It is there to provide a better understanding of the implementation. Nevertheless, if you really want to get rid of it then go ahead. Thayts ••• 11:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Thayts, it is unused the same as any other template, when it is not transcluded from any other place. In this situation Template:Daylight saving in time zone was moved to Template:Daylight saving active and that page does already have documentation at Template:Daylight saving active/doc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 09:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The move didn't make it unused, it's still being linked at Template:Daylight saving active/doc. It's true it isn't transcluded, but it never was and that was not the intention. Thayts ••• 16:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Thayts. Good find! Go to Template:Daylight saving active/doc and look for the phrase
More details on the implementation
All four appearances are links to this page. It's basically a WP:SPLIT in a different namespace, since all these details are necessary, but they take up a good deal of space. We shouldn't put all of its content onto the main doc page, and we shouldn't get rid of its content either. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)- Maybe I should have pointed that out, thanks. Yes, this is the way I created it: to keep the less relevant info for template use from filling up the main documentation page, while still having it available as background information for development.
- Keep per myself. Thayts ••• 09:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:1500sProtestantwomen
More suitable to categorise this as Category:16th-century Protestant women. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep--I made this template for women who were a factor in the Reformation, either theological or political. You can't call them all "Reformers" because that would be only the theologians and would also exclude the ones whose role included influencing which type of Protestant church there would be. I went through the plausible 16th century women by nationality categories as well as the list on Women as theological figures to find possibilities. I did not include ones that were women who just happened to be Protestant because it was common in their area. The title of the template is now 16th century Protestant women in the Reformation and I have added four subcategories--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Just a seemingly random set of women from the 16th century. Either there should be article about whatever links them or, failing that, a category for them will suffice. Nigej (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Jane Austen character
Propose merging Template:Infobox Jane Austen character with Template:Infobox character.
Per WP:INFOCOL. 30 uses. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Disagree for moment. There are lots of unique fields in Jane Austen character that aren't in character infobox. How will all those fields get merged?--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Some of these (
|Height=
,|Income=
,|LondonResidence=
for example) are fancruft and should be discarded. The rest would be included, as in any merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)- @Tom (LT): I tend to agree with what Pigsonthewing said. Can you be most specific than
lots of unique fields
? Which specific fields are you worried about. Certainly don't want to delete important data, but I think most of the fields in question are WP:FANCRUFT. Let me know your thoughts. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC) - @Tom (LT): bump... Can you expand your comments? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sure. You have stated these could be merged, without providing any details about lots of fields which are different. Andy has said in a general way that lots of the varied ones can be discarded and you have said that you agree. I feel the main point of this particular merge is ideological, however I don't think in this particular circumstance it's practical given the wide discrepancy. I think it will make the reading experience worse and because of the discrepancies, also make the editing experience more confusing. I support other mergers of a similar ilk but for stated reasons oppose this one at this time.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Tom (LT): I tend to agree with what Pigsonthewing said. Can you be most specific than
- Some of these (
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Replace and not merge - Most of the unique parameters here are trivia and uselss for an infobox such as
|Height=
,|Income=
,|Education=
,|LondonResidence=
,|FavoritePasttimes=
,|Age=
. These should be removed and not added. Similar,|Birth=
and|Death=
were not included in the current infobox and it seems this was done on purpose and should not be added. --Gonnym (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC) - Disagree Most of the fields in the character infobox are irrelevant to Jane Austen characters and will only make life more difficult for prospective Austen editors. I agree that some of the Jane Austen fields are unnecessary. e.g. age, birth, death are unhelpful; height irrelevant; romantic interest and favourite pastimes are probably fancruft. Income is relevant, I think, as this is a major feature in Austen's writings and is indicative of social status, which is also very important. Family tree type info could benefit from addition of other significant relatives. Petrosbizar (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Petrosbizar: is there a reason that this information cannot simply be displayed using
|data1=
,|data2=
, etc? That is the entire point of having those parameters on {{Infobox character}}. Every series/show has a few custom parameters so those were added so that EVERY character type doesn't need its own infobox. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC) - @Zackmann08: 1. Thanks for your comment. That sounds perfectly reasonable. 2. What you say seems to reinforce the idea of merging with, say, similar groups of novels but not with the overly large one at present suggested. 3. In practice, I'm finding the Austen Character box to be inconsistent in management (that may be my lack of experience with infoboxes). For example, in the Fanny Price infobox there is a line available for Guardian. It is filled in with the name of Sir Thomas Bertram, but this does not appear in the box. Advice?Petrosbizar (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Petrosbizar: at the end of the day, the more up-merging we can do, the better. There are times where overgeneralizing can get back, I don't think this is one of those cases. {{Infobox character}} is more than capable of displaying all the needed information. As for why guardian doesn't display, {{Infobox Jane Austen character}} doesn't have a parameter
|Guardian=
. That is why it doesn't work. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Petrosbizar: at the end of the day, the more up-merging we can do, the better. There are times where overgeneralizing can get back, I don't think this is one of those cases. {{Infobox character}} is more than capable of displaying all the needed information. As for why guardian doesn't display, {{Infobox Jane Austen character}} doesn't have a parameter
- @Petrosbizar: is there a reason that this information cannot simply be displayed using
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. All of the extra parameters, including
|Income=
, seem quite crufty to me. But any detail deemed appropriate can certainly be accommodated with the|dataX=
parameters.— TAnthonyTalk 16:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merge and remove fan-centric parameters but allow
|income=
(in some form). It does tend to be a big aspect of some authors' character-building. Socialist authors, for example. I'd prefer something like|social status=
or|social_class=
, though. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)- @Mr. Guye:
|social status=
sounds more like "is that character single or married?" so|social class=
would be better and it does make it much more encyclopidiac than "income". One issue though is how do you assign that without WP:OR? What would "£50 per annum" at Elizabeth Bennet be converted to? --Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Mr. Guye:
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per TAnthony and WP:WAF. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. It sure sounds as if the unique features of this infobox really don't belong in an infobox at all. I'm routinely unimpressed by the concept of merging almost everything into a few massive templates, since such a situation creates a good deal of unneeded complexity, but when all the important parameters are already present elsewhere, it makes sense to use the other template and discard the trivia. Nyttend (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Bufo
- Template:Bufo ( · talk)
Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant to article Bufo and Category:Bufo. Navbox creates maitenance burden and is in fact missing many species of Bufo. Species in genus navboxes are routinely deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I added the template to Bufo, so now it is used and has a parent. Per WP:CLN, categories, lists, and navboxes like this one can live together in harmony. And I don't think a single discussion qualifies as "routinely." UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Why is it just selected toad species, rather than everything in the genus? If there are too many to provide a complete list, we need to have inclusion criteria (why these ones are more link-worthy than others), but no criteria are given or apparent. Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Module:Headless TOC
- Module:Headless TOC ( · talk)
Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This template was converted to Lua to allow for unlimited heading levels. The original only had a fixed/limited number of available heading levels. Only Lua can accomplish indefinite levels. —CodeHydro 15:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Codehydro: That can be done using Module:String, obviating the need for a separate Lua module. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Module:Glossing abbreviations
Superseded per its own documentation. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I'm the user who created the template that I believe supersedes this, and I'm the one who replaced all its uses and then cheekily marked it as superseded. Now, if I'd thought it would be a good idea to delete this module I would have nominated it myself. And if I'd known that it would get nominated as "unused", I would have left one or two uses, to spare us having to debate it now. Why don't I think it's a good idea to delete it? The template that I created to replace it is a wrapper for one big complex module that also does other things; it's definitely more versatile and I like to think it's better, but it's also more complicated – it takes time for anyone to figure it out, it's more difficult to edit, it's easier to break. I don't like the idea that my complicated tool should be the only one available out there. It's possible someone would get unhappy about it and will want it to behave in a different way: then they're much better off building on this dedicated, simple and easy module than on mine. It's good to have more than one tool out there to do the same job, especially if there's such a stark difference in complexity. I know that to the regular participant here this argument doesn't sound like much – sure, there's presumably no actual use for this module now, but there's also no harm in keeping it, is there? I believe there are more long-term benefits in having access to an open and diverse set of templates, than in keeping everything absolutely tidy. – Uanfala (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Userfy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Module cannot userfy
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hhkohh: actually Module's CAN be moved to a user sandbox. If you are going to be performing non-admin closures you really need to familiarize yourself much more with the process. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: Moving Module:Sandbox/DannyS712/learning to User:DannyS712/module/actual results in
"Scribunto" content is not allowed on page User:DannyS712/module/actual in slot "main"
. If you are going to be critiquing how familiar others are with the process, you might want to double check that you are rights. But, modules can be moved to a subpage of Module:Sandbox, effectively allowing users to have their own sandbox modules, but not technically being userfied. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/Erutuon) or delete. Whatever original intention Uanfala had matters not anymore. The new module has replaced all usages and we shouldn't have 2 modules doing the same thing and having two different code bases. --Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would have thought it's precisely the intentions of the editors who create, use and maintain a given template that matter :) – Uanfala (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
March 7
Template:United Kingdom local elections, 1909
Unused navbox, no parent article, nearly entirely redlinks and plain text. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Template was missing 1909 Liverpool City Council election, which has been added and the template is now used. It's likely that the parent article will be created at some point (perhaps by MrPenguin21). Number 57 22:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MrPenguin21: still not used... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Zackmann. I gave this a look over and have created the related page. MrPenguin21 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete- a navigation template's sole purpose is to navigate a reader between connected articles. While there are 3 blue links in this template, only 1909 Liverpool City Council election is actually a 1909 election article. Nothing to navigate so fails it's objective. --Gonnym (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)- @Gonnym and Tom (LT): The 1909 United Kingdom local elections has been created and 1909 Aberdare Urban District Council election was missing (and has been added) so there are now three 1909 articles at least. Cheers, Number 57 20:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per Gonnym. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Tokyo Anime Award for Domestic Feature Film
Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: this can be used as it does have a parent article at Tokyo Anime Award#Domestic Feature Film Category, so the award is notable and a complete list appears on the article, however, if it not actively maintained by anyone, there is no reason to add these to articles (which by the look of the article, seems is the case). --Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Telford and Wrekin
Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Author removed it from the parent article Telford and Wrekin here: [5]. Don't know enough about Shropshire to say whether that was a good or a bad idea. —Kusma (t·c) 10:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Seems it can be used on the articles it is linked, but like Kusma, I have no idea if the removal was done with some valid reason behind it. Would help if anyone from the UK could answer this. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox Perso-Ottoman War (1730-1735)
Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose; Why remove something that is of actual importance? Also, it is actually used on several articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Did you nominate the wrong page? It's in use at Battle of Samarra (1733) and Battle of Kirkuk (1733), for example, and neither article's been edited for over a month. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – Appears to be an unused duplicate of Template:Campaignbox Ottoman-Persian War (1730-35) (although this one being nominated for deletion is actually the older of the two, the other is more complete). Mojoworker (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox Islamic Conquest of Hispania
Unused campaign box. WP:NENAN & WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. We do not know enough details to produce separate articles for the many of the engagements listed. This campaignbox is unlikely ever to be useful. Srnec (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox Indian wars and conflicts of Nevada
Unused campaign box. Used in one place, violates WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – Not unused, currently in use on History of Nevada. Mojoworker (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note that WP:NENAN is an essay. Be careful citing it as a deletion rationale. I could just as easily say "keep per WP:ANOEP" with as much validity. See also this TFD NENAN RFC. Mojoworker (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox Indian wars and conflicts of Arizona
Unused campaign box. Used in one place. Violates WP:BIDIRECTIONAL & WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – Not unused, currently in use on History of Arizona. Mojoworker (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Bengali desserts
unused navbox with no parent article. Mostly redlinks Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and add to articles as it's viable navbox. No opinion if the redlinks should be trimmed, but there are about two dozen valid links. One potential problem is that some of the desserts listed are not specific to Bengal, so it might make sense to expand the scope to cover all desserts of the subcontinent (I'm surprised such a navbox doesn't seem to exist yet). – Uanfala (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - There is a category Category:Bengali desserts which notes Bengali cuisine#Desserts. The template under discussion is much more extensive than these, so is essentially entirely unreferenced. There needs to be some content first - then we can have a template linking things. Nigej (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and use serves an excellent navbox purpose. No reason to delete just because it's unfinished. Helps readers neavigate --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Balrampur district, Chhattisgarh
unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and add to articles as clearly useful (but trim down the links to related templates and expand with entries from Category:Balrampur district, Chhattisgarh). – Uanfala (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've done that now: updated and added to articles. – Uanfala (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Aviation accidents and incidents by years templates
unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Leaning delete - Could be used if someone really wanted to add it to all of those template pages, but even the template creator it seems did not care enough to do it. --Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:ESPN Montana
Unused navbox with no parent article Update: Limited use navbox that is a clear case of WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: I see 6 links in the infobox. It's being used. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:09 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
- Update: Placed on 4 of the 6 pages. The other 2 were no longer sports formatted. One was Active Rock, the other was Sports but had gone off the air last month. Zackmann08, please don't be deletionist and actual help the project. It's easy to tag something for deletion, it's better to actually put the 10 minutes to make the project better. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:20 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
- @Neutralhomer: comments like
don't be deletionist and actual help the project
are not helpful and also do not WP:AGF. We all help in our own ways. No ones methods of editing are any more or less important than anyone else and your implication that others are not being helpful just because you don't like their actions is absurd. You clearly lack familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures based on the recent comments on your talk page. As for me not being helpful, I've got over 300,000 edits on here, I do more than my fair share of helping out thank you. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)- @Zackmann08: Having lots of edits and helping out allot are not necessarily the same thing. LorenzoMilano made over 40,000 edits to his NOTWEBHOST-violating sandbox, which doesn't mean he contributed to the project. Talking about you specifically, many of your recent edits are something that I could easily have requested that AnomieBOT do (Task: TemplateSubster), so they aren't exactly boast-worthy. (Not saying that those edits are bad, because the bot would have used a generic edit summary, but the general point remains). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Neutralhomer: comments like
- Update: Placed on 4 of the 6 pages. The other 2 were no longer sports formatted. One was Active Rock, the other was Sports but had gone off the air last month. Zackmann08, please don't be deletionist and actual help the project. It's easy to tag something for deletion, it's better to actually put the 10 minutes to make the project better. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:20 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
- I think that the entire "X radio stations in the state of Montana" templates can be merged into one template. Some of these templates just have 3 links for each page (see {{Classic Hits Radio Stations in Montana}}, so merging them would solve the small navboxes. --Gonnym (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Alot of these should/could be filled in. I think that was Dravecky's project before his passing. Perhaps Mlaffs could fill in the Montana ones? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:44 on March 5, 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Unblock an
- Template:Unblock an ( · talk)
Unused template superseded by Template:Unblock Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. {{Unblock}} is for you to use if I block you and you want to get unblocked. This template's for me to use if someone else blocks you, you request unblock, and I want to say "I may unblock you, but I'm going to ask other people first". It's not a rare situation (I've seen lots of "should we unblock this person" discussions at WP:AN), but it's not always happening, and the fact that there's no current usage doesn't speak to past or future usage. This template is necessarily removed when the situation's resolved, similar to {{Unblock on hold}} (currently transcluded just once), so again you can't take lack of current use to equal not useful. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox drug/simplified
Unused template. No reason for a "simplified" version of {{Infobox drug}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's used, and it's a beta version for a replacement. It should not be deleted, and I was going to suggest it be moved to Template:Infobox drug/beta, but I see it's already listed under that template, so it just makes this deletion request all the more over-zealous. Please leave this alone, it serves a very useful purpose for translation and is the base for much needed overhaul. Carl Fredrik talk 19:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is no Template:Infobox drug/beta - your link is currently red. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- @CFCF:
Please leave this alone
is not a reason to keep nor is how TFD works... You claim that is is being used but it has zero transclusions and you haven't touched the template since November of 2016... So how is it being used? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @CFCF:
- There is no Template:Infobox drug/beta - your link is currently red. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Userfy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, sandbox subpage with potential use explained by CFCF. —Kusma (t·c) 15:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Userfy to which page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Userfy - if used please explain how or where its used. The history shows that is hasn't been updated since the initial creation day in 2016 and the template itself has no documentation. Template space is not a private userpsace. --Gonnym (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep CFCF. Seems to be planned for being use. Could be useful for articles. If consensus not for keeping, then I support moving to user space.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Module:See also if exists
Nearly duplicate modules, only difference is that Module:Category see also if exists hardcodes category namespace. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also, it seems like bad code design to me that neither template is a wrapper around the corresponding template without the "if exists" suffix, and instead hardcodes its text. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose(as creator of both). No, that's not only difference. {{Category see also if exists}} does not require the "Category:" namespace prefix when linking categories. Thousands of uses will break if this is required.
- See these examples:
{{See also if exists|Category:Spain}}
→{{Category see also if exists|Category:Spain}}
→{{See also if exists|Spain}}
→{{Category see also if exists|Spain}}
→
- Also, {{Category see also if exists}} displays a warning if none of the items exists. {{See also if exists}} gives no warning.
- It would save everyone a lot of time if @Pppery did some WP:BEFORE and actually examined and tested modules&templates before nominating them as near-duplicates. This nom replicates the lack of homework in Pppery's nomination at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 29#Template:Cat_main. I just hope we don't have the same levels of bluster and obfuscation as Pppery displayed then.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing merging the templates, I'm proposing merging the modules while having the two templates still do their separate things, which can be done without breaking thousands of uses. {{category see also if exists}} and {{see also if exists}} will continue to exist, and both will use the same module, passing it different parameters which the module can use to distinguish between the two cases. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sigh. Still no acknowledgement that you had not spotted the key difference, nor any clarity about whether/how you propose to retain the distinctions. Just like last time.
- @Pppery, for the avoidance of drama, why don't you simply:
- withdraw this nom
- design the merged module in a sandbox, so that you can actually show that what you propose is possible without creating unwieldy code
- if we agree that it works, then we can just boldly merge. If not, bring it back to TFD.
- Personally, I think that this whole thing is waste of time, but if you do want to spend your time this way, then I don't see why you would object to demonstrating your proposed code before an XFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: I've written a merged module at Module:See also if exists/sandbox, with Template:Category see also if exists/sandbox and Template:See also if exists/sandbox calling it. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: please don't make me do the spadework. Please do a sandbox for both templates, and demonstrate them with a set of testcases like I did above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Done. Both tests are green at both Template:Category see also if exists/testcases and Template:See also if exists/testcases and both Template:See also if exists/sandbox and Template:Category see also if exists/sandbox call Module:See also if exists/sandbox. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: please don't make me do the spadework. Please do a sandbox for both templates, and demonstrate them with a set of testcases like I did above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: I've written a merged module at Module:See also if exists/sandbox, with Template:Category see also if exists/sandbox and Template:See also if exists/sandbox calling it. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sigh. Still no acknowledgement that you had not spotted the key difference, nor any clarity about whether/how you propose to retain the distinctions. Just like last time.
- I'm not proposing merging the templates, I'm proposing merging the modules while having the two templates still do their separate things, which can be done without breaking thousands of uses. {{category see also if exists}} and {{see also if exists}} will continue to exist, and both will use the same module, passing it different parameters which the module can use to distinguish between the two cases. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: It is better to let other editors (apart from BHG and Pppery) comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Hhkohh: What exactly do you mean the the relisting comment: It is better to pend other editors comments
. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Pppery, fixed. Just mean I hope other editors comment here in next 7 days Hhkohh (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I added some new test cases to the test cases page. Seems OK I guess. User:BrownHairedGirl do you see any further issue? -- GreenC 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I have struck my oppose. So far as I can see, the new Module:See also if exists/sandbox now replicates the functionality of both.
- I still think it's a great pity that the nomination was made without a demo of the proposed combined module, and without a clear explanation of the actual difference in functionality ... but thanks to @Pppery for sorting all that out. And sorry I have been so slow to respond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Railway line header
- Template:Railway line header ( · talk)
- Template:BS-header ( · talk)
- Template:BS-table ( · talk)
- Template:BS-table1 ( · talk)
- Template:Infobox route diagram ( · talk)
- Template:Routemap ( · talk)
Propose merging Template:Railway line header, Template:BS-header, Template:BS-table, Template:BS-table1 and Template:Infobox route diagram with Template:Routemap.
These templates have been deprecated since the creation of {{BS-map}} in 2011, and should already have been replaced by {{BS-map}} or by {{Routemap}} (which is newer than {{BS-map}} and has several advantages and additional features). A majority of route diagrams on the English Wikipedia use {{Routemap}}. {{BS-map}} is also currently nominated for merging with {{Routemap}}.
As the nominator, I support replacing the templates with {{Routemap}}. If the discussion is closed with a consensus to merge, the templates should be replaced manually after using the Routemap module to convert each diagram; fixing errors and stylistic issues should be expected. I would also support manual replacement of the nominated templates with either {{Routemap}} or {{BS-map}}. Bot replacement would be unusually difficult due to the use of the pre-2011 templates through {{Infobox route diagram}}, especially if there is an expectation to update diagrams to current conventions (navbar, continuation icons, text placement/size, etc.). Jc86035 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Useddenim (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support replacement with {{Routemap}}, as the former is tagged as superseded. --Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleteas redundant to Template:bs-map, leaving the issue of whether to convert to Template:Routemap to a later discussion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)- Comment @Useddenim, Gonnym, and Pppery: I've added {{Infobox route diagram}} to the nomination. Jc86035 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This is the sort of conversion that is proposed. It has exactly the same problems that I mentioned at 23:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC), i.e. the syntax being weird and non-intuitive. If any conversion should be done, it is from
{{Railway line header}}
/{{BS-header}}
/{{BS-table}}
to{{BS-map}}
; this is not difficult (example), and the syntax for the actual rows of the RDT is exactly the same as with Railway line header etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)- @Redrose64: In defense of {{Routemap}}, the original syntax was opaque to begin with, and I personally find the Routemap syntax more intuitive because it has an explicit separation between icons and text and doesn't require named overlay parameters. Newer users – particularly those who joined post-2015 – are also likely to have only learned how to use {{Routemap}}. Jc86035 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- All editors (other than those using VisualEditor) have to learn how template paramaters work. The point Redrose64 is trying to make is that {{BS-map}} maps use the same syntax as all other templates do, whereas {{routemap}} uses its own entirely new syntax that one has to learn separately. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: Yes, I'm aware of that, and it was the main point of discussion in the 2016 RfC, but I was referring to the template as a whole (i.e. including the icon naming system).
- As noted below, introducing {{RDTr}} would ease a {{BS-map}} transition; but the end result would probably be that a few years down the line someone nominates that template for deletion because it's functionally completely unnecessary since it just makes Routemap code, and then we're right back to "convert all of the templates to Routemap". It's like artificially creating a middle step. Jc86035 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Doing so would segregate the discussion into two phases: . I would support the first step but not the second, and therefore think they should be done independently of each other. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- should routemaps be generated using Lua or Wikitext
- should the syntax for generating routemaps be using templates or using {{routemap}}'s backslash-and-tilde syntax
- (edit conflict) @Pppery: I don't think it's likely that all of the current {{Routemap}} diagrams will be converted to use {{RDTr}} or something like it (I would oppose that, because I'm familiar with the current Routemap syntax, as are most of the other Routemap users on the 37 other WMF wikis where the template exists), so deleting/deprecating {{RDTr}} as well as the pre-Routemap templates is pretty much the only likely outcome of any successful attempt to institute a single diagram format.
- I also think {{RDTr}} could be viewed unfavourably as a bad compromise, because a new set of templates wrapping {{RDTr}} would have to be created to replicate the functionality of the original templates (and imperfectly at that). Jc86035 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Doing so would segregate the discussion into two phases:
- All editors (other than those using VisualEditor) have to learn how template paramaters work. The point Redrose64 is trying to make is that {{BS-map}} maps use the same syntax as all other templates do, whereas {{routemap}} uses its own entirely new syntax that one has to learn separately. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: In defense of {{Routemap}}, the original syntax was opaque to begin with, and I personally find the Routemap syntax more intuitive because it has an explicit separation between icons and text and doesn't require named overlay parameters. Newer users – particularly those who joined post-2015 – are also likely to have only learned how to use {{Routemap}}. Jc86035 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support replacement with Template:BS-map, Oppose replacement with Template:Routemap; that should be decided by #Template:BS-map below. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Module:Listify
- Module:Listify ( · talk)
Only used on several unused templates, redundant to Module:String {{#invoke:Listify|input|x|yyxyxyy}}
-> <ul>{{#invoke:String|replace|yyxxyy|x|<li>%1</li>|plain=false}}</ul>
. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure Module:String is the correct location. This is not a simple string, but rather a list, so maybe Module:List can work with this better. --Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting a merge, I'm suggesting a deletion because the functionality in this module can already be implemented using Module:String. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure I agree. If instead of using the module directly, an editor now needs to surround it with a ul tag and then also add the logic for replace, that isn't helpful at all. If this is used, then the better solution would be to add this option to Module:List. --Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting a merge, I'm suggesting a deletion because the functionality in this module can already be implemented using Module:String. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I can't remember why I created this module. I tend to agree with Gonnym that the "string" module isn't really the most obvious name. Shrug. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Module:Find sources template pages
- Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources ( · talk)
- Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace ( · talk)
- Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources video games ( · talk)
Overcomplicated, see no reason that this information needs to be in module data pages rather than the wikitext of the template itself. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- All relevant code changes to accomodate the new style of been written to the sandboxes. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Could you please elaborate? What templates should the code go into? what sandboxes have you edited? --Gonnym (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Find sources, Template:Find sources mainspace, and Template:Find sources video games, with changes to the backend modules at Module:Find sources and Module:Find sources/autodoc (to be renamed Module:Find sources/template) to match. I've edited the sandboxes of all of those pages {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Could you please elaborate? What templates should the code go into? what sandboxes have you edited? --Gonnym (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- The advantage of the current system is that it is known to work. It is more complex than required because it's creator aimed for generality with an extensible system, although not much has been needed since creation. As usual, Pppery poses an enigma whereby each onlooker would need to spend half an hour working out what templates/modules are proposed to be replaced with what templates/modules. What existing pages would be deleted? What new pages would be created? What existing pages would be edited? (I can work out some of that, but the information should be presented clearly.) What is the proposed benefit of this turmoil? Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- The existing pages that would be deleted by this are exactly the ones I listed above, as they will be rendered obsolete. No new pages are created by this TfD, and the edits made are to sync the sandboxes of Module:Find sources, Module:Find sources/autodoc and all three templates that invoke it (Template:Find sources, Template:Find sources mainspace and Template:Find sources video games). One can't exactly say that my proposed system is not known to work, given that it exists in the sandbox without producing any errors. (Template:Find sources/testcases is yellow because of a trivial encoding difference of a literal space versus  , it's HTML entity form) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- One thing to be wary of with putting the config in the templates themselves is that it will increase the post-expand include size. I remember there were problems with the daily AfD log pages going over the limit, which I helped to fix by converting Template:Find sources AFD to use Module:Find sources. Also, parsing the template parameters in wikitext will be slower than using the config modules, as a) parsing Lua tables is generally quicker than parsing wikitext, and b) the config modules are only loaded once per page with mw.loadData, although the post-expand include size is probably more important. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't seem to be able to reproduce any significant change in post-expand include size via testing. (A page containing only "{{find sources}}" uses 2,130 bytes, whereas a page containing only {{find sources/sandbox}} uses 2,139 bytes. ) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, looks like you're right. I think what must be happening is that parameters to #invoke aren't counted towards the limit. 5 bytes of the 9-byte difference can be attributed to the the use of
 
instead of a regular space, and the extra "q" before the start of the template (I'm guessing the "q" was just for testing something). The other 4 bytes, I'm not so sure. But 9 bytes isn't something to be worried about, I agree. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, looks like you're right. I think what must be happening is that parameters to #invoke aren't counted towards the limit. 5 bytes of the 9-byte difference can be attributed to the the use of
- I don't seem to be able to reproduce any significant change in post-expand include size via testing. (A page containing only "{{find sources}}" uses 2,130 bytes, whereas a page containing only {{find sources/sandbox}} uses 2,139 bytes. ) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- leaning oppose - If a template has been converted to use a module, then it is more correct to have that module handle everything, with the template just being used as an access point. In the case of Wikipedia template code, for me, that makes it an even stronger case, as template code is much harder to read than module code. Why can't these be under Module:Find sources/data if the 3 separate sub-modules are the issue? --Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- The module is still handling all of the logic of creating the find sources links, and each template is an access point. While you may be right about the readability of Lua vs. Wikitext as a general rule, in this case,
|introlink=google
is just as readable asand all this TfD does is convert the latter to the former. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)introLink = { code = 'google' }
- If the template passes data then it isn't only an access point. Design pattern-wise, if we already have a module, let the module handle everything, including a sub-module for /data information. That's at least how I view them. Regarding the readbility of the template code, when you have only one line, then maybe they are the same, but here it becomes harder to read, while the lua code stays the same. --Gonnym (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Including lots of extra curly brackets and quotes is not "more readable". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- If the template passes data then it isn't only an access point. Design pattern-wise, if we already have a module, let the module handle everything, including a sub-module for /data information. That's at least how I view them. Regarding the readbility of the template code, when you have only one line, then maybe they are the same, but here it becomes harder to read, while the lua code stays the same. --Gonnym (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- The module is still handling all of the logic of creating the find sources links, and each template is an access point. While you may be right about the readability of Lua vs. Wikitext as a general rule, in this case,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The module provides the tool, and the template provides the implementation. That seems more efficient than these intermediary module subpages. --Bsherr (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Propose merging Template:WorksDecade navigation with Template:Navseasoncats.
{{WorksDecade navigation}} is redundant to the newer generic {{Navseasoncats}}.
- {{Navseasoncats}} needs no parameters
- {{Navseasoncats}} separates all links with a bullet point
Before {{Navseasoncats}} was developed, there were many of these topic-specific by-year or by-decade navigation templates. Now that we have a generic template, it's better for readers to see a consistent style of navigation, and pointless for editors to have to figure out and apply a separate syntax for by-year/decade categories in each topic area. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- PS If the merger happens, I think that {{WorksDecadeNavEntry}} will become redundant and can be deleted. However, that won't be confirmed until merger is complete. --13:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
WT:WikiProject Visual arts notified. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - {{WorksDecade navigation}} has a feature which {{Navseasoncats}} does not - the ability to navigate 100 years forwards and backwards (if those cats exist). Is this functionality undesirable, or would it be incorporated into {{Navseasoncats}} prior to merge? WP:WikiProject Visual arts should probably be notified if the display is going to change significantly. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding, I don't think it's a significant feature. {{Navseasoncats}} goes 5 decades before the current decades, and five decades ahead. There will be only a v few exceptional cases where the preceding 5 decades are all-non-existent and the 10-decades-earlier cat also exists (and same for succeeding decades), so it will just take an extra click to jump back further.
- If there is merit in expanding the number of decades in the navbox, it applies equally to all types of decade category, so that option should be considered at Template talk:Navseasoncats. A widely-used navigational tool is much easier to use if standardised, so I think we should be wary of creating variants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: you're right - it only really saves 1 mouse click per 100 years, since {{Navseasoncats}} currently goes (in this case) in steps of 50. If desired, that can be added {{Navseasoncats}} after some discussion (maybe with a "|" or "..." separating the larger steps at either end, to avoid confusion with the " • "), but I don't see a problem now with merging as-is. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- If there is merit in expanding the number of decades in the navbox, it applies equally to all types of decade category, so that option should be considered at Template talk:Navseasoncats. A widely-used navigational tool is much easier to use if standardised, so I think we should be wary of creating variants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per discussion. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Close this discussion temporarily. At the moment, two separate pages have been nominated for merger into Navseasoncats: this one and {{Cat topic in year}}. We ought to discuss them one at a time. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: Neither decision is dependent ion the other one. Neither effects the other one. So no reason to take them one at a time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could someone do something please - the items are being utilised still as if nothing is happening - could someone knowing what they are doing fix this up? just sitting here unresolved is a problem... JarrahTree 13:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why is that a problem, @JarrahTree? This is normal TFD stuff: a template continues in use while the discussion is open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Old Bara District
Unused navbox, replaced with {{Bara District}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Old Bara District template does not relate to "Old Bara" but is simply an old version of the Bara District template. Nigej (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Reverse move (that is, move Template:Old Bara District back to Template:Bara District) and restore to this version. I'm not sure why Haribanshnp made the changes that they did, but whatever their intentions they don't seem to have seen them through. If the idea was for this navbox to exclude the villages, then the appropriate action is to create another navbox specific for the villages and have it replace instances of this template on the village articles. If the goal was not to have a navbox on the village articles, then this navbox ought to be removed from them. What we have at the moment is a bit of a mess: {{Bara District}} is used on a very large number of articles that aren't included in the current, trimmed, version of the navbox. – Uanfala (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK, in light of the comments by Haribanshnp and Nyttend, I'm not that sure anymore. If it's not desirable to have the former VDCs listed in this template, then we'll need a separate template for that, which can be be added to the the articles of the VDCs. – Uanfala (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Here in Nepal, all the former VDC's have been modified to rural and urban municipalities; with different names and numbers. Thus, I created Template:Bara District which is used and we certainly need to show what we have here at Nepal. Similarly, the contents of former template, i.e. Template:Old Bara District, we need it too, since this is about the place and history must not be deleted. Thus, both may not be used now, but we must need to keep it and may be used in future. Haribanshnp (talk) 2:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Uanfala's position - this was done badly. --Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to {{Villages in Bara District}} or something of the sort. {{Bara District}} links a bunch of current local governments, and {{Old Bara District}} links a bunch of former local governments that happen to correspond to villages (e.g. Bhuluhi Marwaliya), as far as I can see. Merging them into a single template would be a bad idea, as it would make all of them look like they were current, and we ought to have a navbox to permit navigation among the former local governments. It's only unused because {{Bara District}} is placed on a lot of articles, including Bhuluhi Marwaliya, to which it doesn't link and which would be better served if the nominated template replaced the current template. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Cat topic in year
Propose merging Template:Cat topic in year with Template:Navseasoncats.
{{Cat topic in year}} does the same job as {{Navseasoncats}}, but not as well:
- {{Navseasoncats}} requires no parameters, so it is easier for editors to apply, and eliminates errors
- {{Navseasoncats}} links to a total of 11 categories, whereas {{Cat topic in year}} links to only 7
- {{Navseasoncats}} omits the superfluous "topic in year" prefix, which is already evident from the category name
- {{Navseasoncats}} is aligned to the centre of the screen, which allows space on the right for a portal box or a commons category link. {{Cat topic in year}} forces then downwards, unnecessarily pushing the category listing downwards, thereby increasing the need for readers to scroll BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Wait...First of all, the proposed merge target has a note at the top of its documentation saying it is "***UNDER DEVELOPMENT***"; I would think the template should be in its final state before being considered the merge target. Although I can see benefits from merging through reducing the number of templates to maintain, not everything mentioned is a positive. Reducing the number of required parameters for a template like this is good, and in trying it out on a couple categories in preview mode, it works as described, so I agree with the first point. Expanding out to five category links on each side of the target year can be helpful, so point two is valid. The third point, suggesting that the prefix is unnecessary, is counter to long-standing conventions here and on Wikimedia Commons. With no other text around the link, a new user might believe that the link will direct to the year page and not the year in topic page. The topic can be made an optional parameter of the target template so that it is displayed in similar fashion as already shows on the proposed mergefrom template. Showing the topic also allows expansion of the navbox to include rows with links to related parallel topics (perhaps using parameters like|topic1=
,|topic2=
, etc.). Finally, reducing the need to scroll is not really necessary. There is no need to keep relevant category items above the fold, and the other boxes won't be aligned next to the merge target's box unless they are listed first in the category page wikisource. It is normal for portal and commons boxes to be listed as the last navigation templates on a page, which still pushes them down below the navbox despite its center alignment. Slambo (Speak) 12:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)- Re: 'under development' - stale notice removed. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Slambo, I'm glad we agree on the first two points. On the others:
- Re: 'under development' - stale notice removed. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- 3/ I do a lot of work on by-year and by-decade categories, and I strongly disagree about the convention including a prefix. {{Cat topic in year}} has only 18,000 transclusions. By contrast, {{Navseasoncats}} has 44,600 transclusions, and its by-year module (invoked directly by some templates) has 61,400 translusions. {{Year by category}} also uses no prefix, and it is transcluded in 84,000 pages.
So the labelled navbox is a small minority. The context is evident from the big bolded page title, and the destination by mousever.
The idea of expanding the navbox to include other topics is a horrible one, because it would clutter the navigation with non-core items. There's very good reason why effective signposting, whether on roads or on computing interfaces, keeps a tight focus. - 4/ It's not normal for portal boxes to be placed below navboxes. Portals and commons links float right, so are routinely added to top top of cat pages, so that left and center-aligned text can remain at the top. {{Cat topic in year}} competes for that crowded space. Look at the effect on series such as Category:Airlines established in 1999 or Category:Internet properties established in 1990, where the navbox is squeezed down below the portal, while there is unused space to the left.
As to your claim that there isno need to keep relevant category items above the fold
, that runs counter to all principles of good web design. Why would we avoidably force readers to scroll?
Per WP:CAT, categories are primarily a device for navigation between articles, and article navigation should be the most prominent part of the pages. Portals and commons links are non-article content, so they should be at the very bottom of category pages. Sadly, the mediawiki software doesn't allow us to that, so the least intrusive thing we can do is to push them to the right column. Why have this navboxes compete for that space, when more than ten times as many cat pages use the more prominent and otherwise unused space to the top left and center?
I did wee demo on Category:Internet properties established in 1990:
A/ As I found it, using Cat topic in year
B/ using navseasoncats.
Both verions are a bit cluttered by the TFD notivces, but as you can see, the version with Navseasoncats gives much more prominence to the by-year navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - First, sorry for my delay in getting back to this; I've had a busy week with travel around the state for work. My disagreement on the third and fourth points are more on the stylistic side than functionality, and your reasoning is for the betterment of the site. For me, the ease of use and reduction in maintenance are more important, both points on which we do agree. So I concede to the consensus. Slambo (Speak) 11:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- 3/ I do a lot of work on by-year and by-decade categories, and I strongly disagree about the convention including a prefix. {{Cat topic in year}} has only 18,000 transclusions. By contrast, {{Navseasoncats}} has 44,600 transclusions, and its by-year module (invoked directly by some templates) has 61,400 translusions. {{Year by category}} also uses no prefix, and it is transcluded in 84,000 pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Infobox settlement wrappers
Numbered list, to see the quantity of templates proposed for substitution:
- Template:Infobox Austrian district ( · talk) - 88 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Bangladesh district ( · talk) - 60 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Cape Verde settlement ( · talk) - 240 transclusions (used on different types: municipalities, parishes, and others)
- Template:Infobox Colombian province ( · talk) - 47 transclusions // Created 2017 - 1 editor, 2 others fixing broken things
- Template:Infobox District Slovakia ( · talk) - 78 transclusions
- Template:Infobox England region ( · talk) - 8 transclusions on region pages, 9 on list pages
- Template:Infobox French communauté ( · talk) - 49 transclusions (is that one type at all? used on items with different type name: Communauté d'agglomération/Agglomeration community, Métropole, Communauté urbaine/Urban community)
- Template:Infobox French region ( · talk) - 32 transclusions
- Template:Infobox German Regierungsbezirk ( · talk) - 34 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Helsinki subdivision ( · talk) - 90 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Latvian municipalities ( · talk) - 112 transclusions
- Template:Infobox London Borough ( · talk) - 32 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Neighborhood Portland OR ( · talk) - 93 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Nepal district ( · talk) - 78 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan ( · talk) - 55 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Province Peru ( · talk) - 189 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Province Spain ( · talk) - 38 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Province TR ( · talk) - 81 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Russian federal subject ( · talk) - 89 transclusions
- Template:Infobox Singapore neighbourhood ( · talk) - 118 transclusions
- Template:Infobox South African municipality ( · talk) - 292 transclusions
- Template:Infobox St. Louis neighborhood ( · talk) - 79 transclusions
- Template:Infobox townlands ( · talk) - 87 transclusions (used on different types: townlands and parishes)
- Template:Infobox Venezuelan municipality ( · talk) - 216 transclusions
- Template:Infobox UAE community ( · talk) - 74 transclusions
Unnecessary wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template. Direct transclusion of Infobox settlement is common practice.
- Background
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190320200030im_/https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_discussion/0/d45a94c1061072959cc3d2224edfbae79ecaeb81.png)
The 25 wrappers in this deletion proposal account for 0.48% of these transclusions.
- Recent batches of similar wrappers, which were all deleted: 2018 November 23, 2019 February 6, 2019 February 16.
- Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is
"used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"
. That is practice for over a decade, it is used on ~ 500000 articles. - The transclusions of the above templates sum up to 2675 transclusions of Infobox settlement. That is 0.48 % of the total of ~ 500 000 transclusions. Each has less than 300 transclusions, hence each has less than 0.060 % of the total transclusions.
- As of now there are 54 active templates in Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement. The above proposal would therefore reduce the quantity of these templates to 29, and 54 % of the current quantity.
89.12.133.115 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC) // withdraw LU per 2010-09-19 decision 89.12.43.84 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC) // add chart 89.14.48.38 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC) // remove Finnish municipality - was proposed by Zackmann08 - already in deletion 89.12.82.4 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comments
- Support although I find the name of the template very confusing, it's clear this is the parent template for settlements AND regions, and I strongly support a merge, as it benefits readers and editors. It's easier for editors to have a single template, and makes future maintenance and updates easier. Removing wrappers also has a secondary benefit, because it means that some attempt can be made and standardising and simplifying template code. This makes the template easier to maintain. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support replacement and delete - The process of consolidating all these wrappers helps standardize and simplify the whole process - including maintenance, documentation (which 11 of the nominated templates here have none). If the template name is an issue, it should be solved so this repeated issue can stop distracting from the actual process. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support, with a reminder to the nom to not substitute templates without making sure they subst cleanly. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Templates tagged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all, after replacement, per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, I created the Colombian province infobox with a unique entry for indigenous groups, which not only applies to these provinces, but can be used in many other cases too. There is no maintenance issue as long as it is maintained, but that needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It is not hurting anyone if these infoboxes exist. Tisquesusa (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- That currently uses the parent infobox's
|blank_name_sec1=
and|blank_info_sec1=
, so can continue to do so after substitution. However, if it is true that this "can be used in many other cases too" you can propose adding a specific parameter to that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)- Can't that parameter be relevant to other places in America (north and south), Australia and New Zealand? --Gonnym (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- My comment addresses that contingency. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can't that parameter be relevant to other places in America (north and south), Australia and New Zealand? --Gonnym (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- "There is no maintenance issue as long as it is maintained" - Exactly. And with these mini-infoboxes chances are higher, that suddenly no one maintains them. If outsiders need to understand them, it is waste of time. "It is not hurting anyone if these infoboxes exist." - User:Tisquesusa, that is simply not true. They are a burden for editors wanting to add some value for a variable that is not supported by them or named differently. 77.183.29.94 (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- That currently uses the parent infobox's
- Oppose say that I (or any other editor) want to automatically transclude population figures for Peruvian provinces from Wikidata. Right now, I would just edit the wrapper and add {{wikidata|property|P1082}} once. If the wrapper is deleted, achieving the same result would require editing 189 articles. That doesn't seem like an improvement.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not true, User:Underlying lk, one can do that in infobox settlement too. And probably it is easier to do it right in a centralized place than in 1000s of templates, if your solution means to create one template per type of entity. 77.183.43.199 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Underlying lk, seeing as how that feature doesn't exist in that template, I'd say that argument doesn't really have much weight as you'd have to get consensus for any change like that, and no one can say if that change will get the consensus or not. However, if the feature should be good to implement for {{Infobox Province Peru}}, it can also be implemented for all other articles. --Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: this is exactly what ultimately happened for Austrian articles, which are now using outdated population figures, even though updated ones were used before the wrapper was deleted.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - dedicated wrappers are very useful to me as heavy user: for instance the Cape Verde template uses the official geographic code to look up the administrative divisions the settlement is in (with consistent links, which would be lost for new articles after substitution) and the population. When a new population census has been held, these can be updated in one edit instead of 240 edits. And I use the infobox templates for maintenance, vandalism for instance. I really don't see the maintenance burden these wrapper templates present, in the history of the Cape Verde template I see some minor edits like the new way to handle coordinates. Note that the way these infoboxes show up in the articles will not change at all, so there no advantage there. If people want to add extra information fields and don't know how to do that, they can ask on the template talk page. Markussep Talk 09:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Was solved + you informed - use Wikidata [6] To store data in templates populating Infobox settlement is not the way to go. It is a fringe solution. You can easily monitor vandalism in WD. On, top, it will not be only you - what happens if you are gone? - but other users too. Cape Verde data is probably interesting to other Wikipedias too? 78.55.183.179 (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikidata is not a solution: that would mean I have to make 240 edits there to update populations after a new census. You may call it a fringe solution (there is no official ban on data templates, is there?), but it works well and requires little maintenance. And what happens whem I’m gone? Well, that’s what the documentation is for. If for instance Portuguese wikipedia is interested (they’re only one that has a similar number of articles on Cape Verde), they can copy the data template. Markussep Talk 07:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hoax. No need to make 240 edits. You have asked and have been told how to do it. 77.183.172.102 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- No need to be rude. Even if I could add all populations to wikidata at one go, I would still have to edit all individual articles to tell them to get their populations from wikidata, wouldn’t I? And this doesn’t solve the other problems I mentioned. Markussep Talk 18:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think that the IP is suggesting that a single template can be made which draws the population data for the article where it is placed from Wikidata. I should remind them that this is still a grey area on enwiki where we only have explicit consensus to use Wikidata in infoboxes, and where we have consensus not to use Wikidata in article prose. Use in tables is quite likely to be challenged until a consensus emerges one way or the other. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @RexxS: It's infoboxes we're discussing here. Or have I missed something? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, Andy, you're quite right. This case is concerned exactly with infoboxes, and I was wandering off the point talking about tables (thinking about the discussion on #Unused database population templates where the same solution would also work). --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @RexxS: It's infoboxes we're discussing here. Or have I missed something? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think that the IP is suggesting that a single template can be made which draws the population data for the article where it is placed from Wikidata. I should remind them that this is still a grey area on enwiki where we only have explicit consensus to use Wikidata in infoboxes, and where we have consensus not to use Wikidata in article prose. Use in tables is quite likely to be challenged until a consensus emerges one way or the other. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- No need to be rude. Even if I could add all populations to wikidata at one go, I would still have to edit all individual articles to tell them to get their populations from wikidata, wouldn’t I? And this doesn’t solve the other problems I mentioned. Markussep Talk 18:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hoax. No need to make 240 edits. You have asked and have been told how to do it. 77.183.172.102 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikidata is not a solution: that would mean I have to make 240 edits there to update populations after a new census. You may call it a fringe solution (there is no official ban on data templates, is there?), but it works well and requires little maintenance. And what happens whem I’m gone? Well, that’s what the documentation is for. If for instance Portuguese wikipedia is interested (they’re only one that has a similar number of articles on Cape Verde), they can copy the data template. Markussep Talk 07:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Was solved + you informed - use Wikidata [6] To store data in templates populating Infobox settlement is not the way to go. It is a fringe solution. You can easily monitor vandalism in WD. On, top, it will not be only you - what happens if you are gone? - but other users too. Cape Verde data is probably interesting to other Wikipedias too? 78.55.183.179 (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - individual wrappers are a barrier for users that are not familiar with them. And every time a feature is missing the wrapper has to be edited. TerraCyprus (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Template {{Infobox Russian District}} was recently converted to wrapper after it was taken to TfD by people who prefer principles over actual usability, and against my objections. Now it does not work and shows false information (see Vokhomsky District for example). If {{Template:Infobox Russian federal subject}} gets converted to wrapper, against my objections - and I am currently the only user who works with these templates - it is not going to work and will show false information as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- You offer nothing to substantiate your claim other than "see Vokhomsky District"; and have made no comment about the supposed issue with that article on its talk page, nor on the template's talk page. Even so, the supposed issue with a past wrapper creation does not mean that the alleged issue will affect the replacement of wrappers proposed above - the vast majority, furthermore, having nothing whatsoever to do with the mere 89 transclusions of Infobox Russian federal subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I provided enough information. This is a systemic problem for all settlement/division template converted to wrappers, not just for Russia. I am not really suprised you are not willing to see the problem, since you were one of the users lobbying the conversion in the first instance.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: What false information are you referring to? If you mean the maps, they have nothing to do with the wrapper, and in fact they were added after someone (could be you, if I'm not mistaken) complained that showing both static and dynamic maps was pointless duplication. If you notice specific issues please let the editors know, so that we can work to fix them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underlying lk (talk • contribs) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- In this case I mean indeed the map. I am pretty sure I have never added anything to the template. I complained that it had two maps, and in another instance (Mezensky District) one was wrong and one was ugly. Now it has one, which is both ugly and wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- So you allegtaions are FUD, and your opposition to the replacement of wrappers proposed here is as bogus as your ad hominem suggestion that I'm "not willing" to see the non-existent issue with the proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- In this case I mean indeed the map. I am pretty sure I have never added anything to the template. I complained that it had two maps, and in another instance (Mezensky District) one was wrong and one was ugly. Now it has one, which is both ugly and wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: What false information are you referring to? If you mean the maps, they have nothing to do with the wrapper, and in fact they were added after someone (could be you, if I'm not mistaken) complained that showing both static and dynamic maps was pointless duplication. If you notice specific issues please let the editors know, so that we can work to fix them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underlying lk (talk • contribs) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I provided enough information. This is a systemic problem for all settlement/division template converted to wrappers, not just for Russia. I am not really suprised you are not willing to see the problem, since you were one of the users lobbying the conversion in the first instance.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- You offer nothing to substantiate your claim other than "see Vokhomsky District"; and have made no comment about the supposed issue with that article on its talk page, nor on the template's talk page. Even so, the supposed issue with a past wrapper creation does not mean that the alleged issue will affect the replacement of wrappers proposed above - the vast majority, furthermore, having nothing whatsoever to do with the mere 89 transclusions of Infobox Russian federal subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Having one solid "Infobox Settlement" benefits not only the general editors of Wikipedia but also enables the power users to center their efforts on improving the Infobox Settlement for any needs that may arise in the future.--Darwinek (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note that 10, 15, and 20 have not been tagged. Agathoclea (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. This proposal embraces 25 separate templates, and it's entirely possible that some might have issues that others don't. (Examples include the Peru and Russia bits mentioned above; they ought to get considered separately.) Please renominate everything individually or in smaller groups to permit discussion at a more granular level. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- FUD. -
it's entirely possible that some might have issues that others don't
(bolding mine) - All are wrappers for the same Infobox template which is proposed to be transcluded directly, thus the presentation will not change and it is reasonable (same wrapped template) to put these in one batch, precedence for batch proposals has been presented. There have been 3 recent batches for such replacements, each passed. Dozens of other wrappers or similar templates have been deleted in favor of Infobox settlement. 410 000+ articles transclude Infobox settlement directly, so it is well established practice and editors have knowledge how to work with that infobox template. Of the mentioned two oppose votes, Peru was solved, and Russia identified as irrelevant to the proposal here, since the referenced case was about converting into a wrapper, but here it is about replacing a wrapper. If you have any concern regarding a specific replacement proposed above say so. Just saying that "there might [be] issues" is not a reason. Nothing would change in individual proposals or other groupings apart from splitting the discussion and repeating the standard reasons for the proposed standardization. The larger group made it even easier for the opposers to stop the batch, but they failed with 6:4 pro, which surprisingly made User:Hhkohh turn it into a relist. List of closed (not relisted) proposals since 2018 November 1:- 2018 November 8#Template:Infobox Omaha Neighborhood - 1:0 pro
- 2018 November 8#Template:Infobox Kelurahan - 1:0 pro
- 2018 November 16#Template:Infobox Fylkeskommune (batch of 2) - 3:0 pro
- 2018 November 23 (batch of 6) - 2:0 pro
- 2019 February 6#Template:Infobox Belgium settlement - 3:0 pro
- 2019 February 6 (batch of 8) - 3:2 pro
- 2019 February 14#Template:Infobox district of Iraq - 2:1 pro
- 2019 February 16#Template:Infobox Maldives - 3:1 pro
- 2019 February 16 (batch of 10) - 3:0 pro
- 2019 February 17#Template:Infobox Town AT - 6:0 pro
- 2019 February 17#Template:Infobox Partido Argentina - 2:0 pro
- 2019 February 22#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality - 2:1 pro
- 77.183.81.143 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- FUD. -
- Question Maybe User:Hhkohh can explain why s/he relisted when voting was 6:4 and one of the opposers was offtopic and all what was said by the opposer referencing Columbia can be done with the Infobox settlement w/o changing its code. 77.183.81.143 (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTAVOTE. This time let an admin close it Hhkohh (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: there was certainly opposition at the {{Infobox Town AT}} discussion: mine. Moreover, contrary to what was said by the nominator Zackmann08 "
To be clear, this specific TFD is NOT discussing removing the use of
", the population templates were immediately substed after the Infobox Town AT tfd had been closed. I haven't seen a single convincing argument to delete the infobox wrappers. Show me the maintenance burden that a wrapper like {{Infobox Town AT}} or {{Infobox Cape Verde settlement}} presents. It's not like there are hundreds of wrappers that need to be updated when something is changed at Infobox settlement, and judging from the history of Infobox Cape Verde settlement, these changes are only about once a year. Could someone please make a clear list of advantages of this deletion proposal? I can list some disadvantages:{{Metadata population AT-6}}
. That would be discussed in a separate TFD. So if that is your only concern, that you need not worry about it. These pages can simply make a direct call to that template.- Loss of consistency between articles about similar topics (municipalities of Austria, settlements of Cape Verde, etc.), e.g. links to higher administrative divisions. Several wrappers link to higher administrative divisions and use specific detailed pushpin maps based on their official geographic code
- Loss of country-specific maintenance tools: several infobox wrappers place articles with (unintentional or vandalic) bad infobox content (like "state = disneyland") in a maintenance category
- Loss of the facility to update population data for hundreds of settlements in one edit, see also this discussion. Markussep Talk 09:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: there was certainly opposition at the {{Infobox Town AT}} discussion: mine. Moreover, contrary to what was said by the nominator Zackmann08 "
- See WP:NOTAVOTE. This time let an admin close it Hhkohh (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Markussep. A replacement of this scale should take the main users of the templates onboard. —Kusma (t·c) 12:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is great that somebody finally made this argument. The previous templates were delete/ converted to wrappers despite the opposition of the main users of these templates. Let us at least here finally listen to them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ymblanter & Kusma While I support this TFD, I'm curious whether this might be a good case for a procedural closure based on the fact that these are all grouped. It might be better to discuss them one at a time. Critiques that apply to one or two of these may not apply to others. This is further supported by Nyttend's statement above.
- Note to closing admin: If the decision is keep, would you consider a note about no prejudice against renominating in smaller individual batches. I'm not saying immediately renominate all 25 in separate TFDs, but I think if these were done in smaller batches, a more helpful conversation could be had. Food for thought. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- If these templates get discussed separately, the usual suspects who always vote for wrappers / merging / deletion will outnumber users of any particular template, and templates can not survive. When had a community using Russian-related templates we were able to defend them, but gradually all users left, I remained the only user of these templates, they were all nominated here and destroyed by people who are actually not using them, against my objections and without any policy-based arguments. At least right now there are many users here who use different templates, and, as far as I can see, all of them oppose deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is great that somebody finally made this argument. The previous templates were delete/ converted to wrappers despite the opposition of the main users of these templates. Let us at least here finally listen to them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Including the reasons above; It always puzzled me why people would assume that a single vanilla template would be expected to fit every article use case. I suspect the maintenance burden is overstated. scope_creepTalk 16:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Simpsons episode
Propose merging Template:Infobox Simpsons episode with Template:Infobox television episode.
Infobox Simpsons episode is one of only two episode infoboxes that have a separate show-specific infobox. In being a separate infobox, the template has not been kept up-to-date with the changes of the main episode infobox:
- Missing the
|teleplay=
and|story=
parameters, which episodes such as "Black Widower" and "'Round Springfield" should use. - Missing the
|multi_episodes=
parameter, which episodes such as "The Great Phatsby" should use. - Missing
|photographer=
,|editor=
and|runtime=
. - Missing short description.
- Non-standard episode numbering - while ~10k articles use a numbering style which is based on the episode number of a current season (as in season 30, episode 2), this uses the total number of episode in the show (as in 641). This gives much less context to the reader and there is no reason to deviate from the norm here.
- Inadequate documentation (including no TemplateData).
- No real maintainers, as can be seen from Category:Pages using infobox Simpsons episode with unknown parameters, compared to {{Infobox episode}}'s category.
Additionally, this infobox has some unique features not present in {{Infobox episode}}:
- A complete season episode list - which per this discussion has been removed from all episode infoboxes and should be removed from this one.
- A complete season list which should be removed as well, as it duplicates the season list that already appears in the navbox template at the bottom of every episode article.
- Using
|show runner=
parameter instead of a|producer=
parameter, which per a recent discussion consensus seem to be against having a show runner parameter in the infobox. - 3 unique parameters -
|blackboard=
,|couch gag=
and|commentary=
. The 3 unique parameters can either be added to the standard episode infobox, be used in a sub-infobox template or be removed. It's worth noting that a lot of other TV series have unique episode-specific features, which aren't represented in the infobox: Lost could have "Flashback/Flash-Forward/Flash-Sideways", "Featured character" and "Day" parameters; Star Trek: The Original Series can have a "Star date" parameter. The Simpsons is not a unique show in this aspect. Worth noting that the "Featured character" for Lost and the "Star date" for Star Trek: The Original Series are already represented in their episode list tables (yet are absent from the infobox). Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rewrite the base template to allow custom parameters and make the Simpsons template transclude the television template with those custom parameters accounted for. We also have to take Who Shot Mr. Burns? into account as a multi-part episode that is stretched between two seasons. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Convert to wrapper given the large number of transclusions (665) I think it is valid to have a separate template for consistency. Each of these has a
{{{couch_gag}}}
for example. While this can use the custom params, having a separate template keeps them consistent. That being said, I do think it should be converted to be a wrapper for {{Infobox television episode}}. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Unique fields such as Couch gags and chalkboard gags should be considered moving into the merging template in order for them to work. Iggy (Swan) 16:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Inherit from Template:Infobox television episode. Right now the Simpsons infobox inherits from Template:Infobox, and I think it would benefit from some standardization with other episodes. However, the 3 unique parameters are useful and should be allowed to remain. If Template:Infobox television episode were expanded to allow unique parameters for every show, it would become exceedingly unwieldy, so what makes sense is to have it allow its subtemplates to add unique parameters and define them in the subtemplate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
March 6
Hatnote list modules
- Module:About-distinguish ( · talk)
- Module:Distinguish ( · talk)
- Module:Main list ( · talk)
Propose merging Module:About-distinguish, Module:Distinguish and Module:Main list.
Nearly duplicate modules, sharing the core component of taking an unlimited number of parameters from template arguments and converting them into a list using Module:Hatnote list. All of the other features are frills that could easily be implemented in Wikitext. I've written a merged module at Module:Sandbox/pppery/sentence list hatnote (distinguishing this from the previous TfD, when no merged module was available), and written templates that use it in Template:About-distinguish/sandbox, Template:Distinguish/sandbox and Template:Main list/sandbox. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging participants from previous discussions: @Nihiltres, SMcCandlish, and GreenC: {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Module:Cat main is intentionally excluded from this nomination, because (a) it has several unique features like bolding the title and (b) there was some talk about making it not a hatnote at all. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. I'm in favor of consolidating code like this whenever practical to do so. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support merger in principle,
oppose current implementation- instead of writing the the actual text hatnote in the template and having all templates access the same module entry point, create a different entry point for each different style (then continue the code as normal, with all entry points accessing the list() function). As I've commented in a previous discussion, if we go with a module design pattern, then keep all the code there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)- I deliberately modeled my code in Module:Sandbox/pppery/sentence list hatnote after Module:Labelled list hatnote, which similarly takes all its arguments from wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- If that is indeed the already used practice, then I don't oppose that anymore. Question, I looked at the code in Module:Labelled list hatnote and am wondering why does your module code copy so much of that code, instead of letting the Labelled list module handle it? Is there a reason I'm missing why it can't handle it? --Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Because Nihiltres opposed merging with Module:Labelled list hatnote in the July 5 TfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Amazing. Well, in that case there is not a lot to do. It's very silly to duplicate over 90% of a module, but it seems that there is no other way. --Gonnym (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Feel free to propose a merge of the two modules after this discussion concludes (I would support it). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I feel that you took me too literally on that; there's obviously enough commonality between the two to propose an expansion that would reuse most of the code directly in a DRY manner by refactoring monolithic code into separate functions. I opposed the July 5 one on the grounds that it didn't make sense to bloat Module:Labelled list hatnote to support {{Distinguish}} alone, but I did explicitly mention the possibility of rearranging the module structure to accommodate the idea. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 07:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Amazing. Well, in that case there is not a lot to do. It's very silly to duplicate over 90% of a module, but it seems that there is no other way. --Gonnym (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Because Nihiltres opposed merging with Module:Labelled list hatnote in the July 5 TfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- If that is indeed the already used practice, then I don't oppose that anymore. Question, I looked at the code in Module:Labelled list hatnote and am wondering why does your module code copy so much of that code, instead of letting the Labelled list module handle it? Is there a reason I'm missing why it can't handle it? --Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I deliberately modeled my code in Module:Sandbox/pppery/sentence list hatnote after Module:Labelled list hatnote, which similarly takes all its arguments from wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Specifically, I oppose the implementation for {{about-distinguish}} that puts its Wikidata functionality in wikitext, because I oppose splitting template logic between modules and wikitext. It's one thing to supply simple text labels on the wikitext side, and quite another to supply conditionals; it's a needlessly confusing practice. I would suggest instead a simple "wrapper" module that added these conditionals by injecting their result into the input of the main function. The rest is okay I guess but could use a bit of tweaking; I haven't looked over it as thoroughly as I probably should.
More generally, and let me make it unequivocally clear this time: Pppery, I find your practice of introducing template changes through TfD to be unwiki and unconducive to collaboration with you. I find it stressful to see nothing for some time, then be pinged on a TfD where I must—as a result of the format—argue these changes pass/fail rather than talking through the merits of different approaches. Please, use the talk pages and talk about your plans (and I'd appreciate if you ping me there), so I and others can comment and work with you rather than this adversarial-feeling approach. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 07:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't fully understand all the issues here but seeing some concern and controversy over how this is being handled. Recommend best worked out in a talk page discussion where ideas can be hashed out among stake holders, then implemented and finally the formality of a TfD. -- GreenC 15:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:People who flew to the Moon without landing
No article on the subject. Not a suitable intersection for a navbox. Might be more suited to a category, if it doesn't break WP:OC rules. If it is kept, only the people should remain, not all the superfluous information, which is not suited to navboxes. --woodensuperman 16:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, as the creator (but that's neither here nor there) I felt that, since there is already a template for the 12 people who walked on the Moon, the 12
poor non-historic soulswho just got to circle it should have a scrap or two.And yeah, the "superflouous information" - the links to the only nine Moon missions that the human race has traveled on - may be tangential and little-known outside of their families and friends.Since we are now in the 50-year anniversary cycle of the Moon landings, andsillyeditors, unaware that few find them important,have been diligently working on all aspects of every Apollo mission, Isomehowthought that such a template would be appreciated. Butalas, a scent of deletion leadsthis template, whichis so 1968 to 1972, to the edge of the happy hunting ground. But wait...a little voice asks "How about combining both templates?" so I'll mock one up (and speaking as a space buff and historian, it really looks beautiful). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC) - Merge For what it is worth, I plan to make the article after I get List of people who have walked on the Moon to FL. I would stylize it a little different maybe, but not delete it. Kees08 (Talk) 00:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Kees08. Did you see the merged template mock-up I worked up, linked in the last sentence in my comment. I'd better highlight it. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I just saw that you saw it, what do you think of the merge? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge is fine with me. Changed vote. Kees08 (Talk) 05:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge There is no need for the Apollo astronauts to be split up, having been on most of the same missions. I endorse Randy Kryn's combined template which looks terrific. Reywas92Talk 04:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge as above; consider merging into {{Apollo program}}; otherwise keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge - if you plan to keep the bottom row then a different name should be considered or remove that row. The template also overlinks to the Apollo missions which it really shouldn't even link to as those articles don't have this template so the links aren't WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. If merged per Andy's suggestion with {{Apollo program}}, both issues should be fixed. --Gonnym (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I removed 'Moon landings' from below, as it is a bit too tangential. The others in 'below' are closely related and directly relevant to the Apollo Moon travelers, as they consist of their vehicles and program, and the Moon walkers template are on those pages. The merge I suggested was to merge the Moon walkers and Moon travelers template as shown by the link in my rambling comment, as these individuals and their deeds are important enough to continue to exist as a separate template and not be merged, and a bit lost, in the overall Apollo program template. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge with Randy's template; no real reason to split up the walked and didn't-walk astronauts, since the number of flying-to-the-Moon astronauts is small enough to fix easily on one template. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Slighty-Agree-Merge Randy's conceit gets it right, and encourages the reader/user to learn of the related personnel. It's also a good way to deal with possible "template-bloat". That said, I do have a reasonable gut-feeling that the 12 moonwalkers deserve their own thing on general principles. MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox D&D creature
Propose merging Template:Infobox D&D creature with Template:Infobox fictional race.
D&D creatures are not specific characters, but a race or species which {{Infobox fictional race}} is setup to handle. |collapsible=
and |state=
should not be added as the infobox information shouldn't be hidden and shouldn't be long that it needs hiding. |mythical=
and |based=
are both used for the same thing - and |based_on=
is already available in {{Infobox fictional race}}. |wizards_image_URL=
should not be included in the infobox and instead should be available in an External links section. |source=
should also not be included and should only include the first/last appearance as is done with {{Infobox fictional race}} and |infobox character=
- listing every appearance of something can turn into a giant list. If a complete list is needed, it should be done in the article body. Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox video game also allows for collapsing. There, as here, it is implemented here (good or bad) because many of these races end up on list pages and have infoboxes in each section. Without collapsing, these infoboxes take up much more space than they should. (I don't think I personally support that use case, but it does exist.) --Izno (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Won't speak for the video game infobox as this isn't its TfD, but MOS:DONTHIDE says that auto hiding content should not be done. After checking what articles use this feature - there are 3 articles using
|collapsible=
(and none using|state=
). Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters has the infoboxes placed inside a column of another table. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters has it placed inside another table, which it itself is also hidden. List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76) is it again placed inside a cell of another table, but this time it is also besides running text. None of these are valid uses. I also strongly believe that "Lists of" shouldn't have an infobox for every entry as the list entry itself is supposed to be short summary so there is no reason for the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Won't speak for the video game infobox as this isn't its TfD, but MOS:DONTHIDE says that auto hiding content should not be done. After checking what articles use this feature - there are 3 articles using
- Template:Colts1953DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1954DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1955DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1956DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1957DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1958DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1959DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1960DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1961DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1962DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1963DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1964DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1965DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1966DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1967DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1971DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1974DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1981DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1982DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1983DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1984DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1985DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1986DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1987DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1988DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1989DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1990DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1991DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1992DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1993DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1994DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1995DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1996DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1997DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1998DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts1999DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2000DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2001DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2002DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2003DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2004DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2005DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2006DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2007DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2008DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2009DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2010DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2011DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2012DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2013DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2014DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2015DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2016DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2017DraftPicks ( · talk)
- Template:Colts2018DraftPicks ( · talk)
Unused templates. Only incoming links are from each other... Additionally, violate WP:ACCESS. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Inclined to delete per nom and WP:NOTALMANAC, and unused. Ping to Trut-h-urts man and Yankees10 who created these templates and might be able to shed light on how they are used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Seems at least most of these are unused. The templates themself are a problematic though. The years link to other templates, not articles, and the color scheme makes it hard to actually see what is a link and what is a red link. I'm also inclined to delete. --Gonnym (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose All of the navboxes should be linked to the pages of the drafted players so I find the claim that they are only linked to each other highly dubious take how the 1998 navbox links to Peyton Manning.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. I just went and clicked through on one of them (Template:Colts2008DraftPicks). It is fully linked on all 9 player pages, so to say that all of these navboxes are unused is false. If there are ones that have not been fully deployed on player pages, that is a fixable issue. I have been going through and trying to make sure they are all used, but that will take a while because of the sheer number of boxes that have been sent to TfD here. As far as this entire class of navboxes as a concept, a broader discussion would have to take place at WT:NFL before we should be taking any action there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- All of these templates are now fully used. Additionally, any WP:ACCESS concerns that may exist here actually involve a different template, not this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all Fails WP:NAVBOX item 4:
There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
. For example, {{Colts2018DraftPicks}} has no dedicated article, but is a subset of the content at 2018 NFL Draft and 2018 Indianapolis Colts season. Also fails WP:NAVBOX item 5:If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.
A better argument could be made for something more distinguishing like List of Indianapolis Colts first-round draft picks. This is WP:NAVBOXCREEP.—Bagumba (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- See, I have the exact opposite opinion. I really don't see anything special or particularly distinguishing about being a first-round draft pick (as opposed to being drafted in any other round), and I'm not sure why we ever started generating navboxes based upon that particular distinction in the first place. These navboxes show all of the players who were drafted in the same draft class by the Colts in any given year, which, to me, is a much more useful grouping. I would argue that 2018 Indianapolis Colts season is the article that would satisfy WP:NAVBOX #4. As for WP:NAVBOX #5, I would argue that Template:ColtsFirstPick fails that one much more so than Template:Colts2018DraftPicks does. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- re: NAVBOX #4, the fact that we need to "argue" about whether it is met by an article named different than the navbox is my usually tip-off of NAVBOXCREEP. I expect it to be obvious, otherwise someone is just churning out cross sections.—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- re: the first round picks, my point is that it more obviously meets NAVBOX #4. I wasn't necessarily saying I would keep that either (and that would be for another TfD anyways).—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- See, I have the exact opposite opinion. I really don't see anything special or particularly distinguishing about being a first-round draft pick (as opposed to being drafted in any other round), and I'm not sure why we ever started generating navboxes based upon that particular distinction in the first place. These navboxes show all of the players who were drafted in the same draft class by the Colts in any given year, which, to me, is a much more useful grouping. I would argue that 2018 Indianapolis Colts season is the article that would satisfy WP:NAVBOX #4. As for WP:NAVBOX #5, I would argue that Template:ColtsFirstPick fails that one much more so than Template:Colts2018DraftPicks does. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep all, navboxes in active or potential use, editorial decision for editors of the relevant articles whether these should be used or not. —Kusma (t·c) 14:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This is navigational overkill, especially since a number of those drafted don't even end up playing for the team and those selected the same year is not the strongest connection to other players. Reywas92Talk 01:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
UKBot
- Module:UKB criterion ( · talk)
- Template:UKB criterion ( · talk)
- Template:UKB point deduction ( · talk)
- Template:UKB points ( · talk)
- Template:UKB rosette ( · talk)
The English Wikipedia does not run this kind of bot-scored competition, so they are all unused with little possibility of use. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 19#UKBot {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: As the creator, I need to maintain an English version of the templates anyways since I cannot translate them directly from Norwegian to Basque and Finnish. Of course I can keep the English version somewhere else, but it's quite convenient to keep them here since they are then interwiki-linked, the documentation is easily readable, and it comes with the bonus that the bot can easily be enabled at English Wikipedia if anyone's interested in using it for article contents here. – Danmichaelo (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Danmichaelo. See no reason to disrupt things. -- GreenC 14:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Danmichaelo, no clear advantages to deletion, downsides for one user. —Kusma (t·c) 14:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Where is the BRFA for this bot? --Izno (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UKBot {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Btw. the contest mentioned in the BRFA was run from fiwiki instead in the end. – Danmichaelo (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UKBot {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
March 5
Template:Bohrium
- Template:Bohrium ( · talk)
unused template. Not clear what it would be used for. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - one of many element templates from Category:Chemical element symbol templates. My opinion is that 1) they should be subst only 2) We have all of them or none of them. I would probably be neutral if you had nominated all of them. Christian75 (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and consider deprecation, per Christian75. My experience with WP:ELEMENTS is that these are rarely used, so deprecation is a good option. People editing element pages rarely if ever use such a template to show the symbol. Also, wikilinking the symbol not the name in plain text is rare by itself. Templates like {{Periodic table}} create the link differently. -DePiep (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as T3 to Template:Element, if I understand the purpose of this template correctly. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why don't you talk about the category already mentioned? -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because the fact that many other templates share the same faults as this one does not make this one's existence any more valid. Delete all pages in the category (although that's out of scope here). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then propose that scope. -DePiep (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that apparently just one out of a complete 122 template set is unused, is an argument to keep and keep the set complete. Even more so when the nom writes "Not clear what it would be used for", while 121 sister templates are used, ie the nomination was based on lack of info now present. -DePiep (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because the fact that many other templates share the same faults as this one does not make this one's existence any more valid. Delete all pages in the category (although that's out of scope here). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why don't you talk about the category already mentioned? -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. The tempalte's documentation is
"This is a chemical element symbol template. To use this template, enter in {{element|number of atoms|charge|atomic mass}}. For example, 14N2+ would be {{nitrogen|2|+|14}}. This template should not be substituted because they contain complex wikicode."
, which appears to be nonsensical, in the context of Bohrium. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per above. This particular template's documentation doesn't make sense as it appears to have been copied from somewhere else by mistake. What the template does is return the element symbol of bohrium, and so {{bohrium}} is equivalent to {{element|bohrium}}. I don't have an opinion on whether this should continue to be used or deprecated, but it's part of a system covering all chemical elements (see Category:Chemical element symbol templates). It's certainly more useful for some (like {{iron}} or {{gold}}), but any decision about deprecating or deleting should be done at the level of the whole system: leaving a random gap like that is just disruptive. – Uanfala (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (all or none, but we are not discussing that). The categorisation makes the use possible use fairly clear, and anyone who uses other element symbol templates will understandably expect this one. —Kusma (t·c) 17:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural note: Looks like the wider proposal (delete all) is worth discussing. Could we close this one, and open a new TfD that proposes to delete all? (ping nom Zackmann08) -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- This specific template is unused, however as noted above it is part of a series. I agree with DePiep that a new TfD should open for the whole series. --Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question for Zackmann08 (nom). In the nomination, you made two statements. Both have been expanded upon in the discussion. (your "Not clear what it would be used for" was clarified, simply by poiting to the documentation). With this new information, you were asked to digest the info and reconsider your nomination [7]. Instead, you evaded a reply altogether while relisting for no apparent reason instead. So again I ask: please expand on the nomination using the new information; a different solution is proposed. (For now, I skip the question that might rise from WP:RELIST, e.g., re involved editor and other options). -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- So by now, the nominator has not responded to questions and procedural options at all, but did behave as closing admin by relisting. Zackmann is a TE, an not an admin. In this behaviour, I think Zackmann crosses the line of not being "uninvolved editor" when relisting, and also showing a bad attitude wrt the discussion by not engaging. (To spell out the obvious: Zackmann the nom better had replied & acted re the questions & options mentioned, working towards a result). Since there is a pattern in this behaviour, there might come a moment to question this behaviour thoroughly. Meanwhile, they left this discussion needlessly crippled. -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Block-appeal
Unused template that is superseded by various other templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - replaced by Template:Uw-voablock it seems. --Gonnym (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Template:Unblock, which is how to appeal a block. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Blocks of Ranchi district
Unused template that is over 12 years old. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and add to articles: clearly appropriate. – Uanfala (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: @Uanfala: now unused again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hhkohh:: pings don't work from inside relists. And I'm not sure I see what you're trying to point out. – Uanfala (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - No article Blocks of Ranchi district. Ranchi district#Administration mentions "Ranchi district consists of 18 Blocks." but then lists only 7, each of which says it is "one of the twenty administrative community development block of Ranchi district, Jharkhand state, India." The template lists 14 blocks. All a mess. Until we have some real referenced content the template should be deleted. Content first, then template is necessary. Nigej (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, the content in this area definitely needs updating (the current number appears to be 18 [8]). But that's beside the point, as long as there are articles in Category:Community development blocks in Ranchi district, it makes sense to have a navbox to navigate between them. And yes, there's no article at Blocks of Ranchi district, but neither should there be one. This is a common situation for administrative divisions, it's normal to have a navbox for something like "Municipalities in District Y" without there ever being a need for an article specifically about the concept of municipalities in district Y. – Uanfala (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't agree. Good practice at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates #4 "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". Also #3 "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." If there is a suitable category where the articles appear then that is, in some sense, a good reason for NOT having a template to navigate between them, since that is provided by the category. Nigej (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, the content in this area definitely needs updating (the current number appears to be 18 [8]). But that's beside the point, as long as there are articles in Category:Community development blocks in Ranchi district, it makes sense to have a navbox to navigate between them. And yes, there's no article at Blocks of Ranchi district, but neither should there be one. This is a common situation for administrative divisions, it's normal to have a navbox for something like "Municipalities in District Y" without there ever being a need for an article specifically about the concept of municipalities in district Y. – Uanfala (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've brought the template up to date and added it to a couple of articles. – Uanfala (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry if this action might have appeared as wilful attempt at bypassing the discussion. In face, before doing that I had started typing out a long reply, but halfway through I realised that engaging in the long hermeneutic exercise of showing why a commonly used type of navbox doesn't actually go against the guidelines takes time, which is better spent on more productive tasks, like updating the template and the articles in navigates between. – Uanfala (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter
Unused Category template. Appears to have been used for categories at some point but is currently unused. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete? Seems this a subst template, but it still isn't used in subcategories of Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source. Instead {{Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter nogallery}} is used. --Gonnym (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Both templates are used for User:DumbBOT/CatCreate, see Special:Diff/887491948. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand that diff. Why did the bot create a category with one template then a few seconds later updated it with the other template? Am I missing something? --Gonnym (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is so the gallery version link can be clicked to show the files in a gallery while just being a list by default. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Still don't understand. The gallery version with the link is from {{Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter nogallery}} - that I get. What I don't get, is what does {{Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter}} provide for the few seconds its there. --Gonnym (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Creating a category with {{subst:Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter}} provides an old revision of the category page without
__NOGALLERY__
to link to in the subsequent replacement with {{subst:Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter nogallery}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Creating a category with {{subst:Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter}} provides an old revision of the category page without
- Still don't understand. The gallery version with the link is from {{Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter nogallery}} - that I get. What I don't get, is what does {{Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter}} provide for the few seconds its there. --Gonnym (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is so the gallery version link can be clicked to show the files in a gallery while just being a list by default. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand that diff. Why did the bot create a category with one template then a few seconds later updated it with the other template? Am I missing something? --Gonnym (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ælfgifu theories
Unused chart template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This template just presents one possible answer to a web of hypothetical relationships for which there is no scholarly consensus, with as many different versions as scholars who have published on it. I suspect this chart was prepared by someone who was entirely unaware of the century of medievalists who have produced alternative reconstructions of the same set of vague relational statements and possible associations. It is inherently POV, and there is no way to fix it - one can't present in a single chart the different mutually-exclusive permutations, nor would having the numerous charts necessary to summarize all the alternative solutions workable. When it comes down to it, this template can't help but produce more smoke than light. Agricolae (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Now linked again from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, as it was until November 2018 when User:Agricolae removed the svg of the chart and the link to the template it was based on. The section discussing these theories is well-referenced and notes that they are only tentative and not conclusive. They are not just some individual editor's flight of fancy. It is notable that Agricolae did not remove the text. Why then remove the diagram, which merely illustrates what is written in the text and makes it easier to follow? I have therefore restored the diagram to the text, and the link to this template which provides clickable links, and from which the svg diagram was created. Jheald (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- The template was also similarly linked from Æthelstan Half-King, which Agricolae also removed (diff). I haven't yet restored the revision there, but it seems to me it would be similarly useful to illustrate Æthelstan's direct family, and it did state that the possible connections to the Anglo-Saxon royal family should be regarded as tentative. That seems to me an appropriate presentation, so I would be fully minded to restore it there too. Jheald (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed it, because it gives a misleading simplistic representation of what is a very complex issue, even with a caveat (that we both know will be ignored) about it being tentative. Agricolae (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Agricolae: And you also removed it from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, where it directly corresponds to what is written in the text there? Jheald (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed it. I thought I would have made this clear by saying in my previous response that "I removed it".
- We do no favors by making a pretty chart template that hides the tenuous nature of these guesses (and completely ignores alternative reconstructions), a chart that can (and no doubt will) then be placed on other pages that lack even the context of the problematic discussion found on the Ælfgifu page. That one could select different sources and end up with a different chart with different relationships (e.g. with Æthelfrith the son of Æthelhelm and father-in-law of Æthelgifu via marriage to Eadric, thereby turning almost all the blue people green, or perhaps aqua) just demonstrates we shouldn't be memorializing any single set of hyper-speculative guesses in this way. Agricolae (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- The chart has faults but I do not agree that it is worse than useless and should be deleted. It does show the two alternative lines which are discussed by modern historians and in the article and will help the reader. The fact that other versions, which are not mentioned in the article, have been discussed by scholars is not a reason to delete the chart. The main fault with the chart is that it is not referenced. It is not satisfactory to rely on referencing in the article on Ælgifu, which in any case is very unsatisfactory. Also the article does not cover all the (possible) relationships shown in the table. The descent from Æthelred I is supported by Yorke and Wormald, but not that the line went through through Æthelhelm, which is claimed by genealogists and rejected by historians. It should be removed. The alternative of descent from Ealhswith's parents is supported by Stafford but only discussed in detail by Hart so far as I am aware. I am not familiar with the details of this theory and they need to be fully referenced to Hart. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Agricolae: And you also removed it from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, where it directly corresponds to what is written in the text there? Jheald (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed it, because it gives a misleading simplistic representation of what is a very complex issue, even with a caveat (that we both know will be ignored) about it being tentative. Agricolae (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per Agricolae's analysis. I'm not qualified to assess the details of that analysis but I trust it particularly since the events occurred over a thousand years ago. Given that the template is unused and that it probably presents a misleading picture, it should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- The template is not transcluded, but it is not unused -- it is linked to in multiple places where the SVG version is shown -- on the Ælfgifu page, on the Ælfgifu talkpage, and on the description page of the SVG itself. The advantage of the SVG is that it can be thumbnailed. But the advantage of the template is that it contains active links which the SVG does not; it is also the raw material from which the SVG was created, and from which any modified version (presumably) would need to be created. Jheald (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. The chart was unused at the time of nomination as it had been deleted from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, but it is specifically intended to show the two lines of descent discussed in that article and in my view does help to explain them to readers, subject to the improvements I suggested above. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
March 4
Template:Scottish council populations
Barely used. Text should just be subst directly into the article. No reason to store this data in a template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It's done like that because the population estimates are updated annually. This provides a central point of update rather than changing 32 council area articles, and a few others such as List of Scottish council areas by population.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 23:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Storing data is a misuse of Template namespace unless each individual datum is used on substantially more than one article. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well said Pppery --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, is there an approved way of achieving the same effect? This is not the most extensive of my templates - there is a set for England (listed at Template:English district population) some of which decode into over 320 data values each of which is used, like, 2 or 3 times. There are also much smaller ones for Wales (see Template:Welsh council population) and Northern Ireland (Template:NI district population). Changing these to in-article values is both a large one-off effort and a large and difficult-to-control annual maintenance effort.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 23:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well said Pppery --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep the point of these templates is to support our core mission of being an encyclopedia. There is a demonstrated use per Keith Edkins who makes a good argument as why it makes editing easier for them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Nomination seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of this template's purpose. It allows the populations of all the relevant localities to be updated in one go in one place rather than having to update dozens of articles. @Pppery: As far as I can see, the data in the template is being used in the way you say it should be (i.e. on all the Scottish council articles). Number 57 12:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Number 57: Nope, you misundestood me. The population of Aberdeenshire is only used on Aberdeenshire. It doesn't matter how many times the template is used, it matters how many times each individual piece of data in the template is used, and this template fails that test. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. Just seems a pretty crap test to me then, as this is clearly a useful template. It could be easily be used usefully elsewhere though (e.g. to add the populations to Subdivisions of Scotland). Number 57 12:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Number 57: Your point is not without merit but that isn't how we do things on here. It opens up a whole can of worms... You could abstract ANY data set out into a template like that. If you are going to have a template for the populations so that they can all be updated in one go, then you should also have a template for current members of Parliament and things just spiral out of control from there. Consider a sports league (such as the NFL). Are you going to create templates that store current manager, current coach, current record, etc. etc.? You get what I mean about it spiraling... This data should be stored directly on the page. If your concern is the need to bulk update the data (which I agree is a pain) I would encourage you to consider a WP:BOT. As a bot operator myself, I would be more than happy to write you a bot that would update these pages all in one go. Honestly wouldn't be very difficult to do. Feel free to ping me directly to discuss. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is how we do things though; these types of templates have been around for a long time and I am aware of several other examples, including for sports teams. There is zero problem with it being stored in the template space, and the alternative of using a bot is a massively regressive step that I will not be considering. Number 57 22:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Number 57: Your point is not without merit but that isn't how we do things on here. It opens up a whole can of worms... You could abstract ANY data set out into a template like that. If you are going to have a template for the populations so that they can all be updated in one go, then you should also have a template for current members of Parliament and things just spiral out of control from there. Consider a sports league (such as the NFL). Are you going to create templates that store current manager, current coach, current record, etc. etc.? You get what I mean about it spiraling... This data should be stored directly on the page. If your concern is the need to bulk update the data (which I agree is a pain) I would encourage you to consider a WP:BOT. As a bot operator myself, I would be more than happy to write you a bot that would update these pages all in one go. Honestly wouldn't be very difficult to do. Feel free to ping me directly to discuss. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. Just seems a pretty crap test to me then, as this is clearly a useful template. It could be easily be used usefully elsewhere though (e.g. to add the populations to Subdivisions of Scotland). Number 57 12:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Number 57: Nope, you misundestood me. The population of Aberdeenshire is only used on Aberdeenshire. It doesn't matter how many times the template is used, it matters how many times each individual piece of data in the template is used, and this template fails that test. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine
Convert to a wrapper that transcludes {{Infobox settlement}}. 89.14.255.155 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep this inbox has worked well; why change a thing which works?? Huldra (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I cannot see that {{Infobox settlement}} has a field for date and cause of depopulation? Those are among the most vital fields in "Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine" Huldra (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Use blank fields. 89.14.255.155 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Standardise appearance and internal structure is the answer to "has worked well". It will work as well as before and even better. 495 000 articles use Infobox settlement, the 421 transclusions here are not even 0.1% of that quantity. 78.55.45.243 (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I cannot see that {{Infobox settlement}} has a field for date and cause of depopulation? Those are among the most vital fields in "Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine" Huldra (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and convert pages to use {{Infobox settlement}}. WP:INFOCOL spells out all the reasons for this. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: - agree with complete replacement. 89.14.255.155 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and convert pages to use {{Infobox settlement}}, per Zackmann08. We do not need country specific templates. Every former settlement has a depopulation date and reason.Icewhiz (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Replace and delete. Regardless of the confusing name of Infobox settlement, we're better off if as we unite these templates, benefits being easier to update and maintain. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Replace and delete - better to standardize and have all relevant templates using the same code, than to have hundreds of wrappers and other templates doing the same exact thing. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
TV channel programs template
- Template:SBS programs ( · talk)
- Template:KBS Programs ( · talk)
- Template:MBC Programs ( · talk)
- Template:JTBC ( · talk)
WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Moreover, this is hardly being updated and some TV series have finished airing months ago. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see the reason to delete even if it is seldom updated and update it when any contributors think it is outdated. Fiipchip (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:NENAN. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - these types of channel/network navigation templates are very bad in my opinion. The series linked only share one single common point - that they were all broadcast on a specific channel - this usually means nothing. TV series can be produced by different companies that sell their programs to the channel, meaning these TV shows can be widely different. Additional, readers would probably be much more interested in "see also" links for similar shows, rather than shows on the same channel. Looking at WP:NAVBOX these fails #3 and #5 and possibly #4. --Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - per above. Trying to keep an up-to-date list of programmes currently on various TV channels is unsuitable for wikipedia. Nigej (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question – How about the likes of Template:Netflix original current series, Template:Netflix original ended series, Template:Netflix original upcoming series, etc. which had their own templates of original programs (even the ended series have their template)? Should those templates be deleted, too? Chihciboy (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:When in sandbox
Propose merging Template:When in sandbox with Template:Sandbox other.
Duplicate templates with same function. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support, provided that {{Sandbox other}} is the target template (for number of uses, and name pattern in functionally similar templates). -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused timeline templates
- Template:Timeline Bar ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline Bars ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline Notes ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline US Open Men's Singles Winners ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Achaemenid ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Conquests of the Ottoman Empire ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Growth of the Ottoman Empire ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Intifadas ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Islamic military history ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Islamist militancy ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Japanese era names ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Long March rocket families ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of NWT Premiers ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Plutarch's life ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Poetry of the Ottoman Empire ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Rise of the Ottoman Empire ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Russo-Turkish Wars ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Sri Lankan kingdoms ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Stagnation of the Ottoman Empire ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of Xinhai Revolution ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of ancient philosophers ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of classical composers of Kosovo ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of de facto control of the Falkland Islands ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of decline of the Ottoman Empire ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of the Mexican Revolution ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of the Roman Kingdom ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of the Roman Republic ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of the Turkish War of Independence ( · talk)
- Template:Timeline of the history of the Republic of Turkey ( · talk)
Unused time templates. no need to keep them around. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete these are unused, not linked, mostly of horrible readability, and not cited. Some are also just images. Timelines should be in mainspace and properly cited. I have notified WP:MILHIST in case there are some editors who want to retain some of these templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- If sourcing is important, per WP:V, then it's perfectly easy to add such sources to the template. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep {{Timeline of Long March rocket families}} (and potentially others). Why is File:Long March Timeline.png (which isn't even annotated) favoured instead?
- I'm not seeing any rationale for deletion here. So what if they're unused? Use them! A rationale of 'not usable' or 'shouldn't be used' would be reason to delete, but not this.
- Also, if an implementation is of poor quality but the notion of having a templated timeline is still valid, then we should work to improve what we have, not just discard it.
- Likewise readability. That seems to come from some sizing or fuzzy font choices deep within the implementation of
<timeline>
– that's not something which is fixed by deleting these. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the following (all unused): {{Timeline US Open Men's Singles Winners}} - List of US Open men's singles champions is a FA, I'm sure that if they wanted it, it would have been used. {{Timeline of Achaemenid}} - pointless template. {{Timeline of Conquests of the Ottoman Empire}} - not in English. {{Timeline of Growth of the Ottoman Empire}} very confusing template. {{Timeline of Intifadas}} - not a template. {{Timeline of Islamic military history}} - plain text that should be in article. {{Timeline of Islamist militancy}} - plain text that should be in article. {{Timeline of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk}} - hard to read and also pointless ("childhood", really?). {{Timeline of NWT Premiers}} - hard to read and better presented in a table. {{Timeline of Plutarch's life}} - pointless template. {{Timeline of Poetry of the Ottoman Empire}} - unreadable. {{Timeline of Rise of the Ottoman Empire}} - barely readable. {{Timeline of Russo-Turkish Wars}} - unreadable. {{Timeline of Sri Lankan kingdoms}} - not needed. {{Timeline of Stagnation of the Ottoman Empire}} - gives absolutely no clear information. {{Timeline of Xinhai Revolution}} - impossible to read. {{Timeline of ancient philosophers}} - has no clear scope, but if this is meant to be for Greek philosophers, then List of ancient Greek philosophers does a better job; if it was meant to be for List of ancient philosophers, then that page does not exist; if it was meant to be for List of philosophers born in the centuries BC, then it's missing many entries (which if added, will make it unreadable). {{Timeline of classical composers of Kosovo}} - they are all around the same 50 years, this really has no use. {{Timeline of de facto control of the Falkland Islands}} - huge template for very little information and will probably be unreadable if made smaller so it can fit an article. {{Timeline of decline of the Ottoman Empire}} - similar to other Ottoman templates. {{Timeline of the Mexican Revolution}} - prose based timeline - hard to read and better presented as actual prose with references (WP:V). {{Timeline of the Roman Kingdom}} - replaced by other templates and tables at Roman Kingdom. {{Timeline of the Roman Republic}} - very confusing template. {{Timeline of the history of the Republic of Turkey}} - almost impossible to read. Neutral/leaning delete - {{Timeline of Japanese era names}} - linked from an article and not used on actual page, but also seemingly very pointless. {{Timeline of Long March rocket families}} - now used, but looks visually very bad. {{Timeline of the Turkish War of Independence}} - could be used, but just looks bad. Keep (for now) - {{Timeline Bar}}, {{Timeline Bars}} and {{Timeline Notes}} as the documentation says to subst. Haven't researched that anymore than that, so for now at least keep. Also, I very much disagree with the notion raised above that it is other editors job to either fix bad templates or find places to implement them. If the creator or editors of a specific article don't care enough to use the templates, then that speaks for itself. --Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - "Timeline US Open Men's Singles Winners". I can't speak for all these templates but as a member of the Tennis Project, I can see zero use for this template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
March 3
Template:Subject bar
- Template:Subject bar ( · talk)
Please read .....My intent is not for out right deletion but rather a remedy to a mobile view problem. This template is not used (seen) in mobile view....that in itself is the norm as portal and book templates are also not seen in mobile view (unless the inline versions are used ;-) 😉). However Wikimedia sister links are always seen as per the Wikimedia Foundation implementation of Sister links templates in mobile view. So when this template is used it hides sister project links to 50% of our readers (those using mobile view) against the foundations intent to have these links seen. We need to fix this problem or come to the realization the template is decrepit. Moxy (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- As the author of this template, I agree that it needs to be brought into the modern era, though I lack the time, skills, and motivation to do so. I still think it's worth keeping for how it consolidates so many Wiki links. – Maky « talk » 23:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am hoping someone can fix it because we have a sh#t load of pages that sister links are not being seen in mobile view. Manually having to convert all these to working templates would be a daunting task for any group of editors. But we can't have so many articles were sister projects are not seen by 50 percent of our readers.--Moxy (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I find the template extremely useful in consolidating the various floating wiki boxes found on so many pages, esp. some of the military ones I have been working on of late. I've seen some pages now where they have both - which is a solution but duplicates content - but that is not really addressing the main issue in fixing the template at source. Would be extremely beneficial to create a solution for this template. Hiding sister sites for a large proportion of readers isn't a great UX. Londonclanger (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, As one of the people who has placed "thousands" of those "Subject bar" templates, here are my thoughts & comments. In my archives (not on WP), I found some of my past research about Subject bar vs. Portal-inline.
And after testing this morning I see how "Mobile view" does not show the Subject bar at all (example Pope Francis article). On Desktop view, subject bar has the advantage of combining portals, and Sister projects into a single unified template.
Going back to the drawing board, (examples Christian Conrad Blouin and Cathedral of San Vicente, El Salvador articles) for Mobile view, placement of Portal-inline into "See also" section makes them visible. Here is the Moble view code example: {{left | {{Portal-inline|Architecture}} {{portal-inline|Catholicism}} {{Portal-inline|El Salvador}} }}{{clear}} Note that "Portal bar" template is not visible in Mobile view.
- So the issue becomes, how to update those thousands of articles? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The issue become whether we should delete templates to "support" the Mobile View, and the answer is no. Because some readers can't see them is no reason to deprive all readers. The template is very useful. On Desktop view, subject bar has the advantage of combining portals, and Sister projects into a single, unified, informative template. How something appears in Mobile View is no reason to delete anything. Lots of things don't appear in the Mobile View. Half the front page doesn't appear in the Mobile View. The portals and navigation bars don't appear in the Mobile View. That's why I don't use Mobile View, even on mobile devices. I don't see what benefit we get from removing information from the Desktop view simply because the Mobile View can't display it. WP:SOFIXIT should apply here. We can adjust the software to display the portal bar in Mobile View, although I'm not sure that we should, given that a WMF decision was taken not to? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Think your missing the point here...we want all to see them (not just thoses on a PC)...we should not go out of our way to hide theses links from more then 50 percent of our readers. Accessibility is the concern here...template should be fixed or sister links moved to a real template. How something appears in mobile view Is the perfect reason to fix,,,,ignoring is how we got to this point. -- Moxy (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Greetings (again) - after my above posting, I modified the Portal-inline example to include the "{{dot}}" seperator. This is helpful for accessiblity, especially when it appears in mobile view. Here is a "See also" section example.
While this wikicode is lengthy, in my Notepad (plain text) file for Copy-and-paste, I made a plain shell without specific portals. So it's still easy to paste into articles. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If we just remove the navbox class from the module, we get:
Which works on mobile devices. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Hawkeye7 - Good idea. Only thing I noticed in mobile view is that the portal icons do not line up properly in front of each portal name. Is this a one-time change to "Subject bar"? So no need to update the thousands of articles. JoeHebda (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is the solution !!! great job!!--Moxy (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could someone add the solution to Normandy landings so I can see it in action and also use on other articles? Thx. Londonclanger (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is the solution !!! great job!!--Moxy (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused Latest stable software release
- Template:Latest stable software release/AMD Radeon Crimson ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Adobe AIR ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Adobe Premiere Elements ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/BeOS ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Byobu ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/CKEditor ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Comodo Internet Security ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Convos ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Coppermine Photo Gallery ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Crystal Player ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/DiskTune ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Dropbox Paper ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/EbIRC ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/GNU Bison ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/GNU Guile ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/GNU Octave ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/GeneXus ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Google Docs, Sheets and Slides ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Google Drive ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/IObit Uninstaller ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/IRC7 ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Jenkins ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Kodi (software) ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/LeetIRC ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Line ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Lua Player ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Minecraft ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/MtvIRC ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Mutter (IRC client) ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/MyDefrag ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/NASA World Wind ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Neebly ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/NoScript ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/OpenTTD ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/PSPIRC ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Prey (software) ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Relay IRC ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Seashore ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Slimjet ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Splashtop Remote ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/StationRipper ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Textual ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/The Lounge ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Tinyproxy ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Trotter ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Vagrant ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/WebTorrent ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Windows 10 Mobile ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Windows Internet Explorer 7 ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Windows Internet Explorer 8 ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/WirelessIRC ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/WordPress ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Xdebug ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/f-irc ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/iBooks ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/ii ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/libSBML ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/matplotlib ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/stunnel ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/upIRC ( · talk)
- Template:Latest stable software release/yafc - Yet Another FTP Client ( · talk)
Unused custom versions of {{LSR}}. If these are needed, they should be called directly from the page, not created as subpages to a redirect. (Note that {{Latest stable software release}} redirects to {{LSR}}). --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: These aren't "custom versions", they're subtemplates intended to be used to store data. Regardless, their existence, whether used or not, is a clear misuse of template namespace in my opinion. Delete. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Some of these have been superseded by other similar templates, or the software is no longer updated, which makes the templates unnecessary. However, storing version numbers of software in templates is a well-established and completely standard use of template space. —Kusma (t·c) 21:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- See, for example, Template:Infobox OS#Moving release data outside the article and Template:LSR#Infobox, which mention that subtemplate mechanism, and Template:LPR, which doesn't explicitly mention it but has, at the bottom, a "Subpages of redirect "Latest preview software release"" link. Guy Harris (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that something is widespread and documented does not make it right. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- See, for example, Template:Infobox OS#Moving release data outside the article and Template:LSR#Infobox, which mention that subtemplate mechanism, and Template:LPR, which doesn't explicitly mention it but has, at the bottom, a "Subpages of redirect "Latest preview software release"" link. Guy Harris (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion when that mechanism was introduced appears to be here. The rationale was given as
Currently, because of every "latest software release version change" the whole article has to be changed. If we would make templates (Template:Latest_stable_release/Mozilla_Firefox) and link them like "
| {{Latest_stable_release/{{PAGENAME}}}}
" in this infobox, the articles aren't edited that often and by "Related changes" there would be a list of new software releases of the last xy days,... Furthermore we wouldn't have to change it in the infobox and the article itself and additionaly on pages like Comparison of web browsers. We just have to place "{{Latest_stable_release/xySoftware}}
". So we could do three things with one edit! --84.156.100.195 16:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- If you disagree with that rationale, you might want to consider opening a discussion about this mechanism, to see if you can get it removed. Guy Harris (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and replace information in article where needed - I also agree that the use of the template space shouldn't be used for something as trivial as a version number. So what if the article needs to be updated? What is the difference if an editor gets a notification of "page x" or "template x" has changed? On the other hand, it requires an editor to watch 1 less page, it makes sure that when a software's name changes, that templates don't get left for dead and forgotten and it makes updating an article more simple as it requires one less page to update - I'd would assume that if you update the infobox version number, you'd also update the article itself which is supposed to have all the infobox information anyways. --Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete where the software isn't being updated any more, keep and start using again where it still is being updated - if people don't like the use of template space for this, the way to address their concerns is a general discussion about the mechanism and, if a consensus is reached that template space shouldn't be used in this fashion, move all the contents of those templates into the places where they're referenced, remove all the "Last {stable, preview} release" templates, and eliminate that feature from all infoboxes. Otherwise, just clean up the cases where the template is unused because the software isn't being updated, and fix the cases where it is. Guy Harris (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused Latest preview software release
- Template:Latest preview software release/AMD Radeon Crimson ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/AOL Instant Messenger ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Adobe AIR ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/BeOS ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Crystal Player ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Dashboard ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Dnsmasq ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/GNU Guile ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/HAProxy ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Lua Player ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Microsoft Edge ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Microsoft Visual Studio ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Minecraft ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/NASA World Wind ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/NoScript ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/OwnCloud ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/PowerBuilder ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/StationRipper ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Tinyproxy ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Ututo ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Windows Internet Explorer 8 ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/X-Plane ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/cairo ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/libavcodec (Libav) ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/macOS Sierra ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/matplotlib ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/monotone ( · talk)
- Template:Latest preview software release/musikCube ( · talk)
Unused custom versions of {{LPR}}. If these are needed, they should be called directly from the page, not created as subpages to a redirect. (Note that {{Latest preview software release}} redirects to {{LPR}}). --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Latest preview software release/Microsoft Visual Studio}} is now used; the current stable release information for Microsoft Visual Studio was already in a "Latest stable software release" template, so I did the same for the preview release information. Guy Harris (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per my !vote at #Unused Latest stable software release above. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep {{Latest preview software release/Microsoft Visual Studio}}, currently used. Storing version numbers of software in templates is a well-established and completely standard use of template space. —Kusma (t·c) 21:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and replace information in article where needed - I also agree that the use of the template space shouldn't be used for something as trivial as a version number. So what if the article needs to be updated? What is the difference if an editor gets a notification of "page x" or "template x" has changed? On the other hand, it requires an editor to watch 1 less page, it makes sure that when a software's name changes, that templates don't get left for dead and forgotten and it makes updating an article more simple as it requires one less page to update - I'd would assume that if you update the infobox version number, you'd also update the article itself which is supposed to have all the infobox information anyways.
- Delete where the software isn't being updated any more, keep and start using again where it still is being updated - if people don't like the use of template space for this, the way to address their concerns is a general discussion about the mechanism and, if a consensus is reached that template space shouldn't be used in this fashion, move all the contents of those templates into the places where they're referenced, remove all the "Last {stable, preview} release" templates, and eliminate that feature from all infoboxes. Otherwise, just clean up the cases where the template is unused because the software isn't being updated, and fix the cases where it is. Guy Harris (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused ISO 639 templates
- Template:ISO 639-5 ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639-5/table ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639-5/table-wp ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Bulgarian ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Czech ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Danish ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Dutch ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Estonian ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Finnish ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code French ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Galacian ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Hungarian ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Italian ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Japanese ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Korean ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Latvian ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Lithuanian ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Norwegian ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Polish ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Portuguese ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Romanian ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Russian ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Serbian ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Spanish ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Swedish ( · talk)
- Template:ISO 639 code Turkish ( · talk)
All old, unused attempts to work with ISO 639. This functionality is now widely available via Module:ISO 639. No need for these old templates. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- If these are deleted, the remaining templates in Category:ISO 639 code from name templates should be converted to new functionality and also deleted. (I think it is only the Germany one, which has a trivial transclusion). —Kusma (t·c) 20:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes! One of the few cases where consistency is beneficial. – Uanfala (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the individual ones: we don't need a separate template for each language; this function is now carried out by Template:ISO 639 code-1. Keep Template:ISO 639-5 (and its two subpages) for historical reasons, but turn into a redirect to Template:ISO 639 code-5, for which it is a viable shortcut. – Uanfala (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted
Propose merging Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted with Template:Infobox criminal.
What is someone on the FBI Ten Most Wanted list if not a criminal? Also, FBI Ten Most Wanted leaves something to be desired with regard to parameter options. It is used for a lot of former fugitives on whose article pages the template's transclusion creates what I'd argue is WP:UNDUE. Jay D. Easy (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, a wanted person is not a criminal. Therefore, any use of infobox criminal should be removed unless the subject is convicted. Christian75 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox former subdivision
Propose merging Template:Infobox former subdivision with Template:Infobox settlement.
I'm curious as the whether it makes sense to simply merge this to Infobox Settlement. it seems like the majority of parameters overlap. The few that don't can quite easily be added. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The "former subdivision" obviously pertains to a country, not a settlement. Merging into {{Infobox country}} could be considered (but is not proposed so cannot be concluded). -DePiep (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Interesting. I actually didn't think that this did obviously pertain to a country until you mentioned it. Just curious how two people can read the same thing and see things differently. Your note about merging to {{Infobox country}} is a great point. Personally I don't see any reason that can't be discussed here? No that wasn't what I initially proposed, but if that is a more appropriate solution I think it absolutely warrants discussion. I'm curious whether others in this thread would support that solution. I'm happy to discuss it here, or just let this TFD play out and then submit a new one. Either way. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Me saying "not proposed here so ..." is my idea of due TfD. {{Infobox country}} could be brought in maybe, but by then all existing argumentations here are confusing (directed at an other proposal, the first one). After such a change of proposal, it is hardly possible to have the !votes rewritten/reconsidered. IMO if this proposal does not lead to changes, soon after a new different merge proposal can be cleanly proposed. -DePiep (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- And below, as a Comment, I have described my preference to stick to the useful intuitive concepts of "Settlement" and "Country", also for derivatives like 'subdivision of' and 'former'. -DePiep (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- DePiep, Victoria County, Ontario, Bars County, Turóc County, New East Prussia, Luwan District, Tokyo City... Just a few of the pages using {{Infobox former subdivision}}... None of these are countries... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Interesting. I actually didn't think that this did obviously pertain to a country until you mentioned it. Just curious how two people can read the same thing and see things differently. Your note about merging to {{Infobox country}} is a great point. Personally I don't see any reason that can't be discussed here? No that wasn't what I initially proposed, but if that is a more appropriate solution I think it absolutely warrants discussion. I'm curious whether others in this thread would support that solution. I'm happy to discuss it here, or just let this TFD play out and then submit a new one. Either way. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above user's reasoning. This shouldn't be done. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 09:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:R9tgokunks There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. Only a few parameters regarding dissolution/death are the difference. Why an extra template in case of subdivisions? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose While convincing, this is just not enough justification to get rid of this infobox. I am seeing great potential for this infobox. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- What potential, User:Accesscrawl, do you see that cannot be realized by using Infobox settlement? 77.183.192.234 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose IB former subdivision has a clear scope of application, where using settlement would not be appropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Any example? - User:Underlying lk? 77.183.192.234 (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Underlying lk: can you back that up with any examples? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Any example? - User:Underlying lk? 77.183.192.234 (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge The original objection, and those following it, are based on bogus reasoning; subdivisions are not countries (we have {{Infobox former country}} for those) and Infobox settlement is for
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"
. Note that {{Infobox subdivision}} redirects to Infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)- I don't see how they could be merged without making significant changes to IB settlement, as they have many different fields that are necessary in one template (such as all the
year_start
,event_star
fields on IB former subdivision) but completely missing from the other. It would require a major rework just to absorb the ~2000 transclusions of former subdivision.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)|year_start=
is called|established_date=
,|year_end=
is called|extinct_date=
. --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)- I see six
event
fields, and all the 'preceding and succeeding entities' fields take up at least a paragraph. Has anyone made a sandbox version of IB settlement that shows how they would be added without major changes? If not, what are we !voting on?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)- User:Underlying lk - are there no 'preceding entities' fields in IB settlement? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- I see six
- I don't see how they could be merged without making significant changes to IB settlement, as they have many different fields that are necessary in one template (such as all the
- Pigsonthewing Please clarify how the first argument is "wikt:bogus reasoning". So far, it is only unqualified drive-by judging, not adding an argument.
- Re your partial quote from documentation. For starters, by template names, "settlement" pertains to "settlements", and "country" pertains to "countries". Probably this documentation detail is substandard, and not a normative point anyway just descriptive especially not re other templates. In this guideline (i.e., a much tougher policy), it says "country subdivisions (states or provinces), such as States of Austria, ...", the link redirecting to Administrative division, which to me very clearly and flawlessly says it is about country organisation, not settlement features. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"only unqualified drive-by judging"
I believe you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist. Andy Mabbett (); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)- Pigsonthewing "unqualified" is a judgement of the argument you used (while accusing another editor of being illogical without base, so far). So please reply. -DePiep (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Several of these subdividions were subordinate state and provinces, while "settlements" is supposed to covers cities, towns, and villages. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not so, as I have already pointed out above: Infobox settlement is for
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"
; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC) - Dimadick, ""settlements" is supposed to covers cities, towns, and villages" - can you specify what you mean? 77.183.135.113 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not so, as I have already pointed out above: Infobox settlement is for
- Oppose Per DePiep's logic. —Ntmamgtw (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Which logic?, User:Ntmamgtw? 77.183.192.234 (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ntmamgtw: per what logic? Can you elaborate? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Which logic?, User:Ntmamgtw? 77.183.192.234 (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge, per Pigsonthewing. There's no reason to have separate navboxes for current and former subdivisions. Note that Template:Infobox former country and Template:Infobox country were merged in December of 2016.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, it was merged 13 August 2018. But the TfD was in December 2016. It took two years before it was merged because it was two completely different templates, and now infobox country is a two-in-one template. Christian75 (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fine, but I don't see how that detracts from the point I was making.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 10:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, it was merged 13 August 2018. But the TfD was in December 2016. It took two years before it was merged because it was two completely different templates, and now infobox country is a two-in-one template. Christian75 (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. For all the excellent "Oppose" reasons already presented above. Mercy11 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Which was excellent?, User:Mercy11? 77.183.192.234 (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge - since {{Infobox subdivision}} already redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} and has most of the parameters, including ones for an end date of the settlement, it seems that if there are missing parameters there are very few and could be easily added. The main difference is in the names of the parameters themselves - that makes this merge even more important as having articles about the same topic differ in the naming style makes editing harder for no reason. The merge would also ensure that all articles on the same topic would have a consistent look and any updates would be gained for all articles. --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose That one calls the other is not material because people use the two templates on different types of articles and it is counter-intuitive to look for a template settlement when writing about a former county or district of Whateverland. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- And again: Infobox settlement is for
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"
; per its own documentation. Also, {{Infobox county}} redirects to - your guessed it, {{Infobox settlement}}. As does {{Infobox district}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)- And again: the documentation is incorrect. "settlements [and] other administrative districts" (italics added): "other" states that settlements are "administrative districts" too. But that is not part of the concept. "Settlement" = where people live together. The admin organisation is not a requirement, just an non-defining property. -DePiep (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- A longer quote, without ellipses, is
"for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"
. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- A longer quote, without ellipses, is
- And again: the documentation is incorrect. "settlements [and] other administrative districts" (italics added): "other" states that settlements are "administrative districts" too. But that is not part of the concept. "Settlement" = where people live together. The admin organisation is not a requirement, just an non-defining property. -DePiep (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not true, User:Carlossuarez46. The "infobox settlement" is used on ~500 000 articles, including articles about entities named area, county, district, province, region, state, territory, zone. 77.183.32.190 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- And again: Infobox settlement is for
- Comment, about concepts of "settlement" and "country". We have good concepts of both "settlement" (say, a unity inhabited by people) and "country" (say, an administrative geographic region). While hard to define, they are easy to grasp, to distinguish, and are intuitively recognised by article editors. Sure there is an overlap area (eg, when a city is a administrative region), but this is not prohibiting their distinctive concept. From this, it follows that we should build supportives (like templates) on this concepts.
There is no use in making a super-generic template "place on earth where something happens", because well, 'a city is also a subdivisdion of a country'. Instead, we are helped with templates that handle for "settlement" also 'subdivision of' and 'former'. (They might be merged into their concept parent, but only when helpful for the editor and article; no use for a 500 parameter template). Same with a "country" set. Nor does overly smart fusion of parameter sets help. Instead, parameters and their names should easily follow from or be associated with the concept.
With this, there might be a topical overlap in an article between "settlement" and "country" (eg, municipality borders). This already is covered by having similar parameters in both templates (like pop density), so editors can pick the most obvious concept template for an article instead of having to rethink a "city" being a "country subdivision". -DePiep (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)- The entire screed above is off-topic for this page. If you wish to change the way {{Infobox settlement}} is used - and has been used for over a decade - start a discussion on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- After
wikt:bogus reasoning
above, another dismissive unsubstantiated judgement, using "wikt:screed". -DePiep (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- After
- The entire screed above is off-topic for this page. If you wish to change the way {{Infobox settlement}} is used - and has been used for over a decade - start a discussion on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- TL;DR: Infoboxes for Settlements and their subdivisions and historical ones should be tied to the concept of "Settlement".
Infoboxes for Countries and their subdivisions and historical ones should be tied to the concept of "Country". -DePiep (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- TL;DR: Your wishes are at odds with both current practice and current consensus. This is not the place to change either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- No not "wishes", description. I did not create those concepts. (Please stop turning, after a third time now here, my arguments into personal jabs or throwaways. You are supposed to engage on content). BTW, why do you use this TL;DR construct, a special meaning? -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. A settlement is different from a regional subdivision, and is different from a country. Parameter overlap should not be a requirement for merging, because different infoboxes have different parameters and purposes not used by the other infobox. -Mardus /talk 10:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- And again: Infobox settlement is for
"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"
; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- And again: Infobox settlement is for
- Oppose. Former subdivision means a change happened in that place and the article is about the change, e.g., the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. Former subdivision infobox suits that article perfectly. Infobox settlement is about a place now in existence, its features and its history, like Chicago or Detroit. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also not so: {{Infobox Finnish former municipality}} is a wrapper for Infobox settlement; as is {{Infobox Luxembourg former commune}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Already good reasoning given by many. It seems quite clear that the documentation for Infobox settlement needs appropriate changes. Jazze7 (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- The documentation for Infobox settlement describes how it is used. As I said above: If you wish to change the way Infobox settlement is used - and has been used for over a decade - start a discussion on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Suggestion If it will be merged, can we use bots to substitute one infobox for another? If this is the main concern of changing 2000 infoboxes, then a bot can solve it (I believe). :)--Biografer (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- No need; we would simply make the template a redirect, and transclusions in articles would continue to work as at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment So I don't have a strong opinion either way on the template merge, but I don't think that "this is how we've always used this template" is a fair argument for merging. Our job as editors is to create content based on how it should be, not based on how it is. If there's not a good reason why Template:Infobox settlement has been used to represent subdivisions for over a decade, then we should change our usage; if there is a good reason, then that reason for the tradition should be the basis of this discussion, not the tradition itself, and the reason should be stated here, not on a separate talk page. Someone the Person (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- To me this comment makes some more sense when read as a reply to Andy's describes how it is used-post two bullets above. -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- No-one is arguing based on "tradition". There are indeed good reasons why we use the same template for various types of settlements and administrate districts (note least that many of our articles are about subjects that are both settlements and administrate districts), and we do not need to re-litigate them every time someone objects to merging very similar templates. As I said above, if an editor wishes to change the way we use, or describe, Infobox settlement, this is not the place to do so. I note also that no proposal to do so has been made, on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. I find the merging of these Infoboxes unintuitive, unnecessary, and likely to make a mess. No matter how similar the templates are, merging templates with 2 different subject matters will make a mess when it comes to actually merging them, and will be confusing to those unfamiliar with the merge. Overall, it feels counterproductive to spend effort merging 2 templates to have 1 template for a bunch of things but with hundreds of different variables, when there's plenty of space for both to exist. Hecseur (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- You might find it "confusing", but those of us who have been merging templates for more than a decade, including many into {{infobox settlement}}, do not. And after the merger instances of {{Infobox former subdivision}} will work just as they do now, so no "mess" will occur. We have plenty of precedence for this. There are not "hundreds" of variables involved in the proposed merger. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- re Pigsonthewing. "those of us who ... do not": please do not speak for others. I have been merging just as well and not merging all those years, your statement does not hold. Hecseur is to the point when saying that this merge proposal is confusing (not so-called "confusing") because it is about "2 different subject matters". That is confusing, especially for the article editor who is invited to actually use the infobox (and let's not forget those having to write the documentation for such a chaotic situation). Describing a city with a country infobox is trying to square a circle. And yes those unnatural parameters and their presentation is unintuitive, unnecessary, and a mess. I'd still like to read why merging two different concepts is a good idea, other than 'was done before' and 'documentation says so'. (We are not talking about a merge like {{Infobox UK school}} into {{Infobox school}}, obviously). -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
"Describing a city with a country infobox..."
Readers will note that not one person has suggested doing this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)- I repeat, for thos unwilling to understand: 1. Speak for yourself, 2. Yes it is about mixing up concepts. What's next? Infoboxing vulcans as a country subdivision? You still have not replied to this fundamental issue information. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- As I have already said above: "you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just a comment on this argument, I'm pretty sure warning a user with bold letters and using the fact that they were warned before against them really isn't addressing the problem of the conceptual division. Anyway, as I see it, the problem of different parameters is still a huge deal. The documentation states that the template is to be used in "any subdivision below the level of a country", having the names of the upper and lower houses of the legislature in a settlement infobox, doesn't make sense by that regard, at all. If there are so many variables in common, Template:Infobox former subdivision could be rewritten with Module:Template wrapper. But in my opinion, an outright merge isn't a good idea, especially since that merge isn't necessary, and isn't as obvious as it is to you to others. Hecseur (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- As I have already said above: "you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I repeat, for thos unwilling to understand: 1. Speak for yourself, 2. Yes it is about mixing up concepts. What's next? Infoboxing vulcans as a country subdivision? You still have not replied to this fundamental issue information. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- re Pigsonthewing. "those of us who ... do not": please do not speak for others. I have been merging just as well and not merging all those years, your statement does not hold. Hecseur is to the point when saying that this merge proposal is confusing (not so-called "confusing") because it is about "2 different subject matters". That is confusing, especially for the article editor who is invited to actually use the infobox (and let's not forget those having to write the documentation for such a chaotic situation). Describing a city with a country infobox is trying to square a circle. And yes those unnatural parameters and their presentation is unintuitive, unnecessary, and a mess. I'd still like to read why merging two different concepts is a good idea, other than 'was done before' and 'documentation says so'. (We are not talking about a merge like {{Infobox UK school}} into {{Infobox school}}, obviously). -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Hecseur what is your point? The only difference is having information about the end of the entity. Dissolved, date, reason. ~ 500 000 articles use the IB settlement. It is a standard, a lot of editors know the template. Why to have an extra one for the same type of entities (type: territorial entity)? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what you're trying to argue. Just like infobox settlement is used for settlements AND subdivisions, infobox former subdivision is used for subdivisions AND countries. The matter of fact is, you don't add variables which are specific for countries, such as for the upper and lower houses of the legislature, to a template that should never be used for countries. It's like having a variable for kilowatt hours in an infobox about fungi species, it doesn't make sense for it to be there, and therefore it shouldn't. If I misread your arguement, because I didn't really understand it, let me know. Hecseur (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Infobox former country}} redirects to {{Infobox country}}; articles on former countries should use that template, and not
{{Infobox former subdivision}}
(indeed, the documentation for the latter says: {{tq|"It is based on Template:Infobox former country adjusted to suit subdivisions of former countries"). Which articles on former countries use{{Infobox former subdivision}}
, and how many? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Infobox former country}} redirects to {{Infobox country}}; articles on former countries should use that template, and not
- I don't really understand what you're trying to argue. Just like infobox settlement is used for settlements AND subdivisions, infobox former subdivision is used for subdivisions AND countries. The matter of fact is, you don't add variables which are specific for countries, such as for the upper and lower houses of the legislature, to a template that should never be used for countries. It's like having a variable for kilowatt hours in an infobox about fungi species, it doesn't make sense for it to be there, and therefore it shouldn't. If I misread your arguement, because I didn't really understand it, let me know. Hecseur (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- You might find it "confusing", but those of us who have been merging templates for more than a decade, including many into {{infobox settlement}}, do not. And after the merger instances of {{Infobox former subdivision}} will work just as they do now, so no "mess" will occur. We have plenty of precedence for this. There are not "hundreds" of variables involved in the proposed merger. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose just too many useful and unique parameters that will end up deprecated in the proposed target. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Mr. Guye "just too many useful and unique parameters" - which? The difference between current and former entity would normally only be, that the latter has fields relating to its end, all the rest would be the same. Not? 77.183.135.113 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. As clear by the first sentences of each template’s article, both templates are for the purposes of all non-country human settlements, just one is for former and one is for current. Why the distinction between current and former needs to be made is beyond me. Benica11 (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- A country is not subdivided into settlements. The country is about administrative geographical organisation (and so are its subdivisions), a settlement is a place where humans live together. Just reusing overlapping parameters is not a "merge". The documentation page(s) corrupt these concepts which can not work out well. -DePiep (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: What exactly are you trying to refute from this argument? A country may not be "subdivided into settlements," but it is clear that the purpose of the template is to provide an infobox that universally serves the needs of every subdivision, province, state, department, and standard settlement with status below that of a country. Benica11 is not arguing that country subdivisions "are" settlements.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 09:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- re Molandfreak (ec). "purpose of the [target] template is to provide an infobox that universally serves ...": this describes the problem. The idea of a country is some administrative organisation, geographically defined (subdivisions are provinces, regions, overseas areas, ...). A settlement is where people live together, with scales like metropolitan area, neighbourhood, ...). All this also applies to "former" ones. But a country is not "devided" into settlements as a pizza is devided into constituing parts.
- @DePiep: What exactly are you trying to refute from this argument? A country may not be "subdivided into settlements," but it is clear that the purpose of the template is to provide an infobox that universally serves the needs of every subdivision, province, state, department, and standard settlement with status below that of a country. Benica11 is not arguing that country subdivisions "are" settlements.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 09:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- A country is not subdivided into settlements. The country is about administrative geographical organisation (and so are its subdivisions), a settlement is a place where humans live together. Just reusing overlapping parameters is not a "merge". The documentation page(s) corrupt these concepts which can not work out well. -DePiep (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Now stuffing all parameters and formatting and layout and priorities for two different concepts into one template does not help anyone. It's good enough to use similar parameters (like population number), but that does not mean they should be applied the same (eg, order position in the infobox). There is no need to do so, it only leads to compromises that are unhelpful for the reader (and also confusing for the article editor having to trawl scores of parameters with wide descriptions & limitations; and that is when the documentation is up to date & complete). What is the end? One "universal" infobox for the whole of enwiki, and let the editor search?
- The notice that 'documentation says so' and 'it's being used like that' is not an argument, but a bug. Why would a province be primarilly described as a settlement? Why would a cross-border metropolitan area (=settlement) be primarilly tied to a single country?
- The opposite, an example. I work with templates {{Infobox drug}}, {{Chembox}}, {{Infobox element}}. All for chemicals, and no one seriously wants to merge them. That is because sure there are similar parameters (think, in a Venn diagram), but design requirements are different by concept (e.g., for a drug, chemical poperties are way less important so are below). -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Infobox country, Infobox settlement, Infobox former subdivision - each is meant for a territorial entity. The differences are small. In the case of the latter, it is only adding information about the end of the entity. There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support - per Andy's convincing argument and refutations. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 17:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: there is a difference between where subdivision IBs are used in comparison to where settlement IBs are used. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:GN-z11, that is NOT true. Template:Infobox settlement is used for all kinds of territorial entities, except for countries. The proposal simply is to have "former subdivisions" be handled by the same template. Check out Template:Infobox settlement and its inclusions. There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Your explanation basically debunks your claim. If you take a closer look, the former subdivision IB is one for former countries. As you said, Infobox settlement can't be used for countries. Per DePiep's comment, Infobox former subdivision could be merged with Infobox country. Plus, comparing settlement IBs with person IBs is really weird. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 18:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:GN-z11, that is NOT true. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox former subdivision lists East Berlin, East Prussia, Dakota Territory, Alsace-Lorraine, Zamboanga (province). Furthermore I did NOT say "Infobox settlement can't be used for countries". There is only Template:Infobox airline, no Template:Infobox former airline. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, GN-z11 is right. Note that they wrote "Per DePiep's comment", i.e., as I described it. And interestingly, again you debunk your own argument: four out of five of your examples are subdivisions of a country, not of a settlement. QED. And of course, with the template documentation being imprecise (or corrupted), bad examples like East Berlin creep in. Still this (documentation effect?) does not prove nor support the suggestion that concepts "country" and "settlement" are the same. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:DePiep you talk rubbish. I didn't claim the examples to be subdivisions of settlements. I only mentioned them, because User:GN-z11 claimed "the former subdivision IB is one for former countries" - no it is not. There is Template:Infobox country for former countries. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:DePiep you talk more rubbish /that concepts "country" and "settlement" are the same/? What? You claim so? Anyone else? Where is the diff? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- "rubbish", sure, or maybe you could read closer? Let me spell out your own self-defeating argumument: East Prussia, Dakota Territory, Alsace-Lorraine, Zamboanga (province) are (former) subdivisions of countries, not settlements; and so supports GN-z11's claim "the former subdivision IB is one for former countries". -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- sure rubbish: /four out of five of your examples are subdivisions of a country, not of a settlement./ - yes, and that means they are not countries, exactly what I wanted to show, because User:GN-z11 did claim the "the former subdivision IB is one for former countries". It is not. 89.12.84.122 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think DePiep has made my (and their) point quite clear for you. Otherwise I suggest you don't use phrases like "you talk rubbish" and just explain your side of the argument properly. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 12:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- You can make your point clear and still talk rubbish. 89.12.84.122 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- "rubbish", sure, or maybe you could read closer? Let me spell out your own self-defeating argumument: East Prussia, Dakota Territory, Alsace-Lorraine, Zamboanga (province) are (former) subdivisions of countries, not settlements; and so supports GN-z11's claim "the former subdivision IB is one for former countries". -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, GN-z11 is right. Note that they wrote "Per DePiep's comment", i.e., as I described it. And interestingly, again you debunk your own argument: four out of five of your examples are subdivisions of a country, not of a settlement. QED. And of course, with the template documentation being imprecise (or corrupted), bad examples like East Berlin creep in. Still this (documentation effect?) does not prove nor support the suggestion that concepts "country" and "settlement" are the same. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:GN-z11, that is NOT true. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox former subdivision lists East Berlin, East Prussia, Dakota Territory, Alsace-Lorraine, Zamboanga (province). Furthermore I did NOT say "Infobox settlement can't be used for countries". There is only Template:Infobox airline, no Template:Infobox former airline. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Your explanation basically debunks your claim. If you take a closer look, the former subdivision IB is one for former countries. As you said, Infobox settlement can't be used for countries. Per DePiep's comment, Infobox former subdivision could be merged with Infobox country. Plus, comparing settlement IBs with person IBs is really weird. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 18:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Your claim
"there is a difference between where subdivision IBs are used in comparison to where settlement IBs are used"
us utterly false, and has been debunked several times already in this discussion. And here it is yet again: Infobox settlement is for"settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"
; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC) - Any evidence, User:GN-z11, for your claim
"there is a difference between where subdivision IBs are used in comparison to where settlement IBs are used"
? 77.183.192.234 (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:GN-z11, that is NOT true. Template:Infobox settlement is used for all kinds of territorial entities, except for countries. The proposal simply is to have "former subdivisions" be handled by the same template. Check out Template:Infobox settlement and its inclusions. There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. There is little that prevents Infobox settlement from being appropriate to use on former subdivisions. Many of the arguments seem to be more about the name of the template than its function. --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: An overview table, showing the two dimensions 1 class (country / country subdivisions) 2 existence (former, current, proposed).
Namespace | Category:Administrative territorial entities by type | Category:Former administrative territorial entities | (Current) | Category:Proposed administrative territorial entities |
---|---|---|---|---|
Category | Category:Countries | Category:Former countries | Category:Proposed countries | |
Template | {{Infobox country}} | {{Infobox country}} | {{Infobox country}} | {{Infobox country}} |
Category | Category:Country subdivisions | Category:Former subdivisions of countries | Category:Proposed country subdivisions | |
Template | {{Infobox settlement}} | Two infoboxes are used:
{{Infobox former subdivision}} - less than 1800 transclusions[9]
|
{{Infobox settlement}} | {{Infobox settlement}} |
77.13.148.190 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Discussion for this seems to still be ongoing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral I would like to say that I don't think it's really important whether they are merged or not merged. However, I would like to request that someone help me find someone who would import the "other_name" parameter from 'Infoxbox settlement' into 'Infobox former subdivision' so that I can add some of the old names of Hankou on that page in the way you see other names in the infobox on pages like Beijing and Chongqing. Also, under the normal English meaning of the terms, I don't consider Hankou primarily as a "former subdivision". Hankou is a living, breathing geographical concept in modern Wuhan, despite the fact that it is no longer an official subdivision. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Andy and the IPs. The opposers' arguments don't convince me. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Worth noting that according to this very simple query (pages that are within Category:Former subdivisions of countries AND that use {{Infobox settlement}}), there are 25,609 that currently use settlement, compared to the 1,799 uses of {{Infobox former subdivision}}. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support based on the table and the query. Aside from many of the parameters being the same in both templates, the templates are clearly used for the same purpose, so it makes sense to merge them, regardless of any pontifications about how the "former subdivision" template's name means that it can't possibly be merged. In any case, {{Infobox settlement}} is already used for many first-level subdivisions like Guangdong (population 108 million). Jc86035 (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: I arrived at this debate from Russian America that has its lead fouled up by this RtM, at least for mobile devices. The word "Russian" is split by an advice that some template is proposed for merging. Would whoever launched this issue please go back and repair immediately. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @John Maynard Friedman: not sure what has been fouled up here, but the notification atop the infobox is required as part of the process. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is a generic bug but I've never seen it before. What I see is
Russ The template infobox former subdivision is being considered for merging. <cr>
sian America (Russian: Русская Америка, Russkaya Amerika) was the name of the Russian colonial possessions ...
- I had hoped that the problem arose because of the way that someone had tagged the template. I guess you are saying that this is not the case and that it is just unfortunate collateral damage? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support - merge, replace, delete. Standardize on one template. The name of the template "subdivision" or "settlement" - whatever. Also, if a subdivision/settlement is "former" or not - can be done by same template. TerraCyprus (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support As long as the parameters will remain the same.--Biografer (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why has this been relisted yet again? The last two tries resulted in four supports and no objections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: because Hhkohh doesn't have enough experience with TFDs to know what they are doing. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are basing this on what? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: because Hhkohh doesn't have enough experience with TFDs to know what they are doing. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - If this is useful to editors then the solution shouldn't be to fix it. WP:USEFUL applies to articles not templates in this case as notability is not applied. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- FUD - The linked page is an essay about removal of content. No content will be removed by the merge. The same functionality will be or is already provided by Infobox settlement. It is not proposed to fix the usefulness, but to improve it. 77.11.96.186 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Knowledgekid87: you haven't addressed the actual point of the discussion. The idea that it would be less useful doesn't make sense. The parameters would stay the same. How could it be less useful? Right now we have to maintain 2 separate templates. Of the pages that are within Category:Former subdivisions of countries there are only 1,799 uses of {{Infobox former subdivision}} compared to 25,609 that currently use {{Infobox settlement}}. Additionally, {{Infobox former subdivision}} doesn't even use {{Infobox}} as a base and thus violates Wp:ACCESS in multiple ways. {{Infobox subdivision}} already is merged to {{Infobox settlement}}. Why should a former subdivision be treated differently? Would genuinely like to understand what your objection is... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- FUD - The linked page is an essay about removal of content. No content will be removed by the merge. The same functionality will be or is already provided by Infobox settlement. It is not proposed to fix the usefulness, but to improve it. 77.11.96.186 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment so at this point what this entire debate boils down to is that those who oppose merging the templates doing think that a subdivision qualifies as a settlement. The problem with that logic can best be summed up thusly:
- {{Infobox subdivision}} already redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} so subdivision isn't an issue...
- {{Infobox former settlement}} already redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} so former isn't an issue...
- So I fail to understand why this is even a debate. CLEARLY a former subdivision can be covered by settlement. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2
Template:Other Radio Stations in Arkansas
unused navbox with only 3 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also all three links pipe to the same article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Other templates link into this template; radio stations change formats all the time; deleting it would default the page to Spanish stations in Arkansas as the do with other “Other radio stations in x state” templates.Stereorock (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Additional: There are more links now.Stereorock (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete- I'd like to point out that this has actually 2 radio station links - KLRG and KABF and the other links just duplicate these. A very useless template. --Gonnym (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment There are 3 tiers: by frequency, by format, & community of license.Stereorock (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment There are now 19 stations listed. I still say keep.Stereorock (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- The tiers don't matter and actually violate MOS:REPEATLINK. Also, there are not 19 LINKS, which is what counts, not the amount of red links you can add. But regardless, this does have enough links for a navbox - it just needs work done to actually make it follow guidelines. I'd suggest also merging it with the other Radio of Arkansas templates which would make this template much more relevant. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reading MOS:REPEATLINK, it didn't mention templates. The tiers are there to help people as they are sorted 3 ways. What should be avoided is how most of these radio format templates are constructed ("WAAA - Anywhere" "WAAA-FM - Anywhere" "WAAB - Elsewhere" "WAAB-FM - Elsewhere").Stereorock (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- The tiers don't matter and actually violate MOS:REPEATLINK. Also, there are not 19 LINKS, which is what counts, not the amount of red links you can add. But regardless, this does have enough links for a navbox - it just needs work done to actually make it follow guidelines. I'd suggest also merging it with the other Radio of Arkansas templates which would make this template much more relevant. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Our Peak
- Template:Our Peak ( · talk)
unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Use. Has a set of linked articles that don't have a current navbox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I set this up as a personal nav box, designed not to be published but just used in my sandbox. I'd forgotten it existed. No good to anyone else. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hogyn Lleol: you are welcome to WP:G7 the template if you want. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, you can't use G7 (or most other speedy criteria) if the page is under discussion and someone has expressed an opinion against deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hogyn Lleol: you are welcome to WP:G7 the template if you want. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:PPDpresidents
unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Use? seems to link subjects in a notable fashion, should this be used?--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pretty similar to Template:PRPPDnominees in terms of the people listed there, but it has a different scope. I guess it can be used. --Gonnym (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Patriots1967DraftPicks
unused navbox that violates WP:ACCESS Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Navbox is now fully used. As far as this entire class of navboxes as a concept, a broader discussion would have to take place at WT:NFL before we should be taking any action there. Additionally, any WP:ACCESS concerns that may exist here actually involve a different template, not this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with above. No use deleting a single template out of the series. BLAIXX 21:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed
Ununsed template, no reason to keep it around. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Merge into Template:Trillium Line route diagram. Useddenim (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. The template is not unused, it is linked to from the less detailed template. I think this is an appropriate setup and the template should not be deleted or merged. BLAIXX 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Blaixx: where are you seeing that the template is used? this clearly shows that it isn't... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- That shows it is not transcluded, but it is linked to from Trillium Line: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Kusma: that fact that it is linked is not relevant. The template is not used on any pages. If you want to use the content, then it should be transcluded on a page. Templates are meant for reuse, not to be linked to as stand alone pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Blaixx: where are you seeing that the template is used? this clearly shows that it isn't... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Blaixx. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Blaixx. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Kusma and Mackensen: your !votes to keep neglect to actually address the point that the template is not used. LINKING to a template is not a valid use of a template. Templates are meant to be transcluded, not linked to as standalone pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the template is arguably main space content masquerading as a template. It's fulfilling a useful function in that respect, how would you suggest handling this differently without degrading the user experience? Mackensen (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Zackmann08: I disagree with your unproven assertion that this is "not a valid use". It may not be documented anywhere, but having diagrams in template space instead of article space has been a traditional and widely accepted practice for a long time. The information is not in article space because it is not an article, and we no longer have article subpages. It is not in file space because it is editable. It is in template space because it is similar to Template:Trillium Line route diagram. Some templates are useful as standalone pages, and there is nothing wrong with that. Deleting this template deletes useful information for no benefit. —Kusma (t·c) 18:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Zackmann08: Forget about WP:DONTGETIT. The template has valid content and is not “Unused”. It's perfectly acceptable for route diagrams to link to a more-detailed sub-diagrams, just as there's no prohibition against stand-alone templates: see Template:East Coast Main Line diagram, for example (or are you now going to nominate that for deletion, too?). Useddenim (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Kusma and Mackensen: your !votes to keep neglect to actually address the point that the template is not used. LINKING to a template is not a valid use of a template. Templates are meant to be transcluded, not linked to as standalone pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or actually use - Templates should not be used as links which replace articles. If that template is useful, then use it on the page. If if it isn't useful and you need to hide it, then it should be deleted. Linking it as if it were an article should not be acceptable. --Gonnym (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: And where is the directive that says that? Useddenim (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is not used as a link that replaces an article. It is a diagram. We would not delete a diagram in file space if it is linked to from an article. This diagram has the advantage of being editable and including wikilinks, much better than an equivalent-looking SVG. —Kusma (t·c) 08:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- It actually is used as a link, which for any unknowing reader (and to most editors) would seem like a link to an article. There is a blue text link that leads to this diagram. I would have no issue with this diagram if it were actually placed on that article, but this is not the case. --Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is not used as a link that replaces an article. It is a diagram. We would not delete a diagram in file space if it is linked to from an article. This diagram has the advantage of being editable and including wikilinks, much better than an equivalent-looking SVG. —Kusma (t·c) 08:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: And where is the directive that says that? Useddenim (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Blaixx and others above. Just because it is not transcluded does not mean it is not fulfilling a useful purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox U.S. state
Replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. At the very least this should be converted to a wrapper template. Yes this was previously nominated 10 years ago, but lots has changed since then. Additionally, it is not likely that there will be any new US states so shouldn't need to be maintained on new pages. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete after replacement as redundant; but if there is no consensus for that, at least make it a wrapper, per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Puerto Rico could very possibly become a state. I oppose for the replacement as there are unique parameters such as "admission to union". Wrapper would be better than deleting to allow consistency without having to patrol 50 articles. IWI (chat) 23:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Would seem that other places, like Canadian provinces (Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, etc.) could use such a parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support merge - the infoboxes should use the same code and have the same visual presentation to other settlement articles. The unique field mentioned above can be used by other countries which have joined a union. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Can you sandbox several examples for various U.S. states? I'm not 100% that fields like "Capital," "Largest city," "Largest metro area," "U.S. Senators," "Before Statehood," "State song," and as mentioned "Admission to Union" have direct replacements in Template:Infobox settlement. We'd certainly need to use a number of custom fields, or add code to the template, which given the high number of pages that use Infobox settlement, should probably get a wider discussion. Federalism, the sort in the U.S. and Switzerland, is not that popular a system globally and U.S. states in many ways have more in common with countires (and fields in Template:Infobox country) than cities.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am curious about the wrapper suggestion. I do see that Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada is done as a wrapper, and provides several of the fields I'd noted Infobox Settlement doesn't include above. Again, showing it done in a sandbox might help convince other editors.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep States are not settlements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Infobox settlement}}, per its own doc page, is
an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country ...
. US states clearly aresubdivision[s] below the level of a country
. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)- I would argue then that this falls under usefulness. Notability cant apply here, and arguments seem to be centered around essays. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- That documentation is thoroughly wrong. The concept of 'country' differs from the concept of 'settlement'. Both in RL and so in WP. They cannot be be mixed up or "merged". (What's next? merge "{{infobox vulcan}}", because well, it is a place on Earth too?). Obviously, that documentation is wrong in this, with horrible consequences for all readers and editors. -DePiep (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Infobox settlement}}, per its own doc page, is
- Keep - Just as we still have Template:Infobox French region and Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada, etc, which oddly aren't being proposed for merger. I'm not quite sure what "wrapper" means, but if it means updating the coding to match Infobox settlement, that seems fine. I'm assuming all the infoboxes at Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement are wrappers, so there should be no problem doing that for "Template:Infobox U.S. state". - BilCat (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Such arguments can be discounted, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NODEADLINE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Those basis are countered by WP:PRECEDENT and WP:YESDEADLINE though. We should be trying to tie this with policy and guidelines when possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Knowledgekid87, have you read the essays you linked to? YESDEADLINE does not say what you think it does and is not an opposite argument to NODEADLINE, even if the name appears to be. Also, if you want to invoke PRECEDENT, then just look at the recent few months of TfD discussions where wrappers and stand-alone settlement templates are being converted or merged back into {{Infobox settlement}}. Both "counters" are in fact, not. To the actual argument made by Bilcat, experience has shown that when nominating many templates of the same type in a group, the result is usually a no-consensus as the discussion fragments into too many pieces and as a result, the tendency is either to deal with one template one at a time, or with very small groups. Slowly all of the templates that should be merged, will get nominated. Opposing because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not contribute to any discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Should be merged" is a matter of opinion, if the template serves its purpose then why fix what isn't broken? My point is that essays contradict other essays which are not always based on community consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Please when quoting me, use the full sentence so it will not be taken out of context. I said,
Slowly all of the templates that should be merged, will get nominated
, I specifically said nominated, which was in response to Bilcat, who saidJust as we still have Template:Infobox French region and Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada, etc, which oddly aren't being proposed for merger
. As I said, slowly the big list is being nominated, whether those pass or not is a different story, but opposing as two templates haven't been nominated yet is just missing the whole point. --Gonnym (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please when quoting me, use the full sentence so it will not be taken out of context. I said,
- "Should be merged" is a matter of opinion, if the template serves its purpose then why fix what isn't broken? My point is that essays contradict other essays which are not always based on community consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Knowledgekid87, have you read the essays you linked to? YESDEADLINE does not say what you think it does and is not an opposite argument to NODEADLINE, even if the name appears to be. Also, if you want to invoke PRECEDENT, then just look at the recent few months of TfD discussions where wrappers and stand-alone settlement templates are being converted or merged back into {{Infobox settlement}}. Both "counters" are in fact, not. To the actual argument made by Bilcat, experience has shown that when nominating many templates of the same type in a group, the result is usually a no-consensus as the discussion fragments into too many pieces and as a result, the tendency is either to deal with one template one at a time, or with very small groups. Slowly all of the templates that should be merged, will get nominated. Opposing because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not contribute to any discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Those basis are countered by WP:PRECEDENT and WP:YESDEADLINE though. We should be trying to tie this with policy and guidelines when possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Such arguments can be discounted, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NODEADLINE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with the earlier statements that U.S. states are not settlements. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Did you not see the response to that claim: {{Infobox settlement}}, per its own doc page, is
an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country ...
? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)- I would argue that consensus can change, as the template documentation was placed there by editors. If we were going by Merriam-Webster the term for settlement is as follows [10]:
- a : occupation by settlers
- b : a place or region newly settled
- c : a small village
- I don't see how a state fits this criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- You are, of course, at liberty to argue that consensus can change; however, you offer zero evidence that it has changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would argue that consensus can change, as the template documentation was placed there by editors. If we were going by Merriam-Webster the term for settlement is as follows [10]:
- Irrelevant claim Bokmanrocks01, your
I agree with the earlier statements that U.S. states are not settlements.
- it was not claimed in the proposal that they are. 78.54.186.169 (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Did you not see the response to that claim: {{Infobox settlement}}, per its own doc page, is
- Merge. No reason this shouldn't at least be a wrapper, if not replaced entirely. Only users who truly fail to understand the purpose of Infobox settlement would think "a state isn't a settlement" is a valid argument against this. --Bsherr (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per previous precedent on merging templates similar to "Infobox settlement", as well as merging its wrapper templates. Template:Infobox settlement needs renaming, though. Might "Infobox subdivision" work better? Subdivisions are not settlements, but settlements are subdivisions (in some sense). Templates should have meaningful names. --Inops (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I like to find out when states were established, and this infobox is very useful, and condenses information into a nice little box. --Rubensbathsheba (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Infobox settlement}} will do that for you, equally well. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge - The parameters of {{Infobox U.S. state}} are all included in {{Infobox settlement}}, no reason to keep the former -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge I don't see any substantial differences with IB settlement in either form or application. A wrapper can be retained, if that is better for its implementation.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per nom Colonestarrice (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. A 'US state' is not a settlement. State and city are different concepts. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- As you well know - because I tell you every time you raise this facile objection, which has several times in recent weeks been disregarded by consensus - and as has been the case for over a decade, {{Infobox settlement}} is
"for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"
. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)- I have replied to that documentation-argument before, most recently here in this thread above (you choose not to read?). You can quote it a dozen more times, the point stays: Wikipedia documentation cannot change the real life concepts of 'country' versus 'settlement' (and then again, it's a documentation snippet, not an RfC). So far, this has been your only argument, repetitive while being WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. More troublesome is that way more often if not every time you divert from arguing and start spoiling the discussion with jabs and personal attacks. Calling an argument 'facile' without adding substance (ever) is derogative not a discussion. -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, DePiep, it is you - in this very post - not I, who is making "personal atttacks". And you have been warned about that, more than once recently. Indeed, I recall telling you: "You've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are coming across as belittling by saying "I tell you every time", and I don't think I am the only one who notices this. One can also argue that consensus can and has changed for things on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, DePiep, it is you - in this very post - not I, who is making "personal atttacks". And you have been warned about that, more than once recently. Indeed, I recall telling you: "You've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have replied to that documentation-argument before, most recently here in this thread above (you choose not to read?). You can quote it a dozen more times, the point stays: Wikipedia documentation cannot change the real life concepts of 'country' versus 'settlement' (and then again, it's a documentation snippet, not an RfC). So far, this has been your only argument, repetitive while being WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. More troublesome is that way more often if not every time you divert from arguing and start spoiling the discussion with jabs and personal attacks. Calling an argument 'facile' without adding substance (ever) is derogative not a discussion. -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- FUD. No one claimed that 1) a 'US state' is a settlement 2) "state" and "city" are not different concepts. The word "settlement" appears in the proposal text only in the name of the target infobox. 89.12.172.247 (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- As you well know - because I tell you every time you raise this facile objection, which has several times in recent weeks been disregarded by consensus - and as has been the case for over a decade, {{Infobox settlement}} is
- Keep
or Convert to Wrapper. I think US States are special. Really though, I just think it's odd just to single out them as a redundant template. Those are very high trafficked articles, and new users will be slightly confused about that template. Even as a wee WikiInfant I was editing the parameters for these kinds of templates (just not knowing much about them tbh). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)- Also, for the record, Zack, all of these pages independently exist: Statehood movement in Puerto Rico, Statehood movement in the District of Columbia, Partition and secession in California, 51st state, Annexation movements of Canada, and List of U.S. state partition proposals. I am not saying any are likely or unlikely, but these are all articles considered to be notable. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: I'm not really sure what your point is? I'm not disputing that there may be a 51st state at somepoint... That's not the point here. My point is that this isn't something like {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox actor}} where new uses are added every day. These are VERY stable templates that are not likely to change anytime soon. Could they? Of course they could and they will be updated accordingly... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, I was more-so refuting this part of the nomination statement:
Additionally, it is not likely that there will be any new US states so shouldn't need to be maintained on new pages.
(emphasis added). I don't consider it to be as valid a reason to replace as the arguement that it is redundant. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)- @MJL: Your comment is totally valid. I don't think I expressed myself very well with the initial statement so I will concede that. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: I probably shouldn't be talking all things considered. On a good day I am able to express a coherent thought lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: lol! All good. I appreciate your insight. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: I probably shouldn't be talking all things considered. On a good day I am able to express a coherent thought lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: Your comment is totally valid. I don't think I expressed myself very well with the initial statement so I will concede that. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Zackmann08, I was more-so refuting this part of the nomination statement:
- @MJL: I'm not really sure what your point is? I'm not disputing that there may be a 51st state at somepoint... That's not the point here. My point is that this isn't something like {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox actor}} where new uses are added every day. These are VERY stable templates that are not likely to change anytime soon. Could they? Of course they could and they will be updated accordingly... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- MJL
I just think it's odd just to single out them as a redundant template
- is that the reason behind your vote? It has not been done, so you can change your vote. To the contrary, the articles about the U.S. states belong to the very few articles about territorial entities that have an infobox which is not rendered by Infobox settlement. 89.12.172.247 (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)- For the record, I responded by asking a question on the IP's talk page. No response was given as of now. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've struck the "Convert to wrapper" because it seems to me that is pretty much what a merge entails. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also, for the record, Zack, all of these pages independently exist: Statehood movement in Puerto Rico, Statehood movement in the District of Columbia, Partition and secession in California, 51st state, Annexation movements of Canada, and List of U.S. state partition proposals. I am not saying any are likely or unlikely, but these are all articles considered to be notable. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - why would one have an extra box for 50 items, whilst 495 000 items use Infobox settlement? @Patrickneil and BilCat:
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20190320200030im_/https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_discussion/0/c7d4882cc885e9fd9950c8e3890eb272da5eeb4f.png)
410 349 / 82.77 % directly and 85 416 / 17.23 % via wrapper.
- 89.12.172.247 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. There are definitely U.S. state-specific fields here, such as StateAnthem (referred to in {{Infobox U.S. state}} as State song, the correct term, as opposed to Anthem in {{Infobox settlement}}), ranking in area/population/density among U.S. states, AdmittanceDate, etc. We could definitely make it inherit from {{Infobox settlement}} rather than {{Infobox}} as it does now, but this template is useful. The purpose of a template is to avoid duplicating work across multiple places, and 50 is definitely large enough to be tedious to do manually in one sitting. Using {{Infobox settlement}} would require hardcoding an override of "Anthem" in 50 places, linking to List of states and territories of the United States by population in 50 places, and more. Senators is also a useful field that we want to retain; if we migrated everything to {{Infobox settlement}} and tried to retain local government entities, it would be a complete mess as we tried to merge different forms of government from all across the world. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per the arguments made by Patrick and King of Hearts above. A US state and IB US state has more (fields) in common with a country/IB country than a settlement/IB settlement. California has more people, land and GDP than many if not most countries. Merging with IB country is obviously not appropriate. So what would the IB settlement replacement fields be for StateAnthem, Capital, LargestCity, LargestMetro, AreaRank, PopRank, DensityRank, IncomeRank, AdmittanceDate, AdmittanceOrder, etc.? 50 is too many to do by hand. No benefit to deleting. So keep. Leviv ich 18:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- To answer your questions. StateAnthem ->
|anthem=
(could also make a|state_song=
so it will replace the text when used); Capital ->|seat=
(see Bavaria); LargestCity and LargestMetro can be relevant for a lot of other places and is not something unique to a US state; AdmittanceDate and AdmittanceOrder as been pointed out above are useful for other places and is not something that is unique to a US state; AreaRank, PopRank, DensityRank and IncomeRank might be the only unique parameters for a US state (haven't checked this, so this could also be relevant to other places). But these two can be added. --Gonnym (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)- Why make it that complex though, shouldn't we be more user friendly? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- IB settlement is used on half a million pages, why would we modify its fields just for 50 US states? Why not leave IB settlement fields for the things that are common to settlements, and keep IB US State? Leviv ich 02:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- You calling it complex, does not make it complex. And we wouldn't modify it for 50 states, as I've said, some parameters are useful for others. Also, just noticed that
|population_rank=
already exists, as do|population_density_rank=
,|area_rank=
. For next time, if you argue a parameter does not exist, please actually check so others don't need to do it for you. Seeing as how all but income already exists or is useful for other locations and are not unique to a US state, your argument for uniqueness does not hold water. --Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)- So where do we put
|OfficialLang =
,|Languages =
,|LargestCity=
,|LargestMetro =
,|MedianHouseholdIncome =
,|IncomeRank=
,|Former=
,|AdmittanceDate =
,|AdmittanceOrder =
,|Legislature =
,|Upperchamber =
,|Lowerchamber =
,|Senators =
,|Representatives =
, and|TradAbbreviation =
? Or are you saying add those fields to IB settlement, where they will be used by 50 pages and not used by 499,950+? Leviv ich 16:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)- Are you seriously arguing that the only place in the world where a use for "OfficialLang" is important is for a US state? Almost all of them have exactly 1 and it is of course the obvious "English". Again, same argument for every one of your examples. Do some research instead of asking me to. Look at Ontario, see how it has all of what you deem unique to a US state. --Gonnym (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- AdmittanceOrder really is unique, nowhere else in the world does anyone care what order subnational divisions were admitted to the union (at least to the extent that it belongs in an infobox). The rank parameters in {{Infobox settlement}} do not link to pages like List of U.S. states by population density (or population, or area), forcing one to manually add such a link for every one of the 50 states. Copy-pasting code defeats the purpose of a template. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are you seriously arguing that the only place in the world where a use for "OfficialLang" is important is for a US state? Almost all of them have exactly 1 and it is of course the obvious "English". Again, same argument for every one of your examples. Do some research instead of asking me to. Look at Ontario, see how it has all of what you deem unique to a US state. --Gonnym (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- So where do we put
- You calling it complex, does not make it complex. And we wouldn't modify it for 50 states, as I've said, some parameters are useful for others. Also, just noticed that
- To answer your questions. StateAnthem ->
Completed discussions
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.
- 2019 March 7 – Largest_cities_of_Gabon ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2018 September 10 – Fb_cl_footer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2018 September 10 – Fb_cl_break ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2018 April 22 – Fb_cl3_qr ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2018 April 28 – Fb_r2_header ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2018 April 28 – Fb_r2_team ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2018 April 28 – Fb_r_footer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2018 April 28 – Fb_r ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2018 April 19 – Fb_cl2_team ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2018 April 19 – Fb_cl2_header_navbar ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2018 April 19 – Fb_cl_header ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Would it be possible for a bot to convert the transclusions of these templates to Module:Sports table? S.A. Julio (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Should be doable, yes. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- I could probably do something while I am converting all the
{{Fb team}}
templates. But, I will have to see how complicated the code is. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)- @Plastikspork and Primefac: Can your bots using Module:Sports table instead in this case, such as [11]? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hhhhhkohhhhh, sure. That particular template only had one use, and that use was in userspace, and the title of the page was "concept", so I didn't bother to fully convert it. But in general, the plan is to convert the various table/cl header/cl footer/cl team templates to use sports table. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Plastikspork and Primefac: Can your bots using Module:Sports table instead in this case, such as [11]? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- I could probably do something while I am converting all the
- Should be doable, yes. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Would it be possible for a bot to convert the transclusions of these templates to Module:Sports table? S.A. Julio (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- 2019 February 11 – PH_16_cities ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- @Izno: as the original nominator of this template, could I get you to tackle it? I'm not too familiar with the topic... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
To merge
Templates to be merged into another template.
Arts
- 2018 December 5 – Infobox_comics_genre ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2019 February 5 – Aeiou ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) merge to {{Austriaforum}}
- 2019 February 20 – Infobox_online_music_service ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2019 February 20 – Infobox_online_service ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Geography, politics and governance
- 2018 April 13 – Infobox_historic_subdivision ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge to {{Infobox former subdivision}}
On hold pending outcome of this tfd --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- 2019 January 29 – S-fam ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) to be merged into {{Ahnentafel}}
- If this merge is to take place then considerable work will need to be done so that
{{Ahnentafel}}
can present ancestry trees from right to left (currently it can only display left to right). -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- If this merge is to take place then considerable work will need to be done so that
Religion
- 2017 March 28 – Infobox Hindu temple ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge with {{Infobox religious building}}
- Working on this (talk). Target template changes to be considered. Will be OK. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Have you forgotten about this? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- No. The receiving template needed attention too, that took some extra time. (Then other stuff interfered). Working on this again. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: let me know if I can be helpful? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- No. The receiving template needed attention too, that took some extra time. (Then other stuff interfered). Working on this again. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Have you forgotten about this? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Working on this (talk). Target template changes to be considered. Will be OK. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Sports
- None currently
Transport
- None currently
Other
Meta
- Merge with Template:Infobox Chinese
- 2017 April 7 – Infobox name module ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2017 May 26 – Infobox East Asian name ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Merge with Module:TableTools
- 2018 May 13 – Module:Table ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2019 February 20 – Module:Array_length ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2019 January 14 – Mlx ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2019 January 14 – Mlix ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - move to Template:Mlx
- Merge with Module:String
- 2019 February 18 – Module:Str_endswith ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2019 February 18 – Module:Text_count ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2019 February 23 – Module:PatternCount ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Merged module written in sandbox. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- 2019 March 7 – Module:Vandal-m ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Merged module written in sandbox (although much of the coded I added to Module:UserLinks should probably be in Module:UserLinks/extra instead. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
- 2019 February 18 – Module:String_count ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- This should wait until the other merges involving Module:String are done. Pppery, the demodulator 01:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- 2019 February 18 – FCC_history_cards ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2019 February 12 – New_Hampshire_Union_Leader_Institutional_Pedigree_Chart ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2019 February 22 – Infobox_Finnish_municipality ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- @Apalsola, Pigsonthewing, and Pppery: point of clarification on this one... Are we also eliminating all the subtemplates? {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}}, {{Infobox Finnish municipality/sea area}} etc. I would assume so but I just want to double check before I start my work. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- If this information can be fetched from Wikidata, then these templates may be deleted. However, keeping this information up-to-date manually on each and every page is not an option. ––Apalsola t • c 13:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Apalsola: actually that is an option... That is how 99% of settlement pages work... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and that is the exact reason the data is often obsolete and inaccurate which is not the case for the articles about the municipalities of Finland. Until now. ––Apalsola t • c 16:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Apalsola: updating one convoluted array of data in a template doesn't help. Update the pages that the data is associated with. Anyway, this discussion has already been had at the tfd. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: "updating one convoluted array of data in a template doesn't help"? Well, it took me about 30 minutes to fetch the up-to-date (2019-01-31) population data from Statistics Finland, to convert it to the format used in {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}} and to update the template. And I even did not have a script or bot to do it, so there was still some manual work. Good luck in updating each individual page in that time. About the tfd, for me the consensus seems to be that a replacement is needed. That means something to replace the functionality of the template, such as fetching the data from Wikidata, not going back to manual editing of each and every pages. I am happy to open a new tfd if that is needed for not going back to the 1990s when all web pages were updated manually without any automation. ––Apalsola t • c 19:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Apalsola: updating one convoluted array of data in a template doesn't help. Update the pages that the data is associated with. Anyway, this discussion has already been had at the tfd. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and that is the exact reason the data is often obsolete and inaccurate which is not the case for the articles about the municipalities of Finland. Until now. ––Apalsola t • c 16:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Apalsola: actually that is an option... That is how 99% of settlement pages work... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, when the data can be fetched from wikidata it is ok to switch to it and I am actually waiting for that. However this is not currently possible as only coordinates, photos and webpage comes from wikidata. Also there were no rationale why it would be good idea for going back to to edit manually every single page in tfd or here. Would be nice to hear why it would be a good idea or needed.--Zache (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: It seems that you just decided to do the change in middle of the discussion? If i undestand correcly you volunteered make wikidata integration with same speed. --Zache (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zache: I am performing the change that was already discussed and closed at TFD. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: as I already stated in my previous comment, that tfd required us to have a replacement with similar functionality. Manual updating of statistical data in individual articles does not count as similar functionality. ––Apalsola t • c 20:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Apalsola: It is the same functionality performed by any other settlement page on here. To come in AFTER the tfd has been closed as delete and try to rehash the argument is not how this works. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: those same arguments were stated in the tfd by me and other users. Completely ignoring them is not how this works either. ––Apalsola t • c 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Apalsola: It is the same functionality performed by any other settlement page on here. To come in AFTER the tfd has been closed as delete and try to rehash the argument is not how this works. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: as I already stated in my previous comment, that tfd required us to have a replacement with similar functionality. Manual updating of statistical data in individual articles does not count as similar functionality. ––Apalsola t • c 20:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zache: I am performing the change that was already discussed and closed at TFD. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: It seems that you just decided to do the change in middle of the discussion? If i undestand correcly you volunteered make wikidata integration with same speed. --Zache (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- If this information can be fetched from Wikidata, then these templates may be deleted. However, keeping this information up-to-date manually on each and every page is not an option. ––Apalsola t • c 13:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Apalsola, Pigsonthewing, and Pppery: point of clarification on this one... Are we also eliminating all the subtemplates? {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}}, {{Infobox Finnish municipality/sea area}} etc. I would assume so but I just want to double check before I start my work. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Apalsola: that is a fair point. Upon further review I have reverted my changes. Personally I feel that there was a clear consensus, but your objections show that things may not have been so clear. At the very least it warrants further discussion before any action is taken (at least any action by me). --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- 2019 March 4 – Infobox_South_African_town ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
On hold pending this TFD
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.
- 2019 March 9 – PBB_Further_reading ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2019 March 9 – PBB_Summary ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Please note the TFD Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Template:PBB Controls states that these PBB templates are to be deleted not substituted. Does anyone know how they are to be merged with the article? MarnetteD|Talk 16:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: in this case I think subst is basically deletion... See this diff for example. The template was just a wrapper for a bunch of information so that the bot could work with it. The content is still important to keep on the page, it just doesn't require these templates to show it. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation Zackmann08. If I understand your point we just remove the PBB wrappers (for want of a better word) and leave the information contained therein. MarnetteD|Talk 21:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: that is my understanding, yes. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- MarnetteD and Zackmann08, are you sure you want to manually do over 3k instances of these instead of asking for a bot to do it? --Gonnym (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gonnym thanks for asking. Both of these are a bit tricky - especially the summary one. There is info contained in the template that has to be left in the article. I'm sure you know more about bots than I do so if one can be programmed to do this that is fine. Otherwise, I don't mind plugging away at them. As a wikignome that is what I am good at :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- MarnetteD and Zackmann08, are you sure you want to manually do over 3k instances of these instead of asking for a bot to do it? --Gonnym (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: that is my understanding, yes. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation Zackmann08. If I understand your point we just remove the PBB wrappers (for want of a better word) and leave the information contained therein. MarnetteD|Talk 21:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: in this case I think subst is basically deletion... See this diff for example. The template was just a wrapper for a bunch of information so that the bot could work with it. The content is still important to keep on the page, it just doesn't require these templates to show it. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please note the TFD Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Template:PBB Controls states that these PBB templates are to be deleted not substituted. Does anyone know how they are to be merged with the article? MarnetteD|Talk 16:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
- 2019 March 9 – PBB_Controls ( redirects | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )}