V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 104 | 53 | 157 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 7 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
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 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}}.
- 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:
Note:
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: {{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}} 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: {{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}} 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 {{subst:Catfd2|category name}} |
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 a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.
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 successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.
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.
Closing discussion
Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDCloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.
Current discussions
August 18
Template:Niversac-Agen railway diagram
- Template:Niversac-Agen railway diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; the parent article (Niversac–Agen railway ) hasn't been created. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Fuzztones
- Template:Fuzztones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All articles of the band's albums bar one have been redirected for having existed for 10 years with nothing more than a Discogs citation (and there was no coverage to be found through Google for these albums either). With just one link besides the band's main article, there's no reason this template needs to exist anymore. Ss112 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
August 17
Template:Saarland state election, 2009
- Template:Saarland state election, 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
unused, duplicates the results in the article Frietjes (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Persian Constitutional Revolution
- Template:Persian Constitutional Revolution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
only used on one page and appears to be generally redundant to navigation found in {{People involved in the Persian Constitutional Revolution}} Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: This template is a wikilink summary of event Persian Constitutional Revolution and can be used more on the pages related to this event, it is different from {{People involved in the Persian Constitutional Revolution}}, it is horizontal and that one is not only vertical but for People involved in the Persian Constitutional Revolution. {{Persian Constitutional Revolution}} also includes links to related events and books, ministers and related groups and parties. In general it is useful, it is better to keep. Championmin (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The template is hiding content which it shouldn't (per MOS:DONTHIDE), but if it does not, it just becomes this huge template, which on some pages is longer then the actual content. Additionally, the nested navboxes inside of it make the text even smaller, which it also shouldn't (per MOS:TEXTSIZE). Add any missing and needed (blue) links to Template:People involved in the Persian Constitutional Revolution and if needed rename it to better reflect the scope. Gonnym (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:USA PATRIOT Act sidebar
single-use infobox and I don't see any discussion as to why it isn't included directly in the article. it should be merged with the parent article unless there is a strong reason to keep it separated. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. An infobox should be used on its article and not created as a template. Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:2014 FA Cup Final line-up
- Template:2014 FA Cup Final line-up (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
As far as I can see, (certainly in the 2010's) it is the only FA Cup Final template in existance on enwiki. It is only used by 2014 FA Cup Final, allthough I couldn't find it in editing. (but that's probably due to my limited editing skills). It is also wildly out of place in the only category it's in. Dutchy45 (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - there are other similar images, such as File:Arsenal vs Aston Villa 2015-05-30.svg in 2015 FA Cup Final, File:Crystal Palace vs Man Utd 2016-05-21.svg in 2016 FA Cup Final etc. Both appear to have been uploaded by @PeeJay:. I note that the latter is a FA, so the images are probably appropriate. GiantSnowman 14:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- The images are appropriate, but the template isn't. – PeeJay 14:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- In which case can we 'convert' the template into a file, or re-upload the image as a file, and then delete the template? GiantSnowman 14:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: The image is already uploaded at Image:Arsenal vs Hull City 2014-05-17.svg --SuperJew (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- In which case can we 'convert' the template into a file, or re-upload the image as a file, and then delete the template? GiantSnowman 14:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- The images are appropriate, but the template isn't. – PeeJay 14:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:CSM Știința Baia Mare squad
- Template:CSM Știința Baia Mare squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:CS Dinamo București rugby squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:CSA Steaua București rugby squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:SCM Rugby Timișoara squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:ACS Tomitanii Constanța squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:CS Universitatea Cluj-Napoca squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Romanian rugby sides compete in non-notable leagues, so the majority of players involved in these templates are non-notable. Some teams have more players with pages, but not all are up to date, and are notable for their international achievements anyway, instead of club achievements. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Jaguares squad
- Template:Jaguares squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cheetahs squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Squad templates for rugby teams that aren't currently competing in any major notable leagues, and are not set to compete in any notable leagues until 2023 at the earliest. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Nagaland Nationalist Organisation/meta/shortname
- Template:Nagaland Nationalist Organisation/meta/shortname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Appears to be a nonsense template Whiteguru (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It's similar to Template:Bharatiya Janata Party/meta/shortname and Template:Liberal Party of Australia/meta/shortname. Most Indian political parties are shortened to 3 or 4 letter acronyms. See others in Category:India political party shortname templates. When present, these shortname templates are used by Template:Infobox election instead of the full names of the parties. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- keep, clearly not nonsense. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: really not relevant to this TfD but felt the need to add this. Eventually these templates should really be recreated in a module as a pseudo-database. There is really no need for thousand of these templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Makes sense. The same should be considered for the color templates as well. e.g. Template:Democratic Party (US)/meta/color -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
August 16
Template:Tramway de Nice
- Template:Tramway de Nice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; removed in 2016 in favor of an SVG map. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Barcelona Metro routemaps
- Template:Barcelona Metro Line 6 route map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Barcelona Metro Line 7 route map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; the parent articles of both templates were merged into Barcelona–Vallès Line in 2015. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:49th Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election-mini
- Template:49th Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election-mini (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:50th Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election-mini (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2003 Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election-mini (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2007 Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election-mini (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2011 Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election-mini (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The 49th, 2003, and 2011 templates are single-use and should be substituted where used. But the 50th should be deleted as it is an inaccurate template that states it is for the results for the 2019 election, although no information on the article correlates with this template. 2011 should be substituted on the two articles it is used on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete (with substitution where needed). The purpose of a template like this is to cross-reference information across multiple articles so that they can't be edited in contradictory ways that make it harder to sort out what's correct and what isn't. If a template is only being used on one article, then it should just be coded in that article rather than being chunked out to a separate template. For what it's worth, "50th" is actually for the 2021 election, not the 2019 election, as revealed by the fact that the Liberal Party leader is Andrew Furey rather than Dwight Ball — but it's incomplete and not used in 2021 Newfoundland and Labrador general election either, so it's not necessary. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete (and delete the 50th one) Unnecessary single-use templates. Number 57 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep 2011. Substituting the content onto two separate articles is an inferior solution. --Bsherr (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:West Bengal 2004 election summary
- Template:West Bengal 2004 election summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2001 Bangalore Mahanagara Palike election summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2010 Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike election summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2015 Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike election summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
2001 is unused. West Bengal 2004, 2010 and 2015 is similar to templates that were deleted on July 27. Used on multiple articles with very little information and without a clear purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing wrong with a navigation template. It gives an overview on Election results even when you read some specific articles. Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- This not a navigation template nor is an overview of supposed election results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the Bangalore templates as the results have nothing to do with the specific wards and are the results for Greater Bangalore. The specific election articles of 2001, 2010, and 2015 already have such tables. The West Bengal template also doesn't belong on the pages it is transcluded at, but sadly there isn't a 2004 Indian general election in West Bengal and placing it in 2004 Indian general election] does not seem appropriate. Not sure where this should be used. Gonnym (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:2007 Manitoba general election
- Template:2007 Manitoba general election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Manitoba provincial election, 2016 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
2007 is unused as the 2007 election article uses a different table. 2016 is single-use and should be subsitutied on the 2016 Manitoba general election article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. single use does not mean they need to be deleted. Also, there are lots of sub-templates used on multiple pages. Ebbedlila (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Templates should not be the place for election results. The core issue with these templates is that if they are used for one purpose and very unlikely to be used anywhere else. Having a simple table for the results on the election articles is the best way to do so. The templates have very little need or reason to be updated. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the 2007 template, subst and delete the 2016 template per nom. Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete (with substitution where needed). The purpose of a template like this is to cross-reference information across multiple articles so that they can't be edited in contradictory ways that make it harder to sort out what's correct and what isn't. If a template is only being used on one article, then it should just be coded in that article rather than being chunked out to a separate template. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete 2007/subst and delete 2016 Unused or unnecessary single-use templates. Number 57 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:El Alto municipal election, 2010
- Template:El Alto municipal election, 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused nor do I believe it has ever been used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep despite good faith concerns… This now appears on Soledad Chapetón, should one day appear on Edgar Patana.Carwil (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Now as in today as the article was just created. However, this should be substituted on the same article as this is now single-use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional subst and delete or just delete. If the table is needed, it should be subst to 2010 Bolivian regional elections#Mayors results (however, that sections is using prose so it might not be wanted there). It should also be removed from individual "Electoral record" sections as transcluding huge tables for a single row of data is just pointless Gonnym (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete per Gonnym; not appropriate for use on biographical articles. Number 57 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Anderson Family
- Template:Anderson Family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a completly made up family, there is no real use in this template. ★Trekker (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fake news. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, at least in some form: Of course it's made up – it's professional wrestling. Should we delete {{Star Trek}} because it is also made up? The Anderson family seems to be sourced reasonably, and I checked a few articles linking the people in the template to the "family" and found sources for the connections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This isn't a made up family tree. All these people exist and are related to each other in the way the template presents them. This is a historic wrestling family and their importance is of note. Not only will this not be deleted it will be expanded upon as its missing people from the list. --BokeATong (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Star Wars drafts
- Template:Star Wars drafts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Navigation box solely designed to contain links to drafts means this will never be used in mainspace, the purpose of drafts is not to create an alternate collection of articles for the reader that aren't official articles, they should solely exist to work towards being published BOVINEBOY2008 02:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Drafts should never be on a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing wrong with a navigation template to aid readers in moving between drafts of a similar topic, especially since there are many in this instance, and readers may not be aware of categories. Additionally, the template is solely for the draft articles (so there will not be a cross-pollination of other namespaces) and is coded in such a way that it will produce an error should it be used in the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Readers should not be casually reading and navigating through drafts. They are drafts because, for one reason or another, are not ready to be articles. This is essentially encouraging a secondary Wikipedia that does not need to meet WP:N. For editors who wish to work on Star Wars related drafts, they can find such links in categories or possibly the task force could create a page with a running list. BOVINEBOY2008 22:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NAVBOX clearly states:
Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia.
This most certainly fits that bill, and nothing else at NAVBOX nor WP:NAV saying anything about restricting the type of namespaces used in such, especially considering there are many navboxes that are to navigate between template space and the Wikipedia namespace. The draft space is no different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)- WP:NAVBOX also states that it should generally follow particular guidelines including "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." and "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." Neither of these apply in this case. BOVINEBOY2008 16:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Template and project space aren't articles either, and again, there are a multitude of navboxes to aid editors in moving around to relevant templates or project space info, so once again, no different for this instance. I don't know how the part you mentioned about "See also" is relevant at all in this matter, as that would never be the case in its use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NAVBOX also states that it should generally follow particular guidelines including "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." and "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." Neither of these apply in this case. BOVINEBOY2008 16:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NAVBOX clearly states:
- Readers should not be casually reading and navigating through drafts. They are drafts because, for one reason or another, are not ready to be articles. This is essentially encouraging a secondary Wikipedia that does not need to meet WP:N. For editors who wish to work on Star Wars related drafts, they can find such links in categories or possibly the task force could create a page with a running list. BOVINEBOY2008 22:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't make any sense as a navbox.
- Readers should not be in draft space - it is not indexed, does not show up in search results, and is not linked from the main encyclopaedia. The entire point of draft space is to give articles a place to grow before they are ready for public view. There is therefore no point in making templates to aid reader navigation through draft articles.
- From WP:Navigation template - "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles". None of these articles are related in any kind of meaningful way that would make a natural reading list. They aren't all part of some connected series - there's everything from characters to video games to TV series to fictional planets listed here spanning 30+ years and multiple movies, time periods and spin-offs.
- From WP:Navigation template - "Navigation templates provide navigation among existing articles". None of the things in this navbox are existing articles, They're all drafts in varying levels of completeness and presentability.
- By design stuff moves into and out of draft space on a regular basis - keeping this up to date is going to be a lot of maintenance for little benefit.
- The template servers as a Wikipedia self-reference. This template is grouping pages by their progress through an internal Wikipedia process rather than by their content.
- The functionality of the template is redundant to Category:Star Wars drafts.
- 192.76.8.91 (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. These navbox serve a navigational purpose for editors working in draftspace on a particular subject. Regarding the above assumption that navboxes are navigational tools between articles only, it should be noted that there are navboxes for projectspace and templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Regards navigation in draft space, we already have Category:Draft-Class Star Wars articles. Izno (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Having a navbox like his prevents draft categories like Category:Star Wars drafts from being edited out by draft bots.★Trekker (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this assists editors. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this is helpful to editors. Mitchy Power (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: This is perpetually-changing item with a trivially identifiable alternative (linked above in re to Gonnym). That alternative is not overwhelmed in any sense to need alternatives. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Make a list at a subpage of the WikiProject, or utilize the category Izno identifies above. While there may be purpose to navigate to these drafts, there isn't to navigate between them. --Bsherr (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Alberta general election, 1905
- Template:Alberta general election, 1905 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Alberta general election, 1909 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2008 Alberta general election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2012 Alberta general election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
1905, 1909, and 2012 are single-use and should be substituted onto the respective election article. The 2008 template should be substituted on the politician article and onto the election mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. Subst to election articles. Remove from individual "Electoral record" sections as transcluding huge tables for a single row of data without any prose is just pointless. Gonnym (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete (with substitution where needed). The purpose of a template like this is to cross-reference information across multiple articles so that they can't be edited in contradictory ways that make it harder to sort out what's correct and what isn't. If a template is only being used on one article, then it should just be coded in that article rather than being chunked out to a separate template. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete (although per Gonnym, remove the 2008 one from the biographical article). Number 57 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep 2008. Multiple transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Football at the Summer Olympics – Women's tournament winning manager
- Template:Football at the Summer Olympics – Women's tournament winning manager (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This is basically a category disguised as a navbox template, and as such is a misuse of template space (see WP:TMPG). This should be made into a category (I'm unsure whether it is really that good of a category, but that's another issue), and the template deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Similar templates have this issue. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete agree that it does not need to be a navbox. GiantSnowman 11:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This is a major Tier 1 women's international tournament. We have several other navboxes for other league/tournament championship-winning managers (most of whom have categories) and I don't think those should be deleted. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Except this really falls under navbox crust. Crust is a major issue with these football/soccer templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- keep unless you are nominating the equivalent men's tournament template. Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand the keep arguments, at all. If there's also an equivalent for the men, that's an obvious WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS situation, and the same arguments apply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- if you believe that the men's tournament box is "other crap" then I don't see why it wasn't joined to this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Cause, duh, I wasn't aware of that for some reason or another. It's also a bit late to add it to this nomination. Feel free to start a new one (might do so myself when I get more free time later this evening) for the men's template. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- if you believe that the men's tournament box is "other crap" then I don't see why it wasn't joined to this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:World laws pertaining to animal sentience
- Template:World laws pertaining to animal sentience (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on animal cruelty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Animal rights at the UN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on battery cages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on beak trimming (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on killing cats for consumption (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on killing cattle for consumption (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on chick culling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on killing dogs for consumption (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on foie gras production (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on killing horses for consumption (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on shark fishing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on stunning animals during ritual slaughter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Legal status of whaling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on killing animals for fur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on cosmetic animal testing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World bullfighting bans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on cockfighting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on dog fighting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World dolphinarium bans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World circus bans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World laws on goose pulling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Legality of primate use in scientific research (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Continuing from a May 28 Tfd where LaundryPizza03 brought light to these templates. The template that was deleted from the discussion was the concern of Original Research. These templates fall under this as there are no sources to support the claims of the animal rights and laws these templates are supposed to bring to light what is legal or illegal in which part of the world. If deletion is granted to these 23 templates, I would recommend keeping the maps these templates use and keep them on the articles with a legend style infobox used for them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- The first thing I note is that most of these maps lack any sources or list sources only on the file page, and are often missing most countries outside of Europe. Here's a rundown on all the nominated templates by sourcing:
- Unsourced (delete): {{World laws pertaining to animal sentience}}, {{World laws on animal cruelty}}, {{Animal rights at the UN}}, {{World laws on killing cats for consumption}}, {{World laws on killing cattle for consumption}}, {{World laws on killing dogs for consumption}}, {{World laws on killing horses for consumption}}, {{World laws on shark fishing}}, {{World laws on killing animals for fur}}, {{Legality of primate use in scientific research}}
- Based on SYNTH of multiple sources per country (delete): {{World laws on battery cages}}, {{World laws on beak trimming}}, {{World laws on chick culling}}, {{Legal status of whaling}}, {{World laws on cosmetic animal testing}} (based onthe list in the Testing cosmetics on animals article), {{World bullfighting bans}}, {{World laws on cockfighting}}, {{World laws on dog fighting}}, {{World laws on goose pulling}} (has oddly specific categories in the legend)
- Probably okay (keep): {{World laws on foie gras production}} (source is dead), {{World laws on stunning animals during ritual slaughter}} (not all countries sourced), {{World dolphinarium bans}}, {{World circus bans}} (the only one with a source listed in the template).
- –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Err, same as LaundryPizza03, if I may be allowed to skip relisting the templates. I was going to additionally remark that I think World dolphinarium bans should be tweaked to provide the refs in the template, not in the image file, the way Foie gras and Circus bans do, but there are rather a lot (5) of sources on that one and, worse, Stunning requirements for ritual slaughter has even more of them. I can see it'd be messy. LP's analysis seems good, though, and we should toss the templates with inadequate sourcing (groups 1 and 2). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 04:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment As I already indicated in May 28 Tfd (on 4 June 2021): "I've created many of those templates but provided ample resources for everything, including literature, laws and reliable news sources. If there is any unsourced material or original research in anything I have created, please let me know and I'll try to fix it. There are indeed too many maps on Commons which don't cite their sources, or rely solely on unreliable sources, or too much on primary sources. That's why I'm an advocate for evidence-based mapping, and am trying to set the right example, as you can read on my user page: c:User:Nederlandse Leeuw#Mapping issues (essay). I hope that eventually we can establish a guideline on this, because numerous maps on Commons are crap, but unsuspecting Wikipedians keep using them in articles, and unsuspecting readers keep thinking these maps are accurate." But nobody has answered that comment. I'd like to know how these maps and templates are supposed to work if these are bad examples, then I'm quite willing to try and fix everything to comply to the rules. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Question What is 'SYNTH' about the sourcing in Group 2? Since when is it not permitted to provide multiple sources to prove the same thing? If anything, Wikipedia encourages that, and frowns upon Template:One source. Moreover, since when is allegedly having 'oddly specific categories in the legend' a reason to delete an entire template? Let's talk about how we can best present information instead of simply deleting information when we don't understand why it is presented in manner X. Also, since when is it necessary to mention sources in the template rather than the image file, and if so, wouldn't that make it needlessly messy (as JohnFromPinckney notes)? Finally, all countries in "Stunning requirements for ritual slaughter" are sourced; I challenge LP to find a single country that isn't sourced, because I source everything I map. In short, I want references to clear rules - be it on English Wikipedia or on Commons - on both maps and templates so that everyone knows what to do in order to make maps and templates that comply to the rules, and there aren't just arbitrary deletions of what may well be very valuable work that is insightful for readers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Suggestion (unsourced templates) To be clear, I did not create any of the unsourced templates in Group 1; they merely served as my inspiration for creating the sourced templates in Groups 2 and 3 (except for World circus bans and cosmetic animal testing, created by @RockingGeo:). But on what basis do we simply delete templates on English Wikipedia merely because the image file on Commons is unsourced? Seems to me that (A) we at least add a Template:Citation needed inside the template on English Wikipedia and/or a "Datasource missing" template in the image file description on Commons in order to give the template/map creator an opportunity to provide sources for a period of time before we resort to deletion. Alternatively (B) we can simply remove the template from articles until it is properly sourced instead of deleting the template right away; no reader will see it when it is not used anywhere. We could even do both A and B instead of simply deleting unsourced templates. Deleting a template simply because no sources are provided seems to me an overreaction and not to solve the problem, and it's not how we usually address the same problem in texts when it seems that the information is probably legitimate, but we just need a reliable source to verify it and thus we use a "Citation needed" template to ask the author (or any other user who happens to amble along and would like to solve the issue) to provide RS. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Even unsourced text can be removed from the article, see WP:UNSOURCED. Regarding the deletion of the template. If the template is removed from the article and is unused, there is no real value in keeping it around. It also clogs reports and search results. If someone here wants to work on it, they can request for it to be moved to their user page or just fork it. Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Of course it can, my question was whether it always should, the answer to which is clearly 'no', otherwise we would not have templates like "citation needed" and "refimprove section" that allow users to provide sources for seemingly legitimate information in due time. So why wouldn't we do the same thing with unsourced templates that seem useful and legit, but just lack sources? I stand by option A of adding "citation needed" templates to the unsourced templates and "datasource missing" templates to unsourced maps (whichever option we choose to list the sources, if not both). Your criticism for my option B makes more sense; yes, if a template is actually not ready for use in the mainspace yet, we might as well move it to someone's user page instead until it is (if we agree it's not ready yet and someone offers to fix it inside their userspace). I agree with you about that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion @WikiCleanerMan: Why are you in favour of 'keeping the maps these templates use and keep[ing] them on the articles with a legend style infobox used for them' on the one hand, but deleting the templates on the other? This does not follow from your argument that the templates constitute original research and should thus be deleted; you're merely arguing for presenting the same information from the same maps in a different way, namely 'legend-style infobox' rather than template. Therefore, the nomination as currently formulated lacks justification. We can talk about what is a good way to present information (and perhaps establish new rules if helpful), and whether the sources should be mentioned in the template/'legend-style infobox' or in the image file, but those discussions are separate from the question whether original research has been committed in these specific cases. I therefore need to oppose the nomination as a whole. But I'm very willing to talk about how to best present this information, and to establish new rules to help users how to do this best, because it seems that these rules do not exist yet when it comes to sourcing maps (as I noted previously under 'Comment' and on the 28 May Tfd). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- I said recommend. The reason for this is because I don't see why the maps have to be on a template. My main argument is that the templates don't add anything to it. Because again, the templates don't have any information that can be gained nor verified as stated above. But if the maps should be nominated it will be on Commons, not here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Aha, so you just don't like the template format of presenting these maps. You don't actually accuse them of committing original research (you don't even necessarily accuse the maps on Commons of original research). I think this fundamentally undermines your case for deleting these templates, and I think you should withdraw your nomination. As said, beyond this nomination, we can have a very interesting and good discussion about 1) if these templates are a valid way of presenting information (especially in articles such as Animal rights by country or territory, where all of these templates are currently used, while some are also used elsewhere in the mainspace); I have not yet seen you or anyone else here invoke an actual policy rule why this would be invalid; and 2) whether the sources should be mentioned as references in the template/'legend-style infobox', or in the image file on Commons (and I've also not seen any invocation of any rule that it should be one or the other yet). I'm interested in hearing your and other users' opinions about that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Never said that and has nothing to do with liking or not liking. I'm not withdrawing because there is no reason to. Again, no information can be gained from these templates because these fall under OR. The templates are the issue, not the maps. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, if these templates "fall under OR", can you cite the relevant part of WP:OR for me then, please? Secondly, why would your recommended 'legend-style infoboxes' comply to WP:OR, but these templates would not? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Never said that and has nothing to do with liking or not liking. I'm not withdrawing because there is no reason to. Again, no information can be gained from these templates because these fall under OR. The templates are the issue, not the maps. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Aha, so you just don't like the template format of presenting these maps. You don't actually accuse them of committing original research (you don't even necessarily accuse the maps on Commons of original research). I think this fundamentally undermines your case for deleting these templates, and I think you should withdraw your nomination. As said, beyond this nomination, we can have a very interesting and good discussion about 1) if these templates are a valid way of presenting information (especially in articles such as Animal rights by country or territory, where all of these templates are currently used, while some are also used elsewhere in the mainspace); I have not yet seen you or anyone else here invoke an actual policy rule why this would be invalid; and 2) whether the sources should be mentioned as references in the template/'legend-style infobox', or in the image file on Commons (and I've also not seen any invocation of any rule that it should be one or the other yet). I'm interested in hearing your and other users' opinions about that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- I said recommend. The reason for this is because I don't see why the maps have to be on a template. My main argument is that the templates don't add anything to it. Because again, the templates don't have any information that can be gained nor verified as stated above. But if the maps should be nominated it will be on Commons, not here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia rules for citing sources of maps As I noted/argued above, there seem to be no clear rules on either English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons about the need to cite your sources for maps, let alone where and how.
- WP:MAPS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions, MOS:IMAGES, WP:IMGDD, Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research etc. say nothing about citing sources for maps; they are chiefly concerned with not violating copyright, which extensions to use, and appropriate file titles.
- The best I've been able to find so far is Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps#Citing sources, which says: "As maps can be politically charged, it is important to cite your sources and/or your methodology when editing or creating any map. This is particularly true for historical maps." That's it. It does say 'it is important to cite your sources' (we could interpret that as 'you need to cite your sources', which I'm all for), but it doesn't say where or how, e.g. whether these sources must be listed inside the "[[File:....]]" parameters within an article, or a template or 'legend-style infobox' (either in the form of references or footnotes), or on Commons within the image file description (as I have been doing).
- Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop merely provides an 'Advice to requesters': "Sourced requests: If possible, please try to provide a reliable source to create a map. This includes a map already on Wikipedia with a reliable source or an external link." So they don't consider citing reliable sources necessary, just advisory, let alone that they instruct users where and how to cite sources (imo this policy is way too lax).
- Even the essay Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles (WP:MAPCITE) says very little about maps used as illustration, and the only thing it says about using reliable sources for self-created maps is this: "Editor-created maps should be careful to only depict details supported by reliable sources in the article and common information that would appear on any published map relating to the subject. For user-created maps based on GIS or satellite images, it is acceptable to use details already present in the database used to create the map. Before adding details to third-party created maps, ensure that the addition both meets the above criteria, and that the derivative work will not create issues with copyright laws." It only recommends 'depict[ing] details supported by reliable sources in the article', it does not say anything about how or where the map should mention or refer to those reliable sources (inside "[[File:....]]", the template/'legend-style infobox' or the Commons image file description).
- Therefore, I conclude that no such rules exist on English Wikipedia yet, and so they cannot be invoked to argue for the deletion of any of the above templates, as no existing rule has been violated. Secondly, I think we should use this opportunity to develop and establish such rules for these and future cases. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- PS: The analogy with the 28 May Tfd fails, because in that case there were issues with the reliability of the sources, and the way these were used, and that's why that article and template were deleted (which I supported btw). That's not the issue here. This nomination lacks justification. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep all. Although the topics are quite niche, these are in my mind encyclopedic.Tom (LT) (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
All Z-number templates
- Template:Z1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Z2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Z3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- . . .
- Template:Z207 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Z208 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Multiple deletion nomination for all Z-number templates from Z1 through Z208 (or beyond): these templates should all be deleted. "The entire premise for the existence of this template family is false." See Template talk:Z number documentation. Note that contrary to the documentation in Step 1 at WP:Tfd#Listing a template under 'Multiple templates' which says, 'Tag every template', I am tagging only Template:Z1. If someone wants to tag the other 200-odd templates or write a bot, be my guest. Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Notifications: attempting to follow the notification step III, I've notified creators of Z1, Z208, and Primefac, who has been active in this topic. See Template talk:Z number documentation. I scanned Z2 through around Z8, and the code doesn't even seem to be there anymore, so I don't want to send hundreds of pointless notifications out. I'm willing to send a dozen or two, if someone can point me to the ones that are actually in use. I'll notify the Templates WikiProject also. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- If they are replaced with a comment that can easily be searched for if one isn't already present I would be fine with this. I really don't have a strong opinion here though as long as it's still easily trackable. --Trialpears (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Trialpears:, I'm no authority, so quoting Primefac here:
...the fact that
commented out text is not searchable
is incorrect; anincode:
search finds any piece of text in the source. As an example, {{Z15}} is associated with {{uw-softerblock}}.
- It would be up to the substable templates who wished to be trackable, to use a hidden comment like almost all substed templates already do, to ensure that they were trackable. Probably most already have it, and the rest could add one. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- (
insource:
.) Izno (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)- (edit conflict) I stared at that for a while, until the light bulb came on. Very handy. Here's an illustration; compare the "what links here" search, with the advanced search with the insource keyword:
- ▻ What Links Here:
Template:Z15
- ▻ Advanced search:
insource:"<!-- Template:Uw-softerblock -->"
- ▻ What Links Here:
- (Note: to actually verify the results, you'd have to list all of them and sort, but they should be the same set.) Thanks, Primefac for the tip, and Izno for the keyword correction. Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, apologies for the typo on the template talk. I've updated it there but noting here for the record that the quote above did correctly include my typo. Primefac (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- As long as an effort is made to make sure there is an associated comment present, I'm happy. --Trialpears (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Trialpears: Re-reading this later, I realize now I perhaps didn't understand you. Are you saying that you're okay with supporting it, as long as removal (by bot or whatever) replaces the transclusion of the z-number template with a hidden comment in the code, like, "<!--{{Z-nnn}} removed by consensus at [[Link-to-here|Tfd]]-->"? If not that, then what did you mean? Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- If there isn't already a html comment for tracking one should be added when removing the template. An explanation of the removal seems unnecessary. --Trialpears (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Trialpears: Re-reading this later, I realize now I perhaps didn't understand you. Are you saying that you're okay with supporting it, as long as removal (by bot or whatever) replaces the transclusion of the z-number template with a hidden comment in the code, like, "<!--{{Z-nnn}} removed by consensus at [[Link-to-here|Tfd]]-->"? If not that, then what did you mean? Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- As long as an effort is made to make sure there is an associated comment present, I'm happy. --Trialpears (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, apologies for the typo on the template talk. I've updated it there but noting here for the record that the quote above did correctly include my typo. Primefac (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I stared at that for a while, until the light bulb came on. Very handy. Here's an illustration; compare the "what links here" search, with the advanced search with the insource keyword:
- (
- @Trialpears:, I'm no authority, so quoting Primefac here:
- Comment, with abstention: If it is decided to delete all of them, then I will not object, but we must first understand why they are there. I only discovered Template:Z number documentation recently. It's purpose is thus... the User Warnings listed at WP:WARN are all substituted. When one of these substitution templates is applied to a user's talk page, it is not always easy to later determine from the source code which template was applied to the user's talk page. The Z templates are meant to be a way to determine which template was substituted on the page. It does seem a little redundant if the original template is named in a hidden comment, but that's what I've come to understand the purpose of the Z templates. Note, there are two templates I could not add their Z number to because they were protected; if the Z templates are deleted, please make a notation of this when closing my edit requests 29 July 2021 and 29 July 2021 (2). Thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. To attempt to answer the question of why these exist, the oldest one (Template:Z1) dates to 2009, whereas the current search system has only existed since 2014. It's entirely possible that searching for commented-out text wasn't possible back in 2009 when these templates were created. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all. I think this was a valuable set of templates when they were first created, but the search tools have sufficiently advanced since their creation and they are now unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- As a general note, since such things often get brought up (and I'm honestly surprised they haven't yet), if this does close as delete I can put my bot on the task, and will make sure that if the related templates do not contain a commented-out piece of text (for example, {{helpmessage}} does not contain
<!--Template:Helpmessage-->
), the removal of the Z template (for example {{Z163}}) will be a replacement with said text (and the template will be updated accordingly). Primefac (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- As a general note, since such things often get brought up (and I'm honestly surprised they haven't yet), if this does close as delete I can put my bot on the task, and will make sure that if the related templates do not contain a commented-out piece of text (for example, {{helpmessage}} does not contain
Keep all, save for deprecated: Just because the transcluded templates might show up in a search doesn't mean they're easily sortable. For example, when I searched for "<-- Template:uw-talkinarticle3 -->" in the User Talk namespace at [1], far too many results appeared. This is because "Punctuation marks are ignored", so I was actually searching for "Template", "uw", and "talkinarticle3", even though I used the "exact search" field. Removing the comment tags made the search results output things that weren't even in the desired namespace ([2]). The worst part of this is that none of the pages listed under [3] appeared on either search, despite the fact that they all contained the text "Template:uw-talkinarticle3". I may be doing something wrong here, but in case I'm not, we should keep the Z templates. Also, for simplicity's sake, it's far easier to check the "What links here" of each Z template than to fix whatever I was doing wrong while searching for the specific texts.
- Keep all, save for deprecated: Checking the "What links here" page of a Z template is easier than searching, and the templates use hardly any server resources.
- Thank you for your time. Opal|zukor(discuss) 13:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your search was wrong regardless - you need to use
insource
as indicated above. 9 uses jump out accordingly. Izno (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) - (edit conflict) @Opalzukor This is mostly due to you not using an insource search like this which can also be improved with regex. I can't say I'm super convinced in the value of this proposal but it can give a lot better results than you got. --Trialpears (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Izno and Trialpears: Thanks a ton, will save this tip for the future! Will adjust comment accordingly. Opal|zukor(discuss) 22:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your search was wrong regardless - you need to use
- Delete: General agreement that these templates are no longer necessary. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete an insource search accomplishes the same task. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above, but ensure there is a comment citing the relevant substituted template before/instead of the Z one. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
(Z-number) Sidebar issue about tagging and notification
Sorted
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
As mentioned earlier, I tagged two templates, and notified two creators, one involved user, and two WikiProjects. That leaves another two hundred untagged templates, and an unknown number of unnotified creator-users. Does anyone see a problem with this, or have a suggestion how to ameliorate the lack of tagging/notification? The first eight templates I checked that were at one time associated with Z-number templates (Z1–Z8), no longer use them, and I quit after that, jumped to Z208, and tagged that one. Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Notifications: I started with the most recent, as they're probably the more relevant, with more chance the creator is still active.
|
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:UserTalkArchiveBox
- Template:UserTalkArchiveBox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete) - 122 transclusions
- Template:Archives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete) - 41947 transclusions
Propose merging Template:UserTalkArchiveBox with Template:Archives.
{{UserTalkArchiveBox}} is an archive box with less features than {{Archives}} with little advantages apart from the image being to the left of the Archives title rather than above which can look better since this template is automatically collapsed. All the features of {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} can easily be added to {{Archives}} and some of the features of {{Archives}} would be able to be used in this format aswell (Image change, stop collapsing...) which they currently are not. Terasail[✉️] 12:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- How exactly do you intend on implementing this? I'm not a big fan of having two collapse options in {{Archives}} if that's your plan. --Trialpears (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Trialpears: I did a rough attempt in the sandbox with a new parameter:
|utab=
(should probably be renamed to something else). If the templates are not mergerd, {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} should probably be deleted in favour of {{Archives}}. Terasail[✉️] 15:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)- I'm more inclined to just delete and replace, but given that this is in user space I know that is controversial. After looking at all 123 uses of the template only a small minority should actually have a collapsible box as it now serves to hide one or two links in which case just a normal non-collapsed {{Archives}} seems like the best replacement. The only users who have boxes that benefit from collapsing and have edited in the past few years are @Pi, Jbmurray, Kurykh, Nthep, A930913, Nick, Sturmgewehr88, and Adirlanz:. In these cases a replacement is just a change in style without being a significant improvement. If you guys are fine with a replace and delete I feel that would be by far the best solution from a maintenance and ease of use standpoint. If you have any questions about archiving I'm happy to assist and can ensure it will continue working after a potential conversion but with visual differences. I will shortly make an actual !vote shortly outlining the significant positive impacts of consolidation. --Trialpears (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Trialpears: I did a rough attempt in the sandbox with a new parameter:
- I haven't looked into the functionality details enough yet to be comfortable making a formal !vote, but on a high level, these seem like templates doing the same thing that we ought to be able to find a way to merge. That could either be done here, or as part of a larger talk archiving overhaul of the sort I know Trialpears is working on. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Replace and delete Undecided on merger. This template is a rarely used archive box similar to the ones we have previously consolidated to streamline the process of setting up an archive over the past few years. The vision is that it should be as simple as putting {{Archives}} on a page to get a good archiving solution with lots of easily accessible and well documented configuration options instead of the previous method of choosing another box if you wanted some variation, usually with differing syntax and little overview of what other options are available. In the quite near future there are also plans on integrate auto archiving support by bot into {{Archives}} which wouldn't be available to {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} users. While replacement of this template isn't essential for any of these plans it would simplify the choice of archive box streamlining that process and make it easier for {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} users who want to change anything in the future. --Trialpears (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- More information about planned archiving reform can be found at User:Trialpears/Archiving manifesto. Nothing there is set in stone, but it is a rough roadmap. --Trialpears (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am generally in favor of consolidating redundant code/templates/functionality. If the {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} functionality can be incorporated into {{Archives}}, I request that the talk template have the same width and default color (yellowish) as other templates on talk pages, using a
style
parameter. Somerandomuser (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)- Somerandomuser It will do both those. It only appears white on non-talk pages (such as WP:RFPP) as that is the color scheme usually used there (you can read a bit more at {{mbox}} I believe). --Trialpears (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Replace and remove: I am in favor of consolidating redundant code/templates/functionality. Thank you Trialpears for addressing my concerns. Somerandomuser (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Per above. ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Suggestions: Template:UserTalkArchive is tied with Template:UserTalkArchiveBox, and as such has more information in its template doc, so I would recommend examining it first before any action is decided. If the {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} is made redundant by merging its functionality into {{Archives}}, then I would recommend similar to {{UserTalkArchive}}, merging its functionality into Template:Automatic archive navigator. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agreed that should also be consolidated, but it doesn't really have any impact on the present discussion. They can be used completely independently of each other and there are probably differences in how they should be handled. --Trialpears (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Don't care As a long-time user of this template, I've got to say that I'm not fussed about this at all. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Don't care so long as the process of changing is invisible to me as a long time user, that I don't have to do anything significant. I don't even mind if my talk page gets changed in the process. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Replace and delete. Not every flavor should be supported and having an easier code to maintain while also having a more standard user experience is a much better ideal. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose no compelling reason or evidence of a real problem has been provided that it needs to be merged, deleted or replaced. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional merge assuming a satisfying implementation and smooth migration is proposed. MarioGom (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Don’t care, it seems the nom just switched me across [4] and I cannot tell the difference from the old version [5]. Cavalryman (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC).
- No I just changed a parameter of {{Archives}}, there should be no actual change to your template and you were not using {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} Terasail II[✉️] 02:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - This sounds like an idea without a concrete solution so far, minimum disruptions needs to happen if there is going to be a merge or deletion of this template. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sturmgewehr88 I wouldn't agree with that characterization. While there are two proposals for what to do, merging and replace and delete, both are themself thought thru. For merging the appearance and such would be preserved and all that would need to be done is changing {{UserTalkArchiveBox|Archive list}} to {{Archives|Archive list}}. For replace and delete the replacement would be similar but instead of implementing a new appearence for a collapsed archive box the one already supported by {{Archives}} would be used. This would be a change like {{UserTalkArchiveBox|Archive list}} to {{Archives|Archive list}}. In this case I also suggested uncollapsing unnecessarily collapsed boxes, it really isn't necessary for just one or two links and the apparence of the box would change anyway.
- For a template with as few uses as this one, just a bit over 100, the process would also be mostly manual and all edits would be individually reviewed. If you have any other questions feel free to ask! --Trialpears (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Indifferent - I have been using the Archives template for my talk page for years. I just hope you don't make a mess of the one I use, as it is perfectly satisfactory. LynwoodF (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose There really is no solid discussion from the nominator on why this should even be done. – The Grid (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Replace and delete. No need for two templates with similar functionality when one can support all necessary features. czar 04:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Replace and delete per Trialpears' rationale above. —Bruce1eetalk 06:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Replace and delete. These are two archive templates are in the header above, not three. --Diegopeter2013 (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Replace and delete per Trialpears' rationale -- DaxServer (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional replace and delete As long as a plan can be put in place to either change the template to eliminate any disruption for any of us using the old template, or (preferable IMO, if it can be done seamlessly), using a bot to wholesale change every use to the new template, with parameters that exactly replicate the old ones. The latter would be trickier, and would mean modifying people's user/user talk pages (controversial, at best), but would mean not having to deal with backwards compatibility in the future. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Question: Pardon my ignorace. I bet you will have the answer to this. If one template gets merged into another one, what happens to the pages with the old template? Does a bot go a replace the deprecated template with the new template? Or is the expectation that all articles will have some active editor that will manually update them? Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Al83tito Templates are put into the holding cell whenever a discussion closes with consensus for change where they remain until the consensus is implemented. How implementation is done can vary a lot depending on context, but for this template it would probably be me or Terasail go through all pages using the template and perform the suitable replacement. If I were to do it I would use AWB which does it semi-automatic with manual checking of each edit. There is no expectation that users with the template on their talk page do anything. --Trialpears (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - No evidence of a real problem has been provided and no compelling reason for deletion has been presented. Furthermore, no concrete solution has been presented. Keep these as they are -- no need to fix what isn't broken. - tucoxn\talk 00:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose because I don't want any of these changes fudging up the format and layout of my talk page. It was very clever and tricky template placement that was exactly what got my talk page looking the way I wanted it to. Huggums537 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Switch to Replace and delete per subsequent discussion with Trialpears.Huggums537 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)- Switch back to oppose. Strike "replace and delete" then unstrike "oppose" per comment by Godsy below. Final answer. Huggums537 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your user page uses {{Archives}} and not {{UserTalkArchiveBox}}. Regardless of outcome the appearance of it will not be changed in anyway, that is only on the table for the ~100 pages using the latter template. --Trialpears (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Trialpears, I know exactly which template I'm using. I've just never been convinced when anyone tells me their fiddling around won't affect me in any way at all, but they haven't fully put it to the test to see if it actually will or not. If it could be proven it wouldn't affect me, then I would happily and gladly support your suggested replace and delete. Huggums537 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Huggums537 Completley reasonable. Most editors don't know or care about implementation details since they have better things to do.
- If the replace and delete option gains consensus it would not involve any edit to the {{Archives}} template and could thus impossibly affect any of those transclusions. If the merge option gains consensus the extra parameter would be implemented in the test version of the template, presumably by Terasail, and then the output be compared to almost 50 testcases at Template:Archives/testcases if the code generated by the test version is the exact same as the live version with a specific set of inputs the test will collapse and display in green. If not it will show a side by side comparison. By confirming that all current test cases green it can be ensured that only new uses with the parameter are affected. If you want, I could ping you when the new version is finished so you can confirm for yourself that it's the exact same. --Trialpears (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Trialpears, sounds to me like the no edit to the Archives template would affect me personally, and most other people the least. It also sounds like the least trouble to implement. You've convinced me to support your proposal. Huggums537 (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Trialpears, I know exactly which template I'm using. I've just never been convinced when anyone tells me their fiddling around won't affect me in any way at all, but they haven't fully put it to the test to see if it actually will or not. If it could be proven it wouldn't affect me, then I would happily and gladly support your suggested replace and delete. Huggums537 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your user page uses {{Archives}} and not {{UserTalkArchiveBox}}. Regardless of outcome the appearance of it will not be changed in anyway, that is only on the table for the ~100 pages using the latter template. --Trialpears (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Replace and delete, otherwise merge. No need for multiple alternatives, which are just confusing for the reader, and novice editor. With just 122 vs. 41947 transclusions, the community has already made clear its preference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just to comment I don't understand the relisting. There's plenty of activity. There is obviously substantial opposition. What is left to discuss? Compare how a merge decision was bulldozed through in the recent case of Auto Archiving Notice, despite serious concerns by several unrelated editors, using weak spurious arguments such there were three times as many supporters as opponents (as if quantity trumped quality of argument?) If this RfC ends up pretending a merge decision was the consensus here too, it's time to re-evaluate the overall wipeout of archive-related templates and the very few editors responsible. I thought the point of having these discussions was to address concerns, and if they aren't resolved, then at least openly acknowledge them as ultimately not-crucial. As opposed to acting as they were not even made. CapnZapp (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- CapnZapp I would agree that there is some opposition to this proposal, but I'm unsure what you believe are the unaddressed high quality opposition arguments here. I see editors opposing the proposal are mostly in one of two camps, either they don't find the reasons to merge uncompelling or they have concerns about implementation difficulties. For the latter I've tried to address them, it is after all an important part in making the outcome as good as possible, but If I've missed anything feel free to let me know. The former argument I feel should be weighed just as highly as most support !votes since neither cites policy or are otherwise especially strong.
- If you have gripes with how the Auto Archiving Notice merger is being handled I would suggest commenting at Template talk:Talk header#Sandbox version where most post-TfD discussion about it has occured and I plan to implement the new template version and start combining templates in a few days. You are also welcome to my talkpage. I presume I am in the group of editors you are talking about and would like to know if there's anything you feel I should do differently. --Trialpears (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Replace and delete; replace UserTalkArchiveBox by Archives, per nominator and Pigsonthewing's rationales. Veverve (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Complex and seemingly unnecessary. Adding the features of a template with under 200 transclusions to one with over 40,000 might cause many more potential issues and snags than the net benefits. Well enough left alone. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Godsy What are your thoughts on the replace and delete proposal which wouldn't involve changes to {{archives}}? I share your concerns about a merger though, hence why I'm still undecided about that option. --Trialpears (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Trialpears: I would oppose that as well, because those using {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} may lose functionality. Nothing is gained besides having one less template around, which is not much of a benefit (besides perhaps a minuscule lesser maintenance burden over time). The trend of consolidation and supposed streamlining school of thought as of late may be growing a bit too strong. Simple templates are often more convenient than complex amalgamized ones; easy use for the average user does not include a plethora of parameters etc. Also, I do not use auto-archiving (however, e.g. anyone who wishes to use it can simply switch to a different system if it is not built into both templates).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am a user who has always thought that more options are better, even if it's not the popular vote, and Godsy has reminded me of this. I'm switching back to oppose. Final answer. Huggums537 (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Trialpears: I would oppose that as well, because those using {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} may lose functionality. Nothing is gained besides having one less template around, which is not much of a benefit (besides perhaps a minuscule lesser maintenance burden over time). The trend of consolidation and supposed streamlining school of thought as of late may be growing a bit too strong. Simple templates are often more convenient than complex amalgamized ones; easy use for the average user does not include a plethora of parameters etc. Also, I do not use auto-archiving (however, e.g. anyone who wishes to use it can simply switch to a different system if it is not built into both templates).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Godsy What are your thoughts on the replace and delete proposal which wouldn't involve changes to {{archives}}? I share your concerns about a merger though, hence why I'm still undecided about that option. --Trialpears (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Replace and delete. Same rationale as Pigsonthewing. Soapwort (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- You need to close this merger proposal as "no consensus", and then open a second discussion for that "replace and delete" proposal. Otherwise you will always have plenty of voices that you don't know what they're responding to. Of course if you want to replace a template, perhaps best first to create a draft of the replacement so people can decide which one is better the replacement or the original-to-be-deleted. If it helps count this as a non-vote for oppose. (What I am opposing deliberately left vague.) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Replace and delete, no clearly the {{Archives}} template is now the standard. There is no need to keep the other template around for 122 pages. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- User:Plastikspork: Personally I don't see an argument for deletion purely on the basis that another similar template has become the standard. Would there be a problem with leaving Template:UserTalkArchiveBox for people to use if they so choose? Put a notice in its documentation that Template:Archives is generally a better choice, maybe. DesertPipeline (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, this is now ridiculous. If you're going to relist this until everybody agrees to just let you delete the template, please just say so. Thank you. (This is an obvious case of no consensus, or what we call Keep in practice) CapnZapp (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- replace and delete, no need for a second template that does the same thing. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub
- Template:Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Not a stub template; unused; appropriately replaced by the VAV Project talk page Stub-Class article template. Her Pegship (?) 18:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep meets none of the four WP:TFD#REASONS as there is potential for this template being used. I'm a bit confused by the first part of the nom since this template does seem to be a stub template:
This template is used to identify a veganism and vegetarianism-related stub. It uses {{asbox}}, which is a meta-template designed to ease the process of creating and maintaining stub templates
(Template:Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub). I'm not sure how many pages currently use it, since it has no category of its own. It adds to the VAV-Stub category Category:Stub-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles (population 147). But a stub template is better than the mere talk page Stub class. It is more visible and inviting to users who might expand the respective article. I'll add it to some of the 147 pages ⠀Trimton⠀ 23:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Update: added it to 10ish articles ⠀Trimton⠀ 23:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it meets TfD #2: The template is redundant to a better-designed template. Until you added the template to those 10 articles, the template was not used on any articles, unproposed at WPSS, and redundant to {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}, which accomplishes the WPVAV purpose appropriately. (N.B. The wording of the template is simply a copy/paste from a correctly formed, correctly used stub template.) If you want to propose {{veganism-stub}} and/or {{vegetarianism-stub}}, please do so at WPSS - but please read the proposal guidelines on that page first. Thanks. Her Pegship (?) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of redundancy would mean we can't have stub templates for topics covered by Wikiprojects, since you could always use only the project talk page template. This interpretation is not consensus, or can you shown otherwise? It would entail eliminating Template:Agri-stub and many others, too, since WP:AGRICULTURE can categorise stubs via its talk page Template:WikiProject Agriculture.
- Your other issue seems to be that under WP:NEWSTUB, stub templates should go through the Wikiproject Stub Sorting discussion process. But having skipped the process is no deletion reason for templates at WP:TFD#REASONS. WP:NEWSTUB is part of WP:STUB. That's just a guideline, not Wikipedia policy.
Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply
, says WP:GUIDES. In the present case, common sense tells us that if there are 147 stubs categorised by the VAV talk page template, then there is obvious scope for a stub template to be displayed on some of those articles itself. We can skip deletion and submission to WPSS, since it is obvious it would pass at WPSS. let's not be WP:BURO when instead we can use the existing stub to entice more people to add material to stubs, therebyimproving Wikipedia
(WP:IGNORE). - As to not being in use: I'll use it, and I'll make sure to recommend it to the other VAV wikiproject members.
- As to your proposal for separate vegan and vegetarian stub types, I think their scope would be too small. Anyhow, most articles could use both stub templates since they usually discuss both vegetarianism and veganism. Perhaps you could convince me on this point, but not on deletion of the only stub template we have. ⠀Trimton⠀ 22:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- My interpretation, since {{Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub}} was unused and {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}} existed for the use of the VAV project, was that the {{Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub}} had been created in error and replaced by {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}. My original explanation was not clear, I think. (Also, it looks like the majority of the "Stub-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles" are about people who are vegans or vegetarians but are not notable for that fact. Just saying.) I don't feel strongly enough to pursue this further, so I will step back and allow others to form a consensus. Her Pegship (?) 04:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Question. Shouldn't this be at CFD? I'm not sure how this isn't a valid stub and why it can't be assessed there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- MJL, possibly, but it doesn't add the traditional "stub" category but instead adds pages redundantly to Category:Stub-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles (both the talk and article are in the same category if they are both tagged as stubs) and I don't think we are proposing the category for deletion here. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:DragRaceProgressTable
- Template:DragRaceProgressTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This template's sub-pages hold table content which is used in one article (for each sub-template). Article content shouldn't be held in templates but in the article itself as it makes editing harder and eventually these templates have less watchers than the actual articles. If vandalism is an issue, then it should be handled by the current systems that are in place. Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5 was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5. Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: The content of these templates was present, for many years, in the Wiki code of the affected articles. Many of those tables (especially in recent seasons) were vandalized so frequently that maintaining them was effectively impossible. After several discussions—such as here and here—the templates were put in place and swiftly ended the vandalism. As an example of the extent of the problem, take a look at the edit history of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) in the eight months prior to the template's introduction on April 16. The vast majority of the article's edits from August 2020 to April 2021 (well over 1,000 edits) were to the progress table, and nearly all were disruptive edits (or reversions thereof). And that's just one article; the same is true of other recent season pages.
- For the record, I don't care whether the solution to this vandalism is to use these templates specifically, but indefinite semiprotection of all the articles seems worse: we shouldn't prevent new editors from making manageable (and often helpful) edits to other parts of these articles. And, as one can see from edit histories, the vandalism is not coming from a few easily blockable IPs/accounts. It's more or less a new editor every time, so individual blocks would not be effective at all. Armadillopteryx 18:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Same as the last Drag Race template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and overturn deletion of Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5. Per Armadillopteryx. We shouldn't let a vague "that's not what template space is for" idea get in the way of a very effective solution that has local consensus. Sounds like this solution helped solve a big problem, and costs us nothing to keep implemented. I do not see how deleting these templates improves the encyclopedia, it just creates more work for the few WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- TfD cannot overturn the deletion of Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5. Only DRV can do that. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Armadillopteryx and Wugapodes:. Thanks for your participation. If you feel comfortable with it, please consider giving a bolded vote, for maximum clarity. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- The nomination gives no policy based reason for why we should voluntarily open up articles to more vandalism or prevent good-faith editors from improving parts of articles that normally do not experience disruption. WP:TMPG says "Templates should not normally be used to store article text", but notice this is not an absolute prohibition; when there are extenuating circumstances it may be the best course of action (see WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO). Storing tables in templates is not uncommon, suggesting the nomination's position that article content must be held in the article is not well supported by actual practice. For example {{2004 Summer Olympics Calendar}} is used on a single page to make editing the page easier, and this is common across articles in that set given the size of Category:Olympics calendar templates. FIFA World Cup articles use a system of templates to store tables, for example {{2014 FIFA World Cup Group A table}} and further examples at{{FIFA World Cup group table sidebar}}. Mass-protecting pages when disruption is specific to one part is a net negative; our responses to disruption should be as specific as possible without creating collateral damage, and keeping the encyclopedia open is a good reason to go against the typical use of templates at WP:TMPG. Moving frequently disrupted content to other pages and then transcluding is fine and even advisable given policy because it prevents the bulk of disruption while minimizing collateral damage to good faith editors, resulting a net improvement of the encyclopedia. — Wug·a·po·des 23:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Moving frequently disrupted content to other pages and then transcluding is fine and even advisable given policy
- what policy is that? Also, if you'll look at the history of TfD over the past few years you'll see that single-used templates are almost on a daily basis subst and deleted. Additionally, showing examples of bad practice does not make it good. Most unknowledgeable editors just copy what they see without even giving it half a thought. Using your Template:2004 Summer Olympics Calendar example, see how the table doesn't even use correct column and row headers or offer non-sighted readers a way to "see" what each cell is colored. Fails both in accessibility and in basic HTML 5 semantics. Bad examples, are still bad examples. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)- If you read what I wrote you would see the clear and prominent policy links justifying your out-of-context quotation. Specific formatting is a surmountable problem that can be fixed without deletion, and your proposed solution, substituting and deleting, wouldn't actually fix the problems you point out. — Wug·a·po·des 19:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep seems like a reasonable IAR situation. This stops the disruption while allowing editing. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Gonnym. Just to be clear, are you proposing we also delete all the sub-pages of this template? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging participants from the previous discussion who haven't already commented: @CCamp2013, Isaidnoway, Bsherr, and Frietjes: * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Tables must be accessible for visually impaired readers - do not use colors in background to communicate important information, screen readers can not read colors, and do not use abbreviations to communicate important information, screen readers do not know what BTM2 and ELIM stand for, and there is no text (important information) accompanying the numbers in the top row to indicate what they stand for. Visually impaired readers and editors should not be ignored on Wikipedia. We should be striving to be more inclusive. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- These sound like good reasons to reformat the table, not to delete the template. These arguments would apply also if the template contents were substituted into the article. I agree that the tables should meet accessibility guidelines. Armadillopteryx 16:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:TFD#REASONS which contradicts your rationale:
Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing
. Deletion is not cleanup, and substituting the template will not fix any of the issues you described. — Wug·a·po·des 19:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)- To demonstrate how flawed the original rationale is, I made this edit where I added {{abbr}} to the abbreviations which completely resolved their issue about abbreviations not being accessible (see WCAG H28). Clearly if someone spent a day on this all the above concerns could be resolved without deletion. — Wug·a·po·des 20:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your edit did not fix the abbreviation issue for screen readers, so it is not completely resolved as you claim. I have been arguing for months that various sorts of tables in a wide assortment of articles with ill-advised table formatting are not accessibility compliant, some issues I've fixed myself when there has been no major pushback from other editors, and I've tagged a few, but more often than not (based on my experieces), there are arguments similar to the ones being made here, it can be fixed, it can be reformatted, etc. but nobody ever follows through and the tables remain inaccessible.
- A recent RfC at MOS:TV about this genre of TV elimination-style reality programs, ended with a consensus that these sort of
tables should comply with accessibility guidelines
. But like I said above, no one followed through and implemented the consensus, and the tables are still inaccessible. I suggested this table in the RfC as being compliant with a few minor tweaks, but my suggestion didn't receive any tractin. Editors have opined that it is ugly (God forbid we have an ugly table that is accessibility compliant). So in light of the fact that no one ever bothers to actually fix or reformat these tables for accessibility, I stand by my delete !vote. When an editor gets the time to tackle this longstanding issue, they can easily be restored to the articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC) - I just also wanted to note that I did not nominate this template for deletion, as you appear to acknowledge above. But, having said that, if the result is keep, then I would expect that the accessibility issues will be fixed by normal editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- You can stand by your delete vote, but suggesting something be deleted out of spite is not very compelling. Even if this wasn't kept, the accessibility problems would still not be resolved, so your position doesn't lead to the outcome you want because it will still be present in the article just not as a template. I don't know how all screen readers parse HTML, but both the Web Consortium and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text state that use of the
<abbr>...</abbr>
(implemented by {{abbr}}) is best practice for making abbreviations in text accessible. — Wug·a·po·des 01:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Even if this wasn't kept, the accessibility problems would still not be resolved
- and therein lies the problem. Wikipedia pages should be easy to navigate and read for people with disabilities. But more often than not, that is simply not the case. People with disabilities should have equal access to Wikipedia pages. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)- You're right that people with disabilities should have equal access to pages—but this still isn't a reason to delete the template; it's a reason to bring the table into compliance with accessibility guidelines. You're welcome to join the ongoing discussion about how to do this. Armadillopteryx 15:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- You can stand by your delete vote, but suggesting something be deleted out of spite is not very compelling. Even if this wasn't kept, the accessibility problems would still not be resolved, so your position doesn't lead to the outcome you want because it will still be present in the article just not as a template. I don't know how all screen readers parse HTML, but both the Web Consortium and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text state that use of the
- A recent RfC at MOS:TV about this genre of TV elimination-style reality programs, ended with a consensus that these sort of
- delete after substitution. if there are vandalism problems, then protect the article. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Substitute and delete. Purposefully making editing more opaque for everyone is an unacceptable solution to respond to vandalism. That's not what templates are for. --Bsherr (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and perhaps also add in a user-accessible version as well? Sorry if this has already been disputed but wouldn't a good solution just be to have both versions of the table included on the Wikipedia page? For example, this table for users with disabilities that hinder them from properly reading the original table. And the original table for people who are able to understand the information properly and who find the more accessible version difficult to read because of the size of the boxes. Wouldn't this just fix everybody's problems? User:Taylveon 21:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I see a concern about possible collateral damage from semi-protecting the articles (and the fact that this would also require semi-protecting a large swathe of articles, and I see a concern about persistent disruption due to these tables. I don't have first-hand experience of the other activity on those articles, so I don't know whether semi-protecting would be a better option, but even then, having a standardised template for this one series seems like a good idea. So there's both an IAR reason (prevent disruption while keeping pages more accessible to both editors and readers [by enforcing stricter accessibility requirements]) and the fact that this is, actually, a proper template, i.e. "It usually contains repetitive material that may need to show up on multiple articles or pages, often with customizable input.". So a rather easy keep from me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I can see and understand why this has to be up for debate but in all honesty I find that deleting these tables is just not right. As the show has grown it’s popularity throughout the years so many people know the terminology of being placed “HIGH” or “LOW” from these tables on Wikipedia. I find the tables a lot of helpful and very informal on how the queen’s track record is seen and how people see how the queens process throughout the show is shown and also can see which queen was deserving of the overall win of the show. I see no purpose of the deletion of these tables but there need be some sort of policing. Yes these table are easily accessible to edit and anyone can put their own flavor text to them when in reality it’s not right and they just want their favorites to look good. So just keep them and move on from this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtvnetwork (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Rtvnetwork: This isn't about deleting the tables, or even arguing about their fansite-like problems. This is just about deleting this particular template (which is being used to standardise the way the tables are being displayed). You might wish to amend (if you wish to address the deletion concerns - see the deletion policy) or strike your comment. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: Okay my apologies for adding on to the conversation. I just saw that the “template was being considered for deletion” on the main pages and I just thought that there was an issue with fan biases with them and also with the UK season 2 not even being on it’s main page. I remember when that season was airing nearly halfway over, it got messed up and the whole main page for season 2 of the UK version doesn’t have one or can’t have one because it’s currently locked. But anyway I apologize for jumping to quick to adding my comment but I just them to stay as they are and not to be deleted. If you wish to delete my comment go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtvnetwork (talk • contribs) 04:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Rtvnetwork: This isn't about deleting the tables, or even arguing about their fansite-like problems. This is just about deleting this particular template (which is being used to standardise the way the tables are being displayed). You might wish to amend (if you wish to address the deletion concerns - see the deletion policy) or strike your comment. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete per Gonnym, Frietjes, Bsherr. --Izno (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Substitute and delete per above. Protecting the articles is a better method for dealing with vandalism. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete per above. This sort of content should be in the actual article, not hidden away. Nigej (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5 was deleted at TFD before this TFD, and we can look at it as a microcosm of what will likely happen if this TFD closes as delete. If you look at the article's history, since the table code was placed back in the article, there has been a very large amount of disruptive editing of the contestant progress table. I count 26 revisions by 6 different users over the course of a couple of days. I do not see a good explanation for why the table should be changing this much for a season that concluded in 2013. I do not see a good reason why experienced editor time should be spent trying to decipher these 26 edits when we can just keep the status quo of transcluding these tables, which is working well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Deus Ex chronology
- Template:Deus Ex chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
I am nominating this template for deletion along with all others within Category:Video game fictional chronology templates. Three major reasons.
- (A) These templates conflict with the real world tone of Wikipedia. In the video game project, we have made great strides in recent years to reduce the focus on fictional details (characters, plots) and emphasize real world information (development, reception). (WP:VGSCOPE #5)
- (B) I am not confident each chronology can be properly verified, and may include headcanon interpretations. Take for instance Template:Metal Gear chronology which has a long explanation on which media to include, and which to omit. (WP:VERIFY)
- (C) Some of these are not plot-centric franchises, like Metroid or Contra. Sources do not often discuss the "series story" for these franchises. Efforts to link them in some massive chronology was never the intent, and was done after the fact by the developers to appease obsessive fans. (WP:UNDUE)
In short, this content is better left for fanwikis. TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is a not a fan site and there already exists a navbox for this video game series. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep From readers' view. Video game's plot and timeline are some importamt part. People look up it on wikipedia always want to know plot clearly. So when we could just search wikipedia for it easily, why must delete them and force readers to look up on other site, it's unnecessary make matters complicated. Wikipedia should help readers find what they want to know easily, not focus on forms. And we don't know what's problem with chronology template, it's not some over detailed plot or something, doesn't change overall overall neatly format or something.--SimonWan00 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The reasons given by the nominator do not justify the deletion of the template. The template serves to place the reader, in a didactic way, the chronology of the plot. In fact, the template is very important to bring complete information related to the game. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or effectively merge this into the article prose. Assuming this isn't WP:OR, third party coverage about the sequence of the stories can be covered in a plot section of the main series article. That's the way that chronologies are meant to be addressed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, and a separate article or template is inappropriate. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:AINTBROKE. I am fairly sure no one will confuse this for a real-world dating scheme, but when the year is actually 2027, feel free to add "fictional" to the name. It has a useful function for readers to put the games' stories in context.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. After looking into this, I'm not convinced that Deus Ex's chronology needs this degree of unpacking: there's only a few major titles, their placement relative to one another is not complex, and their stories do not appear to be closely tied together. So while it's important to note that Human Revolution is set 25 years before Deus Ex, it's probably not important to note that it's also 45 years before Invisible War (which it has little ties to)— which is to say, a simple "set X years before/after…" in the prose is enough, and this template is a bit much. I wouldn't be opposed to hardcoding the chronology onto the series-wide article, but I don't think it needs to be a template transcluded on each game's individual page. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Chronological arrangement of story events in a series should only ever be used in the article for the series itself, and never for other articles. Even then, it must be detailed out encyclopaedically to readers why it was arranged in that manner by the developers, writers and/or producers (whichever is relative to the medium of the series). Furthermore, to include this template on separate articles for each entry in the series is excessive, not only by going against WP:UNDUE, but because if editors think readers need this to navigate between entries in a series, they overlook the navbox that may already exist for that purpose. GUtt01 (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
KeepPer WP:AINTBROKE. The template is important as it enriches the article's informative content. The purpose of the Template is to show in which context in the time the game's plot is located. A quality encyclopedia seeks to deliver complete information about something. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC) strike duplicate !vote- Delete - Trying to illustrate some sort of continuity without sources is WP:OR. Even if the chronology could be verified with WP:PRIMARY sources, the template would still violate WP:DUE. I don't think there are any WP:SECONDARY sources to justify a template like this. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: The whole series isn't that complicated, and the timeline placement can be communicated perfectly well through prose, so I don't see the need for a chronology. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per the WP:AINTBROKE rationale and arguments by Zxcvbnm and ✍A.WagnerC. Sources do exist within the series and individual games which detail the in-universe chronology. Haleth (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Overly complicated for a video game series. Nigej (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per SimonWan00. Christian75 (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Prince William Railway RDT
- Template:Prince William Railway RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Removed from Prince William Railway Company in 2010 during refactoring and not re-added. There is a more comprehensive template on the article about the line. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant now. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Entwine
- Template:Entwine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All but one of the album articles listed in this navbox have been redirected to the main article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:I Can See Your Voice (South Korean game show)
- Template:I Can See Your Voice (South Korean game show) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Falsez pentru tine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
merged with {{I Can See Your Voice series}} for consistency with the other related series Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant now. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Malaysian general election, 2018 (Selangor)
- Template:Malaysian general election, 2018 (Selangor) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
unused, appears to have already been merged with the main article. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and unnecessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Malaysian general election by state tables
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 16/Malaysian for a complete list of templates.
only used in one article, should be merged with the article and deleted Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete/Subst per nomination. Single-use and should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Malayan general election by state tables 1950s
- Template:Malayan general election, 1955 (Johore) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1955 (Kedah) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1955 (Kelantan) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1955 (Malacca) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1955 (Negri Sembilan) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1955 (Pahang) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1955 (Penang) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1955 (Perak) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1955 (Perlis) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1955 (Selangor) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1955 (Trengganu) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1959 (Johore) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1959 (Kedah) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1959 (Kelantan) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1959 (Malacca) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1959 (Negri Sembilan) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1959 (Pahang) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1959 (Penang) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1959 (Perak) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1959 (Perlis) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1959 (Selangor) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malayan general election, 1959 (Trengganu) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
unused or only used in one article, should be merged with the article and deleted Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete/Subst per nomination. Delete the unused and the single-use should be substituted where used.--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Standard gauge line Queensland
- Template:Standard gauge line Queensland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; unclear where it could be used. Mackensen (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:State Educational Institutions of Tamil Nadu
- Template:State Educational Institutions of Tamil Nadu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The template does not have any content since creation. There are two transclusions, both of them did not add much value to the article. -- DaxServer (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Jafferton route diagram templates
- Template:Jafferton-India railway line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Jafferton Mariahove-Heldon North railway line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, and don't correspond to any railway line that I can identify. The creator may have been testing something. Mackensen (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Battipaglia–Reggio di Calabria railway diagram
- Template:Battipaglia–Reggio di Calabria railway diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; superseded by {{Salerno–Reggio di Calabria railway RDT}}. Mackensen (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and redundant. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway (header)
- Template:Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway (header) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused fork of {{Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway}}. Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and fork. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
August 15
Template:Greenway Ferry Map
- Template:Greenway Ferry Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; content is covered by {{River Dart Steamboat Co Map}}. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Seattle Streetcar Network
- Template:Seattle Streetcar Network (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; based on 2009-era proposals that were partially implemented. {{Seattle Streetcar}} covers the current system. Mackensen (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Railways of San Serriffe
- Template:Railways of San Serriffe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; the transport section of the San Serriffe article was removed in 2009 and not re-added. Mackensen (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hayling Island Branch
- Template:Hayling Island Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; apparently superseded by the more detailed {{Hayling Island Branch Line}}. Mackensen (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fine by meBashereyre (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:East Southsea Branch
- Template:East Southsea Branch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; all the content is incorporated within the broader {{Portsmouth lines}}. Mackensen (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fine by meBashereyre (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Chennai Bypass, Chennai HSCTC
- Template:Chennai Bypass, Chennai HSCTC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and possibly incomplete. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
August 14
Template:2016 NatWest t20 Blast North Division
- Template:2016 NatWest t20 Blast North Division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2017 NatWest t20 Blast North Division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Both single-use and should be substituted where used as a standard table. There aren't any articles for any of these teams for the respective years which makes their ability to be included on multiple articles very limited. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:2014 Royal London One-Day Cup Group A
- Template:2014 Royal London One-Day Cup Group A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2015 Royal London One-Day Cup Group A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2016 Royal London One-Day Cup North Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2017 Royal London One-Day Cup North Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2018 Royal London One-Day Cup North Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 Royal London One-Day Cup North Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2018 Royal London One-Day Cup South Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 Royal London One-Day Cup South Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose substituting these templates as standard non-template tables on the articles where these are used as these won't require updating the standings. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fine, so long as they are replaced on all pages where they are used, including any team season pages. Bs1jac (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- They will be after this Tfd is closed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Eastleigh to Romsey Line diagram
- Template:Eastleigh to Romsey Line diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template that duplicates {{Eastleigh to Romsey Line}}. TheImaCow (talk · contribs) nominated the template for speedy deletion in 2020 on those grounds; Primefac (talk · contribs) declined it because of differing content and the T3 category has since been retired. Mackensen (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
G:link route templates
- Template:G-link Bundall extension (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:G-link Burleigh Heads extension (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:G-link Coolangatta extension (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:G-link Parkwood extension (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Orphaned route diagram templates; they were removed during a refactoring of G:link in 2016 and have not been re-added. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Icelandic presidential election
- Template:Icelandic presidential election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Used only on a few articles, but its content can be substituted without much change to the display of the results tables. There shouldn't be a separate template for a single country's elections especially given the few uses. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Needs to be converted to wikitext and the excessive custom styling removed. --Izno (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:CP Cartier Subdivision
- Template:CP Cartier Subdivision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and no parent article that could support it. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Can't be used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Orissa Legislative Assembly election, 1952
- Template:Orissa Legislative Assembly election, 1952 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Orissa state assembly elections results, 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
1952 should be substitued on both articles it is used on. 2009 is single-use and hasn't much usage being on it's own template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Orissa Legislative Assembly election, 1952; substitute and delete Orissa state assembly elections results, 2009. The former has multiple transclusions. The latter has only one transclusion. --Bsherr (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: consensus to substitute and delete the 2009 template, but relisting for more discussion about the other one
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst to the Legislative Assembly election articles and delete and transclude if used elsewhere. Templates are rubbish places to keep election results as they are largely unwatched and prone to vandalism or unsourced changes. It's more efficient to keep them on an article where unwanted changes are more likely to be spotted. Number 57 15:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:2021 New Zealand Women's Northern League
- Template:2021 New Zealand Women's Northern League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020–21 New Zealand Football Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Both should be substituted where used on the respective articles. Results tables like this shouldn't be on a separate space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The practice of using section transclusion with only include tags to transclude a table is inferior to using a template, because it prevents the use of VTE links and is confusing for less experienced editors. As a best practice, section transclusion should be used when the purpose is to transclude the section, not as a workaround to avoid a template. Easier to handle vandislism of results when on its own separate template as well. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It is much easier to upkeep and monitor vandalism when the league table is under a separate template, as well as gives the ability to easily transclude in multiple pages about the season. --SuperJew (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep until end of season (when there will be no need to update further), then subst and delete at that point. GiantSnowman 13:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Seany91 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:2021 New Zealand National League
- Template:2021 New Zealand National League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2021 New Zealand Northern League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2021 New Zealand Central League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2021 New Zealand Southern League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use that should be substituted on the mainspace 2021 New Zealand National League article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The practice of using section transclusion with only include tags to transclude a table is inferior to using a template, because it prevents the use of VTE links and is confusing for less experienced editors. As a best practice, section transclusion should be used when the purpose is to transclude the section, not as a workaround to avoid a template. Easier to handle vandislism of results when on its own separate template as well. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It is much easier to upkeep and monitor vandalism when the league table is under a separate template, as well as gives the ability to easily transclude in multiple pages about the season. --SuperJew (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep until end of season (when there will be no need to update further), then subst and delete at that point. GiantSnowman 13:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Seany91 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:2016 National Women's League table (New Zealand)
- Template:2016 National Women's League table (New Zealand) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2017 National Women's League table (New Zealand) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2018 National Women's League table (New Zealand) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 National Women's League table (New Zealand) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 Women's Premiership (New Zealand) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use standings that should be substituted on the respective season articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The practice of using section transclusion with only include tags to transclude a table is inferior to using a template, because it prevents the use of VTE links and is confusing for less experienced editors. As a best practice, section transclusion should be used when the purpose is to transclude the section, not as a workaround to avoid a template. Easier to handle vandislism of results when on its own separate template as well. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Section transclusion is not what I'm proposing. Just that the standings including the ones right above this one be a table format. We shouldn't have templates to be used only for one article. It should be used across multiple spaces. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why? What harms does it do to have them. Seems you are on your own personal crusade to decide for everyone what's best. You going to get every one purpose template delete on Wikipedia? — NZFC(talk)(cont) 21:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not on a crusade to decide for everyone. No need for a remark like that. Single-use is problematic because it doesn't make good use of template space. Templates should be transcluded across multiple spaces, not just one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- WikiCleanerMan actually I apologise for my personal comments about you, that was uncalled for. Even if we discussed, I should have keep the discussion to the topic at hand. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 23:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not on a crusade to decide for everyone. No need for a remark like that. Single-use is problematic because it doesn't make good use of template space. Templates should be transcluded across multiple spaces, not just one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why? What harms does it do to have them. Seems you are on your own personal crusade to decide for everyone what's best. You going to get every one purpose template delete on Wikipedia? — NZFC(talk)(cont) 21:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Section transclusion is not what I'm proposing. Just that the standings including the ones right above this one be a table format. We shouldn't have templates to be used only for one article. It should be used across multiple spaces. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It is much easier to upkeep and monitor vandalism when the league table is under a separate template, as well as gives the ability to easily transclude in multiple pages about the season. --SuperJew (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete - these are old seasons no nothing to update. GiantSnowman 13:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Seany91 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:1897 Philippine presidential election results
- Template:1897 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1935 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1941 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1946 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1949 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1953 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1957 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1961 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1965 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1969 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1981 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1986 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1992 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1998 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2004 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2010 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2016 Philippine presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The 1897 template is single-use and should be substituted on the election article it is used on. The rest should be substituted on the respective presidential articles and transcluded where else used using the #section-h function. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose increased use of section transclusion of articles in article space (should be portals only). Per what @Johnuniq said here, this is too likely to break. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Withdraw and hold a central discussion on how to handle the many situations where this arises. These nominations might not be the major problem I was referring to in the above link mentioning my username, but editors experience template transclusion all the time, so why complicate matters with tricky section transclusions? Have a look at Help:Labeled section transclusion including its "Dealing with stray whitespace"—why do that? Are we trying save server disk space? Section transclusion is bound to break or at least give undesirable side-effects when people edit the source section without knowing or caring about where the section is used. By contrast, editors know that editing a template is going to affect wherever the template is used. For anyone interested, my major concern is with {{excerpt}} and the attempts to rewrite the MediaWiki parser such as at Module:Transcluder. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Then we can just substitute if doing the section transclusion will cause trouble. Then for every template below the 1897 election, the section for the respective election can be a link to the section of the election article for the results on the Presidential elections in the Philippines. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Because they won't be used often outside their current use. Templates in table format should have multiple uses on pages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why? One use is enough if you ask me, and two are plenty. Subst loses the author attribution and delete breaks old revisions. I'd like to see a stronger case for deletion to counter these downsides. —Kusma (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- In the past weeks, when a user subst the templates I nominated, the user credits the original author or authors in the edit summary. So attribution can still be given. As I've been going through these election templates, they were created for one purpose. Normally templates are supposed to have multiple uses. Navboxes are not created for say one article, but multiple articles. But with the information that's presented here should be part of the article as a standard table. Why would there need to be election information from two centuries ago on a separate template when it can be easily be included within the article it was created for. It's not like the results from 1897 are going to change 124 years later. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Results can still change, and their presentation might. For 1897's case, I don't think it's used in plenty of articles but for post- and including 1935, these results are transcluded in multiple places. If a better template is created, or we'd need to change something (like somebody dug up stats for blank ballots!) someone would only have to change just one page, and it is guaranteed to affect all transclusions. Let's say we section-transclude (is there a name for this process?), there's no guarantee all transclutions will be updated; some may have screwed up coding so it won't be affected. If we wholesale substitute, someone has to keep track where it was substituted, then change every substitution to what the new version is... this isn't the best use of time in Wikipedia.
- For an example, see the 1953 election. This was the first revision in 2007. Edited in 2010 to include "Total" column. Edited in 2016 to include valid and invalid votes. Updated in 2021 to use Election results template. So, when I changed it in 2010, I thought, this would be the last time I'd edit this template... guess I was wrong lol. Who know someone else would be changing this in 2025? He'd have to change 5 articles? Such wasteful use of time! Howard the Duck (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- In the past weeks, when a user subst the templates I nominated, the user credits the original author or authors in the edit summary. So attribution can still be given. As I've been going through these election templates, they were created for one purpose. Normally templates are supposed to have multiple uses. Navboxes are not created for say one article, but multiple articles. But with the information that's presented here should be part of the article as a standard table. Why would there need to be election information from two centuries ago on a separate template when it can be easily be included within the article it was created for. It's not like the results from 1897 are going to change 124 years later. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why? One use is enough if you ask me, and two are plenty. Subst loses the author attribution and delete breaks old revisions. I'd like to see a stronger case for deletion to counter these downsides. —Kusma (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Because they won't be used often outside their current use. Templates in table format should have multiple uses on pages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- These templates were converted to use {{Election results}} just recently. If we'd transclude these and in the future, a better template is made, I don't want to edit the 2-4 articles the transclusions are saved at to make sure everything is the same. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The practice of using section transclusion with onlyinclude tags to transclude a table is inferior to using a template, because it prevents the use of VTE links and is confusing for less experienced editors. As a best practice, section transclusion should be used when the purpose is to transclude the section, not as a workaround to avoid a template. --Bsherr (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I will propose substitution as a better alternative if those beleive using section transclusons is going to cause more problems that it all solves. All that is required is a simple change to the coding of the tables at the top of the resutls table. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- 1992 presidential candidate Emilio Mario Osmeña is about to be moved to Lito Osmeña. If these are substituted, we'd have to change each and every page this article was substituted into, with no guarantee we'd change every instance, because we won't know where this was substituted to, and with no guarantee that every "substitution" will be the same as all the others because again, we can't keep track on each page it was substituted from. I absolutely fail to see what are we safeguarding against, while making it a lot harder of doing maintenance and/or mass edits in case we need to. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I won't be against substituting and deleting the 1897 template though. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:1935 Philippine vice presidential election results
- Template:1935 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1941 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1946 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1949 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1953 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1957 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1961 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1965 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1969 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1986 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1992 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1998 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2004 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2010 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2016 Philippine vice presidential election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All are used on the presidential election articles and should be substituted on there and usage outside the main election article should be transcluded using the #section-h function. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose increased use of section transclusion of articles in article space, too complicated for users, likely to break and too costly. —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Then we can just substitute if doing the section transclusion will cause trouble. The section for the respective election can be a link to the section of the election article for the results on the Presidential elections in the Philippines. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- These templates were converted to use {{Election results}} just recently. If we'd transclude these and in the future, a better template is made I don't want to edit the 2-4 articles the transclusions are saved at to make sure everything is the same. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- A simple change in the coding is all that is needed. It doesn't change much. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The practice of using section transclusion with onlyinclude tags to transclude a table is inferior to using a template, because it prevents the use of VTE links and is confusing for less experienced editors. As a best practice, section transclusion should be used when the purpose is to transclude the section, not as a workaround to avoid a template. --Bsherr (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:1941 Philippine Senate election results
- Template:1941 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1946 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1949 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1953 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1955 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1957 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1959 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1961 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1963 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1965 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1967 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1969 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1971 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1987 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1992 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1995 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1998 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2001 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2004 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2007 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2010 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2013 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2016 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 Philippine Senate election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1951 Philippine Senate special election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1955 Philippine Senate special election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Used on two election articles. Should be substituted on the senate election articles and on the general election articles for these years should be transcluded using the #section-h function. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose increased use of section transclusion of articles in article space, too complicated for users, likely to break and too costly. —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Then we can just substitute if doing the section transclusion will cause trouble. The section for the respective election can be a link to the section of the election article for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm planning to convert these to a better template, something similar to {{Election results}}. I don't want to edit the 2-3 articles each template is used at just to make sure everything is the same. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The practice of using section transclusion with onlyinclude tags to transclude a table is inferior to using a template, because it prevents the use of VTE links and is confusing for less experienced editors. As a best practice, section transclusion should be used when the purpose is to transclude the section, not as a workaround to avoid a template. --Bsherr (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. Subst to senate election articles and transclude to general election article. Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Section transclusion breaks easily. Substituting and deleting prevents you from making mass edits. (These should be converted to a better template soon, and substituting and deleting it makes it harder for the places that show the template the exact same appearance on every place. Exception: substitute and delete 1951 and 1955 special election templates. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Philippine Assembly election results
- Template:1912 Philippine Assembly election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1935 Philippine National Assembly election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1940 Philippine National Assembly special election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1941 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1946 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1949 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1953 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1957 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1961 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1965 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1969 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1984 Philippine parliamentary election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1987 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1992 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1995 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1998 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2001 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2004 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2007 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2010 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2013 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2016 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 Philippine House election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1998 Philippine House party-list election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2001 Philippine House party-list election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2004 Philippine House party-list election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2007 Philippine House party-list election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2010 Philippine House party-list election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2013 Philippine House party-list election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2016 Philippine House party-list election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 Philippine House party-list election results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All should be substituted on the respective election articles. And usage outside the main election articles should be transcluded elsewhere using the #section-h function. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- These templates were converted to use {{Election results}} just recently. If we'd transclude these and in the future, a better template is made, I don't want to edit the 2-4 articles the transclusions are saved at to make sure everything is the same. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose Johnuniq and Kusma are interested on these as well... Howard the Duck (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Substitute and delete 1912 Philippine Assembly election results, 1940 Philippine National Assembly special election results, 1984 Philippine parliamentary election results, 1987 Philippine House election results, keep the rest. The former have one transclusion and can be substituted therefore. The latter have multiple transclusions and, for the reasons above, section transclusion is inferior to the template pages. --Bsherr (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hanzelijn railway diagram
- Template:Hanzelijn railway diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; duplicates Template:Lelystad-Zwolle railway diagram. Mackensen (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Taipei Metro RDTs
- Template:Tucheng Line (Taipei Metro) RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tamsui Line (Taipei Metro) RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; the parent articles were merged into the larger articles Bannan line and Tamsui–Xinyi line that have their own route diagram templates. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Padesh
- Template:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Padesh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Duplication of Template:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh. Also unused. MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete -- DaxServer (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete -- Tharun S Yadla (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward One Alderman Election, 1930
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward One Alderman Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward One Alderman Election, 1932 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward One Alderman Election, 1933 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward One Alderman Election, 1934 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward One Alderman Election, 1944 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But Hamilton is not a global city for the purposes of making its city councillors "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL #2 — and thus the election article itself is the only place any of these templates is actually being used. Accordingly, these should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Two Alderman Election, 1930
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Two Alderman Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Two Alderman Election, 1932 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Two Alderman Election, 1933 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Two Alderman Election, 1934 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Two Alderman Election, 1944 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But Hamilton is not a global city for the purposes of making its city councillors "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL #2 — and thus the election article itself is the only place any of these templates is actually being used. Accordingly, these should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Three Alderman Election, 1930
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Three Alderman Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Three Alderman Election, 1932 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Three Alderman Election, 1933 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Three Alderman Election, 1934 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Three Alderman Election, 1944 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But Hamilton is not a global city for the purposes of making its city councillors "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL #2 — and thus the election article itself is the only place any of these templates is actually being used. Accordingly, these should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Four Alderman Election, 1930
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Four Alderman Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Four Alderman Election, 1932 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Four Alderman Election, 1933 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Four Alderman Election, 1934 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Four Alderman Election, 1944 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But Hamilton is not a global city for the purposes of making its city councillors "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL #2 — and thus the election article itself is the only place any of these templates is actually being used. Accordingly, these should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Five Alderman Election, 1930
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Five Alderman Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Five Alderman Election, 1932 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Five Alderman Election, 1933 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Five Alderman Election, 1934 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Five Alderman Election, 1944 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But Hamilton is not a global city for the purposes of making its city councillors "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL #2 — and thus the election article itself is the only place any of these templates is actually being used. Accordingly, these should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Six Alderman Election, 1930
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Six Alderman Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Six Alderman Election, 1932 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Six Alderman Election, 1933 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Six Alderman Election, 1934 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Six Alderman Election, 1944 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But Hamilton is not a global city for the purposes of making its city councillors "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL #2 — and thus the election article itself is the only place any of these templates is actually being used. Accordingly, these should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Seven Alderman Election, 1930
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Seven Alderman Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Seven Alderman Election, 1932 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Seven Alderman Election, 1933 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Seven Alderman Election, 1934 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Seven Alderman Election, 1944 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But Hamilton is not a global city for the purposes of making its city councillors "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL #2 — and thus the election article itself is the only place any of these templates is actually being used. Accordingly, these should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Eight Alderman Election, 1930
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Eight Alderman Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Eight Alderman Election, 1932 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Eight Alderman Election, 1933 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Eight Alderman Election, 1934 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Ward Eight Alderman Election, 1944 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But Hamilton is not a global city for the purposes of making its city councillors "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL #2 — and thus the election article itself is the only place any of these templates is actually being used. Accordingly, these should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton, Ontario, money referendums, 1950
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario, money referendums, 1950 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario, referendums, 1950 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Both are single-use and should be substituted on the 1950 election article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of a template like this is to keep the presentation of information consistent across multiple articles — such as federal or provincial election results, where there's an article about the electoral district and a separate biographical article about the MP or MPP (and sometimes also separate biographical articles about one or more losing candidates who may have had preexisting notability for other reasons) that all need to display and reference the same set of results. But if there's only one article for a set of results to be used in, then the results table is just directly coded in that article rather than chunking them out to a separate template. So these should be substituted and deleted, because there's no need for a separate template if it's only being called by one article. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton, Ontario municipal election, 2010 Endorsements - Campaign Life Coalition
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario municipal election, 2010 Endorsements - Campaign Life Coalition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario municipal election, 2010 Endorsements - Hamilton and District Labour Council (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario municipal election, 2010 Endorsements - Local media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario municipal election, 2014 Endorsements - Hamilton and District Labour Council (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The first three 2010 are single-use and should be substituted on the respective 2010 election article. The 2014 template is unused and redundant as the article uses a different table for the same purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of a template like this is to keep the presentation of information consistent across multiple articles — such as federal or provincial election results, where there's an article about the electoral district and a separate biographical article about the MP or MPP (and sometimes also separate biographical articles about one or more losing candidates who may have had preexisting notability for other reasons) that all need to reference the same set of results. But if there's only one article for a table to be used in, then that table is just directly coded in that article rather than chunking it out to a separate template. So these should be substituted and deleted, because there's no need for a separate template if it's only being called by one article. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton, Ontario Board of Education Trustee Ward Eight Election, 1930
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Board of Education Trustee Ward Eight Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Board of Education Trustee Ward Five Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Board of Education Trustee Ward Four Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Board of Education Trustee Ward One Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Board of Education Trustee Ward Seven Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Board of Education Trustee Ward Six Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Board of Education Trustee Ward Three Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton, Ontario Board of Education Trustee Ward Two Election, 1930 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted on the 1930 election article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But school board is not a notable office under WP:NPOL, with the result that the trustees don't have biographical articles to use these in — and thus the election article itself is the only place any of these templates is actually being used. Accordingly, these should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton municipal election, 1946 - Ward One Aldermanic election
- Template:Hamilton municipal election, 1946 - Ward One Aldermanic election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2018 Ward Seven By-election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Both single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles these two are used on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the 3 group nominations at TFD2021 August 13. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs: 15 so far, and counting. This is getting way out of hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But Hamilton is not a global city for the purposes of making its city councillors "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL #2 — and thus the election article itself is the only place any of these templates is actually being used. Accordingly, these should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
August 13
Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward One
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward One (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Two (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Three (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Four (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Five (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Six (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Seven (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Eight (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Nine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Ten (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Eleven (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Twelve (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Thirteen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Fourteen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Fifteen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Ward thirteen is unused and the rest should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments below. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- PS: Category:Canada election result templates (complete list) currently contains 5,368 templates (and I think that it's not actually complete) . No reason has been given for selecting the 3 sets on this page for separate discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Notification: the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board has been notified.[6] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - as insignificant. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for an electoral district in Parliament or the provincial legislature, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated), and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if the office isn't inherently notable for the purposes of securing a separate biographical article about the winner and thus the election article itself is the only place for the election results to appear, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But Hamilton is not a global city for the purposes of making its city councillors "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL #2 — and thus the election article itself is the only place almost any of these templates is actually being used, with the singular exception of Ward 7 because the winner went on to become a federal MP five years later and one of the defeated candidates had been a provincial MPP a decade earlier. But I can't justify keeping only ward 7 while deleting all of the others — if we can't justify the complete set, then we shouldn't keep just one ward — and the reason the Ward 13 template is unused is because for some reason that's the only ward in the city where the results table is already coded directly in 2010 Hamilton, Ontario municipal election instead of calling the template. These should all be substituted since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward One Public Trustee
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward One Public Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Three Public Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Four Public Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Five Public Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Six Public Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Seven Public Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Eight Public Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Wards Nine and Ten Public Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Wards Eleven and Twelve Public Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward Thirteen Public Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Wards Fourteen and Fifteen Public Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments below. Per WP:MULTI, discussion of the use of election templates should be centralised, not distributed across a flurry of separate TFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- PS: Category:Canada election result templates (complete list) currently contains 5,368 templates (and I think that it's not actually complete) . No reason has been given for selecting the 3 sets on this page for separate discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - as being insignificant. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for a federal or provincial electoral district, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated) and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if there's only one article for the results to appear in, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But school board trustee is not a notable office for the purposes of WP:NPOL, meaning that the election article is the only place any of these templates are actually being used at all, because none of the trustees or candidates have biographical articles of their own to use these in. So these should all be substituted in the election article since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Wards 1 and 2 Catholic Trustee
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Wards 1 and 2 Catholic Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Wards 3 and 4 Catholic Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward 5 Catholic Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward 6 Catholic Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward 7 Catholic Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Ward 8 Catholic Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Wards 9, 10 and 11 Catholic Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2010 Wards 12, 13, 14 and 15 Catholic Trustee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. The practice of putting Canadian election results in templates is widespread. AFAICS, it's actually the norm for Canadian election data, and there are literally thousands of such templates. Instead of picking off a few examples, the nominator should start a centralised discussion (e.g. at WT:CANADA) to learn how and why this approach is used ... and if the nom still wants to delete them, that should be done systematically as a mass nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- There should be no exception to Tfd's just because one project does it differently. This is part of a major issue with election templates when the information can easily be featured as a different table as it's been done and should be continued to be done on election articles. And single-use is a major problem because templates are supposed to be used on multiple spaces, not singular, as templates are supposed to have broader navigational benefits. But election results don't have a need to be on separate templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: It's clear that a significant number of the editors who work on Canadian politics disagree with your assertion that
election results don't have a need to be on separate templates
. So why not talk to those editors? - And per WP:MULTI, discussion should be centralised. Since you believe that all election templates should be substed, it would be much better to have one discussion on the principle rather than dozens of individuals TFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- "It's clear that a significant number of the editors who work on Canadian politics disagree with your assertion." Please avoid an argument where you're making assertions. Second, what good would talking with all of them do? I'm certainly not going to ping all the editors in the project for one discussion. Clearly not a good use of time. Third, a Tfd is a place for a discussion about templates nominated for deletion or merge. It's in the name. What is the point of having election results on templates? What is the harm in just by having them as part of the relevant article subject by being a part of the article to begin with? Separate mainspaces for election results are redundant and utterly pointless. And no, not all election templates. Election year navboxes, for instance, have a great purpose because it fulfills its purpose for navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: please see WP:MULTI. Really.
- You have already started 3 separate discussion on this page about Canadian election templates, and I don't think that you have even started on the 5,368 pages in Category:Canada election result templates (complete list).
- You have not so far identified any reason to discuss these sets separately ... so please,make whatever case you want to make in a single centralised discussion.
- As to
what good would talking with all of them do?
... talking to other editors is how we reach WP:Consensus. That's a core policy. - And no, you don't need to ping everybody. Just notify the relevant projects ad noticeboard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is a reason I have created separate discussions is that each of these sets has a different name, hence the separation. As for the category, I will in the future. And I have seen the policy you're referring to, this isn't the same discussion on multiple pages. And really, stop pinging me every time you reply, you're unnecessarily creating notifications for me. You've already voted oppose. Let others take the nomination into consideration. I'm done talking about this subject with you at this time. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The issue which you identify is the same in each case, so there is no need for 3 separate discussions on the same issue, let alone for dozens more as you tackle Category:Canada election result templates (complete list).
- I pinged you as a courtesy to let you know there was a reply, but since you don't want those notifications, I will stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is a reason I have created separate discussions is that each of these sets has a different name, hence the separation. As for the category, I will in the future. And I have seen the policy you're referring to, this isn't the same discussion on multiple pages. And really, stop pinging me every time you reply, you're unnecessarily creating notifications for me. You've already voted oppose. Let others take the nomination into consideration. I'm done talking about this subject with you at this time. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- "It's clear that a significant number of the editors who work on Canadian politics disagree with your assertion." Please avoid an argument where you're making assertions. Second, what good would talking with all of them do? I'm certainly not going to ping all the editors in the project for one discussion. Clearly not a good use of time. Third, a Tfd is a place for a discussion about templates nominated for deletion or merge. It's in the name. What is the point of having election results on templates? What is the harm in just by having them as part of the relevant article subject by being a part of the article to begin with? Separate mainspaces for election results are redundant and utterly pointless. And no, not all election templates. Election year navboxes, for instance, have a great purpose because it fulfills its purpose for navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: It's clear that a significant number of the editors who work on Canadian politics disagree with your assertion that
- There should be no exception to Tfd's just because one project does it differently. This is part of a major issue with election templates when the information can easily be featured as a different table as it's been done and should be continued to be done on election articles. And single-use is a major problem because templates are supposed to be used on multiple spaces, not singular, as templates are supposed to have broader navigational benefits. But election results don't have a need to be on separate templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note canvassing by nominator at User talk:Number 57#TFD's * Pppery * it has begun... 00:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- That is unusually blatant canvassing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The canvassing comment was self-reverted in Special:Diff/1038671805 * Pppery * it has begun... 02:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- That is unusually blatant canvassing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also note that WikiCleanerMan has nominated several more batches of these at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 12 and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 14. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) (edited * Pppery * it has begun... 02:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC))
- Delete- as being insignificant. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The purpose of dedicated election results templates like this is to keep information consistent across multiple articles — for example, for a federal or provincial electoral district, a template is appropriate for the presentation of election results because it can be used in the electoral district's article and the MP's/MPP's biographical article (and in some cases a non-winning candidate who has notability for other reasons, such as a former incumbent that the winner defeated) and thus keep the information and presentation consistent across multiple articles. But such templates are not routinely used for all presentation of all Canadian election results — if there's only one article for the results to appear in, then the election results table should just be coded in that article rather than by calling separate templates. But school board trustee is not a notable office for the purposes of WP:NPOL, meaning that the election article is the only place any of these templates are actually being used at all, because none of the trustees or candidates have biographical articles of their own to use these in. So these should all be substituted in the election article since there aren't multiple articles to cross-reference, and then deleted. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:IrelandElectionsDecade
- Template:IrelandElectionsDecade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template is specific for Ireland but Template:YYY0s elections in countryname category header does the same exact thing. See Category:1800s elections in Ireland where I replaced the template. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. {{IrelandElectionsDecade}} has special code to accommodate the fact that from 1801-1922, Ireland was part of the UK. So it treats those decades differently. Per WP:BEFORE, the nom should have checked this before nominating. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note that the reason that Gonnym's change of template produced the same output was that i had made an error in {{IrelandElectionsDecade}}, which i have now fixed.[7]. Sorry about that.
I have also reverted Gonnym's change to Category:1800s elections in Ireland, which is now properly parented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC) - Keep per BrownHairedGirl. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per BrownHairedGirl. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per BrownHairedGirl & simplicity; no need to add the double conditional to the parent template. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete And have the current uses replaced with the Template:YYY0s elections in countryname category header. It removes the redundancy. And there is simply no need to have for one specific country. Although, the U.S. templates exist is because U.S. elections tend to carry more significance than Irish elections. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- What redundancy? This template is coded to automate the variable parenting needed for Irish chronology categories. Other templates do not do that.
- Also, WikiCleanerMan is mistaken about US election categories. First, perceived significance is not a reason to have or not have a category header template; categories exist to group article because the articles exist, not because of their perceived significance. Secondly, US election decade categories use {{YYY0s elections in countryname category header}}; they do not have a specific template, because they do not have the variable parenting issues of the Irish categories. There are some US-specific category-header templates for US election categories, e.g. {{YYYY United States local elections category header}}, because those had to be custom-made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is a reason a subcat exists for the U.S. Because it has a specific purpose. Frankly, why should there be an Irish-specific template like this one? By that standard, we should have one for every country. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: As I explained twice, the reason to have a template for this specific country is set out clearly above: because in the case of Ireland, different decades need different parenting, and this provides simplicity and accuracy by automating that.
- Most other countries do not have this issue of needing different parent countries at different times, so it is completely false to say that this justifies having one for every country.
- Your comment
there is a reason a subcat exists for the U.S
is strange. This discussion is not about whether subcats exist or should exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - per BHG. Ireland is usually an exception to any general rule. Oculi (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:YearInIrishPoliticsCat
- Template:YearInIrishPoliticsCat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template is specific for Ireland but Template:YYYY in nationality politics category header does the same exact thing. See Category:2008 in Irish politics where I replaced the template. Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. {{YearInIrishPoliticsCat}} has special code to accommodate the fact that from 1801-1922, Ireland was part of the UK. So it treats those decades differently. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Can't
{{YYY0s in nationality politics category header|parentnationality=British}}
be used in those situations? Gonnym (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC) - It possibly could be; I have not checked the nuances. But it wouldn't be used if the editor applying it was unaware of the need to treat some years differently, as appears to have been the case with the TFD nominator. So to maximise simplicity and accuracy, please keep this template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have now checked the template's history. I created {{YearInIrishPoliticsCat}} in March 2018,[8] and deployed it. On 23 Sept 2020, I created[9] {{YYYY in nationality politics category header}} and deployed on hundreds of categories. One of the first things I did with the new template was this edit[10] to make {{YearInIrishPoliticsCat}} a wrapper around {{YYYY in nationality politics category header}}, with conditionality for the years 1801-1922. That was the current revision when Gonnym made this TFD nomination. It appears that the WP:BEFORE of this nomination was inadequate, because the nomination doesn't mention the fact that it is a wrapper or that it includes conditionality.
Note that most Irish chronology categories have similar category header templates to avoid errors in parenting the 1801-1922 period: see e.g. {{IrelandByYear}} and {{IrishSportByYear}}. I invite Gonnym to withdraw this set of nominations, and if they feel that categorisation would be better served by relying on editors to accurately apply a parent in each case (instead of a simple template doing it automatically), then they should nominate all such templates in one group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have now checked the template's history. I created {{YearInIrishPoliticsCat}} in March 2018,[8] and deployed it. On 23 Sept 2020, I created[9] {{YYYY in nationality politics category header}} and deployed on hundreds of categories. One of the first things I did with the new template was this edit[10] to make {{YearInIrishPoliticsCat}} a wrapper around {{YYYY in nationality politics category header}}, with conditionality for the years 1801-1922. That was the current revision when Gonnym made this TFD nomination. It appears that the WP:BEFORE of this nomination was inadequate, because the nomination doesn't mention the fact that it is a wrapper or that it includes conditionality.
- Can't
- Note. I have reverted Gonnym's change to Category:2008 in Irish politics, pending any consensus. The version which Gonnym changed is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:2008_in_Irish_politics&oldid=1038615025. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Keep template for simplicity. Could end up as trap for users, who are adding the YYYY template unaware of the parameter -- DaxServer (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per BrownHairedGirl. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per BrownHairedGirl & simplicity; no need to add the double conditional to the parent template. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete And have the current uses replaced with the Template:YYYY in nationality politics category header. It removes the redundancy. And there is simply no need to have for one specific country. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the reason to have a template for a specific country is set out clearly above: because different decades need different parenting, and this provides simplicity and accuracy by automating that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - per BHG. Ireland is usually an exception to any general rule. Oculi (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:IrelandPoliticsDecade
- Template:IrelandPoliticsDecade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template is specific for Ireland but Template:YYY0s in nationality politics category header does the same exact thing. See Category:2000s in Irish politics where I replaced the template. Gonnym (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. {{IrelandPoliticsDecade}} has special code to accommodate the fact that from 1801-1922, Ireland was part of the UK. So it treats those decades differently. It's a pity that the nominator didn't take a few seconds to check this before opening a flurry of TFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Could you please stop with your personal attacks each time you don't agree with something? Each time I have the misfortune to be in a discussion with you it always goes the same way. I did check the template and as I pointed out above, the fact that you use a parameter that is available to the general template, does not make it "different". Please stay on topic and just comment on the actual issue. Gonnym (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- That was not a personal attack; it was a polite request to so some WP:BEFORE. each time I have the misfortune to be in a discussion with you it always goes the same way: you object to doing the checks, and take offence when asked. If you were aware that this template is a wrapper around Template:YYY0s in nationality politics category header, with added conditionality, why didn't you set that out in the nomination instead of wrongly asserting that it does the same thing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Could you please stop with your personal attacks each time you don't agree with something? Each time I have the misfortune to be in a discussion with you it always goes the same way. I did check the template and as I pointed out above, the fact that you use a parameter that is available to the general template, does not make it "different". Please stay on topic and just comment on the actual issue. Gonnym (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Not a fan of BHG right now, but if someone did not perform an inadequate WP:BEFORE prior to a slew of nominations for discussion, then it needs to be noted in the discussions. I don't see doing so as a personal attack. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per BrownHairedGirl. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per BrownHairedGirl & simplicity; no need to add the double conditional to the parent template. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete And have the current uses replaced with the Template:YYY0s in nationality politics category header. It removes the redundancy. And there is simply no need to have for one specific country. Although, the U.S. templates exist is because U.S. elections tend to carry more significance than Irish elections. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the reason to have a template for a specific country is set out clearly above: it is because different decades need different parenting, and this template provides simplicity and accuracy by automating that.
- The perceived
significance
of elections in the US or elsewhere is irrelevant to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - per BHG. Ireland is usually an exception to any general rule. As BHG has a unique combination of expertise in (a) templates and (b) Ireland (and (c) categories and (d) argument) angels might fear to tread ... Oculi (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Scottish Parliament election
- Template:Scottish Parliament election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Welsh Assembly election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
While both are used on respective Scottish and Welsh election articles, there isn't an overwhelming need for them as the coding for the display of the results table is possible to be used without these two. I doubt the template coding will break without it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- GoodDay, in what way? The coding for the templates can be easily replaced. There shouldn't be specific coding like what these templates do because we would have to have one for all countries' election table results. There should be one standard in my view to deal with this issue. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Seats in the Senate of Romania, 6th legislature
- Template:Seats in the Senate of Romania, 6th legislature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Seats in the Chamber of Deputies of Romania, 6th legislature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Both should be substituted on the 2008–2012 legislature of the Romanian Parliament article instead of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies of Romania articles, as it's the most appropriate location/use for it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:2005 United Kingdom general election
- Template:2005 United Kingdom general election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2010 United Kingdom parliamentary election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2015 United Kingdom parliamentary election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2017 United Kingdom parliamentary election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 United Kingdom parliamentary election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All should be substituted where used since they are only used on the election mainspace, results article, and electoral history of the Prime Minister and runner up articles. Not much usage outside election-related articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. These template all have multiple transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still not a reason to have them remain as is. Substitution doesn't do much harm to them. And the most transclusion for one of them is four. That's pretty small and not overwhelming for one editor, whoever that may be, to take on that task. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Transclusion means the content can be edited only once to reproduce the benefit to multiple articles. If you substitute the content, it's likely future editors won't even be aware other instances exist, let alone update it. From a server efficiency perspective, which we're not generally supposed to consider in adopting solutions, substituting increases the size of every of the articles containing the content, making every subsequent revision to the page enlarged too, which, over time, exceeds the cost of having a template. So, what exactly is the benefit to substitution? --Bsherr (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still not a reason to have them remain as is. Substitution doesn't do much harm to them. And the most transclusion for one of them is four. That's pretty small and not overwhelming for one editor, whoever that may be, to take on that task. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Templates like these have already been substituted. Hasn't made much of a difference in terms of the size of the article. In fact, all that changes is the top of the table format using this coding that I changed with one of the Russian templates that was substituted. Nothing really changed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep all per Bsherr, to avoid the maintenance difficulties created by content forking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- How would a substitution lead to content forking? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: Look at for example {{2005 United Kingdom general election}}. It is used in two articles: 2005 United Kingdom general election and Electoral history of Tony Blair.
- If the template is substed, then its contents end up in two separate articles. That will inevitably lead to content forking, because the two pages won;t be maintained identically.
- So I don't see any way in which substing would benefit either readers or editors. Why do you think that substing would help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- The content display can be changed with simple coding. The same is done on the Blair article where other templates are displayed using section transclusions. The 2005 election article won't be affected that much since all that needs to be done is by simply changing the coding at the very top by turning it to a results table. I've done it before with the Russian election article example I linked above. The article content and size doesn't change. Substituting is preferable in most circumstances, including this one, because why would there be a need to have election results in a separate format. The content matter for the results should be on the related pages as it was inherently part of the article or articles to begin with. Election results should not be on their own templates since they have very little usage outside election or electoral record articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: that seems to consist of a lot of assertions, but it doesn't seem to address the point I made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- It does not and I did address your concern. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to me like you're not understanding the purpose of templates. I explained why transclusion is better above, and your only response was a false one about article size. (If a template is 1000 bytes, and is translcuded onto two pages, that's 1000 bytes total. If the template is substituted onto two pages and the original template is deleted, that's 2000 bytes total.) Do you have any response to the desirability of avoiding duplicate code and content forking? If the solution you are proposing is section transclusion, why won't you drop the stick about substitution, which is clearly the inferior solution? --Bsherr (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- It does not and I did address your concern. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: that seems to consist of a lot of assertions, but it doesn't seem to address the point I made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- The content display can be changed with simple coding. The same is done on the Blair article where other templates are displayed using section transclusions. The 2005 election article won't be affected that much since all that needs to be done is by simply changing the coding at the very top by turning it to a results table. I've done it before with the Russian election article example I linked above. The article content and size doesn't change. Substituting is preferable in most circumstances, including this one, because why would there be a need to have election results in a separate format. The content matter for the results should be on the related pages as it was inherently part of the article or articles to begin with. Election results should not be on their own templates since they have very little usage outside election or electoral record articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- How would a substitution lead to content forking? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Partial subst and delete. Subst to election pages and remove from individual election results pages or sections. If a politician page needs a election results section, that should be their individual result and not a complete, and usually, very large table that has no relevance to the article. That would be akin to having complete Oscar results on a list of awards by actor pages. An extreme and horribile example is Template:2010 United Kingdom parliamentary election which has 58 rows and a giant seating image when all that's relevant is a single row of information. Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:European Parliament MEPs, 1958–1979 (Netherlands)
- Template:European Parliament MEPs, 1958–1979 (Netherlands) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament MEPs, 1979–1984 (Netherlands) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament MEPs, 1984–1989 (Netherlands) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament MEPs, 1989–1994 (Netherlands) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament MEPs, 1994–1999 (Netherlands) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament MEPs, 1999–2004 (Netherlands) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament MEPs, 2004–2009 (Netherlands) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament MEPs, 2009–2014 (Netherlands) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament MEPs, 2014–2019 (Netherlands) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament MEPs, 2019–2024 (Netherlands) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Members of the European Coal and Steel Community Parliament, 1952–1958 (Netherlands) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All should be substituted. No need for these to be on a separate template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. I checked two of the templates: {{European Parliament MEPs, 2019–2024 (Netherlands)}} and {{European Parliament MEPs, 1979–1984 (Netherlands)}}. Each is transcluded into two pages.
- For a detailed list like this, with links which may need to be updated and refs which may need to be maintained, it is much better not to create a content fork, which would be the effect of substitution.
- It may be possible to subst each of the template into one of the pages which transcludes, wrap the relevant part in
<includeonly> ...</includeonly>
tags, and transclude that into the other page. I have not checked this, but in some cases that is a workable solution, whereas in other cases it adds confusion or clashes with other transclusions. - Note that the practice of transcluding electoral data from templates is widely used in articles on Canadian politics, where it seems to work well and be uncontroversial. So I see no problem with using templates here, which is why I oppose deletion unless there is clearly a better solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. Subst to list of members articles and transclude to election articles. Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Portuguese legislative election, 2011
- Template:Portuguese legislative election, 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Portuguese legislative election, 2011 by constituency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Portuguese presidential election, 1996 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Portuguese presidential election, 2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Portuguese presidential election, 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Portuguese presidential election, 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Both 2011 are single-use and should be substituted on the legislative election mainspace. The presidential election template should be substituted onto the election articles and removed from the articles of the candidates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - as they relate to presidential & parliamentary elections. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- That's not enough to maintain keeping as it remains. Templates shouldn't be single-use nor used on articles about individuals especially when they are in table format. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Partial subst and delete. Subst to election articles only and remove from individual "election results" sections. If a politician page needs a election results section, that should be their individual result and not a complete, and usually, very large table that has no relevance to the article. That would be akin to having complete Oscar results on a list of awards by actor pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Bankura 2021 election summary
- Template:Bankura 2021 election summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cooch Behar 2021 election summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Dakshin 24 Parganas 2021 election summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Malda 2021 election summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Purulia 2021 election summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Uttar 24 Parganas 2021 election summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Uttar Dinajpur 2021 election summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Similar to the Tfd on July 27. Either these are used on a single constituency article or multiple. No election mainspace exists for these to be used on, but nonetheless, it adds to another level of confusion for their purpose as very little information can be acquired on these templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete without subst. These templates are district-wide results but are used on constituency articles. They do not belong there and instead belong on the relevant district election pages or sections (such as 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election#District wise Results) but those pages use a completely different style of tables. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Dissolved Chinese football club squads
- Template:Beijing Renhe F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Jiangsu Suning F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Liaoning Whowin F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Shanghai Shenxin F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tianjin Quanjian F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Yanbian Funde F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
These clubs were dissolved. There are no players at these clubs anymore, since they don't exist anymore. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom- we don't keep squad templates for defunct teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all All folded/defunct teams. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:The Mission Athletics Club
- Template:The Mission Athletics Club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The article about this club was deleted in 2018. It's a non-defining connection between these people, so template is not needed. We don't have them for other athletics clubs Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable template for a non-notable club. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Meiringen–Innertkirchen railway
- Template:Meiringen–Innertkirchen railway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, there's a superior hard-coded template in the Meiringen–Innertkirchen Railway article. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Mobile Grain RDTs
- Template:Big Sky Rail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Last Mountain Railway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused rail diagram templates; the combined template {{Mobile Grain}} covers both systems. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Intercidades RDT diagrams
- Template:CPintercidades (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:CPICinline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused rail diagram templates for an article on the Portuguese Intercidades service, which was moved to draft and then deleted in 2019. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Archive bar
- Template:Archive bar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This sparsely used archive list template is almost identical to {{archive}} and should be replaced accordingly. --Trialpears (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I really wished you'd first present your scheme for a total overhaul for discussion, and only then deleted these as the uncontroversial clean-up it will become afterwards. It isn't uncontroversial cleanup now. The way you're doing it now, you're bulldozing auto-archive templates right and left. Why are you focusing on removing templates that do no harm, risking an end state where lots of nifty little pieces of functionality is just erased, when you have a much more ambitious - and useful - end goal in mind? CapnZapp (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you think I have a well thought through master plan here you are sadly over estimating me. My view on approaches for making archiving more user friendly is outlined at User:Trialpears/Archiving manifesto, but it really should have two more sections on Template improvements (which I've been actively working on with {{archives}} in the past few days) and documentation improvements which I sadly have to say have been somewhat neglected by both me and others. Having one big discussion for some master plan would be very difficult, archiving as a whole is just too big of a subject to get sufficient input to get thorough discussion on everything that needs working out if done all at once in my experience.
- Before starting this and any other discussions here I check out what exactly the template can do from the source code. Here we just have an index link and {{archive list}} inside a simple banner all of which is supported by {{archives}}. The biggest difference here is that this template isn't at all compatible with the mobile about this page view (which archives soon will be fully compatible with) and that the "Archives" text is bolded and linked. Both these can be replicated using the
|link=
parameter, if so desired. I believe however you participated in a discussion last year about confusion between such a link and index pages so I don't feel it's a great thing to add the link using the parameter. I'm ambivalent with regards to bolding. - Finally I have to thank you for prompting more discussion. Your inquiries really forces deep thought about proposals which often makes them better and more accesible for people who aren't archiving experts. --Trialpears (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Only used on 114 talk pages. Can be easily replaced. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I support Trialpears efforts in making the archive process less complex. I'm astonished that after all the TfDs there are still so many of these left. Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Oberweserbahn
- Template:Oberweserbahn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, there's a superior hard-coded template in the Göttingen–Bodenfelde railway article. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
August 12
Template:Genoa–Pisa railway diagram
- Template:Genoa–Pisa railway diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and superseded by Template:Pisa–La Spezia–Genoa railway diagram. Mackensen (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Unused and superseded. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2006 Ward Eight
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 12/Hamilton#2006 for the complete list of templates
Majority single-use and all should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 1994 Ward Eight
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 12/Hamilton#1994 for the complete list of templates
Majority single-use and all should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 1991 Ward Eight
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 12/Hamilton#1991 for the complete list of templates
Majority single-use and all should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 1988 Mayor
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 12/Hamilton#1988 for the complete list of templates
The top template is unused and unnecessary as the 1988 election article uses a different table. The majority are single-use and should be substituted onto the election article. The Ward Four template is used on two articles and still should be substituted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 1985 Mayor
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 12/Hamilton#1985 for the complete list of templates
All single-use and should be subsittuted onto the 1985 Hamiliton election article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2014 Ward Eight
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 12/Hamilton#2014 Ward Eight for the complete list of templates
Templates Ward One, Three, and Seven are used on the 2014 election article and a singular politician article. These should be substituted on there. The rest are single-use and still should be substituted onto the election article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:RGA Chair
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Template:RGA Chair (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
unused Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, no information, and abandoned after creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Muhibm0307 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2021 (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:Hamilton Municipal Election, 2014 HWCDSB Ward One and Two
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 12/Hamilton#2014 HWCDSB for the complete list of templates
The very last template is unused. The rest are single-use and should be substituted on the 2014 election article. This is not a good use of template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton Municipal Election 2014, Ward Eight HWDSB
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 12/Hamilton#2014 Ward Eight HWDSB for the complete list of templates
All single-use and should be substituted on the 2014 election article. This is not a good use of template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Off wiki Covid 19
- Template:Off wiki Covid 19 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Singe-use wrapper of {{wikibreak}}; that single use (by an editor who last edited nine months ago) can be substituted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Last TfD not good enough? Kingsif (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete by substitution since it's already a wrapper. No, we don't need single-use templates. --Izno (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton Mayoral Election, 1930
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 12/Hamilton#Mayor for the complete list of templates
The 1930 to 1994 templates are single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. The 2000 template is used on the Fred Eisenberger article as are all the other templates after 2000. 2003 is used on Larry Di Ianni's article as are 2006, 2010, and 2014. The 2010 template is also used on Bob Bratina's article. These last three are used on the respective election articles but nonetheless should be substituted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. Subst to election pages and delete from "election records" sections of individuals. Those sections offer no value as they aren't accompanied with any prose and placing a giant table for a single row of relevant data is just a horrible design. Gonnym (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hamilton Board of Control Election, 1930
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 12/Hamilton#Board of Control Election for the complete list of templates
1944 with the comma and 1946 are unused and redudant as there already exists a template used for the election articles. The rest are single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Flemish Parliament election/top
- Template:Flemish Parliament election/top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template is redundant after I made the fix to the results table at the List of members of the Flemish Parliament, 2009–2014 article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
August 11
Template:2006 Election Committee Subsector Elections
- Template:2006 Election Committee Subsector Elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2011 Election Committee Subsector Elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2016 Election Committee Subsector Elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All single-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm ambivalent about this. Is there an established policy about not creating single-use templates? IIRC there are (have been?) many single-use templates around Wikipedia, most of them for tables like this one, because the wikitext has become long and unwieldy in source edit mode. Deryck C. 20:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is no policy on record. Although there should be. Why should election results be on a separate space when they can just be on a table as part of the article it was created for? Because single-use templates don't make good use of a template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete to election pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Todo3
- Template:Todo3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template only used a couple times for which there are multiple other useful templates. Izno (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:MUHIMG
- Template:MUHIMG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, probably a live replacement. Izno (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Multisock
- Template:Multisock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Duplicates Template:Sockpuppet Izno (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Brit-am
- Template:Brit-am (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Duplicates Template:British English Izno (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Dom & Roland
- Template:Dom & Roland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Now redundant – the last three albums in the template have all been redirected due to lack of notability, leaving just two entries in the template, which already link to each other via their respective infoboxes, so this navbox serves no additional purpose. Richard3120 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Facebook website
- Template:Facebook website (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Duplicates existing Facebook templates
- {{Facebook}}
- {{Facebook_page}}
-- Whiteguru (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete More importantly, it's single use, too specific to really have any other uses, and insufficiently complicated to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Articles featured on portals templates
- Template:AARportal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Food portal selected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Drink portal selected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Energy portal news (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Fishportal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Football portal selected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Indonesian selected article talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Indonesian selected biography talk modern (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:PUSRD-SA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Thailandportal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Trains portal/DYK date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
These templates are all signifiers on if an article was or is "featured" on a portal. Talk pages are designated for discussing improvements to articles, things like this are complete cruft; what use does a reader or editor have in knowing that Frog is a selected article on the Amphibians Portal? Aza24 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see the value of these templates either. I don't care if an article I edit is included on a portal, they just contribute to banner cruft. --Trialpears (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Talk pages are also our pages where we store all meta cruft (dozens of WikiProject templates etc.) While the majority of these are probably historical, they could be useful warnings that an article appears elsewhere via section transclusion, which is useful for editors to know so they know what they'll break if they change anything about the sectioning of the lede. —Kusma (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Kusma. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nom's nomination. There is no "standard" by what article gets chosen to be used in portals so statements used such as
which means that it has been identified as a high quality article by Drink Portal standards.
are just false and give no value as an indication. Gonnym (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Sanamahism
- Template:Sanamahism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Sanamahi1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The first template is filled with mainly red links and on top of it, it is unused. The second one is mainly transcluded on articles it doesn't link to. Only two articles use the navbox that are linked within it. The navigational purpose can't be fulfilled with these two. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Merge blue links to Template:Sanamahi1; add to articles; rename to Template:Sanamahism. Gonnym (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is an unfinished template and I hope there are better option than deletion as the template is about a unique religion and its belief, it would definitely help many reader if updated significantly 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- The concern of red link were addressed, the templates are added at relevant article, still if there are better suggestion or option do let me know, thanks 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- If kept, please review the link for Maipi, currently piped to dab Priestess. Certes (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Certes: I have contributed a new article Maibi but its too short for now , the good news is there are plenty of reliable sources which we can use or should we merge Maibi Jagoi with Maibi - regards 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:Book report
- Template:Book report (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Book report start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Book report end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Book report time (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Book report rating (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Book reports used to list the quality of all articles in a book on the talk page of community books. As community books are no more most of the uses have been deleted, but there are still a bit under 200 transclusions from books that have been moved to user space. The book report will never be updated again. --Trialpears (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. @Trialpears should Template:Book report start, Template:Book report end, Template:Book report time, and Template:Book report rating be included here also? Gonnym (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ugh, yes I forgot about those. Thanks! These should be used on the same pages (or a subset of them) and the nomination rationale apply here as well. --Trialpears (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Book namespace is dead and these should be deleted, but is there a way to replicate the template's assessment functionality for a list of articles? It seems quite useful to be able to see a list of article status and cleanup tags in a clear table. For example, to assess say top-level articles within a Wikiproject. CMD (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the template is also used outside the books namespace, so keep them to continue the function. Books are not totally dead even if the namespace is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete These templates were populated by a bot that only edited the book talk namespace (and has now been shut down), so there will be no
continu[ing] the function
possible even if the template is kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Old discussions
August 10
Template:Landrat of Uri election, 2012
- Template:Landrat of Uri election, 2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Landrat of Uri election, 2016 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Landrat of Uri election, 2020 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All should be substituted where used as there is no election mainspace for them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. Subst to Landrat of Uri as no election article exists. Gonnym (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Template:PS2056-Taplejung-2
- Template:PS2056-Taplejung-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused. Same as the August 2 templates nominated as it is pointless for it's intended purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Completed discussions
A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".
For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.