V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 62 | 28 | 90 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 8 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
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 (see also: WP:Infobox consolidation).
- 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 supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.
Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle
Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.
Discussion
Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.
People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.
Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.
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
June 13
Template:2019/20 Richmond dual premiership players
- Template:2019/20 Richmond dual premiership players ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Not used and the navbox is superseded by Template:2019 Richmond premiership players. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2018–19 Turkish Women Basketball League Standings
- Template:2018–19 Turkish Women Basketball League Standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Contains no information and the information for the standings for this season is on the mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2018–19 Scottish League One table
- Template:2018–19 Scottish League One table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Information already available on the mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2018–19 Football Superleague of Kosovo table
- Template:2018–19 Football Superleague of Kosovo table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Information already available on the mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2018–19 Atlantic Hockey standings (men)
- Template:2018–19 Atlantic Hockey standings (men) ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The information already exists in the standings section on 2018–19 NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Myanmar National League table
- Template:2019 Myanmar National League table 2 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 Myanmar National League table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The 2019 template contains information that isn't all useful and was most likely abandoned. The 2020 template information is already transcluded on the respective mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2018 World U23 Wrestling Championships
- Template:2018 World U23 Wrestling Championships ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template with half red links and all links are redirects which go to the same page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2021 IFL standings
- Template:2021 IFL standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Same as the OHL templates nominated below. Isn't a template nor was created as one. Instead, redirects to the standings section. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong venue Template redirects go to RfD, not TfD * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
SHL Maps
- Template:2018–19 SHL Labelled Map ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019–20 SHL Labelled Map ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020–21 SHL Labelled Map ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Just links to articles on the teams in the SHL. Doesn't link to the team's respective season articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2020 China League One table
- Template:2020 China League One table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Contains no useful information that can be transcluded on the 2020 China League One article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2020 African Nations Championship Group A matches
- Template:2020 African Nations Championship Group A matches ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Contains pre-pandemic information. Shouldn't be on its own template. The rescheduled matches are already on the 2020 African Nations Championship article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2020 Belarusian Second League Overall table
- Template:2020 Belarusian Second League Overall table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Contains no information that can be transcluded onto the 2020 Belarusian Second League article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2018 Kazakhstan Premier League managers
- Template:2018 Kazakhstan Premier League managers ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Not used. There shouldn't be templates of managers of Premier League teams for every season. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Bikini Basketball Standings
- Template:2013 Bikini Basketball Association standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2014 Bikini Basketball Association standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Aside from the fact the league folded, the information on the template is already featured on the respective season mainspaces and the Bikini Basketball Association article under both the 2013 and 2014 sections. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete both as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
2020 CFL Templates
- Template:2020 CFL East Division standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 CFL West Division standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The 2020 Canadian Football League season was canceled due to the pandemic. Having the templates remain won't do any good as they won't be used for the purpose they were created for. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete both as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
OHL Templates
- Template:2019-20 OHL standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019-20 OHL playoffs ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020-21 OHL standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
These are not templates nor were created as templates to begin with. Instead, they redirect to sections in the respective articles or to the mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong venue Template redirects to to RfD, not TfD * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2006 AFC U-17 Championship qualification Group K table
- Template:2006 AFC U-17 Championship qualification Group K table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Group K is not a significant category of teams in an international sporting competition. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Filled with nothing but red links to non-existent templates. Doubtful they will be created. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Nuremberg S-Bahn
- Template:Nuremberg S-Bahn ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Nuremberg public transport ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
As discussed on the talk page, functionality was migrated into Template:Rail-interchange and is documented at Template:Rail-interchange/doc/DE. Nuremberg no longer uses the R-number designation for regional services so that functionality was not reimplemented. Edit: added the {{Nuremberg public transport}} wrapper template. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose (for now). The {{Rail-interchange}} replacement is incomplete, and uses a slightly different syntax (e.g.
|S|3
vs.|S3
). {{Rail-interchange}} should be modified to support all accepted parameters so that there is backward-compatibility for old page revisions that call this template. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)- AlgaeGraphix, I would gently challenge the use of "incomplete". The replacement covers all current services within the scope of Verkehrsverbund Großraum Nürnberg. I suppose the question is how much backward compatibility is needed. Very few articles incorporated the regionalbahn icons as icons, and that's a lot of overhead for a limited use case. If someone really needs to know what our article about a Bavarian railway halt looked like three years ago then the Wayback Machine will do a better job. No old page revisions call rail-interchange anyway, they call Nuremberg S-Bahn. Preserving the look and feel of the old pages means retaining the template, even as some kind of wrapper. I'm not opposed per se, but I do question whether it's worth the overhead. Mackensen (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Comparison of templates
|
---|
As I stated above, the {{Rail-interchange}} replacement is incomplete. |
- Just because there aren't any pages that currently use many of the old icons doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. "Unused" icons often show up in unexpected ways later (particularly in Route Diagram Templates. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I feel confident in stating that no future RDTs will show the R-bahn icons. I don't think any had them to begin with, and that numbering scheme isn't used anymore. The VGN icon wasn't used at all, the bus icon is supported and used in rint, so I'm not sure why it was omitted in your comparison? The DB icon already exists under
de|rail
; I saw no purpose in duplicating that functionality. That's a benefit of moving to rint. There's very little point in improving templates if we're required to maintain complete backward compatibility. We delete s-line templates all the time, which certainly has a negative effect on past articles, yet no one objects to this practice. Anyway, we'll see if anyone else has an opinion. Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I feel confident in stating that no future RDTs will show the R-bahn icons. I don't think any had them to begin with, and that numbering scheme isn't used anymore. The VGN icon wasn't used at all, the bus icon is supported and used in rint, so I'm not sure why it was omitted in your comparison? The DB icon already exists under
- Just because there aren't any pages that currently use many of the old icons doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. "Unused" icons often show up in unexpected ways later (particularly in Route Diagram Templates. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete
backward compatibility for old page revisions
is simply not a valid argument for retention. Every template deleted here, except for ones that have been unused since their creation (which I would assume to be rare; why would someone create a template if they are not going to use it somewhere?) breaks backward compatibility, and no argument has been presented as to why it is more important here than at any other discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:1967 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1968 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1969 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1970 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1971 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1972 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1973 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1974 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1975 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1976 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1977 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1978 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1979 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1980 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1981 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1982 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1983 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1984 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1985 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1986 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1987 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1988 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1989 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1990 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1991 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1992 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1993 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1994 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1995 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1996 Automotive Hall of Fame ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Templates with majority text and few links. The mainspace template on the top is just a navbox to the templates from 1967 to 1996. The mainspace article doesn't have any of these templates and I'm not sure the Automotive Hall of Fame is notable enough to have its own templates for inductees similar to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: I'm the creator of these. The page Automotive Hall of Fame already existed, and the award is cited by notable publications of the industry, like Autoweek, Automotive News, and Hemmings Motor News. A majority of the individual recipient pages already referenced the award being given to them, as do newspaper entries for these individuals. Regarding the majority text and few links comment, I think inductees are almost always linked but the other two awards tend to not have pages, so perhaps I can limit it down to just inductees only, if that's a concern for notability of the template.--Engineerchange (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Engineerchange, I think you should edit the mainspace article and add all inductees as part of a section of the article by each year. That's your best at this point. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just saw there is a section for Hall of Fame members. So never mind about that. These templates still don't qualify under notability standards. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Re your comment, I do have this in draft mode - Draft:List of Automotive Hall of Fame inductees, but appreciate any feedback on guidelines here. As mentioned, inductees almost always have articles already and these articles have a link to the mainspace article about the HoF awards. What is the policy on notability of templates about awards? --Engineerchange (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- One way notability is required is through credible sources. So the publications you provide are mainly about the auto industry/world. If you find something outside of that can work along with the auto industry sources, that can help for your draft article. But again, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a major event/award and honor for the inductees which is why each year there is a template for the inductees for that year. I don't think the Automotive Hall of Fame is all that well-known. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Re your comment, I do have this in draft mode - Draft:List of Automotive Hall of Fame inductees, but appreciate any feedback on guidelines here. As mentioned, inductees almost always have articles already and these articles have a link to the mainspace article about the HoF awards. What is the policy on notability of templates about awards? --Engineerchange (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Arabian Gulf Cup Champions
- Template:Arabian Gulf Cup Champions ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Superseded by Template:Arabian Gulf Cup where it is linked to the mainspace articles to each Arabian Gulf Cup tournament. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Labyrinth (film)
- Template:Labyrinth (film) ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Labyrinth (franchise) ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Labyrinth (film) with Template:Labyrinth (franchise).
These are duplicate navigation boxes for the same topic. Only one is needed. OwlWing (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support The franchise template includes more, but still retains the original links in the Labyrinth film template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support There is really no need for two templates.★Trekker (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Reader-facing page
- Template:Reader-facing page ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This template instructs editors to "move editor-facing elements to other pages" based on WP:READER, which is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It is inappropriate to have templates that attempt to enforce rules not yet vetted by community consensus. Perhaps WP:READER will be elevated to guideline status someday, but until then, I believe this template should be deleted. Spicy (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. There are quite a few non-article pages on Wikipedia that are intended to be reader-facing. This template is highly useful for tracking those pages and ensuring that they don't drift toward an editor focus (as otherwise inevitably happens thanks to our systemic bias toward editor needs). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- You're just restating the argument of the essay - the point is that it is an essay, not a guideline. Spicy (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- WP:READER was the most convenient link to use, but it's more of just an information page than an argumentative essay, and the template is clearly not an endorsement of every word it says. Any page with a local consensus that it should be reader-facing is free to use this template on its talk page, whether or not WP:READER is a guideline. If you came across this template at a page that you think ought to be editor-facing instead, you can raise the issue on the talk page and remove the template if there's a consensus to do so; that's not a reason to delete the template as a whole. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- You're just restating the argument of the essay - the point is that it is an essay, not a guideline. Spicy (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Sdkb. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
June 12
Template:Italics after
- Template:Italics after ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused after refactoring Template:Italic title prefixed. Arbitrarily replaces the middle character with a space which is not very helpful. User:GKFXtalk 23:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Everwood
- Template:Everwood ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
I have removed a red link and three redirects from this template. Currently, there are only three links and I do not believe that is enough to justify having a separate template (and I do not think the template is particularly useful at the moment). Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Asian Elections
- Template:Bahrain parliamentary election summary, 2010 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Bahrain parliamentary election summary, 2014 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Bhutanese general election, 2008 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Burmese constitutional referendum, 2008 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Egyptian presidential election, 2012 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Inagi local election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Indian general elections results by alliance 1977 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Israeli legislative election, 2009 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Iraqi legislative election, 2005 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Iraqi legislative election, December 2005 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Omani parliamentary election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Maldivian parliamentary election, 2005 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Maldivian presidential election, 2008 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Jordan legislative election, 2003 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Jordanian parliamentary election, 2003 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Jordanian parliamentary election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Jordanian parliamentary election, 2010 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Jordanian parliamentary election, 2013 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose In the case of the Jordanian templates, they are only unused because they were broken by this automated edit. I suspect that is the case for many of the others too, especially those in the "County body election, DATE" format. The correct action would be to revert the automated edits that broke them. CMD (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- CMD, that's not the case for the Jordanian or any one of these templates. All the information is already transcluded on the election articles. These templates won't be used and have become redundant. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Could you explain your meaning? I provided a specific diff which explicitly shows this is the case. Since that edit, zero new text has been added into Elections in Jordan to replace the templates. CMD (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- What I mean is that for instance the information on the template, Jordanian parliamentary election, 2013, is redundant because the information that's on this template is already on the article, 2013 Jordanian general election, thus the template is unnecessary to keep. That edit you state on the Elections in Jordan article, those sections no longer use the template coding and instead link to the respective page for the year the election was held. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis Even if that edit broke the template, that really isn't the reason they are unused. They were removed from the article Elections in Jordan with this edit [1], which was correct (and would have been even if the links worked). The main article isn't a repository for all election results. Those should be on the individual election pages. And as you can see on a page like 2003 Jordanian general election, the election results are there using a different table, which again is correct. Templates like these have very few watchers and are easy target for vandalism. Having data in an article (as it should) makes editing and watching for vandalism easier. Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- The edit I mention is specifically the reason the Jordanian templates are unused. The edit you mention did not remove the templates in question, it removed broken code. If the issue is presenting the information through templates, then their code should be copied to the pages where they were broken, before deletion occurs. CMD (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- The information is already presented on the specific elections articles. No need to keep these templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Information can exist in multiple places, this is part of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. CMD (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- The information is already presented on the specific elections articles. No need to keep these templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- The edit I mention is specifically the reason the Jordanian templates are unused. The edit you mention did not remove the templates in question, it removed broken code. If the issue is presenting the information through templates, then their code should be copied to the pages where they were broken, before deletion occurs. CMD (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis Even if that edit broke the template, that really isn't the reason they are unused. They were removed from the article Elections in Jordan with this edit [1], which was correct (and would have been even if the links worked). The main article isn't a repository for all election results. Those should be on the individual election pages. And as you can see on a page like 2003 Jordanian general election, the election results are there using a different table, which again is correct. Templates like these have very few watchers and are easy target for vandalism. Having data in an article (as it should) makes editing and watching for vandalism easier. Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- What I mean is that for instance the information on the template, Jordanian parliamentary election, 2013, is redundant because the information that's on this template is already on the article, 2013 Jordanian general election, thus the template is unnecessary to keep. That edit you state on the Elections in Jordan article, those sections no longer use the template coding and instead link to the respective page for the year the election was held. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Could you explain your meaning? I provided a specific diff which explicitly shows this is the case. Since that edit, zero new text has been added into Elections in Jordan to replace the templates. CMD (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- CMD, that's not the case for the Jordanian or any one of these templates. All the information is already transcluded on the election articles. These templates won't be used and have become redundant. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all Regardless of the fact that the Jordanian templates were accidentally removed from a single article, they still aren't needed. I have added tables where there is anything useful back into Elections in Jordan (the 2010 one is pointless), so hopefully this addresses CMD's point. Number 57 17:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- The East Timorese templates were similarly broken leaving a mess of redlinks, the issue is not isolated to Jordan. The replacement Jordanian templates are helpful but less detailed than the pre-existing templates. I have no attachment in principle to the template format as I mentioned above, but deleting them does not retain the information as has been asserted. For example, the replacement 2013 Jordanian template does not provide any differentiation between the two difference electoral systems used in that election, which seems a pretty key detail. CMD (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Re the Jordanian templates: 2003 (x2) – contain no information not in the existing table; 2007 – I have added the total number of voters to the table, but the percentages are wrong (they are % of seats not votes as claimed); 2010 – the additional information (electorate/turnout) is not in the source given and cannot be transferred elsewhere (and another source has difference figures); 2013 – I have updated the table to take into account the different voting systems and added the electorate/turnout.
- Re the other countries listed above, in all cases they are not the most recent election and therefore not generally included in the Elections in... articles, as they usually only contain details of the most recent elections. In terms of the additional information:
- Bahrain – 2010: Only additional detail is ideology of parties; 2014: the ideology and number of candidates are additional, but the first is not really suitable for the table, while the number of candidates in the second round is mentioned in the article text. The number of first round candidates by party is not in the source given in the template.
- Bhutan – there is some additional detail in the template, but it is in the article and not typically included in the results table.
- Burma – template is identical to table in article
- Egypt – the only additional detail is the abstentions, but this is not always included and is a simple calculation of electorate minus voters
- Inagi – no additional details
- Iraq – January 2005: Only additional detail is party leaders, which is not usually included in results tables; December 2005 three other parties are listed as winning 0 seats, but is unsourced and they may only be listed to show that they lost seats (again, not standard practice)
- Israel – additional detail is % of seats, which is not usually included in tables and is not really being lost as can be calculated again
- Maldives – no additional details
- Nepal – the only additional data is change in %, which is incorrect as the previous election was for a different entity and a comparison shouldn't be made
- Oman – no additional details (article mentions there are 84 seats and all candidates are independents)
- Cheers, Number 57 20:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have no opposition to editors looking at these case by case and making content determinations, my point is that the rationale for deletion, that they were "all unused", is in part due to faulty automated editing rather than any editorial decisions. There is also no guarantee that "information is already displayed on the respective election articles", which it was not for the 2013 Jordanian elections, and for which the new template lacks the same concision and context. I'm going to look into the Jordan templates, and at least put the relevant information into textual form, but this obviously couldn't be done if the templates had been deleted, and is a process that should occur prior to TfD rather than within it. CMD (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- The East Timorese templates were similarly broken leaving a mess of redlinks, the issue is not isolated to Jordan. The replacement Jordanian templates are helpful but less detailed than the pre-existing templates. I have no attachment in principle to the template format as I mentioned above, but deleting them does not retain the information as has been asserted. For example, the replacement 2013 Jordanian template does not provide any differentiation between the two difference electoral systems used in that election, which seems a pretty key detail. CMD (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Cambodian Elections
- Template:Cambodian parliamentary election, 2003 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cambodian parliamentary election, 2008 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cambodian parliamentary election, 2013 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cambodian parliamentary election, 2018 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
East Timor Elections
- Template:East Timorese presidential election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:East Timorese presidential election, 2012 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:East Timorese presidential election, 2017 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:East Timorese parliamentary election, 2017 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all Now unnecessary. Number 57 17:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Unused due to being broken by a faulty automated edit, and their information has not been replaced on the truly stubby article. CMD (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've added all past elections to the Elections in East Timor article. Number 57 17:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Indonesia Elections
- Template:2009 Indonesian presidential election ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1999 Indonesian legislative election ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2014 Indonesian legislative election ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Indonesian presidential, 2014 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 Indonesian legislative election ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 Indonesian presidential election ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Kazakhstan Elections
- Template:Kazakhstani legislative election, 2012 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Kazakhstan legislative election, 2004 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Kazakhstan legislative election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Kazakhstani presidential election, 2011 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Kuwait Elections
- Template:Kuwait legislative election, 2003 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Kuwait parliamentary election, 2009 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Kuwait parliamentary election, 2012 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Kyrgyzstan Elections
- Template:Kyrgyz parliamentary election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Kyrgyzstan parliamentary election, 2005 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Kyrgyzstan presidential election, 2005 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Kyrgyzstani parliamentary election, 2010 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Kyrgyzstani presidential election, 2009 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Laos Elections
- Template:Laotian parliamentary election, 2002 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Laotian parliamentary election, 2006 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Laotian parliamentary election, 2011 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Laotian parliamentary election, 2016 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Nagorno-Karabakh Elections
- Template:Nagorno-Karabakh legislative election, 2010 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Nagorno-Karabakh legislative election, 2015 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Nagorno-Karabakh presidential election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Nagorno-Karabakh presidential election, 2012 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Singapore Elections
- Template:Singapore general election, 2011 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Singapore general election, 2015 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Singapore general election, 2020 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Singaporean presidential election, 2011 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
South Ossetia Elections
- Template:South Ossetian parliamentary election, 2004 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:South Ossetian parliamentary election, 2009 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:South Ossetian parliamentary election, 2014 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:South Ossetian presidential election, 2006 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:South Ossetian presidential election, 2011 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:South Ossetian presidential election, 2012 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:South Ossetian presidential election, 2017 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:South Ossetian parliamentary election, 2019 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Sri Lanka Elections
- Template:2019 Sri Lankan presidential election ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Sri Lankan presidential election, 2010 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Sri Lankan parliamentary election, 1977 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Sri Lankan parliamentary election, 2010 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Sri Lankan parliamentary election, 2015 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Sri Lanka general election, 2020 district results ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all Now unnecessary. Number 57 17:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete All redundant.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Tajikisatan Elections
- Template:Tajik presidential election, 2006 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tajikistan parliamentary election, 2005 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tajikistani parliamentary election, 2010 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Turkmenistan Elections
- Template:Turkmen parliamentary election, 2004 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Turkmen presidential election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Turkmen People's Council election, 2003 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Turkmenistani People's Council election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Uzbekistan Elections
- Template:Uzbekistan legislative election, 2004 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Uzbekistani parliamentary election, 2009–2010 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Uzbekistani presidential election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Vietnam Elections
- Template:Vietnamese parliamentary election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Vietnamese parliamentary election, 2011 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Vietnamese parliamentary election, 2016 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Yemen Elections
- Template:Yemeni presidential election, 2012 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Yemen parliamentary election, 2003 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already displayed on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Editnotices/Page/Manda
- 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. Agreed. Removed by original author. -- Alexf(talk) 20:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC) Alexf(talk) 20:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Editnotices/Page/Manda ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This template is doubly wrong. (1) Unlinked and redlinked entries are permitted on DAB pages per WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRED. (2) References are forbidden on DAB pages per WP:DABREF. For analogous cases, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#Template:Editnotices/Page/Aslan (disambiguation), Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Template:Editnotices/Page/Grace and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 25#Template:Editnotices/Page/IA, all of which resulted in deletion.
Request to next passing admin - please add {{subst:Tfd}} to this template, which I am unable to do. Narky Blert (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete More of these redundant edit notices need to be deleted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Four down? how many more to go? I found those randomly, within the last six months. If someone could list the intersection between template names with the format "Template:Editnotices/Page/*" and Category:Disambiguation pages and its subcategories (which I cannot; I cannot even search for such templates, and had to be shown the title style), any that remain could be easily nuked. Narky Blert (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Narky Blert, from my count that I found, there are 570 that use the term "it will be removed without warning". When I checked some pages, emphasis on some, they were used on multiple spaces. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 13 June 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:Infobox netball biography/club career
- 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; deleted as G7 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox netball biography/club career ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused sub-template, not edited since April 2020 so presumably not wanted any more. User:GKFXtalk 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I created it to test something to add to the template, which has since been done. I forget why I created a subpage but the required changes were made to the template. — Jts1882 | talk 14:15, 12 June 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:Timm Starkk
- 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 Template does not exist. If the title linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Timm Starkk ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
WP:NOTWEBHOST. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:57, 12 June 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).
European Elections
- Template:Bulgarian presidential election, 2016 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cypriot legislative election, 2001 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cypriot legislative election, 2006 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cypriot legislative election, 2011 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cypriot legislative election, 2016 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cypriot legislative election, 2021 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cypriot presidential election, 2008 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cypriot presidential election, 2013 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cypriot presidential election, 2018 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament election, 2004 (Cyprus) ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament election, 2009 (Cyprus) ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament election, 2014 (Cyprus) ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 European Parliament election in Cyprus ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Parliament election, 2007 (Bulgaria) ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Maltese legislative election, 2017 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All unused and the information is already on the respective pages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Central/South American Elections
- Template:Belizean constitutional referendum, 2008 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Bolivian general election, 2020 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Guatemalan legislative election, 2003 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Guatemalan presidential election, 2003 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Guatemalan presidential election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All the information is already transcluded on the respective mainspaces. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused templates as the articles 2008 Belizean constitutional referendum, 2020 Bolivian general election, 2003 Guatemalan general election, 2007 Guatemalan general election use other tables. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Paraguayan Elections
- Template:Paraguay legislative election, 2003 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Paraguay presidential election, 2003 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Paraguayan chamber election, 2013 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Paraguayan legislative election, 2008 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Paraguayan presidential election, 2008 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Paraguayan presidential election, 2013 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Paraguayan senatorial election, 2013 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All the election information is already transcluded on the mainspaces. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused templates as the articles 2003 Paraguayan general election, 2008 Paraguayan general election, and 2013 Paraguayan general election use other tables. Gonnym (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
June 11
Template:Tvimage
- Template:Tvimage ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
{{WikiProject Television}} has |needs-image=yes
which does the same thing. There should never be a situation where there Tvimage is on a talk page but the project banner isn't. Current uses should be replaced with the mentioned parameter. Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The project parameter supersedes the template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox AUDL team season
- Template:Infobox AUDL team season ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant to {{Infobox sports team season}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose- It really is not. {{Infobox sports team season}} is a redirect to {{Infobox sports team}}, which isn't really a substitute for a sports team season. In the season template's history, the move was made as a "redirect until I (or someone) finds the time to make a generic template." — Pbrks (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)- Delete Remains unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:AFI project notice/bot
- Template:AFI project notice/bot ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
A duplicate of the AFI project notice on the main page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:AEW Superstar
- Template:AEW Superstar ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Links to a 404 error code on the AEW website. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:ADY lines
- Template:ADY lines ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:ADY stations ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Both unused and serving no purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:AE sanction/testcases/test ae
- Template:AE sanction/testcases/test ae ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Probably created as a test page. Remains unused and serves no purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:ACS Poli Timișoara seasons
- Template:ACS Poli Timișoara seasons ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Filled with nothing but red links which most likely won't be created anytime in the near future. Only linked to one page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Merge the blue links with {{ACS Poli Timișoara}}. GiantSnowman 19:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:A26 road
- Template:A26 road ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Remains unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:RostersLink
- Template:RostersLink ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:SquadsLink ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
These are now redundant to {{DetailsLink}} per the documentation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm actually thinking that DetailsLink itself has no place in the (at least) the article space. This template makes text size 90%, but in tables that makes it even less, which might be below the allowed minimum size. In addition, the word "details" for a link is very unhelpful and doesn't even reflect what the link is. Finally, looking at a random example of usage at List of Olympic medalists in biathlon#Relay (4×7.5 km), the regular link at the "Games" column leads to Biathlon at the 1968 Winter Olympics, while the "details" link leads to Biathlon at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Relay, which should really be the main link in that column. Gonnym (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete both per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Audio sample
- Template:Audio sample ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This template encourages users to ignore WP:NFCCP #8 which demands contextual significance. The requirement for contextual significance is satisfied by having the sound file provide an audio example of a written description of the music. This template embeds into the infobox without a description, failing #8. This template even comes with instructions saying that a "description is usually not necessary": a clear violation of #8. Having this template gives a green light to the idea that every song article on Wikipedia can contain one non-free audio sample without contextual significance... a significant expansion of our non-free policies. The appropriate template for non-free music listening samples is Template:Listen which allows for a description of the music such that the file fulfills #8: that it may "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". Template:Listen can also be embedded in an infobox if desired.
A previous discussion from 2013 may be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_61#Use of sound files for identification, in which the participants decided that a non-free audio file cannot be used simply to identify the topic, in the absence of critical commentary to help the listener understand the topic. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- An example of an acceptable way to use a non-free listening sample in a song article may be seen at "I Love L.A.", the 1983 song by Randy Newman. The Listen template appears in the article body, and includes a contextual description of what is heard on the sample. Further description of the song composition is present in the nearby article text.
- Other good examples include the 1972 song "Take It Easy" by the Eagles, 1993's "Play Dead" by Björk, and 2003's "Crazy in Love" by Beyoncé. All of these sounds are accompanied by text descriptions giving contextual significance. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I am seeing it used for free music samples as well, and it parallels image templates like {{multiple image}} which can be used for both free and non-free images That it can be used by editors to add files that are non-free and fail to follow the NFC process is not within the remit of this or similar templates, nor is this template meant to be used for meeting the NFCC requirements. A sound file used by this template must still meet the NFCC rationale on the File: page. A description is not required to be in this template (though it should be highly encourage) as long as the sound file is near where the discussion is taking place about the sound sample is inserted. The misuse of sound files, whether aided by this template or not, should be fixed, but this template is not cause. --Masem (t) 06:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - What Masem said. The documentation for the template can be improved to include a note that use of non-free audio samples need to be WP:NFCC#8 compliant. See {{Infobox television episode}} and the documentation for the image parameter as an example. -- Whpq (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as mentioned above. The template is not only used for non-free audio samples, but also for free ones. If a fair-use file is misused, that is not the fault of the template, though it would be good to add a note to the documentation. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. The main issue is what goes inside the template, not the template itself, like what Ahmetlii said. It works just fine for free music samples. I think Whpq's improved documentation is the wiser choice here. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Replace with {{Listen}} and move to an appropriate section where the points are discussed. The vast majority are used for non-free samples and adding contextual/descriptive text to infoboxes would overburden them (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Listen has the same "base" problems in that it doesn't prevent misuse of NFCC; I've seen people just drop audio samples in the body without comment (failing NFCC#8) and just say "but its about the song!" And again, for free audio samples, there's nothing wrong with this template being used in infoboxes about songs. --Masem (t) 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- The descriptions for the non-free examples that Binkster linked contain 20–40 words, which are definitely too long for infoboxes. Descriptions for free samples would probably be similar, but I don't see the practicality in eliminating the descriptions for one versus mandating them for the other. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I oppose deletionism by default, although I am actively systematically adding YouTube audio links to songs with licensed releases. And if every song had an authorized YT posting (whether audio, video or both) then we would not need the sample feature, and it is rather redundant in any articles containing such links. Nevertheless, since the functionality still has many other uses, it should be retained. As for the abuse of the feature, the answer for misuse is not disuse but proper use. - JGabbard (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I don't see how this is inextricably linked with non-free samples. As one on my main focuses is national anthems, I often see this template being used for public domain and free-licensed works; and files on anthem pages are universally placed in infoboxes – though not always with this template. Masem's ultimate point, I also believe to be a sound argument, I don't believe this issue surrounding it "encouraging" the violation WP:NFCCP to be enough of a justification for deletion – though a renaming may, perhaps, be in order. – Kirkworld (talk)
- Oppose – The sample is placed in the lead, and the lead functions as the descriptive text needed to fulfill NFCC #8. ili (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is actually not true. NFCC#8 requires sourced commentary, which must be in the body. Whether that would be replicated in the lede depends on the nature of the song, but it is untrue that the virtue of the lede section serves to be the backing commentary for the use of the sample if it is placed in the infobox. (This does not affect the need to delete this template, that's again an example of just enforcing NFCC properly). --Masem (t) 16:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- By that logic, we would have to start requiring critical commentary about cover artwork to justify 99.9% of album and single covers uploaded on Wikipedia. I believe that the mere existence of an article about a notable song merits the inclusion of a non-free sample, same as any notable album would automatically merit a non-free image for the cover art.ili (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is actually not true. NFCC#8 requires sourced commentary, which must be in the body. Whether that would be replicated in the lede depends on the nature of the song, but it is untrue that the virtue of the lede section serves to be the backing commentary for the use of the sample if it is placed in the infobox. (This does not affect the need to delete this template, that's again an example of just enforcing NFCC properly). --Masem (t) 16:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Strongest possible oppose - To agree with several others here, a template can easily be added requiring audio samples to be compliant with NFCC#8. If the song in question, regardless if it's a song by an artist or a television theme, has written/spoken critical commentary on either itself, or it's mood, or it's style, then it should be eligible. It doesn't mean every single song that's ever been described by a critic has to HAVE an audio sample on their article, but I think that requiring compliancy with NFCC#8 is a better option than deletion. ToQ100gou (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Gabriel Schubert
- Template:Gabriel Schubert ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The template page was likely created as a test edit and serves no other purpose, per WP:TG. — The Most Comfortable Chair 03:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
June 10
Template:AAOU
- Template:AAOU ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Not linked anywhere. The mainspace article was deleted under G11 for Unambiguous advertising or promotion in June 2020. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:ABADI
- 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; deleted as G7 by Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:ABADI ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All it does is list disambiguations, but never links to them or is used on them. The pages listed do in fact have their own disambiguation pages, thus a template like this is not needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- WikiCleanerMan, this was substed in a number of places but it's no longer needed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:00, 11 June 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:6502
- Template:6502 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:6809 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Both unused. The first is only used on a sandbox that hasn't been edited since 2014. The sandbox was a testing ground for an eventually accepted AfC which doesn't use 6502. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:AC destmap
- Template:AC destmap ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Supposedly this is for Air Canada. The map is not used anywhere nor any information can be gained from the highlighted countries as there is no explanation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
B-Line Templates
- Template:95 B-Line ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:96 B-Line ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:97 B-Line ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:98 B-Line ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:99 B-Line ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
List local train stops in British Columbia, Canada. The only links are to major stations and to express lines. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – I'm not seeing anything at WP:TFD#REASONS that apply to any of these. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's only notable if the local stops are notable as in the templates for the MTA train or bus routes in New York City. These don't list notable locations throughout. Also, 95 and 96 are unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2020 USR-PLUS Alliance/meta/shortname
- Template:2020 USR-PLUS Alliance/meta/shortname ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 USR-PLUS Alliance/meta/color ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Both are unused. The first I assume was a test page. The meta color nominated is superseded by Template:USR PLUS/meta/color. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Decade readership
- Template:Decade readership ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Only used on one page. A decade is significantly too long to be of any real use for most pages and the scale gets messed up if there was any large spike in the past decade. The graph itself is trivial to generate through {{Graph:PageViews|3650}}. --Trialpears (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/Prunella (bird)
- Template:Taxonomy/Prunella (bird) ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
No longer transcluded anywhere, it looks like there was some redundancy with Template:Taxonomy/Prunella that I fixed up, so this is no longer needed. Template35 (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Zhou Shen
- Template:Zhou Shen ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
With only two directly-related articles to the main article, this template is overkill as it doesn't not further aid in navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This template is not used anywhere right now. It was probably used at some point on Sharelin, which was deleted. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This template is not used anywhere right now. It was probably used at some point on Sharelin, which was deleted. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Category count
- Template:Category count ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template is used only in the creator's userpage, but if the feature is wanted, it can be merged into Template:Category count only with an optional parameter. Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant to Template:Category link with count. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:STIB color
- Template:STIB color ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template that just removes the # from the output of one other template. Slightly broken because it gives u`"'[0x7F]#
for two of its possible options. There is no particular reason to have such a template as the # is needed to actually use the color on a page. User:GKFXtalk 06:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Witchcraft: a veneration of nature, higher powers & personal empowerment, with a true belief in the power of Earth, Her energy and how to work with it.
- 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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Witchcraft: a veneration of nature, higher powers & personal empowerment, with a true belief in the power of Earth, Her energy and how to work with it. ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Seems out of scope and is probably wrongly created in template space. Unused as well. Minorax (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Serves no purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I have given some feedback to the user. User:GKFXtalk 17:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not a proper template. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 10 June 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).
Temple Cup Champions
- Template:1894 New York Giants ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1895 Cleveland Spiders ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The 1894 New York Giants template is unused unlike the Cleveland Spiders template, but both templates revolve around one of the first World Series precursors, which remains obscure in the world of Baseball. The Temple Cup was from 1894 to 1897. I don't think there is enough notability for it to have it's own templates for its respective winners. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Template:1894 New York Giants as unused. No strong opinion on Template:1895 Cleveland Spiders, though I'm having difficulty understanding the rationale for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- The argument for the Cleveland Spiders is that it's a template about an obscure pre-World Series Championship team. I doubt it's helpful for navagation since very few people are aware of the old Spiders team and the Temple Cup. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
June 9
Template:Qwerty Uiop
- 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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Qwerty Uiop ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Does not look useful. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful at all. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a test page * Pppery * it has begun... 20:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as G3/test page. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 10 June 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).
April Templates
- 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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:April 26,2021 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:April 2 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Created for no purpose whatsoever. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete both serve no purpose. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as test pages * Pppery * it has begun... 20:34, 9 June 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:2020 Singaporean general election imagemap
- Template:2020 Singaporean general election imagemap ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Aside from not being used, doesn't even link to any article about any of the 2020 elections in Singapore, not even the general election article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete should be in File namespace, as it's an image, but File:Full map of the results of the Singaporean general election 2020.svg already exists in File namespace. So no need for this, and definitely not in the wrong namespace. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao election templates
- Template:2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao regional gubernatorial election results ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao regional vice gubernatorial election results ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Information is already included on the mainspace, but these templates don't even include all the information on the election results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete both as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2004 Guernsey States election
- Template:2004 Guernsey States election ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Contains very little information that could be transcluded onto the mainspace. The mainspace article contains more useful information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Abkhazian Elections
- Template:Abkhazian parliamentary election, 2007 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Abkhazian presidential election, 2004 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Abkhazian presidential election, 2005 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Abkhazian presidential election, 2009 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Abkhazian presidential election, 2011 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Abkhazian presidential election, 2014 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All the information on these templates is already featured on the respective mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all as unused/superfluous. Number 57 10:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
June 8
Template:Aftermath of the Cuban Revolution
- Template:Aftermath of the Cuban Revolution ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused. The articles in the category of the same name that relate between Cuba and the United States, which a majority of them do, can be better used on Template:Cuba–United States relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
2020 and 2021 Film award ceremonies
- Template:2020 Film award ceremonies ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2021 Film award ceremonies ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All the award ceremonies listed in the templates have their own navigational boxes. There shouldn't be navboxes for listing film ceremonies held each year. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The individual navboxes are for ceremonies and categories belonging to one award, hence irrelevant, and listing all the ceremonies in one year is a fantastic way to keep track when some award ceremonies are numbered, some listed by year held, and some listed by the year of films being awarded (i.e. previous year) - the inconsistency in the industry makes this really useful. Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelevant? They are not irrelevant. There is no inconsistency on how the awards are listed by the way they honor the previous year, it's done by only a few of them, not the majority. If you search for say 2020 Golden Globes, you'll be linked to the ceremony held in 2020. And disambiguation pages such as 2020 Academy Awards layout which Oscars ceremony you're looking for, the one held in 2020 honoring 2019, or the one held in 2021 honoring 2020. While you have a noble idea, it doesn't work because people mainly search for the award show through the respective award navboxes or by simply using the search bar. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Of course they're irrelevant, you're trying to compare a navbox that lists years of ceremonies for a single award - i.e. organized by award, not year, so you can click through all the years of Oscars but not find other ceremonies for a given year to quickly be linked to and see what different groups awarded from the same selection of films. Not everyone knows what they're searching for, and going through searches and then disambig links for each of the ceremonies they may or may not know exist is a lot more clicks than a navbox. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm leaning delete here. This collection of awards is clearly WP:NPOV and very US-centric. Expanding it to include all film ceremonies at Category:Film awards by country will make the template huge and I'd oppose the creation of any such template. As such, I don't see how we can keep this template around. Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Feel free to open discussion on improving bias. Ceremonies without articles have been removed, which will keep it trim, but does retain that bias (more US ceremonies have articles than not). I don't see a massive issue with that, though - the navbox doesn't have to aim to be more neutral than WP, the aim of navboxes is to link to existing articles. If I'm reading the Oscars page and want to see if the same films got awards at other ceremonies, that's all we need. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelevant? They are not irrelevant. There is no inconsistency on how the awards are listed by the way they honor the previous year, it's done by only a few of them, not the majority. If you search for say 2020 Golden Globes, you'll be linked to the ceremony held in 2020. And disambiguation pages such as 2020 Academy Awards layout which Oscars ceremony you're looking for, the one held in 2020 honoring 2019, or the one held in 2021 honoring 2020. While you have a noble idea, it doesn't work because people mainly search for the award show through the respective award navboxes or by simply using the search bar. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Constituency link
- Template:Constituency link ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Constlk ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Constituency link with Template:Constlk.
Effectively the same template. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete both as insufficiently complicated to warrant a template. Failing that, merge per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- If kept then rename to {{UK constituency link}} and merge; the UK isn't the only place in the world with constituencies. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- If it remains unrenamed, then it should be reworked to handle all major constituency assemblies in the entire world, just like how infobox settlement handles all types of jurisidcitions. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Merge, having regard to a long recent discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Indefinite article
- 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 redirect to Template:A or an. This can just redirect to {{a or an}} without any negative consequences. I don't think that needs a TfD discussion as the usage etc will remain identical, it's just a straightforward improvement to Indefinite article. (non-admin closure) User:GKFXtalk 20:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Indefinite article ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant to Template:A or an but much less capable of dealing with words like European. (a European vs a European). User:GKFXtalk 17:32, 8 June 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:Uw-paid4
- Template:Uw-paid4 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This template is unnecessary. Accusations of paid editing should be addressed immediately through the reporting process detailed in the Paid-contribution disclosure policy. I think one non-escalating warning should be enough. And even then, I'm not sure if a templated warning is ideal. Serious allegations should be substantiated with evidence, not boilerplate text.
Another problem with this template is that it misrepresents policy. The template states, "You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing." As far as I'm aware, there is no requirement that editors disavow claims of paid editing, and the arbitrary demand that editors cease all editing to address allegations of paid editing is not supported by policy either. Schierbecker (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Schierbecker, why have you not nominated the level 2 and 3 templates, as well? ― Tartan357 Talk 09:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- This TfD is kind of my trial balloon for the others in the series. I would like to hear some others' opinions before I proceed with any more. Schierbecker (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Schierbecker, I suggest you add the level 2 and 3 since or perhaps level one since they are pretty much the same as Uw-paid4. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. For many years all we had was the milquetoast language at WP:COI "strongly" recommending editors with a COI disclose their conflict of interest (notwithstanding the fact that many editors have taken to treating its recommendations as mandatory). Finally, when the Terms of Use were updated to require mandatory paid editing disclosure, we actually had a policy mandate (and added WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY to WP:COI)
Great! Those with a financial connection in their edits must disclose that connection. Now what? We have some non-self-executing words, somewhere (that are to this day ignored by the vast majority of paid editors – thousands of non-conforming edits every day).
This template series is essentially the only pragmatic enforcement mechanism we have. Users must disclose; many don't; they make edits that only an insider ever would; we ask them to respond to an inquiry as to whether they have a financial connection (editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative and to respond to good-faith questions); we explain that it's mandatory; point them to the TOU and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure; and give explicit, spoonfed instructions on how to disclose so they can actually comply easily—telling them about {{paid}} and its parameters, and where it can be posted. They ignore it and continue making edits, so we ask them to respond again, and escalate just like any warning series.
There is no other way to enforce mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements which, by its very nature, requires we ask based on behavior, and act accordingly. I have never seen and can think of no alternative to this template series to give the policy its due. Or shall we just leave it as an inoperative footnote?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- A template series that overstates the presumption of guilt is no better. I can think of no internal sanctioning process that presumes guilt when the accused editor refuses to participate in the fact-finding process. The burden of proof falls on the editor making the accusation of paid editing. Unanswered paid-editing inquiries should be escalated through designated channels if there is evidence to support the claim. Schierbecker (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note - use of this template is tracked using {{z162}} Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Uw-accessdate2
- Template:Uw-accessdate2 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Not updating access dates isn't the type of behavior that should lead to a block. Template:Uw-accessdate1 should be a single-issue notice. Schierbecker (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Tagging: User:WikiCleanerMan, User:Asartea, User:Kusma, User:Zackmann08, User:CapitalSasha, User:KGirlTrucker81, User:Elli, User:GKFX, User:Jochem van Hees
- Keep Nothing in the template talks about a block, that seems like a strawman argument. Sometimes, increasing levels of warnings are needed for editors that continue behaviour despite being warned; I'd know, I created these templates for that very reason. -- /Alex/21 07:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- According to this template's documentation, Level 3 escalates to {{uw-vandalism4}}, which does mention a block. A user who persists in not updating access dates should be steered towards mentoring. Further problematic behavior should be noted at WP:ANI. WP:AIV is an inappropriate venue for good-faith edits. Schierbecker (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- If they continue to partake in disruptive editing even after being warned, then they clearly need escalating warnings. If you took a look at "this template's documentation", you would see it has no documentation, and instead uses the default behaviour of {{Templatesnotice}}, which automatically adds the vandalism template. If you want to fix that, since the "vandalism" template seems to be the only substantive issue raised here, do so yourself. -- /Alex/21 08:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- According to this template's documentation, Level 3 escalates to {{uw-vandalism4}}, which does mention a block. A user who persists in not updating access dates should be steered towards mentoring. Further problematic behavior should be noted at WP:ANI. WP:AIV is an inappropriate venue for good-faith edits. Schierbecker (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- (Redacted)
- ^Sock? Schierbecker (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- (Redacted)
- Is there a reason you tagged specific editors instead of a community or WikiProject? -- /Alex/21 08:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Those were previous participants or interested parties in the Template:Uw-thumb2 series of deletion discussions. Schierbecker (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- The mention doesn't actually notify me though; you need to use the {{u}} template for that. I just found this discussion pure by chance. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Those were previous participants or interested parties in the Template:Uw-thumb2 series of deletion discussions. Schierbecker (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a form of disruptive editing, and template warnings are most useful when they're as specific as possible. Further, in my experience, escalating warnings are almost always needed. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete There is already a level one template for the same purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- According to that logic, all level ≥2 warnings should be deleted. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Not exactly. For vandalism, manual of style, delete, advert, etc.. those level 2 warnings are useful. I don't see a reason to warn a user over something like this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
June 7
Template:Two digit
- Template:Two digit ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Three digit ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Four digit ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unnecessary wrappers for {{padleft:}}. "Two digit" is unused after a refactoring of {{TC Decades}}. "Three digit" is used in a few Islam-related templates but should be easily replaced. "Four digit" is more widely used and may be a little more effort to clear up but might as well be nominated now. User:GKFXtalk 20:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Gender unclear
- Template:Gender unclear ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Category:Wikipedia articles with unclear gender ( · talk · history · logs · subpages · delete)
Template appears unused and seemingly encourages non-compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language. The template discourages gender-neutral language and implies it should be removed. It also does not acknowledge that subjects may use neutral pronouns such as they, which Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Gender identity would dictate editors use. Refer to template talk page for prior discussion. ExoticViolet (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Unused. ExoticViolet, if you want the category to be deleted. It goes under a separate discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The instructions at WP:TFDHOW under Related categories explains
If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add [the Catfd template] after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale...
. The corresponding Category:Wikipedia articles with unclear gender category is exclusively populated by this template. Could you confirm whether it still needs a separate discussion? ExoticViolet (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)- The category does not need a separate discussion, as it will be speedy deleted as G8 if the template is deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The instructions at WP:TFDHOW under Related categories explains
- Delete A subject's gender being unspecified is seemingly very rare and this template only focuses on he/him and she/her - per nom. Remagoxer (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language rightly means that this template should not be used on subjects which have no gender (ships, countries, trees, etc). It does not preclude the use of gender-specific pronouns on subjects which do have gender; chiefly people. The template should be updated to include "them/ they" style pronouns; this is not a deletion issue. The lack of current use is normal for a cleanup template, whose use on any given article should always be transient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The lack of current use is not inherently an issue, yes. It is not clear to me that this template sees any regular use, transient or otherwise. In either case, Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language encourages us to prefer gender neutral language when it is clear and precise. In the unlikely event where a human subject is notable enough to be written about on Wikipedia, without any clear indication of their pronouns, it would seem appropriate to use gender neutral language to refer to them. Such use appears to be promoted in the Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language essay. ExoticViolet (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here is the entire content of MoS#Gender-neutral language:
"Use gender-neutral language – avoiding the generic he and generic she, for example – where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges). References to space programs, past, present and future, should use gender-neutral phrasing: human spaceflight, robotic probe, uncrewed mission, crewed spacecraft, piloted, unpiloted, astronaut, cosmonaut, not manned or unmanned. Direct quotations and proper nouns that use gendered words should not be changed, like Manned Maneuvering Unit. Ships may be referred to using either neuter forms ("it", "its") or feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns."
It says absolutely nothing about articles on people, which is where this template is intended to be used, and where gendered pronouns are the norm. Are you seriously suggesting that the MoS mandates that we should not refer to Elvis Presley as "he" or Kate Bush as "she"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here is the entire content of MoS#Gender-neutral language:
- Furthermore your misunderstanding of the purpose of this template - and an example of its use - has already been explained to you, by User:Genericusername57, when you raised the matter in April, at Template talk:Gender unclear#Appropriateness of template given MOS:GNL:
"The template is used for biographical articles where the person's gender is known, but not communicated clearly by the article, e.g., Li Shouxin (politician)..."
. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The lack of current use is not inherently an issue, yes. It is not clear to me that this template sees any regular use, transient or otherwise. In either case, Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language encourages us to prefer gender neutral language when it is clear and precise. In the unlikely event where a human subject is notable enough to be written about on Wikipedia, without any clear indication of their pronouns, it would seem appropriate to use gender neutral language to refer to them. Such use appears to be promoted in the Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language essay. ExoticViolet (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I was about to suggest updating the template to add they/them pronouns, but then I realized any subject with substantial, notable coverage will have their pronouns quite apparent, making this a very unusual, specific problem. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 16:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- But that's not the case, as the Li Shouxin (politician) example, quoted above, illustrates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Li Shouxin (Q16239737) on Wikidata has sex or gender (P21): male (Q6581097). As a one-sentence stub article, there is no need to use pronouns. There may be a case where there actually is ambiguous gender of a notable person, but it is probably very rare. Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- This template has nothing to do with the case where the gender of a person is "ambiguous"; it is for when the article on Wikipedia leaves their gender unclear. As does the article on Li (whose gender value on Wikidata is, incidentally, uncited). That is why it is called "Gender unclear and not "Gender ambiguous", and why its content says "The gender of this article's subject is not apparent", and not "The gender of this article's subject is ambiguous". Your assertion that "there is no need to use pronouns" simply because the article is a short stub is baseless; indeed, the stub template on that article, like on all stubs, says "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- If an article is a stub, by definition it has lots of important content missing, in which case gender is just one missing thing among many and not worthy of its own template. It would be at bigger stubs/start class where such a template would become worthwhile, surely? User:GKFXtalk 19:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- This template has nothing to do with the case where the gender of a person is "ambiguous"; it is for when the article on Wikipedia leaves their gender unclear. As does the article on Li (whose gender value on Wikidata is, incidentally, uncited). That is why it is called "Gender unclear and not "Gender ambiguous", and why its content says "The gender of this article's subject is not apparent", and not "The gender of this article's subject is ambiguous". Your assertion that "there is no need to use pronouns" simply because the article is a short stub is baseless; indeed, the stub template on that article, like on all stubs, says "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Li Shouxin (Q16239737) on Wikidata has sex or gender (P21): male (Q6581097). As a one-sentence stub article, there is no need to use pronouns. There may be a case where there actually is ambiguous gender of a notable person, but it is probably very rare. Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- But that's not the case, as the Li Shouxin (politician) example, quoted above, illustrates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is partisan canvassing for this discussion, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I posted a similar request for input to the template author (your) talk page, that of all recent (past ~12mo) editors (1) of the template, that of participants (2, 3) in the erroneous RFC discussion, as well as to WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Notifying interested editors and projects whose scope the Template for Discussion falls in, is best practice per the TfD guidelines not canvassing. ExoticViolet (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Notifying interested editors is indeed permissible, but I didn't simply say you were canvassing, I said there was partisan canvassing in a comment where you made the assertion that the template in question is "claimed to embody a bias against people of certain genders". Such partisan canvassing is expressly deprecated, bby the very guidelines you cite . Your response was to post a long and accusatory screed on my talk page falsely accusing me, in pointing this out, of making a personal attack. You also falsely accused me of making the claim of without evidence, despite me having linked to the section where you did so (and which I now quote). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I posted a similar request for input to the template author (your) talk page, that of all recent (past ~12mo) editors (1) of the template, that of participants (2, 3) in the erroneous RFC discussion, as well as to WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Notifying interested editors and projects whose scope the Template for Discussion falls in, is best practice per the TfD guidelines not canvassing. ExoticViolet (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete for the simple reason that this isn't an issue. In the unlikely event that there's enough RS to write a bio on someone but the RS don't establish their gender, then the article should match that. If a cited RS establishes the gender but the article for some reason doesn't reflect that, WP:SOFIXIT. And if the cited RS don't establish gender but there's an RS somewhere out there that would, well, SOFIXIT still applies to an extent ("SOFINDIT"), but also, I'm not sure it really harms the encyclopedia to fail to note someone's gender, any more than it's an issue to not note someone's ethnicity, religion, etc., outside of maybe a few specific contexts like athletics... But I can't imagine a situation where the RS wouldn't note gender for someone in a gender-segregated field. (Note: I only became aware of this discussion because I have Andy's talk page watchlisted. (I auto-watch all pages that I edit.)) -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 20:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unnecessary, largely per Tamzin above. When might this template be used? Here are the scenarios I can think of:
- The gender of the subject of a Wikipedia article is not reported in reliable sources. That's okay! Per MOS:ID and MOS:GENDERID, we refer to people using gendered words only if they reflect their gender identity/identification as reported in recent reliable sources. If it isn't reported, it follows that we should not refer to people using gendered words, i.e. should not do what this template suggests. Instead, we should use the singular they, a gender-neutral pronoun.
- The gender of the subject of a Wikipedia article is reported ambiguously in reliable sources. Incidentally, this happened with Tillie Kottmann, an article I created. The article ended up using the pronoun they even though Kottmann also uses she, it, and fae pronouns, and some reliable sources that are older and/or not in English use the pronoun he, because the newest reliable sources at the time of creation generally referred to them with they/them pronouns; this continues to be the case. That's because of the MOS guidelines mentioned in the previous bullet point as well as a general desire to avoid unnecessarily using multiple pronouns for one person in one article for the reader's sake. I see no use-case for this vague cleanup template in rare cases where gender is reported ambiguously, because either it's clear what gendered terms follow the MOS guidelines (WP:SOFIXIT if they aren't the ones being used already) or it isn't, in which case an editor should not do what this template suggests, instead defaulting to they/them pronouns per the previous bullet and intentionally leaving the subject's gender ambiguous because doing otherwise would be original research in addition to violating the relevant MOS guidelines.
- The gender of the subject of a Wikipedia article is reported clearly in reliable sources, but the terms used in the article are wrong or unnecessarily ambiguous. I would imagine that this is rarely the case, but assuming it's something that happens or has happened, this template still should not be used. That's because in this situation the problem is not ambiguity but incorrectness. Replacing mixed usage of they and he by only using one or the other solves ambiguity, but it doesn't solve the problem if the subject of the article is Michael Spivak, for example.
Wow, that got longer than I expected. Q.E.D., I guess. For disclosure, I came to this discussion from the article Anti-Defamation League via Pigsonthewing's talk page, but did not intend to hound that user, I clicked on the discussion because it looked interesting and am participating because it is. ezlevtlk
ctrbs 05:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your imagined scenarios are incomplete; and most assume that the issue relates to lack of clarity about gender in sources. This template was created for use-cases where the subject's gender is or may be unambiguous and determinable from reliable sources, but is not included in Wikipedia. Consider, for instance: The subject's gender is not specified in the article; sources are behind a paywall or ...sources are in a language other than English. See also the Li Shouxin, example given above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I considered these possibilities, but that's where I come back to my question of "Why does it matter?" It doesn't matter to our readers; you can write a perfectly good article without ever noting someone's gender. Like I said, an article is no more incomplete without gender than it is without religion, ethnicity, etc. All useful to know, but far from critical. Gender is only relevant because we write in a (somewhat) gendered language. We want to avoid editors using gendered pronouns on someone whose gender is not immediately apparent. But we usually don't use amboxes just to keep editors from making bad edits. Instead we use hidden-text notes, editnotices, etc. And if it's about getting attention about the need for one specific bit of information, I don't see why gender should trump all the other things one might want someone to dig through paywalled/non-English sources for. Instead one can just use talk, or ask at a relevant projectspace page, same as with any other query. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 08:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- If gender is unambiguous in the most recent reliable sources but the article uses ambiguous gendered terms, the problem isn't ambiguity but rather incorrectness per MOS:ID and MOS:GENDERID. If gender is ambiguous or not reported in reliable sources, the article subject's gender should be left ambiguous through the use of non-gendered terms per the same guidelines. That's why I'm arguing for deletion; in addition to Tamzin's explanation above, which I agree with, I just don't see how this template would be useful guidance to editors in either case. (Wow, I could've just written that in my !vote, it would've been much shorter!) ezlevtlk
ctrbs 16:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your imagined scenarios are incomplete; and most assume that the issue relates to lack of clarity about gender in sources. This template was created for use-cases where the subject's gender is or may be unambiguous and determinable from reliable sources, but is not included in Wikipedia. Consider, for instance: The subject's gender is not specified in the article; sources are behind a paywall or ...sources are in a language other than English. See also the Li Shouxin, example given above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep we have the article Non-binary gender which discusses this, and we have the ever expanding List of people with non-binary gender identities that suggest that there is a use for this template. The idea that this isn't an issue is woefully out of touch with reality. As far as "unnecessary", well nothing on wiki is necessary, with the possible exception of the WP:5P. I think we'll have a greater and greater need for such a template as we progress. — Ched (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ched: Can you explain how you see this tying in to articles on nonbinary people? That seems to be the opposite of the contexts that have been discussed so far. If someone is established to be nonbinary, then their gender is clear. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure how nonbinary is "clear" with regards to gender, but if you're content with that proclomation, that's fine. You may want to read Gender for clarification of my views, but I'm not here for any "did too .. did not" discussion. To each their own. — Ched (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Nonbinary" is a broad category, sure. But whatever nonbinary identity someone has said they have (even if it's as broad as just "nonbinary"), then that's not unclear. I'm afraid I don't follow the rest of your response, and I'm still not entirely clear on what circumstance you think it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- When the article content is of the form (and no more than) "Li Shouxin (Chinese: 李守信; pinyin: Li Shǒuxìn, born October 1954 in Hejian) is a Chinese politician who has been serving as party secretary of Shandong University since October 2011". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is Li nonbinary? My question to Ched is specifically how they see this template being used in the context of someone who is known to be nonbinary. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Did I say Li is nonbinary? I said (emphasis added)
"When the article content is of the form...
. Your question was about the circumstance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)- My question was as to
what circumstance you think it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person.
(emphasis added). I understand the use case you describe with articles like Li's. I'm saying that I don't understand the use case that Ched is envisioning here with articles about nonbinary people. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)- Yes; that was your question; and my answer to that question was that it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person, in the circumstance that the biography of that nonbinary person is of the form of the example that I gave. I really don't see why you can't accept that I answered your question even if you don't agree with my answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Because you didn't answer my question. I understand that your use case for an article like Li's works if Li is nonbinary, just as well as if they're binary male or binary female. But Ched seems to envision a usage of this template that is specifically for nonbinary people. That's what I'm asking about. I didn't expect you to have an answer to this; their comment doesn't seem to have much to do with the rationale you've put forward for keeping. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes; that was your question; and my answer to that question was that it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person, in the circumstance that the biography of that nonbinary person is of the form of the example that I gave. I really don't see why you can't accept that I answered your question even if you don't agree with my answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- My question was as to
- Did I say Li is nonbinary? I said (emphasis added)
- Is Li nonbinary? My question to Ched is specifically how they see this template being used in the context of someone who is known to be nonbinary. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- When the article content is of the form (and no more than) "Li Shouxin (Chinese: 李守信; pinyin: Li Shǒuxìn, born October 1954 in Hejian) is a Chinese politician who has been serving as party secretary of Shandong University since October 2011". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Nonbinary" is a broad category, sure. But whatever nonbinary identity someone has said they have (even if it's as broad as just "nonbinary"), then that's not unclear. I'm afraid I don't follow the rest of your response, and I'm still not entirely clear on what circumstance you think it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure how nonbinary is "clear" with regards to gender, but if you're content with that proclomation, that's fine. You may want to read Gender for clarification of my views, but I'm not here for any "did too .. did not" discussion. To each their own. — Ched (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ched: Can you explain how you see this tying in to articles on nonbinary people? That seems to be the opposite of the contexts that have been discussed so far. If someone is established to be nonbinary, then their gender is clear. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ezlevtlk
ctrbs 18:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep To the extent the template needs some additions to encompass people who are nonbinary or do not want to provide a gender identity, that becomes a WP:SOFIXIT issue. The purpose of a template like this is to identify those biographies where there has not been any identification made. As such, it is a useful tool to identify articles that need additional reliable sources and expansion to present a complete picture of the individual discussed in the article. Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep; SOFIXIT applies to the alleged problems with the template. The claim that the template is not necessary because editors should just "fix" the problem it identifies applies to literally any problem template; we aren't deprecating those, so it doesn't apply here. The claim that it's totally okay for an article to be ambiguous about someone's gender is personal opinion with which many others (including myself) and many readers would disagree. Gender (and sex) hugely impact one's opportunities, experiences in the world, and the meaning of one's accomplishments (think of the concern over the relative lack of women editors or about the first woman to do whatever). Gender and sex are major characteristics of the vast majority of people, and an article that avoids that topic is simply poorly written and should be fixed (or tagged for someone else to fix). Crossroads -talk- 03:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Tamzin and Ezlev. GreenComputer (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep since as discussed gender matters, but I do wonder how often this situation actually occurs. User:GKFXtalk 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above. The only plausible use case is for when an article is so short that there hasn't been an opportunity to refer to the subject using a pronoun. But in that case, the gender is one among many important pieces of information that are missing, and singling it out with a big template like that is bizarre. So there's next to no scope for appropriate use. On the other hand, there's plenty of room for inappropriate use: on articles about non-binary people, or about people whose gender is actually unknown. – Uanfala (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Str crop
- 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Str crop ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Barely used (~300 transclusions) and redundant to {{#invoke:String|sub}}/{{str sub}}/{{#invoke:ustring|sub}} etc. Also the name is unclear, there is no reason to expect "{{str crop|12345678|2}}" to produce 123456 versus 3456 or 12 etc. User:GKFXtalk 14:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep part of a suite of templates. No valid reason to delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- That suite of templates is all redundant to {{#invoke:String|sub}}, and redundancy is a valid reason to delete. I’m never going to TfD e.g. {{str left}} because it’s so widely used and is perfectly clear in its meaning, but we don’t need to keep the whole suite of templates. The fragmented nature of that suite encourages unreadable code like
{{str crop|{{str right|{{{x}}}|y}}|z}}
rather than more sensible{{#invoke:string|sub|{{{x}}}|y|-z}}
etc. User:GKFXtalk 15:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)- I don't see what makes the example you call
unreadable
unreadable. It's a different syntax, and IMO not significantly harder to understand. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)- This might be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the reason I don't like the two-template version are (in no particular order) worse performance, contributes to the general excess of brackets in complex templates, it takes a bit of effort to see which of y and z corresponds to crop and right, and you have to explicitly look up the meaning of crop and right, because there is no real way of knowing what each does from the name. Whereas you only need to learn "sub" once, and in any case there is usually a better alternative now like "match" or "endswith" for the tasks that historically were done with substrings. User:GKFXtalk 17:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see what makes the example you call
- That suite of templates is all redundant to {{#invoke:String|sub}}, and redundancy is a valid reason to delete. I’m never going to TfD e.g. {{str left}} because it’s so widely used and is perfectly clear in its meaning, but we don’t need to keep the whole suite of templates. The fragmented nature of that suite encourages unreadable code like
- Delete per nom and further argument there, though str left could probably get the boot too... --Izno (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Headbomb * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 9 June 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).
June 6
Template:Torku Şekerspor riders
- 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) 13:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Torku Şekerspor riders ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Team is defunct, so the template is no longer required. Craig(talk) 22:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:22, 8 June 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:Memorial Tournament honorees
- Template:Memorial Tournament honorees ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template for winners of an non-notable award without an article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as template creator, see Memorial Tournament for details and history. Jack Nicklaus initiated this coveted yearly honor and its physical site which compares with the golf hall of fame (and is harder to get into) as the centerpiece of his near-major yearly PGA tournament at his Muirfield golf course. The induction ceremony is broadcast yearly, and on a quick search there are many articles about the who, what, and wheres for the honor, its yearly honorees and, for living honorees, their respect for the award and induction. A stand-alone article could be written as this is one of the major golf awards in terms of hall-of-fame type honors, but it is included within the Memorial Tournament page as the tournament is named for the honor itself, its sculpture-like outdoor monument garden which includes a mounted plaque for each of the 79 honorees, and for the time of year it is played. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. This is just navbox clutter. Creator is grossly overstating the honors significance (and that of the tournament), with the one line of prose we have in the tournament article adequately covering it. Any mentions of the honorees are almost all limited to trivial passing mentions in articles about the tournament. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Incorrect, as Jack Nicklaus' tournament was designed to be a major and ended up on the second tier with the Player's Championship. The award is an honored award among golf professionals, and has near Hall-of-Fame status as an honor due to Nicklaus' vision of creating it in 1976 along with the tournament named after it. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Designed to be" is a huge leap away from actually being. It is patently obvious that it is neither on a par with either the Majors, or The Players, or the WGCs. It stands below all of them as a tournament that the leading players are more than willing to miss (edit: evidenced by only 28 of the top 50 playing this week). Any claim to the contrary simply doesn't stand up to even the most casual scrutiny. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Apples and a three-putt. The template is about the Memorial honorees, not the tournament. An honor universally respected in the golf world. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- The wider golfing world takes very little notice. Trying to elevate this to the level of the HoF is frankly ridiculous; some of the claims here would be worthy of the Memorial PR department (but they know better). In any case, this discussion is about the template, which provides navigation to articles with a connection that almost no-one is aware of, and even less would be interested in browsing. Therefore it's usefulness is practically non-existent and it is just more TCREEP on pages with an abundance of navboxes already. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- The consensus all-time best golfer creates a semi-major tournament, principally centers it around honoring individuals who have excelled at the game of golf, and holds a yearly induction ceremony where living inductees receive the honor and plaques are placed and dedicated within an impressive and dignified outdoor hall of fame-like structure, seems template worthy to me. Although not the golf hall of fame it certainly is the next best thing, and your estimation of the award's prestige among golfers, and colorful description of the unworthiness of recognizing such a thing, would make Moe Norman flinch and hit one into the rough. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep In what way is this not a notable award? The mainspace article meets notability requirements and there is no way this counts as a cluttered navbox. This nomination is ridiculous. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- The mainspace article is about the tournament, not the award/honor; there is just one line about the award/honor along with a list of recipients. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- A notable tournament that has an award, thus this is still notable. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- What is certainly true is that the award is underplayed in the Memorial Tournament page, which is inconsistent with some pretty good sources. It should be expanded accordingly, and full out its own section. Maybe more eyes and interest from the golf wikiproject would assist in improving the page as regards the award that the tournament is named after. But that lack of Wikipedia emphasis aside, the honor of being a Memorial Tournament honoree, in the eyes of the honorees and their respect for Jack Nicklaus, remains consistent. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- A notable tournament that has an award, thus this is still notable. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, Seems pretty niche information to me. I would even question as to why we have the list of honorees in the winners tables. When adding 2021 into that table recently, I tried to look up who was this year's honorees. A non-mainstream source was where I found them simply claiming they were 'the same as last year'. Would suggest it's not really a hot topic on many people's agenda. Jimmymci234 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- By saying that the honorees should maybe be removed from the winners table is not taking into account that the honorees are the purpose of the Memorial. Nicklaus wanted to create a standing memorial in his hometown for those who have exceled in the sport, and he did so by building a tournament around it. May not be a hot topic to many people, but it surely is in the golf world. The only problem, Moe Norman has yet to be inducted! Randy Kryn (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Miscellaneous Sports Templates 2
- 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:2020-21 OHL standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019-20 OHL playoffs ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019-20 OHL standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 AUS football standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 African Nations Championship Group A matches ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 Atlantic 10 Conference women's soccer standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 Belarusian Second League Overall table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 Big West Conference men's soccer standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 CFL East Division standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 CFL West Division standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 CWUAA football standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 China League One table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 Myanmar National League table 2 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 NCAA Division I & II men's volleyball Independent standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019–20 SHL Labelled Map ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2018 Summit League Women's Volleyball Standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2018 World U23 Wrestling Championships ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2018–19 Atlantic Hockey standings (men) ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2018–19 Football Superleague of Kosovo table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2018–19 SHL Labelled Map ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2018–19 Scottish League One table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2018–19 Turkish Women Basketball League Standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019/20 Richmond dual premiership players ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2018 Kazakhstan Premier League managers ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2017 SEC volleyball standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2021 IFL standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Just like the first set, unused, red linked, a lot of them are unfilled with any information and are transcluded on a respective page on the same topic. The first three just redirect to the standings sections to the mainspace article. The ones titled for 2020 are now useless because the events were cancelled due to the pandemic. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. GiantSnowman 18:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: mass noms like these are impossible to evaluate and discuss properly. At the very least if the OP wants to group them, then the one deletion rationale should apply to every one in the group. E.g., Template:2018–19 Scottish League One table looks used and the season completed, but the sheer amount of noms in this group makes it difficult to discuss. Seany91 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Seany91: {{2018–19 Scottish League One table}} isn't transcluded in mainspace. I'm pretty sure all of these are coming from Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm getting them from the unused templates database. The issue with these sports templates is that there are way too many. It's safe to assume they won't be used anywhere on Wikipedia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per discussions for the first set of mass noms. Re-do individually if necessary. Seany91 (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep for exactly the same reasons as the other "Miscellaneous Sports Templates" thread. You can't just bundle loads of random templates and expect users to know if all of them will be used in future or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan, I understand that nominating each one seems pointless, but from experience here, people are mostly going to vote keep without taking the time to check. Better to split into individual nominations (or a group of the same type, like the 3 first ones). Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Gonnym, I'll do that later today for Miscellaneous 1 and 2. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:37, 7 June 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:2018 European Athletics U18 Championships
- 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) 13:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:2018 European Athletics U18 Championships ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template with no valid article links. No anticipation that article series is to be created in the near future. SFB 21:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per my original nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence that any of the link articles will be created ever. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 9 June 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).
2019 BWF Para-Badminton World Championships
- 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) 13:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:2019 BWF Para-Badminton World Championships Men's singles WH1 Group B standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 BWF Para-Badminton World Championships Men's singles WH1 Group C standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 BWF Para-Badminton World Championships Men's singles WH1 Group D standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 BWF Para-Badminton World Championships Men's singles WH1 Group E standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2019 BWF Para-Badminton World Championships Men's singles WH1 Group F standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
All filled with redlinks and unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete they exist as tables in one article, and templates are for tables that will be re-used many times, which these will not. Joseph2302 (talk)
- 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:Delink/phase 1 a
- 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) 13:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Delink/phase 1 a ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Delink/phase 2 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Delink/phase 2 a ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Delink/phase 3 ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
These aren't used anymore, probably not used since 2014 when the template switched to a module. Gonnym (talk) 15:34, 6 June 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:Nuremberg S-Bahn
- 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 relisted on 2021 June 13. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Nuremberg_S-Bahn ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Nuremberg_public_transport ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- 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).
Nuremberg S-Bahn/R-Bahn templates
- 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) 13:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:VGN color ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VGN lines ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VGN stations ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
{{s-line}} templates for the Nuremberg S-Bahn and various regional services. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Nuremberg S-Bahn. All transclusions replaced. There are 50 dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support, per nom. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:58, 6 June 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:Str mid
- 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) 13:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Str mid ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Slow template which is redundant to {{#invoke:String|sub}}/{{str sub}}/{{#invoke:ustring|sub}}. (Slow as in it has an expansion depth of about 15 for some reason and takes 3 times longer than {{#invoke:String|sub}} in a quick test.) Similar argument to TfD May 29 § Str crop. NB the subtemplate {{str mid/core}} has usage independent of the main template. User:GKFXtalk 10:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Not needed given the module options. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC) (creator, 2013)
- Comment will you be moving {{str mid/core}} to take over {{str mid}} after deletion? It shouldn't remain at a subpage location if there is no parent template. It is also wholly lacking in documentation. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- From the single usage I have seen it’s not something we would plausibly want to keep, as it took a huge number of parameters just to calculate a substring. I was just noting that it will need checking separately before it actually gets deleted. User:GKFXtalk 06:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- All uses might be from Template:Cite Mullié and Template:JCW-CRAP-rank, which don't use the /core template directly. There doesn't seem to be any direct use of it independent of the main template. Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- From the single usage I have seen it’s not something we would plausibly want to keep, as it took a huge number of parameters just to calculate a substring. I was just noting that it will need checking separately before it actually gets deleted. User:GKFXtalk 06:15, 7 June 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).
Miscellaneous Sports Templates
- 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:2006 AFC U-17 Championship qualification Group K table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2007-08 National Division Three North Table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2007-08 Northern Division North 2 East Table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2008-09 National Division Three South Table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2008-09 Guinness Premiership Table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2009 USL Second Division Standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2012-2013 ENC Div1B Games ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2012 Lone Star Conference Women's Volleyball standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2012–13 CHA standings (women) ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2013 Bikini Basketball Association standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2014 Bikini Basketball Association standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2013–14 North One East Table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2016 PLA playoffs ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2016 WFA Colonial Division standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2016 Olympic Table Tennis Schedule ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2021–22 TFF First League table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2023 Rugby World Cup pool stage key ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2021 Chinese Super League table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2021 ACC men's spring soccer standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020–21 Israeli Premier League regular season table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020–21 Hero Indian Super League Points table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 nine-pin bowling Single's World Championships events ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 Thailand Women's Quadrangular Series ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 Thai League 3 Upper Region ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 Tahiti Championship Table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 Sun Belt men's spring soccer standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 RSEQ football standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 OUA football standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 Myanmar National League table ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2020 Major League Soccer Western Conference table with PPG ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
First set of many random sports templates that are unused, unlinked, filled with either bold and/or red links with no clear navigational or informational purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion of 2021 ACC men's spring soccer standings and 2020 Sun Belt men's spring soccer standings. Both of these templates are part of a standard set of standings templates for NCAA Division I men's soccer; see the subcats of Category:American college soccer standings templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. GiantSnowman 18:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: mass noms like these are not helpful and impossible to evaluate. I doubt the OP nor GS above me went through every single one and also checked where they are linked and used. The MLS table one, for example, looks populated with info correctly. Seany91 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep this is a collection of templates from multiple sports that have no connections with each other, and so it is inappropriate to nominate them all together. Renominate them separately or in groups by same/similar sports competitions. But we can't make a blanket assumption for 25+ completely different templates. I support deleting 2020 Thailand Women's Quadrangular Series (as it never happened, this was the TfD nomination I saw)- but have no knowledge on most of the rest of the templates, so couldn't give a fair opinion on them. Which is why we shouldn't be bulking together random sets of templates into 1 TfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also, WikiCleanerMan these templates are incorrectly tagged, as the TfD discussion on many of these templates points to a completely different discussion e.g. Template:2008-09 Guinness Premiership Table, Template:2006 AFC U-17 Championship qualification Group K table, which both link to a discussion about trains in Nuremberg, Germany. Please tag these templates correctly, and be more careful in future. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. And for your argument for deleting just one should also apply to all of them as they are unused and won't be used in the future. Hence why I bundled all of them together. They are just taking up space for no other purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- My point is that because I don't have any knowledge on what most of the other competitions listed here are, I can't make a proper judgement on whether they are likely to be used or not. If the competitions actually happened, then they're completely different to the one template I've commented on. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- For most of the templates that have information about a certain year for a specific division, there already exists the exact same information on the article, thus rendering the need for an individual template useless. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- This comment from WikiCleanerMan shows why these mass noms should be speedy kept and redone if necessary. Many sports-related templates duplicate existing info in articles for precisely navigational or summarizing purposes (e.g., sports standings/tables, navboxes). Clearly he has not been involved in actively editing sports-related articles and is just mass nominating templates based on some categorical misunderstanding. Seany91 (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is no misunderstanding. These templates haven't been used for the purpose they were created for. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- This comment from WikiCleanerMan shows why these mass noms should be speedy kept and redone if necessary. Many sports-related templates duplicate existing info in articles for precisely navigational or summarizing purposes (e.g., sports standings/tables, navboxes). Clearly he has not been involved in actively editing sports-related articles and is just mass nominating templates based on some categorical misunderstanding. Seany91 (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- For most of the templates that have information about a certain year for a specific division, there already exists the exact same information on the article, thus rendering the need for an individual template useless. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- My point is that because I don't have any knowledge on what most of the other competitions listed here are, I can't make a proper judgement on whether they are likely to be used or not. If the competitions actually happened, then they're completely different to the one template I've commented on. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Restructure this. This sort of heterogenous mass TfD for unused templates is not a bad idea but the voting is messy already and will probably get worse. It should probably be in a table with columns for support and delete so that any templates worth saving are clear. Broadly, I am in favour of deleting unused templates if no-one speaks for them, but any good templates should be kept and ideally put on an article somewhere. User:GKFXtalk 22:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep all. I added two to existing articles. Checking naming conventions and current/prior season years for usage prior to TfD seems like a minimum. Doubly so in a heterogenous mass nom like this. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- You should wait for the Tfd to close before adding any templates to pages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:50, 7 June 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).
2021 NFL Templates
- 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 speedy keep (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) User:GKFXtalk 17:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2021 AFC East standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)Template:2021 AFC North standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)Template:2021 AFC South standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)Template:2021 AFC West standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)Template:2021 AFC standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)Template:2021 NFC East standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)Template:2021 NFC North standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)Template:2021 NFC South standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)Template:2021 NFC West standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)Template:2021 NFC standings ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)Template:2021–22 NFL playoffs ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
No reason to have templates for a specific season. No precedent I can think of in other sports leagues or in the NFL. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm recanting these nominations. I made an error in assumption with my nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:45, 6 June 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).
Old discussions
June 4
Template:TVQ
- Template:TV Fool ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:TVQ ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Mvcg66b3r was removing both Templates from many Network affiliate articles, and I can see why, since TV Fool and TVQ are considered Inactive sites just like TV.com. Because of all this, and me removing the Templates too, both templates needs to automatically deleted by SporkBot on many Other Network affiliate articles that still has this template. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Feels more like a promotion for a website. But it also leads to a dead link which renders it useless. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- TVQ has a lot of transclusions that need manual replacement (it's been on the way out in external link sections generally because of the inclusion of infobox functionality that can link to the FCC LMS record). You can't switch from TVQ to FCC-LMS-Facility without adding the facility ID to the template syntax for each use, and we have a lot of translator lists still needing an overhaul for repack and for that changeover. It should be kept, but TV Fool should be deleted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie: if the template should be deleted after the transclusions are replaced, then the WP:TFD/H is still the correct result. There are a lot of templates that need that treatment and when they are placed there it promotes other editors to help out. --Gonnym (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the first, replace transclusions for the second then delete per Sammi Brie. Not sure if the replacement is 1-1 with another external link template, or if the replacement need to be in the infobox. Hopefully Sammi can shed more light on that. --Gonnym (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete TV Fool, Speedy Keep TVQ: No idea why TVQ is even included. It's used in every TV station page on the site. Absolutely zero reason why TVQ should be removed since it has has a link to the station's FCC license. Are we being punked? Pinging Mlaffs, Bearcat, Tdl1060, Stereorock, and Rudy2alan (congrats on 31,000 edits, dude!). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the first, replace and delete the second: as Sammi Brie noted, there are a massive number of infoboxes that will need to be updated/transclusions of TVQ removed manually. Quite a chunk of work, but it makes sense given the FCC's move to LMS essentially makes the template results unreliable at best and increasingly useless overall. In my younger, highly-active days, I could probably have power-gnomed my way through it in a few days, but I'm not that man anymore and I'm okay with that. Will happily pitch in if that's the final call though. Mlaffs (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete TVFool only. While it's true that we're moving away from TVQ due to changes at the FCC site that have led us to change how we link to those records, that process is not actually done yet — as of right now, TVQ is still directly in use on several hundred TV station articles, and thus can't be deleted until after the changeover is complete. If somebody wants to actively take on the task of getting that project done, then we can delete TVQ as a deprecated template — but as long as the project is still in progress, TVQ can't be deleted yet. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete TVFool only per Bearcat.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete TVFool only per Sammi Brie and Bearcat. Template:TVQ can be considered for deletion after being replaced with something like Template:FCC-TV-Station-profile (also callsign based) or Template:FCC-LMS-Facility (which would require a change to using the facility ID). —50.53.23.14 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Many of the transclusions can't be replaced with the former because only full-service and Class A licenses have public files to link to. A lot of the uses of TVQ are translator lists, which also need updating for repack and other purposes, like KUTV#Translators. I have been doing these sporadically but there are some sources that need improvement and better data views needed to continue. TVQ isn't as bad as it once was (they started to have it pull data from LMS, finally — it used to be that for WWJE-DT it had the wrong owner, calls and other details completely), but there is some serious virtue in having the main query be facility ID-based. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie: That is exactly why I added the "or" and the reference to the LMS linking template. One major benefit is that facility IDs never change but callsigns can and do change (albeit usually slowly). Another benefit is that facilities (included in LMS and CDBS, etc.) include more than just TV service stations, including stations for AM and FM radio, etc. —50.53.23.14 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Many of the transclusions can't be replaced with the former because only full-service and Class A licenses have public files to link to. A lot of the uses of TVQ are translator lists, which also need updating for repack and other purposes, like KUTV#Translators. I have been doing these sporadically but there are some sources that need improvement and better data views needed to continue. TVQ isn't as bad as it once was (they started to have it pull data from LMS, finally — it used to be that for WWJE-DT it had the wrong owner, calls and other details completely), but there is some serious virtue in having the main query be facility ID-based. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Gonnym/Mlaffs. 1) I am skeptical that the second template needs keeping at all given that the infobox does similar work these days. Regardless, 2) a decision to delete it now without replacement does not mean it is removed exactly now at TFD. It will be added to TFDH as noted for someone to work on replacement with the appropriate other links or templates. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Izno: Sometimes a TV query is needed without an infobox — translators of other stations that don't deserve their own article or multi-station network pages (e.g. Kentucky Educational Television). Also, the infobox would need logic improvements to generate an LMS link but not a station profile link for stations with calls that end in -LD or -D. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie: Not to mention several others too like cancelled licenses (most of which have had their callsigns changed to start with "D"; these are almost never notable and likely have little to no place in Wikipedia, however). These still have articles and LMS data exists to document such. —50.53.23.14 (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Izno: Sometimes a TV query is needed without an infobox — translators of other stations that don't deserve their own article or multi-station network pages (e.g. Kentucky Educational Television). Also, the infobox would need logic improvements to generate an LMS link but not a station profile link for stations with calls that end in -LD or -D. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment You can download a tsv file with the facility ids and callsign. This makes (semi)automatic replacement possible. I don't know if there are cases where {{TVQ}} still should be used but dealing with the vast majority of transclusions should be fairly simple. If all of them should be removed it should definitely be placed in the holding cell to make sure it isn't forgotten and to attract attention from template editors. --Trialpears (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear I would support deletion following replacement of {{TVQ}}, I think I changed my thoughts part way through writing the above and didn't change away from calling it a comment. --Trialpears (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Administrative note there is a clear consensus here to delete {{TV Fool}} but less of one for {{TVQ}}, so I will be deleting the first momentarily but due to the length of this discussion will wait until 4 June to relist. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Note that following this relist only {{TVQ}} is being discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete TVQ after replacement. This may take awhile, but there is no problem with putting it in the holding cell until this happens. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Medical cases chart
- Template:Medical cases chart ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Only the wrapper template is being nominated for deletion, not the underlying module. This wrapper template tends to add about 300 kB to the post-expand include size of a page versus directly invoking Module:Medical cases chart, out of a hard limit of 2 MiB. (That value tested on Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Switzerland medical cases chart but broadly similar everywhere.) That is one of the main reasons why so many COVID articles have been exceeding the PEIS limit.
Since this template is not intended to be used in article wikitext directly, a wrapper does not need to exist for ease of editing etc., and in fact it makes editing harder by introducing a mysterious error message that many editors will not have even been aware was possible. I already replaced a number of uses at the start of the month but we might was well remove the lot and turn this template into a soft (untranscludable) redirect to the module. User:GKFXtalk 20:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Will trust you on that. No objections if all current uses are appropriately converted. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This is transcluded in 127 articles, none of which exceed the post-expand include size (the only mainspace page exceeding that limit at the time I write this comment is COVID-19 pandemic in Chile, which doesn't use this module at all). Additionally, many of the templates that use Module:Medical cases chart are single-use and should therefore be substituted and deleted (the purpose of the template namespace is to
store [...] Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages
per Wikipedia:Template namespace, and single-use templates fundamentally fail that purpose), whereupon there will cease being a post-expand-include-size disaster (since {{medical cases chart}} would add the same 300kb that the single-use template currently does). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)- Selection bias: the reason the pages currently using this template are OK is because I’ve initially focused on cleaning up those which were broken. I would rather remove a wrapper which does nothing except risk creating further problems. It is reasonable to keep large quantities of data in a separate page to avoid creating articles with unwieldy amounts of markup, and you would need to establish consensus before saying they should all be substed and deleted. User:GKFXtalk 10:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment instead of being deleted, it could be made non-functional by being a documentation point, hosting a navigation point to the module and documenting its use; thus allowing other editors to access the module units from more familiar template space landing point -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Straight delete. One module/template for purpose, not two. Given the insanity of these articles, that should be the module. --Izno (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'd just like to note that this remains a slow-burning problem, with
sixseven more articles exceeding the PEIS limit since this nomination was made. User:GKFXtalk 20:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Convert to transclusion
- Template:Convert to transclusion ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Category:Pages needing conversion to transclusion ( · talk · history · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a minor issue and how the page is structured behind the scenes does not matter for readers for who it is unnecessary and potentially confusing clutter. No new editor will make Labeled section transclusion their first project invalidating that argument. I would suggest either moving it to the talk page like {{Image requested}} and some other templates with improvement suggestions or possibly just deleting it. I'm more inclined towards the former, but both are fine and should be on the table (hence the TfD). --Trialpears (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to talk page. It's a valid tag, but per nom there's no need to present it to readers. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to talk page as many more cleanup tags should be, per Sdkb. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete template, moving message to talk page. I'm not sure there is added utility in having a dedicated template for this on talk pages. Editors should either do the transclusion, or propose it for discussion in an ordinary talk page section. Is transclusion considered too onerous for editors, and so we need a mechanism for them to flag it for more experienced editors? (If so, I'm more inclined to direct them to Tea House or similar technical request board.) Is someone likely to pay attention to Category:Pages needing conversion to transclusion? Since the usage of this template is so small, I can volunteer to delete the template transclusions and add talk page messages to affected pages. I propose an ideal talk page message for no specified section would look like this edit. Please ping me if you'd like me to do this task. Daask (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fine with Daask's proposal. --Izno (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Daask's proposal looks like the best option. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think there's potential use in having the template, even if it's just preloaded text to be placed in talk page messages. Transclusion is still a relatively young concept on Wikipedia, but its use has been growing, so there's potential for the tag to be applied more widely in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- As per Daask's proposal. We have a team of editors fixing old transclusions from a decade ago that have errors....last thing we need is this being done all over....best have experienced editors talk about this first.Moxy- 02:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I may as well add that I am fine with Daask's proposal. --Trialpears (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: First, there is consensus that this template should not be used in the article space, but opinions are mixed on whether it should be converted to a talk page banner, text to be used in discussions, or simply deleted outright. Relisting to get further opinions on the matter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Elli and Sdkb: Are you fine with Daask's proposal? --Trialpears (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: One more relist for determining if this should be deleted outright, moved to the talk (as a template), or subst-only talk page note.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep template, move to talk page. I do think this is a useful cleanup category to have, but I also agree the talk page is a more appropriate page to put this as I don't think this needs to be told to the reader. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Move to talk page. Seems like a reasonable way to track where this is being used, but not clutter the article text. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
June 3
Template:HBO
- Template:HBO ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused navigational template - and somewhat redundant to others that exist such as {{WarnerMedia Studios & Networks}} and {{HBONetwork Shows}}. Should either be used or deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Response: The template was intended to mirror similar network-specific navigation templates in use such as those for ESPN and Nickelodeon. As for why it hasn’t been used is because, in the time since I created the template, User:Steven (Editor) removed it from all articles associated with Home Box Office, Inc. properties in three different occurrences before proposing it for deletion (despite usual protocol for proposed template deletions being that the template remains in the articles where it was applied until a deletion is deemed appropriate). Despite lacking a consensus during the first nomination, the user removed it from the applicable articles when I attempted to reinclude it early this year, only for the template to be pulled again preceding a second nomination. I inadvertently left it alone as a result, likely to avoid the situation turning into a neverending cycle of removals of the template for deletion nominations that would never reach a consensus, making it OK to reinclude the template and have it stay in the articles where applied long-term. TVTonightOKC (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Tvtonightokc: perhaps an RfC or some other method of resolution should be considered? Leaving this template unused is bad, it should either be used or deleted. I don't have an opinion on which option there is best. If this is kept at TfD, I'd consider that a rough consensus to allow it to be used (otherwise, there'd be no point to keeping it). Elli (talk | contribs) 15:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Elli, I previously nominated this for deletion, please see this TFD for info on what actually happened. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Tvtonightokc: perhaps an RfC or some other method of resolution should be considered? Leaving this template unused is bad, it should either be used or deleted. I don't have an opinion on which option there is best. If this is kept at TfD, I'd consider that a rough consensus to allow it to be used (otherwise, there'd be no point to keeping it). Elli (talk | contribs) 15:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep HBO is a major network. This is helpful for navigation. I'm surprised it's not used on related articles and it should be. Elli, consider withdrawing the TfD. I don't think we need an RfC for this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: my point is that we need to determine if there is consensus to use this template, as opposed to others. I don't particularly care, but I wanted to put it up for discussion. If it is, obviously, there isn't a reason to delete - but it currently isn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- There isn't? Right now, it's two to one in favor of keeping this. And your argument that it's redundant to the templates you cite doesn't make sense. Those templates are specific to a related topic, whereas nominating a template of a major American TV network doesn't help your case whether or not you "don't particularly care" about the final decision that could be made by the end of the TfD. Your nomination is kind of ridiculous mainly because you could have added this template to the articles linked in it instead of going through this process. Again, I think you should consider withdrawing this nomination and there is no need for an RfC for this because this matter could be resolved quickly. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is definitely very helpful for navigation. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 21:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Strong delete It is an unnecessary template and was previously deleted as a duplicated template in early 2019. Please see this template talk discussion where I said the following to TVTonightOKC (user who recreated this template): "It is an unnecessary template and was previously deleted as a duplicated template in early 2019. What you should have done is start a discussion on recreating the HBO template, as what you effectively did was recreate a duplicated template with a few more articles, a few plain text names (should be avoided), an executives, defunct and former ventures, and a miscellaneous sections — you could have added this to the already existing HBO section of the WarnerMedia Studios & Networks template that it is part of, and there is the problem of having too many templates. The Defunct and former ventures section was problematic in that you had information that belongs in the article which would have references to support it, whereas this is a navbox for navigating. In addition, it has plain text names which should be avoided even though I kept these, but may have to be removed. There is not much value in keeping the HBO template "as is but placed within the WarnerMedia Studios & Networks template" — it's small that it works well as a section as you can see in the WarnerMedia Studios & Networks template". Please also see this previous TFD for more info on the background of this template, which resulted in no consensus as only me and TVTonightOKC participated in it. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Steven (Editor), HBO is a major network. How could it not have a template of its own? The network templates you mention, BBC, ESPN, and Nickelodeon, the latter two are owned by a major parent company. ESPN is owned by Disney and Nickelodeon is owned by Viacom. HBO is owned by WarnerMeida. Your argument from the December 2020 TfD for this is because HBO is owned by a larger company that it's not deserving of its own navbox template. Template:WarnerMedia Studios & Networks is about all the entities WarnerMedia owns. It is not a similar template as HBO's. The HBO template needs to be reorganized. Time Warner bought HBO back in 1989 and it became official in March of this year to have WarnerMedia be its own independent company outside of AT&T's ownership which still owns WarnerMedia and has done so since 2016 when it was still called Time Warner. Your argument is not based on historical fact. And if WarnerMedia wasn't going to be released from AT&T would you argue for WarnerMedia Studios & Networks template to be deleted since AT&T owns it? I wouldn't because it's a specific template regarding a specific entity of a larger company. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
June 2
Template:Done-t
- Template:Done-t ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a redundant version of {{Done}} with a tick much larger than the text leading to unnecessary line height. MOS:ACCESS#Links also states that unicode characters should be avoided when being used as icons. The template should be redirected to {{Done}}. Terasail[✉] 16:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Terasail, are you nominating for merger or deletion? Because you didn't add the nomination tag on the template page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Deletion / Redirect. There is no point merging the two templates Terasail II[✉] 20:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Got it. Thank you for clarifying. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- The template's documentation includes a rationale for its existence:
It should be used in places like WP:Featured Article Candidates and WP:Peer Review where size may be limited, and so images should be avoided.
{{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: While that may be the rationale for the template. In practice it sees limited use on such pages, with most users just using {{Done}} or "Done:". It is just used as an alternate Done template with large line spacing. this shows that the 100 most recent transclusions of the template in the wikipedia namespace goes back to July 2017, indicating to me at least that there is a lack of use for that rationale. Terasail[✉] 11:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We have way too many variants of templates such as these. The line height is a real issue and as the nom said, very unnecessary. --Gonnym (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Total lunar eclipse contacts
- Template:Total lunar eclipse contacts ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
I do not understand why this template was ever even created. Its existence makes it more difficult for readers to edit the article on lunar eclipses, and I have now transferred the information within it to that article and removed the template from it. I've never seen this in a Wikipedia article before. A loose necktie (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Pointless template. More like an article masquerading as a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It is useful information useful in many articles. Sharing them in one place avoid duplicated content, and allows them all copies usages to be changed at once. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- But it isn't a template that follows template guidelines on Wikipedia. No one is arguing against the usefulness of the information. The nominator has transferred the information to the relevant articles, thus the template as it stands has become useless. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete Article te
sxt should not be stored in templates * Pppery * it has begun... 20:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- It is NOT an article test. I don't even know what you mean. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- It was a typo for "article text" * Pppery * it has begun... 01:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is NOT an article test. I don't even know what you mean. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I think this template does have some value in providing a consistent description across several articles, but shouldn’t just transclude text; ideally it would contain the associated diagram and put the whole thing in a box with V•T•E links. User:GKFXtalk 11:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Justput in abox with VTE links.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Pppery. Additionally, I don't find value in this template for its apparent use; an article summarizes. Each individual eclipse article should instead link to the appropriate explanation of a contact, not explain it itself. Accordingly, I recommend not substing before deletion. --Izno (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dudhhrContribs 04:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete without substitution (which I suspect will be okay with Pppery who was the only user to vote for substitution). This kind of information should not be in templates, hence the delete, and shouldn't be in the articles to begin with, hence without substitution. For example, at April 2014 lunar eclipse, the relevant section at the time it passed GA was the same as now, except without this template. The information is just confusing. If this information, or some variant of it, is needed on the half-dozen transclusions then of course it can be discussed on a per-article basis, as it should be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is indeed okay with me. I feel strongly that this shouldn't be in a template, and don't really have an opinion about whether the content appears in the article at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- keep but add a box and v-t-e links to make it clear that it's the legend for the table and that it's being transcluded. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep with v-t-e links per above. I don't see any problem with having the table legend in a template. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
May 29
Template:He or she
- Template:He or she ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:He/she ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:They ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:He or she and Template:He/she with Template:They.
Recommending merge since the use of "he or she" solely enforces a false gender binary, and {{they}} already exists: as such, fold this template into {{they}}. I know that the syntax for verbs when used with "they" is different, and as such correcting those as the templates are merged will do. Additionally, if this is successful I'll probably double down (via WP:BOLD) and merge other similar "gender-binary-enforcing" templates, such as {{him or her}}. Casspedia (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: The templates discussed are only used in userspace and usertalkspace. These templates are not used in mainspace. Casspedia (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Replace with {{They}} and delete. There doesn't seem to be anything needed to merge. This could just be redirected, however, the "He or she" name itself is problematic and even as a redirect it shouldn't exist. Note that {{He/she}} should also be added to this nomination. --Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Vote changed - see below. Whatever our personal preferences, the use of "he" and "she" is still perfectly acceptable English in the outside world and applies to the vast majority of English speaking people. Wikipedia should reflect that world and not become a place to push a particular political or personal viewpoint. Clearly where the sources follow an individual's publicly stated-preference for some other term, Wikipedia can reflect that. Bermicourt:( (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)- Adding this: templates typically differ from real-world use, and the term "he or she" can be very insulting to someone who deliberately did not set their gender because they aren't male or female. This is especially notable if/when this template is transcended into other templates. Casspedia (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia isn't generally concerned about who it insults. It doesn't set itself up as judge and jury over that sort of thing, it merely follows WP:RELIABLESOURCES. I'm assuming that the latter would usually respect what people say they are unless it is obviously nonsense. But what we don't want to do is call the majority by pronouns they wouldn't accept either.
- There's actually a related problem which is nothing to do with personal preferences and only tangential to this nomination: converting the use of "he" or "she" to "they" in all circumstances often results in utter confusion about who we are talking about. In a gender-free world, "Fred fed the ball into the scrum; then they collapsed" leaves the reader in confusion about whether the entire scrum collapsed or just Fred. Our language is not yet geared up to dealing with this and poaching plural pronouns for singular objects just creates another, even more confusing problem. Which is why we should proceed with caution. Bermicourt (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge (or just redirect). The templates appear to do the same thing, and "they" is the simplest and most inclusive formulation. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It is not the duty of TfD to try to force users to use singular they if they do not want to. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Pppery: did you actually check the templates or just go off their names? "He" and "She" aren't changed; the only difference is between having for an unset gender "he or she" or "they". "he or she" is just bad grammar. --Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what exactly makes that bad grammar, and still feel that this TfD is inappropriately trying to insert an opinion into templates, whereas templates in general should be neutral and not have opinions. It should be up to each editor to decide whether to use "he or she" or "they"; there should not be forced standardization. (And yes, I did look at what these templates do and still feel they should be kept.). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "he or she" is absolutely correct grammar. What is bad grammar is using "they" or "them" with a singular object; that just fails the test of numerical agreement which is why it has the potential to cause such confusion. It would be more helpful if other, perhaps new, words were used instead, but that is worldwide English language issue, not a Wikipedia one. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Singular they exists and has existed for centuries. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Jochem van Hees: So have other grammatically improper forms, such as flat adverbs and double negatives. It does not make them correct. (See also: English usage controversies) Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well I don't know how you define grammatical "correctness" (because there is no definition). But I checked the Longman, Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, and all of them say that "they" can be used in singular form as a replacement of "he or she" when the gender is unknown. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Jochem van Hees: So have other grammatically improper forms, such as flat adverbs and double negatives. It does not make them correct. (See also: English usage controversies) Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Singular they exists and has existed for centuries. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- "he or she" is absolutely correct grammar. What is bad grammar is using "they" or "them" with a singular object; that just fails the test of numerical agreement which is why it has the potential to cause such confusion. It would be more helpful if other, perhaps new, words were used instead, but that is worldwide English language issue, not a Wikipedia one. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what exactly makes that bad grammar, and still feel that this TfD is inappropriately trying to insert an opinion into templates, whereas templates in general should be neutral and not have opinions. It should be up to each editor to decide whether to use "he or she" or "they"; there should not be forced standardization. (And yes, I did look at what these templates do and still feel they should be kept.). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Pppery: did you actually check the templates or just go off their names? "He" and "She" aren't changed; the only difference is between having for an unset gender "he or she" or "they". "he or she" is just bad grammar. --Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Alt merge proposal - would merging all three into Template:Gender be a solution? All you have to do there is type in {{gender|(he, she, or they)}} and it will appear for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Alt merge proposal per Knowledgekid87, just bundle it all into one template. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Question. Notwithstanding the grammatical discussion above, if someone can confirm that the templates are only for use in User space, then I don't have an issue with that and would be happy to support a merge. What users choose to say about themselves is their choice. I would only be concerned if the templates were deployed in Main space. Perhaps the merged template should be "Template:User Gender" to make that clear. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Currently, the template usage is a mixture of userboxes and talk page discussions, with no mainspace uses. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. To speak to Pppery's concern, this template is being used only in project-focused spaces, not in articles, so our duty is to be inclusive, not to abide by what reliable sources say or anything like that. "He or she" is outdated, trans-exclusionary language, whereas "they" is a perfectably acceptable replacement for any situation currently using "he or she". I haven't looked into the alt merge proposal thoroughly enough to comment on it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep / Alt merge: "He or she" is a perfectly fine and grammatically correct phrase; while it is increasingly common, I do not believe "they" is an acceptable alternative for a third-person singular pronoun. English third-person singular pronouns are unfortunately gendered — it's not our job to rewrite the English language. If somebody wants to use this template, that should be his or her decision. I would also be fine with expanding {{Gender}} to support more options and then rewriting all of the other templates to use it. Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Original merge The singular they is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable word. It might seem ungrammatical to some, but it is what people use in practice and is less clunky than "he or she". It has been used for literally centuries; see references at singular they. As such, redirecting the other templates to
{{they}}
is a good idea. User:GKFXtalk 21:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC) - Alt merge: per Knowledgekid87, although if we can't do that, then better keep it, since some people state their pronouns as "he or she", per Tol. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 23:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody states their pronouns as such and that is a failure of understanding how the template works. The template checks if the user set a "he" or "she" setting. If it doesn't, the "he or she" text will be used. That isn't decided by the user you are talking about, but by the user using the template. So no, you are basically forcing a user, who does not wish to use "he" or "she" to be called by that. --Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: For reference, I have my gender intentionally unset on Wikimedia wikis; however, I do not wish to be referred to with third-person plural pronouns such as "they". I prefer "he or she" (but am also perfectly fine with either "he" or "she"). Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are very privileged to be able to be perfectly fine with the only two options available there, being "he" or "she", other people aren't and they do not have the privilege of having an option of chosing something else. Since you do have the option and are fine with either, pick one. --Gonnym (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: Let's please try to maintain a calm discussion. I do not wish to pick a single gender of pronoun, as I do not particularly identify with any gender. I'm fine with others using either feminine or masculine pronouns to refer to me, though I would prefer a construction of both gendered pronouns such as "he or she". I dislike gendered language and do wish there was a neuter third person singular pronoun for people (that is, not "it"); I believe that the best way to achieve this is with "he or she" and similar constructions. You say that users of this template
are basically forcing a user, who does not wish to use "he" or "she" to be called by that.
With the same logic, somebody who refers to me with third-person plural pronouns is forcing me, who does not wish to be referred to as "they", to be referred to as such. Tol | Talk | Contribs 05:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC) - It is extremely inappropriate to act as though you are the arbiter of who is privileged and to demand someone else change. Crossroads -talk- 02:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: Let's please try to maintain a calm discussion. I do not wish to pick a single gender of pronoun, as I do not particularly identify with any gender. I'm fine with others using either feminine or masculine pronouns to refer to me, though I would prefer a construction of both gendered pronouns such as "he or she". I dislike gendered language and do wish there was a neuter third person singular pronoun for people (that is, not "it"); I believe that the best way to achieve this is with "he or she" and similar constructions. You say that users of this template
- You are very privileged to be able to be perfectly fine with the only two options available there, being "he" or "she", other people aren't and they do not have the privilege of having an option of chosing something else. Since you do have the option and are fine with either, pick one. --Gonnym (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: For reference, I have my gender intentionally unset on Wikimedia wikis; however, I do not wish to be referred to with third-person plural pronouns such as "they". I prefer "he or she" (but am also perfectly fine with either "he" or "she"). Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody states their pronouns as such and that is a failure of understanding how the template works. The template checks if the user set a "he" or "she" setting. If it doesn't, the "he or she" text will be used. That isn't decided by the user you are talking about, but by the user using the template. So no, you are basically forcing a user, who does not wish to use "he" or "she" to be called by that. --Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Replace with {{they}} and delete per Gonnym. The templates are only used in userspace and {{he or she}} and {{he/she}} are basically disrespectful of non-binary individuals. Strongly urge closing admin to disregard !votes by people who are pretending these are used in article text... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- process conversation refactored to talk page
- Alt merge into {{Gender}}. Changing my vote based on usage. It might have helped if the intended usage had been made clear by the nom. Bermicourt (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note If the consensus is to deprecate these templates, then the existing transclusions should be substituted (by the magic word) because otherwise there would be "they is" etc. Of course correcting the verbs is another option, but I don't think that would fall within what is allowed as WP:REFACTOR (someone's use of "he or she" rather than "they" itself could very well be a point of discussion). Also, I don't understand
if this is successful I am considering merging other similar "gender-binary-enforcing" templates, such as {{him or her}}
. I can't imagine a scenario in which we'd deprecate {{he or she}} etc. but not {{him or her}} etc., or vice versa. Why not nominate all of them now? Nardog (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)- That is because their merge targets would all be different; I don't want to create an excessively convoluted TfD thread. If consensus is established here I'll most likely just WP:BOLD my way through the other ones. Casspedia (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are some templates which solve that problem already:
{{they are|Male username}}
→ "he is". User:GKFXtalk 18:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)- That's not the problem. You can always simply use the magic word, as in
{{GENDER:Foo|he does|she does|they do}}
, to accommodate any verb (I'm the one who made that template after all). The problem is that to replace "he or she" etc. already used on talk pages with "they" would be misrepresentation of the record proscribed in WP:TPG. Usage in userboxes and other templates can, of course, simply be replaced with {{they}}. Nardog (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's not the problem. You can always simply use the magic word, as in
- You're rules-lawyering this too much. When someone invokes (without substituting) they implicitly give permission for future changes. No "meaning" is changed by being respectful of another editors gender identification. If this bothers someone, they can always go and revise their comments. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose anything that involves retroactively changing what someone said. If I say "he or she", then I meant to say "he or she" and retroactively changing it to "they" is not appropriate. I passionately detest the singular "they". If someone has self-identified as non-binary and prefers they/them, okay, fine. But requiring they/them to be used for all persons who have not self-identified a gender just in the off chance that one such person might be non-binary and we don't want to exclude them is ridiculous. --B (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well said. Bermicourt (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with your first sentence, but you don't have to tell us whether you detest anything. You may, but keep it to yourself. Nardog (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- If people are free to say when they're "offended", why not when they "detest something"? It's pretty much the same thing. Okay I suppose it's get confusing if someone's "offended" by what someone else "detests" or someone "detests" others getting "offended"! Bermicourt (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep all- social issues aside, each of these templates produces different output depending on the referenced user's preferences, and the proposal is to replace some with templates that will render differently than was intended. It is not Wikipedia's job to force the use of one particular set of gender-neutral pronouns. The real problem underlying this discussion is that users currently can only select "male", "female", or "neither", and the templates follow that trinary (really a binary with an opt-out). If we really want to be more inclusive, that system should be replaced with one where the user can enter the pronouns they want to use, and then we can design templates around it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)- Also, per B and others, if the templates are going to be modified to produce a different result than was intended by whoever transcluded it, then all extant transclusions should be substituted before any changes are made, so as not to violate WP:TPO. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Templates, by definition, hand off some text rendering task to someone else and their judgement. This feigned ignorance during a TFD is really startling. Y'all act like a template has never been changed in 20+ years of Wikipedia... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: Yes; but the point is that users of these templates selected these templates specifically. They did not use the templates which would produce "they"; they used the templates which would produce "he or she", with the intent of producing "he or she". Tol | Talk | Contribs 18:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I really don't care if they chose them "specifically". You can "specifically" make a bad decision, it does not change the fact that the decision was poorly made and you should have chose another method. What, do you suppose, would happen should the MediaWiki software ever add additional gender choices? These templates would be updated to reflect those new options most likely. If you're that hung up on not having your words changed later, WP:SUBST is your friend... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- If the software is reprogrammed to change the way that gender settings are handled then the templates that rely on that parameter will most likely just break, and then we'll need to discuss what to do with them anyway. That "what-if" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
That "what-if" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion
Sure, that's it, just because you said so without a single logical reason behind it. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)- Well, even if it were the slightest bit likely we could convince MediaWiki devs to make a significant code change for entirely cosmetic reasons, we can't predict how they would implement it and so can't code a template now to handle that unlikely future development, so why does it matter to this discussion? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
entirely cosmetic reasons
, and so we have yet another tone deaf response. It matters because such a change would necessitate changing these templates, and the entire reason we use templates is to make such changes easier. You're literally saying "don't change something" in something that is literally designed to be changed. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)- Yes, thank you, we agree on
such a change would necessitate changing these templates
. You seem to think my point is that we shouldn't change them now because we may have to change them later, which it's not. My entire argument was that we should not change the output of the "he or she" templates in past discussions, because it retroactively changes what those users intended to write without their knowledge or consent. While using "he or she" to refer to a nonbinary person can be malicious, we have a policy of assuming good faith which tells us that if someone used {{he or she}} to refer to another editor, they were relying on the user having set a software setting which we know is woefully inadequate, absent very good evidence that their comment was intended to misgender (and that does happen, I've blocked editors for it). That is my rationale for not changing past discussions in this case. If we want to bring the templates together so that they're easier to change later, yes, I'm entirely on board with that, but that's only half of what's being proposed here. And if we want to propose adding more options to MediaWiki's gender settings, or completely overhauling that system to be more inclusive, I'll absolutely support that, but this proposal misses that mark by a wide margin - if it succeeds, a transgender editor will still only be able to select "male", "female", or "neither". Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, we agree on
- Well, even if it were the slightest bit likely we could convince MediaWiki devs to make a significant code change for entirely cosmetic reasons, we can't predict how they would implement it and so can't code a template now to handle that unlikely future development, so why does it matter to this discussion? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: My point here is that the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{They}}, which was created (by you) soon after {{He or she}} was. These templates are similar, but have different functions. The function of {{He or she}} is to produce "he", "she", or "he or she" depending on the user's gender. The function of {{They}} is to produce "he", "she", or "they" depending on the user's gender. The basic functions of these templates are different, and they are intended to be different. You say that templates
hand off some text rendering task to someone else
, but this hand-off is done with the assumption that the template will produce results which are similar to that which it originally did. If somebody intentionally used {{He or she}}, that person did so with the intent that it would display "he or she" if the specified user's gender is unset. That intent should be respected. Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)- @Tol:
My point here is that the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{They}}
Objection, assuming facts not in evidence.created (by you)
And? Were you going somewhere with the fact that I created it? Please, don't stop there, I'm sure we're all very curious where you wanted to go with that. The rest is a lot of assumptions and perverting templates in a way that is incompatible with people willfully using them without substituting them, as has been explained to you previously. WP:SUBST is, and continues to be, your friend. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)- @Locke Cole: Yes, I'm sure we're all curious where I was going with that.[sarcasm] (For the sake of it, I created {{User:Tol/G}}, which is similar to {{Gender}} but uses "he or she", "him or her", et cetera, instead of "they" and such. I'm certainly not neutral in this either!) It still stands that
the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{They}}.
It may not have been their intention, and perhaps they would have used {{They}} instead, had they known it existed, but they did not. I agree that substitution is for when one wants to keep something static. However, it remains that people (probably) used this template with the assumption that it would return the same result in the future (excepting any user gender choices — if somebody later sets his or her gender, the template would update). We even have {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}}, two different templates that have the same purpose (but are somewhat different), as a clear precedent for having two similar templates that fulfill the same job in a different way. My central point, still, is that {{He or she}} should definitely produce "he or she". Making it produce "they" would be as confusing as making {{They}} produce "he or she". Template users made that choice whether they were aware of alternatives or not, and we shouldn't force them to use one or the other. Also: we shouldn't censor language; people (such as I) may want to use "he or she" instead of "they". Tol | Talk | Contribs 03:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)- This isn't a matter of language, but more a matter of respect towards non-binary people than anything else. Considering how such a template would only ever be used in userspace, user talk space and template space, respect towards other editors supersedes everything else. Casspedia (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- So now you've nominated my template for MfD. Really? Tol | Talk | Contribs 17:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'm done with pretending that it is okay to discriminate against non-binary people. This is perhaps the most common form of discrimination against non-binary people, which is why I'm so heavily against the use of he or she. Casspedia (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Humans have four fingers and one opposable thumb on each hand, and have two hands." That statement is true, but probably discriminates against people with birth defects or amputations. It's still true. In a similar vein, "he or she" is perfectly fine. If you argue that using "he or she" is discriminatory against those who wish to be called "they", then how is using "they" not discriminatory against those who wish to be called "he or she"? Tol | Talk | Contribs 17:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your failure to understand that the aforementioned is discriminatory is the root of the problem here. Saying The majority of humans have four fingers and one opposable thumb on each hand is fine, but claiming that all are like that is misleading. Plus, absolutely no one wants to be called "he or she" when referring directly to themselves. That's a nonsensical argument. Casspedia (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Casspedia: I do. I don't identify strongly with either gender, and am fine with people referring to me as "he", "she", or "he or she". I also detest usage of "they" as a singular pronoun and may correct somebody who refers to me as such. Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would argue, in this case, deprecating he or she as a means to referring to everyone would be the priority. Since the template calls a user's gender, it should at least be limited to users who have specifically declared themselves to be fine with binarizing terms -- keeping in mind that non-binary people must be represented in a non-binarizing way. I would also perhaps enabling the use of neopronouns using these same gender templates wherever applicable, since these seek to mitigate the singular-plural confusion which the singular they may entail. Casspedia (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Casspedia: It would be great if there was a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. (I consider the lack of one to be one of the larger flaws in English.) Similarly, expanding MediaWiki software to handle more preferences would be optimal (but not something that the English Wikipedia community can do) — perhaps something like a checklist for whichever forms one is comfortable with. As for artificial pronouns, I would be fine with their inclusion but would prefer if at least one widely used pronoun was required (in subject form: "he", "she", "they", "he or she"/"she or he"). Language is messy, but fixing it takes a lot of effort. Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Per the above. It would be much simpler if MediaWiki provided an option for selecting pronouns the same way as license options; new pronoun options can easily be defined as such. However, those are just thoughts for another time. An example of a template using neopronouns could be he-she-xe, in a similar vein to {{they}}. Honestly, at this point, I think using the alt merge proposal and redesigning {{gender}} from the ground up to accomodate non-binary genders would be the best choice. Casspedia (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Casspedia: It would be great if there was a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. (I consider the lack of one to be one of the larger flaws in English.) Similarly, expanding MediaWiki software to handle more preferences would be optimal (but not something that the English Wikipedia community can do) — perhaps something like a checklist for whichever forms one is comfortable with. As for artificial pronouns, I would be fine with their inclusion but would prefer if at least one widely used pronoun was required (in subject form: "he", "she", "they", "he or she"/"she or he"). Language is messy, but fixing it takes a lot of effort. Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would argue, in this case, deprecating he or she as a means to referring to everyone would be the priority. Since the template calls a user's gender, it should at least be limited to users who have specifically declared themselves to be fine with binarizing terms -- keeping in mind that non-binary people must be represented in a non-binarizing way. I would also perhaps enabling the use of neopronouns using these same gender templates wherever applicable, since these seek to mitigate the singular-plural confusion which the singular they may entail. Casspedia (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Casspedia: I do. I don't identify strongly with either gender, and am fine with people referring to me as "he", "she", or "he or she". I also detest usage of "they" as a singular pronoun and may correct somebody who refers to me as such. Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your failure to understand that the aforementioned is discriminatory is the root of the problem here. Saying The majority of humans have four fingers and one opposable thumb on each hand is fine, but claiming that all are like that is misleading. Plus, absolutely no one wants to be called "he or she" when referring directly to themselves. That's a nonsensical argument. Casspedia (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Humans have four fingers and one opposable thumb on each hand, and have two hands." That statement is true, but probably discriminates against people with birth defects or amputations. It's still true. In a similar vein, "he or she" is perfectly fine. If you argue that using "he or she" is discriminatory against those who wish to be called "they", then how is using "they" not discriminatory against those who wish to be called "he or she"? Tol | Talk | Contribs 17:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'm done with pretending that it is okay to discriminate against non-binary people. This is perhaps the most common form of discrimination against non-binary people, which is why I'm so heavily against the use of he or she. Casspedia (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- So now you've nominated my template for MfD. Really? Tol | Talk | Contribs 17:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't a matter of language, but more a matter of respect towards non-binary people than anything else. Considering how such a template would only ever be used in userspace, user talk space and template space, respect towards other editors supersedes everything else. Casspedia (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: Yes, I'm sure we're all curious where I was going with that.[sarcasm] (For the sake of it, I created {{User:Tol/G}}, which is similar to {{Gender}} but uses "he or she", "him or her", et cetera, instead of "they" and such. I'm certainly not neutral in this either!) It still stands that
- @Tol:
- If the software is reprogrammed to change the way that gender settings are handled then the templates that rely on that parameter will most likely just break, and then we'll need to discuss what to do with them anyway. That "what-if" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I really don't care if they chose them "specifically". You can "specifically" make a bad decision, it does not change the fact that the decision was poorly made and you should have chose another method. What, do you suppose, would happen should the MediaWiki software ever add additional gender choices? These templates would be updated to reflect those new options most likely. If you're that hung up on not having your words changed later, WP:SUBST is your friend... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: Yes; but the point is that users of these templates selected these templates specifically. They did not use the templates which would produce "they"; they used the templates which would produce "he or she", with the intent of producing "he or she". Tol | Talk | Contribs 18:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Templates, by definition, hand off some text rendering task to someone else and their judgement. This feigned ignorance during a TFD is really startling. Y'all act like a template has never been changed in 20+ years of Wikipedia... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also, per B and others, if the templates are going to be modified to produce a different result than was intended by whoever transcluded it, then all extant transclusions should be substituted before any changes are made, so as not to violate WP:TPO. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This is one area where we should not be changing anyone's preferences. If users have the right to choose, we respect their choices however they wish to express it. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yup, precisely, if a user chooses a gender we don't recognize we should be respectful of that personal choice and not force the binary terms on them. Glad you agree. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Ivanvector; we should not be rewriting past conversations or changing anyone's choices no matter how much we disagree. And the fact is that the overwhelming majority (99+%) of people do fit into a gender binary (they don't identify outside of male or female), and some of them may consider "they" to be misgendering; we are not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS based on personal views. Crossroads -talk- 02:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- RGW is only applicable to mainspace and/or content namespaces; additionally, attempting to use an argumentum ad populum to dismiss the argument that he or she is trans-exclusionary is fallacious in itself. A template solely used in userspace to refer to users must be inclusive towards all users, not just 99%. If going solely by IAR, this template should have been instantly deleted owing to that. I'm struggling to believe that this even needs to be debated. Casspedia (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Crossroads, not rewriting past discussions is a valid point. Adding an addendum to my !vote: For the 10 transclusions of this template in the talk namespace, subst and delete instead of merging. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge as per nomination. Alternatively, delete and redirect to Template:Pronoun, Template:They, or whichever is deemed to be most appropriate. ExoticViolet (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hybrid alternate proposal: - there's a proposal above to convert all of these templates to wrappers to {{gender}}, which is a good idea for streamlining, but that template does not support "he or she" constructions so the proposal would still change the content of 12 years of conversations. I suggest wrapping all of the "he or she" templates to {{pronoun}}, and all the others to {{gender}}. That way the two versions of the pronoun templates (the gender-binary "he or she" set and the gender-inclusive singular they set) are both streamlined, and if a proper subsequent discussion determines that the gender-binary templates should be retired, it will be simple to subst-and-remove them. Also, should more options be added to the software in the future, there will only be one template that needs updating. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 21:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure when or how it became acceptable to treat others poorly here, I see WP:CIV is still policy, and that WP:NPA is still a thing. But just to throw it out there, consider this from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Plus (LGBTQ+) Resource Center - Gender Pronouns - What are some commonly used pronouns?:
Never refer to a person as “it” or “he-she”. These are offensive slurs used against trans and gender non-conforming individuals.
And there's more. "He or she" was borderline a decade ago, in this day and age it should be a no-brainer that it's unacceptable. Grammar wonks don't get to use their disdain for singular they as an excuse to marginalize or mistreat people. In article text? Sure, let's discuss it. When communicating respectfully with other editors on talk pages? Absolutely not up for debate. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- As an opposing point, this suggests to use "he or she", and to
not use "their" as an alternative to his or her
, but recommends rewriting the sentence to avoid these constructions if possible (which is in line with my view). It's not anoffensive slur
, and I consider it perfectly fine to use (though unwieldy). Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- ... *sigh* are you seriously using a style guide for writing as an "opposing viewpoint" on how to deal with LGBTQ issues? A page that was published in 1994 (making it nearly thirty years old)? We're talking about dealing with other editors, not article content as I noted in my !vote above. Please stop being this tone deaf. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- As an opposing point, this suggests to use "he or she", and to
- Keep I can kind of see where this is coming from, but this would result in altering the context of previous conversions which is generally considered unacceptable. If a person said "he or she", they intended to say that regardless if you agree with the underlying implications of that phrase. 78.152.252.48 (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete {{he or she}} and {{he/she}} uses in discussions to avoid changing the text of past discussions, merge other uses per nom. The purpose of these template is to automatically use the pronouns that a user has configured in their preferences, with the option that {{he or she}} produces "he or she" for reading
Use gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions")
. However, "he or she" is not gender-neutral (as it only includes those who use he/him or she/her pronouns) meaning that {{he or she}} template does not fufill its purpose ({{he/she}} has the same issues). In contrast, {{they}} produces "they" (which is gender-neutral) for this case and can therefore be used instead. GreenComputer (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC) - Merge all with Template:Pronoun: Second choice is to redirect {{he or she}} and {{he/she}} to {{they}} and convert {{they}} to a wrapper of {{pronoun}}. JJPMaster 22:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge with one that gives they when user hasn't specified that their pronouns are he/him or she/her. This is partially to show respect to people who may use they/them because we want to have a collaborative community, and it helps to be nice to each other. It is also partially because singular usage of they is grammatically-appropriate English, and a lot simpler syntactically than having a conjunction. I slightly prefer that they don't merge into {{gender}} or {{pronoun}} because those assume the editor knows a fair amount about sentence structures and grammar. It'd be an unnecessary barrier to usage. I do like JPPMaster's suggestion a lot as a work-around. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deprecate but don't delete/subst. After reading the whole discussion, I think it's clear that some people still prefer being called "he or she". I also don't think it's a good idea to edit other people's comments, regardless of how "wrong" you think it is. However, I think that in general, it's on the safe side to use "they" when referring to unknown or nonbinary people, because "he or she" is not inclusive. Template messages such as userboxes should always use {{they}} (or {{they are}} etc.) by default. (I also do heavily support PEIsquirrel's proposal for allowing more options for picking a pronoun.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
May 10
Wikipedia article challenge templates
- Template:WPASIA10k ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPCan10k ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPEUR10k ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPLA10k ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPUKIR10k ( · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a follow-up TfD to the nomination of {{WPUS50}}, which was nominated for merging into its related WikiProject banner. The rationale used in that nomination was to reduce the number of banners at the top of talk pages. The proposal here is the same: to merge these banners into their related WikiProject banners in order to minimize banner usage while still retaining the relevant information. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
12 May Update to answer some of the questions below: the intention here is to condense multiple banners into one banner (example). As the initial proposal stands, yes, this would mean on pages without a {{WikiProject Europe}} would mean turning {{WPEUR10k}} into that template. As an alternate option (floated but not heavily discussed at the US50 discussion) these templates could be merged into {{WPBS}} itself, similar to how |blp=yes
triggers a specific banner; this would eliminate the "but there's no specific banner" or "there are duplicate banners" issue, while still decreasing the total number of banners on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Question Which would "the project" be for WKEUR10k which collects articles related to many different European countries? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- That template links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, which I guess would be the project. --Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I never used that. When I write an article about a German topic, I assign Project Germany, but not Europe also. The challenge would not appear then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- That template links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, which I guess would be the project. --Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose to all of these except WPCANADA, per Gerda. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with parent project banner It helps organize the challenges and show progress. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I'm the editor who has been implementing the {{WPUS50}} TfD even in that case many pages aren't tagged with {{WikiProject United States}} but one of the state banners. It is plausible to add it to all relevant WikiProject banners if so desired. It will require some work but it isn't too bad. The end result will be preferable to the status quo since it better prioritize what information is important to readers. --Trialpears (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps this would be for another discussion, but I thought I'd mention the similar Women in Red edit-a-thon banners. It seems that they date to about the same period. Some are listed at Template:WIR and follow the sequence {{WIR-1}} through {{WIR-198}} and there are also some by year. (Presumably they could be merged into WikiProject Women, and perhaps also make WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Women artists, etc., task forces of the parent WikiProject Women – that would reduce a lot of clutter as I sometimes see three or four WP women's banners on a biography.) – Reidgreg (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to be part of the relevant country/continent's Wikiproject banner. This is what we've done for many other templates e.g. Women in Red. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge all to WP banner to reduce talk page clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please see above question, which you can perhaps answer: project Europe is not what an individual article would call, therefore I see the clutter only increasing if instead of the current template (which is in around 6,000 articles heading towards 10,000), we'd have to include project Europe on top of the individual country (or countries). Readers will frown if we call project Italy AND project Europe. I also find it neat to see exactly from which articles this precise template is linked, vs. where some template Europe will be linked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, since the challenges are not necessarily part of the projects. Also, Gerda's point about Europe is very valid. I didn't even know there was a Europe project, and I've been writing about European subjects since I joined Wikipedia. Yakikaki (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, I think. (NB I created one of these, {{WPASIA10k}}) Have I understood correctly?: the proposal for pages that transclude {{WPEUR10k}} is that to reduce the number of templates on the page we remove it and instead add {{WikiProject Europe}}? And that we're already doing the same operation for {{WPUS50}}? This seems to be pointless make-work. Most of the clutter on talk-pages is usually ... you know, talk, and that can be dealt with by archiving where necessary. Oh, and watchlist clutter is a thing, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt, Vami IV, Yakikaki, and Justlettersandnumbers: I have made an update and (somewhat of) an alternate idea/proposal. Does this information potentially change your opinions? @Aknell4, Trialpears, Reidgreg, Joseph2302, and SandyGeorgia: is this alternate proposal a reasonable compromise? I'll keep an eye on this page so I don't necessarily need a ping to the discussion on reply. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Primefac: This is what I was referring to when I said "merge". I would be in support. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Do I get it right that you mean something like "EU10k=yes" in the banner shell. Yes, and then what? What would the display be? For "BLP=yes" we get a fat entry, so how would it really reduce clutter? ... or just a link to the challenge in question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- That can in theory be hashed out later, but my initial thought would be a sentence or two at the bottom of the shell giving the current text of the current banners (e.g.
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out!
). Alternately (though unlikely that a page would be in more than one of these challenges) it could give a note similar to {{Old moves}}, saying "this page was part of the following challenges:" and then list them. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- A {{Challenge history}} or {{Editathon history}} banner that collects these sounds like a good option to me, if there are enough similar events (otherwise, not sure where the clutter is). Some of the WikiProject banners have an awful lot of parameters as it is and wading through the documentation can be a chore to itself. (If this is too much work, though, I don't mind if {{WPCan10k}} is deleted, as it never really caught on.) {{Article history}} already has Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and collaboration of the week (both defunct). {{Educational assignment}} is probably best on its own, though sometimes I see multiples of that which could be consolidated. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, Primefac. Turning these into a parameter of the banner shell seems preferable to the previous suggestion. I suppose another possibility might be to start a Wikiproject Challenges, and include that in the banner shell where appropriate. I've really no idea how many of these challenges there are, or how many of them have a dedicated template. I collected the templates I knew of in Category:Wikipedia article challenge templates, but for all I know there are others too. {{The 100,000 Challenge}} shows a good number of challenges; I'm not sure whether that template is limited to those created by Encyclopædius, or if other similar challenges have been started by other editors or projects. It could be that a rather wider discussion than this might be indicated, but to be honest I think we've all got more important things we could be getting on with. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- FYI: The Challenge series are listed at Template:The Challenge series invitation navigation bar (not all of these have talk page templates). There is some overlap, like the Nordic and European challenges, the US challenge which has several sub-challenges, and the non-geographical Video games challenge. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, Primefac. Turning these into a parameter of the banner shell seems preferable to the previous suggestion. I suppose another possibility might be to start a Wikiproject Challenges, and include that in the banner shell where appropriate. I've really no idea how many of these challenges there are, or how many of them have a dedicated template. I collected the templates I knew of in Category:Wikipedia article challenge templates, but for all I know there are others too. {{The 100,000 Challenge}} shows a good number of challenges; I'm not sure whether that template is limited to those created by Encyclopædius, or if other similar challenges have been started by other editors or projects. It could be that a rather wider discussion than this might be indicated, but to be honest I think we've all got more important things we could be getting on with. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- A {{Challenge history}} or {{Editathon history}} banner that collects these sounds like a good option to me, if there are enough similar events (otherwise, not sure where the clutter is). Some of the WikiProject banners have an awful lot of parameters as it is and wading through the documentation can be a chore to itself. (If this is too much work, though, I don't mind if {{WPCan10k}} is deleted, as it never really caught on.) {{Article history}} already has Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and collaboration of the week (both defunct). {{Educational assignment}} is probably best on its own, though sometimes I see multiples of that which could be consolidated. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- That can in theory be hashed out later, but my initial thought would be a sentence or two at the bottom of the shell giving the current text of the current banners (e.g.
- Support for the alternate merge option. That is an excellent solution and I wish I'd thought of it. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Gerda Arendt. It's not desirable to use a wide-range project like {{WikiProject Europe}} when there is a country-level one available. I don't want to bloat the banner shell with many options either (the alternative proposal). But discussing a separate template for these is due. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just a comment copy from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 8. As a botop, I think using the expression
|WPUS50=
will cause difficulties of related templates if we want to add/remove them later. The problem triggered when I run the task Normalize Multiple issues in zhwiki or jawiki, they allow both{{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}}
and{{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}
. So I need to check them both. If the challenge templates are merged to different meta-templates as parameters, the situation will be more complicated. In my opinion,{{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}
is better than{{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}}
, for it is easy to search for both humans and bots. --Kanashimi (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC) - I do not want this anywhere near WPBS as that is not the point of that template. I would much rather merge these to the related projects where relevant. These don't need to be merged to Europe specifically per Trialpears; the most specific related country project will also do for me. If the topic is from or related highly to Germany, merge to the Germany banner. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge as with the US one. The template says:
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge"
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge is a subpage of the project. So I don't know how it can be said the same article is not "of interest to" (per {{WPBS}}) the same WikiProject. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC) - Oppose - Rather the opposite, we need more templates for the other Challenges. These templates help bringing more editors to these Challenges, and they help expand this Wikipedia. Deleting or merging would be counter-productive.BabbaQ (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't participate but I see the value the challenges bring, and this would reduce the impact. Mostly, this seems to me to be trying to solve a non- or rarely existing problem. Further, linking to WikiProject Europe would be irrelevant, as previously commented - this project is in fact rarely interacted with by most editors. Nor does linking to the nearest country project, say, as the challenges and the WikiProjects don't directly co-work much, though the Country WikiProjects do benefit. SeoR (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Depends This is logical for {{WikiProject Canada}} as that should already be on all pages tagged by the corresponding challenge. For the others not so much since in most cases the pages are not tagged by the continent-wide WikiProject. This creates two issues, first we are not really reducing template clutter just swapping one template for another, second it goes against the idea that we should let WikiProjects decide their own scope and WP Asia and WP Europe tend to focus on higher level topics leaving most articles to be tagged only with country specific projects. At this point it may be better to speedily renom WP Canada individually and look at alt-merge options like adding the Europe challenge option to each of the country specific templates individually. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose merging into {{WPBS}} that makes no sense. It isn't generally applicable over a wide range of topics, and it shouldn't be part of the Wikiproject bannershell, as these are article history banners. You could instead merge all of them into a single banner, an article improvement banner, if they are not merged into the separate wikiproject banners. There should be a separate bannershell for article history banners (traffic, DIY, mainpage, school assignment, etc) that is not {{WPBS}} that these banners should use -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with BabbaQ's comment that we need more challenge banners, not fewer and SeoR's point that the projects and challenges don't necessarily work together. Carter (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the challenge isn't part of the WikiProject, then it shouldn't be in the WikiProject's namespace. But I'd argue that if WikiProject Europe organises a Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge, then the pages it improves during that challenge fall under the scope of "WikiProject Europe" (by definition). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Completed discussions
If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.
Tools
There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.
- Template linking and transclusion check - Toolforge tool to see which pages are transcluded but not linked from/to a template
- WhatLinksHereSnippets.js - user script that allows for template use to be viewed from the Special:WhatLinksHere page
- AutoWikiBrowser – Semi-automatic editor that can replace or modify templates using regular expressions
- Bots – Robots editing automatically. All tasks have to be approved before operating. There are currently four bots with general approval to assist with implementing TfD outcomes:
- AnomieBOT - substituting templates via User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster
- SporkBot - general TfD implementation run by Plastikspork
- PrimeBOT - general TfD implementation run by Primefac
- BsherrAWBBOT – general TfD implementation run by Bsherr
Closing discussions
The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.
To review
Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.
- 2020 October 25 – Wt ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- For anyone looking to review these, check out User:Bradv/Scripts/WhatLinksHereSnippets.js, which expands the template usage when using "what links here" - this way you can see if {{wt}} is being used by itself (and can be left alone) or is nested inside another template (and thus has to be modified per the discussion). Primefac (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- See discussion at Template_talk:Lang/Archive_10#Wikt-lang,_wt,_and_language_tags about how the merge is being dealt with. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- For anyone looking to review these, check out User:Bradv/Scripts/WhatLinksHereSnippets.js, which expands the template usage when using "what links here" - this way you can see if {{wt}} is being used by itself (and can be left alone) or is nested inside another template (and thus has to be modified per the discussion). Primefac (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- 2020 October 25 – Pp-move ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - remove icon for a minimum of non-confirmed users, but no prejudice against wholesale removal if necessary.
- ProcrastinatingReader Did you come to any conclusions with regards to this one? I was going around reinventing the wheel when I noticed Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 185. To me it seems like the issue is that we want to place autoconfirmed-show on the mw-indicator-pp-default div, but per the rule in MediaWiki:Group-autoconfirmed.css that will cause it t be displayed as a block instead of inline which may cause issues. I guess the solution then is to add another instruction to make it inline again but since the block declaration uses !important we got an issue. I'm not up to date with regards to the css priority rules to find the best way to handle this, but I guess I could find out if no one else here knows. --Trialpears (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Trialpears and @ProcrastinatingReader, given that the TfD close gives us the option to display the icon to nobody and that this has been sitting for quite a few months now, at this point I'd suggest just going ahead with the easy route of displaying to nobody. (I'm assuming the holdup question is how to get it to display differently?) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Right. Sorry, I think I missed Trialpears' ping. I discussed this with MusikAnimal some months ago and I think the conclusion was some parts are just not technically possible and others require some non-trivial refactoring. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- That matches my understanding. It seems conditionally showing indicators via user group CSS classes is just not going to work. See the conversation is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 185#autoconfirmed-show. I would suggest hiding it from everyone. We are keeping the template though, right? The categorization it adds could still be useful. — MusikAnimal talk 18:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal, long-term, I'd hope no, since at some point we'll want the page protection level itself to generate the needed indicators/categorization/etc., rather than having a separate template that can only ever cause trouble by going out of sync. But short term, yeah, we're keeping it around. Are we good to make the edit hiding the display? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- That matches my understanding. It seems conditionally showing indicators via user group CSS classes is just not going to work. See the conversation is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 185#autoconfirmed-show. I would suggest hiding it from everyone. We are keeping the template though, right? The categorization it adds could still be useful. — MusikAnimal talk 18:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Right. Sorry, I think I missed Trialpears' ping. I discussed this with MusikAnimal some months ago and I think the conclusion was some parts are just not technically possible and others require some non-trivial refactoring. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- 2020 November 17 – Dashboard.wikiedu.org_assignment ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2020 December 20 – Columns ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Don't delete Template:Column/styles.css as it is not part of this template (and should probably be renamed).
- This is the basic gist. It won't work for columns 6-10 in Columns. The set wherein it won't work is currently 0. --Izno (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I found that sometimes a mix of replacements would be good. See this change as an example. In other news, basically the only cases left to deal with are 2 and 3 columns, as I have sorted everything with more. --Izno (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Scratch the news, I just filed phab:T271071. --Izno (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Down to article space col4 and lower. I'm working my way down from the top. --Izno (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just 2/3 cols now which is apparently the vast majority of use. Sorted out some regexes so here we go! --Izno (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Down to col2. Some 600 in mainspace and another 700 elsewhere. Article, Elsewhere --Izno (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- 2020 December 19 – Hover_title ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2020 December 19 – Tooltip ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- SMcCandlish What's the status of this one? I feel like you're the person with the best grasp of what needs to be done and if you could implement it that would be lovely. --Trialpears (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's been on hold (since no one else is working on it). I think where I got in the sandboxing is about as good as it's going to get. I did solicit further input and analysis, and will have to check again, but I don't think there were further improvement suggestions. I'll probably need to set aside an entire day to pore over it all again and re-test. And that day is not today. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish What's the status of this one? I feel like you're the person with the best grasp of what needs to be done and if you could implement it that would be lovely. --Trialpears (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- 2021 February 9 – Expert needed ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Implementing the partial deprecation is going to be a humongous curatorial undertaking. There are currently 3,410 articles in Category:Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameter. For some of these, the use of the template is inappropriate and may just be removed or replaced with another template that better matches the inferred intent of the editor who placed it there. For many cases though, the explanation for the template's placement was not provided in its
|reason=
parameter, but was given in the edit summary, and an accompanying talk page discussion was started but was not linked with|talk=
. So, this is likely to involve some digging each time. Is there any way we could get help from wikiprojects? For example, we could intersect the above category with each of the topical subcategories of Category:Articles needing expert attention and then post the resulting list on the talk page of a relevant wikiproject. – Uanfala (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)- Just posting a "Please help clean this up in your topic area" instructional at wikiprojects' talk pages would probably get much of it done, especially if there's an implication that any problematic instances of this template after X date are simply likely to be removed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Implementing the partial deprecation is going to be a humongous curatorial undertaking. There are currently 3,410 articles in Category:Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameter. For some of these, the use of the template is inappropriate and may just be removed or replaced with another template that better matches the inferred intent of the editor who placed it there. For many cases though, the explanation for the template's placement was not provided in its
- 2021 May 1 – Operabase ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2021 May 13 – Auto_archiving_notice ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Talk_header}}, replace uses with either that template or {{archives}} as appropriate.
- 2021 June 6 – Str_mid ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
To merge
Templates to be merged into another template.
Infoboxes
- 2020 March 18 – Infobox_German_railway_vehicle ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2020 March 18 – Infobox_locomotive ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Pigsonthewing, a mapping for the params would help for this. I don't know anything about trains, but here's what I've figured out so far:
Param mapping
|
---|
mapping = { # Header / misc 'boxtype' => nil, # only support boxtype = 'locomotive' 'Farbe1' => nil, # color 'Farbe2' => nil, # color 'Baureihe' => 'name', 'Abbildung' => 'image', 'Name' => 'caption', # General 'Nummerierung' => '', # "Number(s) allocated to the vehicle(s)" 'Hersteller' => 'builder', 'Baujahre' => 'builddate', 'Indienststellung' => 'firstrundate', 'Ausmusterung' => 'retiredate', 'Anzahl' => 'totalproduction', 'Wheel arrangement' => 'whytetype | aarwheels', # ambiguous? which one is it? 'Achsformel' => '', # same as above 'Gattung' => '', # some form of class (eg "S 37.19") 'Spurweite' => 'gauge', 'Höchstgeschwindigkeit' => 'maxspeed', # Wheels (should wheelbase sub-params be used in [[Template:Infobox locomotive]]?) 'Laufraddurchmesser vorn' => 'leadingdiameter', 'Laufraddurchmesser hinten' => 'trailingdiameter', 'Laufraddurchmesser außen' => '', # Outer carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives 'Laufraddurchmesser innen' => '', # Inner carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives 'Laufraddurchmesser' => '', 'Treibraddurchmesser' => 'driverdiameter', # Weight, dimensions and Axles 'Leermasse' => 'locoweight', # "Total weight of vehicle when empty" 'Dienstmasse' => 'tenderweight', 'Reibungsmasse' => 'weightondrivers', 'Radsatzfahrmasse' => 'axleload', 'Höhe' => 'height', 'Breite' => 'width', # Steam traction / cylinders 'Zylinderanzahl' => 'cylindercount', 'Zylinderdurchmesser' => 'cylindersize', 'Kolbenhub' => '', # "[[Piston stroke]] - I think current template requires this to be <br>'d onto cyclindercount, if so, that should probably be changed in template" 'Heizrohrlänge' => '', # Heating tube length. totalsurface/tubearea is provided, but this is an area, not a length? 'Rostfläche' => '', # "Grate area" 'Strahlungsheizfläche' => '', # "Radiative heating area, Firebox + combustion chamber" 'Überhitzerfläche' => '', # Superheater area 'Verdampfungsheizfläche' => '', # Evaporative heating area, Firebox heating area + combustion chamber + heating tubes + smoke tubes (total heating area) # Misc 'Steuerungsart' => 'valvegear', 'Tenderbauart' => '', # Tender 'Wasser' => 'watercap', 'Brennstoff' => 'fueltype + fuelcap', # in practice, may solely be 'fuelcap' 'Lokbremse' => 'locobrakes', 'Bremsen' => 'trainbrakes', # Undocumented 'VorneLaufraddurchmesser' => '', 'HintenLaufraddurchmesser' => '', 'LängeÜberPuffer' => 'length/over bufferbeams', # ? 'Kesseldruck' => 'boilerpressure', 'AnzahlHeizrohre' => '', 'AnzahlRauchrohre' => '', 'IndizierteLeistung' => '', 'HDZylinderdurchmesser' => '', 'NDZylinderdurchmesser' => '' } |
- A number aren't documented in Infobox Schienenfahrzeug, others I can't figure out the proper mapping. Those would be any empty with '' or with comments left after #. This also isn't a complete list of all params, just a handful I found were common across ~5 transclusions I checked. I imagine a mapping of these should be enough to handle the majority of templates, and rest can be done by hand. Would appreciate a hand filling in the blanks, and checking over the mappings made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Please see User:Slambo/DE infobox. Does that answer your questions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing, thanks for that! Yes, it fills in most of my list. Some further params didn't match up, so I made some educated guesses. There's a number which need to be added to {{Infobox locomotive}} on that list (ignoring the train infobox for now). Perhaps it's faster to just add the most common ones, as I think a number aren't used. Some adjustments to existing params would help too (eg I've made a request at Template talk:Infobox locomotive for a change to cylindersize).
- Besides the ones that need to be added/adjusted, an immediate issue that pops up to me is that the page maps 'Brennstoff' to 'fueltype', but a number of pages use this param as if it were 'fuelcap' instead, e.g. DRG Class 05. Also, is "Wheel arrangement" necessarily always Whyte and never AAR?
- Also pinging Slambo, since you have more experience with this template (and can edit it), if you'd be willing to add/adjust those parameters to infobox locomotive? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Please see User:Slambo/DE infobox. Does that answer your questions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- A number aren't documented in Infobox Schienenfahrzeug, others I can't figure out the proper mapping. Those would be any empty with '' or with comments left after #. This also isn't a complete list of all params, just a handful I found were common across ~5 transclusions I checked. I imagine a mapping of these should be enough to handle the majority of templates, and rest can be done by hand. Would appreciate a hand filling in the blanks, and checking over the mappings made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- 2020 June 3 – Infobox_reality_talent_competition ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2020 June 3 – Infobox_reality_competition_season ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- To the helping editor, per the TfD, because there are some parameters that overlap, some that are new, and some that are not needed, the result of each parameter from "reality talent competition" into "reality competition season" is as follows. Please ping if there are any issues (and remove this table if its inclusion here is inappropriate): - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Parameter comparison
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Template updated with the new parameters, just need to convert old uses now. --Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Soon as my other bot run finishes I'll get on it. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Thank you! Let myself or Gonnym know if you have any questions. I hope my table above will be useful in figuring out what needs to be kept, replaced, or outright deleted. And as Gonnym said, the new parameters are all ready to go once the merge has been made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'll have to re-think the usage of the bot, though... {{Infobox reality talent competition}} is an infobox proper, while {{Infobox reality competition season}} is designed as a child/subbox. Some might be easy enough to convert into an {{infobox television}} usage, such as at Singapore Idol, but in places like World Idol it will need merging into the main IB. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. Whatever had {{Infobox reality talent competition}} will ultimately now need to have {{Infobox television season}} as the infobox proper, and the {{Infobox reality competition season}} as a child/subbox through
|module1=
. If I can help define or clarify anything for you to help you with the bot, let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)- Doing... TheTVExpert (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. Whatever had {{Infobox reality talent competition}} will ultimately now need to have {{Infobox television season}} as the infobox proper, and the {{Infobox reality competition season}} as a child/subbox through
- I'll have to re-think the usage of the bot, though... {{Infobox reality talent competition}} is an infobox proper, while {{Infobox reality competition season}} is designed as a child/subbox. Some might be easy enough to convert into an {{infobox television}} usage, such as at Singapore Idol, but in places like World Idol it will need merging into the main IB. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Thank you! Let myself or Gonnym know if you have any questions. I hope my table above will be useful in figuring out what needs to be kept, replaced, or outright deleted. And as Gonnym said, the new parameters are all ready to go once the merge has been made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Soon as my other bot run finishes I'll get on it. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Template updated with the new parameters, just need to convert old uses now. --Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I've written some regex for AWB but my problem is that I don't know how (or even if it's possible) to set a whole row as a conditional check. Currently this fails if the template isn't written in this exact order. Any ideas? @Primefac: have any ideas?
Find: \{\{Infobox reality talent competition\n.*\|.*name.*=.*\n.*\|.*logo.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*logo_alt.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*first_aired.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*last_aired.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*judges.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*coaches.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*host.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*cohost.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*broadcaster.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*competitors.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*finalsvenue.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*num_tasks.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*image.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*caption.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-name .*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-origin.*=\s?(.*)\n\|winner-genre.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-song.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*runner-name.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*runner-image.*=\s?(.*)\n\}\}
Replace: {{Infobox television season\n| image = $1\n| image_alt = $2\n| module1 = {{Infobox reality competition season \n | host = $7\n | judges = $5\n | num_contestants = $10\n | winner = $15\n | runner_up = $19\n}}\n| network = $9\n| first_aired = $3\n| last_aired = $4\n}}
--Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oof, that's a bit nuts. I'll try to dig into that regex soon, but I'm starting to think that using an AWB module to save, store, and modify those parameters to convert the template use might be the best way forward. The other thing we should probably do is find out where the template is used alongside {{infobox television}}, since we shouldn't convert it to "season" if that's there (instead, just folding it in). Primefac (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gonnym and Primefac: maybe an oversimplification, but since {{Infobox reality talent competition}} is now converted into a full wrapper, can't we just subst it? (after cleaning it up for subst, ofc)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Template substitution isn't my strong side so if you know how to do it, then I'm all for it. --Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I know how to turn it into a subst-able wrapper, however I don't know how if it achieves the acceptable results here. Primefac has looked at specific cases above it seems, so he may be better placed than me to answer that part. But if it works, that makes achieving the merge easier than regex-hell. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- In a word, yes; I think cleaning up post-merge will be easier than all of the complex silliness above. I'll put it on my list of things to do. Right after I make my list of things to do... Primefac (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gonnym and Favre1fan93: I've made a substable wrapper in the sandbox based on your wrapper. Go to any transclusion, plug a /sandbox on the end (or change to {{Infobox reality talent competition/sandbox}} if it's using a redirect) and preview. This should be how it looked pre-wrapper. Then chuck a subst: in front and preview, and this is how it'd look being substed. By my eye, testing on a couple of pages, this all looks correct, however the winner's national origin isn't being mapped in the wrapper (Gonnym?). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- In a word, yes; I think cleaning up post-merge will be easier than all of the complex silliness above. I'll put it on my list of things to do. Right after I make my list of things to do... Primefac (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I know how to turn it into a subst-able wrapper, however I don't know how if it achieves the acceptable results here. Primefac has looked at specific cases above it seems, so he may be better placed than me to answer that part. But if it works, that makes achieving the merge easier than regex-hell. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Template substitution isn't my strong side so if you know how to do it, then I'm all for it. --Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gonnym and Primefac: maybe an oversimplification, but since {{Infobox reality talent competition}} is now converted into a full wrapper, can't we just subst it? (after cleaning it up for subst, ofc)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym: is there consensus to remove the various parameters removed in the current wrapper? See eg pages in Category:Pages using infobox reality talent competition with unknown parameters, for example The X Factor (British series 11) when previewed with the sandbox version (which will show the old template v before your wrapper convert). It seems like many labels missing? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- 2020 August 2 – Signaling_peptide/protein_receptor_modulators ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- I am able to come up with the desired end navbox (which should just be the list of the first section titles) but I do not know how to get all the content back into the article itself. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tom (LT): What do you mean by "get all the content back into the article itself"? --Izno (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, listify the majority of the contents (either in the article or in a separate list). --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tom (LT): WP:NOTPERFECT. Pick a home, pick an appearance, and WP:JUSTDOIT. --Izno (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, listify the majority of the contents (either in the article or in a separate list). --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tom (LT): What do you mean by "get all the content back into the article itself"? --Izno (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am able to come up with the desired end navbox (which should just be the list of the first section titles) but I do not know how to get all the content back into the article itself. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Link templates
- 2021 May 6 – IOC profile ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2021 May 6 – Olympic Channel ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Other
- 2020 February 1 – Football_squad_player2 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2020 February 1 – Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Note Pending Redesign RfC robertsky (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've closed the RfC. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- At this point this is ready for large scale replacement. I said a while ago that I could do it but due to me being quite busy IRL this seems unlikely to get done in a timely manner. If you feel like doing a large scale replacement job feel free to take this one. --Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Trialpears, what large-scale replacement? I (foolishly?) jumped into this rabbit hole, and have been in it for over a day now. This is a very complex merge; I've got the documentation diff to show fewer differences, but there's still more to be done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Into {{Talk header}}:
- 2020 October 4 – Friendly_search_suggestions ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2020 October 4 – Find_sources_notice ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Should be easy enough to remove the vast majority since {{talk header}} already has the links. A bot is basically required though. Primefac, would a general TFD implementation BRFA be quick if I filed one or would there be questions about the need for a forth bot doing this? --Trialpears (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Reasonably quick, probably, but this is one of the ones I was going to look at this week and I can bump it to top priority. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nah, then I'll leave it to you! There are others waiting. --Trialpears (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Pages with Talk header (~3600), pages without (~19k). The former will be removed and the latter will be converted. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've seen a few that are used in sections on a talk page as a part of a conversation. These may warrant some extra attention. --Trialpears (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Pages with Talk header (~3600), pages without (~19k). The former will be removed and the latter will be converted. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nah, then I'll leave it to you! There are others waiting. --Trialpears (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Reasonably quick, probably, but this is one of the ones I was going to look at this week and I can bump it to top priority. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Should be easy enough to remove the vast majority since {{talk header}} already has the links. A bot is basically required though. Primefac, would a general TFD implementation BRFA be quick if I filed one or would there be questions about the need for a forth bot doing this? --Trialpears (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Meta
- Merge with Template:Infobox Chinese
- 2017 April 7 – Infobox name module ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2017 May 26 – Infobox East Asian name ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 1.5 years later I've taken another look. The merger itself doesn't look toooo bad but I'm really not a fan of adding "Infobox Chinese" to tons of articles not related to China in the slightest. The 2019 RM didn't go too well though and it's perhaps best to try to at least partially take a look at the (imo not so relevant) things cited as issues in the RM. These are adding support for some other major languages which is currently partially or completely missing (Arabic, Hebrew, Urdu if I'm not mistaken, Greek and probably a few more). The ordering support is also somewhat lacking which would be a pain to fix if it wasn't a module. I'm not particularly trilled about taking it on but I'm not a fan of having this ancient merger around indefinitely either. Trappist the monk you seem like the obvious person to ask since you both developed the module and is the language guru, but it's completely understandable to not want to touch this. --Trialpears (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, I wrote Module:Infobox multi-lingual name to consolidate multiple various templates (with all of their unique peculiarities) into a single source. Then I wrote a long long document describing the things that should be done to make the whole mess more sensible. Alas, I lost that document as the result of a catastrophic computer failure which was perhaps serendipitous because of the drama the would inevitably arise – you know how wikipedians hate hate hate change because oh my god the sky is falling. In retrospect, I came to realize that the better solution is to restart as a fresh design beginning with a whole new specification. If the fresh design is any good it can organically take over from existing infoboxen without drama. I have done nothing to advance that because, as you can see, it appears that wikipedians are more-or-less happy with the crap template that I wrote. And, it appears, that wikipedians couldn't give two hoots about merging the two infoboxen because nigh on four years since the tfds and here the merge lingers... Better to declare the merger dead and get on with life?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the name - keep in mind we can create any number of useful redirects if adding "...Chinese" to something that isn't is a problem. That being said, if it gets built into a location-neutral module, it would make so much sense to rename the main template (wink wink). Primefac (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a mess right now but I think the problem isn't that people don't care but that there are very few people who feel confident enough with both the lua and the languages to take it on and the few who do either don't want to get involved in the drama side or are simply busy elsewhere. I think I may deal with it after I've finished the mergers I've started but then there won't be any huge improvements to the module but rather just what's required for the merger. No matter what a second RM is coming. --Trialpears (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- The primary purpose of this board is to implement the merger. If there are improvements made along the way that's great, but they're not a requirement and (not that this is the case for this merge) shouldn't hold up a merge. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- That the merge hasn't completed in 4 years surely means that it's reasonable to consider whether or not the original merge is still relevant. If we do continue with a merger, it seems perfectly reasonable to change the target to be called something like Template:Infobox multi-lingual name, using Module:Infobox multi-lingual name, rather than using the name of a language that isn't pertinent to many (most?) transclusions — the first page of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_name_module shows me some Chinese but also a bunch of Japanese, French, Spanish and Italian films. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @OwenBlacker: I tried renaming at Template_talk:Infobox_Chinese#Requested_move_23_September_2019. More likely than not I will get to this during the summer so at least it shouldn't get to five years. I don't really see much that would have changed people opinions on this template. Not much has actually happened on this front. --Trialpears (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- That the merge hasn't completed in 4 years surely means that it's reasonable to consider whether or not the original merge is still relevant. If we do continue with a merger, it seems perfectly reasonable to change the target to be called something like Template:Infobox multi-lingual name, using Module:Infobox multi-lingual name, rather than using the name of a language that isn't pertinent to many (most?) transclusions — the first page of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_name_module shows me some Chinese but also a bunch of Japanese, French, Spanish and Italian films. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- The primary purpose of this board is to implement the merger. If there are improvements made along the way that's great, but they're not a requirement and (not that this is the case for this merge) shouldn't hold up a merge. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- 2020 November 28 – Old_move ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2020 November 28 – Old_moves ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Module version created. More information at Template talk:Old move#Module and merger. --Trialpears (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
To convert
Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.
- 2020 October 22 – Loc ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- This one has 572 that match
insource:/\{\{loc\}\}/
, with no template parameters. Those seem like a straightforward conversion to {{Country study}}. Then the remaining 110ish templates with parameters could be cleaned up separately. Could probably get AWB in bot mode to do the 572. Does that sound like a good idea? Should I try to get a bot flag to help with that? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)- I can get it, just never had the time or inclination to pick apart the various uses. I've set up a tracking category to find the non-parameter uses, so once that populates I should be able to knock it out fairly quick. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I worked a bit on this a while ago, probably going a bit beyond what is strictly necessary when filling in parameters. It's worth noting that (countarary to the docs) that Kazakhstan and many other countries don't have their own country studies but are combined to something like Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan or Indian Ocean : five island countries. Also worth noting that these were made between 1988 and 2015 meaning that you may have weird situations with both the Soviet Union and Russia having country studies and there being plenty of other former countries to consider. I've also seen quite a few already broken links. My point being that care should be taken to make sure the links are correct and point to the intended target. --Trialpears (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can get it, just never had the time or inclination to pick apart the various uses. I've set up a tracking category to find the non-parameter uses, so once that populates I should be able to knock it out fairly quick. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- This one has 572 that match
- I recommend using standard {{cite encyclopedia}} citations and converting these to footnotes (rather than generic endnotes) as we go. I have pre-made encyclopedia citations for all country studies, plus a page with comparisons using Earwig to the relevant country studies here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies/Reference fixing. Example edit here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
To substitute
Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.
- None currently
To orphan
These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).
- 2021 May 31 –
:Category:Exclude in print ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Module:Asbox#L-167 if I'm not mistaken is where the stub pages come from. --Gonnym (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- The noprint class should probably be added instead though. Don't have time to check on it rn though. --Trialpears (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just to quote the edit summary,
Listing this here so it doesn't get forgotten about, since it was part of the TfD (even though I think TfD is the wrong venue for categories)
. While TfD is the wrong place for category nominations, categories can be added to a nomination if said category would be eligible for G8 deletion (i.e. categories dependent on a now-deleted or changed template). In this particular instance, its inclusion in the Asbox module indicates that {{Hide in print}} and/or {{Only in print}} were not the only templates that were populating the category, and thus it is not G8'able. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)- I can nominate at CfD if so desired. I will quote my relevant comment from the discussion here as to why I found it sensible to include it in the TfD nomination.
This got no response and I presumed it was considered fine. --Trialpears (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)I am well aware of the rules for what should go where but choose to ignore them in this case. I believe the more technical audience would have more opinions on Category:Exclude in print and that it would be unnecessary to fork this discussion to two places. If you think there would be an actual benefit in nominating it at CfD I'm happy to withdraw it and renominate it. For the time being I've dropped a note at WT:CFD in case the CfD crowd is interested.
- I can nominate at CfD if so desired. I will quote my relevant comment from the discussion here as to why I found it sensible to include it in the TfD nomination.
- Just to quote the edit summary,
- The noprint class should probably be added instead though. Don't have time to check on it rn though. --Trialpears (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Module:Asbox#L-167 if I'm not mistaken is where the stub pages come from. --Gonnym (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Ready for deletion
Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.
- None currently