V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 23 | 108 | 0 | 131 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 14 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.
How to use this page
What not to propose for discussion here
The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
- Stub templates
- Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
- Userboxes
- Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
- Speedy deletion candidates
- If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
- Policy or guideline templates
- Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
- Template redirects
- List at Redirects for discussion.
Reasons to delete a template
- The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
- The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
- The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
- The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.
Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.
Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
Listing a template
To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. 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 to the top of the list:
If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add Use an edit summary such as Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following: {{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}} You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following: {{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}} You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the {{subst:Catfd2|category name}} |
III: Notify users. | Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:
to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts. Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases. |
Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.
After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors
While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.
To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.
WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{Tfdnotice}}
for this.
Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
Notifying substantial contributors to the template
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)
Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.
Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle
Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. 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
July 3
Template:Clinical dosage ranges of oral and injectable androgens and anabolic steroids
- Template:Clinical dosage ranges of oral and injectable androgens and anabolic steroids (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Recently unused. Should be substituted on a relevant space. If not, then delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template for winners of a non-notable (i.e. without own article) award The Banner talk 11:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I would argue it is a prestigious and important award and I will volunteer to try and creates its own page.Dnd25 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I have created a draft article waiting for acceptance.Dnd25 (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Dnd25 (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Provincial ministries of Pakistan
- Template:Provincial ministries of Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Contains only a redirect. No navigation. Asked the creator about his intentions, but did not receive a response. Can be userified since it seems to be a work in progress. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox PBA All-Star game
- Template:Infobox PBA All-Star game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete) (34 transclusions)
- Template:Infobox basketball game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete) (218 transclusions)
Propose merging Template:Infobox PBA All-Star game with Template:Infobox basketball game.
Useless wrapper template that does not add any features. Same reasoning as here. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox MPBL Finals
- Template:Infobox MPBL Finals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete) (4 transclusions)
- Template:Infobox basketball final (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete) (141 transclusions)
Propose merging Template:Infobox MPBL Finals with Template:Infobox basketball final.
{{Infobox MPBL Finals}} appears to be a slightly modified copy of {{Infobox basketball final}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox basketball series
- Template:Infobox basketball series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete) (10 transclusions)
- Template:Infobox basketball final (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete) (141 transclusions)
Propose merging Template:Infobox basketball series with Template:Infobox basketball final.
Same scope of articles covered. {{Infobox basketball final}} is used far more often. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/Aeluroscalabotinae
- Template:Taxonomy/Aeluroscalabotinae (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused taxonomy template. This subfamily does not have an article, it is not mentioned in the source cited on the page, and it is not mentioned on the target species page. This template does not appear to be usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Dakota 400
- Template:Dakota 400 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
No longer needed as Dakota 400 has the map as part of the infobox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Newcastle Transport light rail station
- Template:Newcastle Transport light rail station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
A huge navigation template, used on a single page, with a single unique link Newcastle Light Rail. Until the network actually gets more station articles, there is no need for this template. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:S-line/Arriva Stoptrein left/36800
- Template:S-line/Arriva Stoptrein left/36800 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Arriva Stoptrein left/37000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Arriva Stoptrein left/37600 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Arriva Stoptrein left/8000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Arriva Stoptrein right/31000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Arriva Stoptrein right/37200 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Arriva Stoptrein. Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:S-line/Adelaide left/Dry Creek-Port Adelaide
- Template:S-line/Adelaide left/Dry Creek-Port Adelaide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Adelaide left/Gawler Central (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Adelaide left/Grange (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Adelaide left/Northfield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Adelaide left/Outer Harbor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Adelaide right/Dry Creek-Port Adelaide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Adelaide right/Gawler Central (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Adelaide right/Northfield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Adelaide right/Outer Harbor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Adelaide Metro. Gonnym (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Weightlifting links
- Template:Weightlifting links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:NYCS Platform Layout 161st Street-Yankee Stadium Station
- Template:NYCS Platform Layout 161st Street-Yankee Stadium Station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Platform Layout BMT Jamaica Line/J express/next (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Platform Layout BMT Jamaica Line/J express/previous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Platform Layout Broadway Junction Station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused New York City Subway platform layout templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete {{NYCS Platform Layout Broadway Junction Station}} and {{NYCS Platform Layout 161st Street-Yankee Stadium Station}}. Delete the BMT Jamaica Line J express templates; while skip-stop service on the J/Z (New York City Subway service) has only temporarily been suspended, I have merged these with other templates, so these will no longer be used. Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Maritsa Platis
- Template:Maritsa Platis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Not something that should be a template. Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Latest preview software release/Apache Tomcat
- Template:Latest preview software release/Apache Tomcat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest preview software release/FileZilla (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest preview software release/GIMP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Lynx (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Safari (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest preview software release/gThumb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest preview software release/µTorrent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Apache Tomcat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Ardour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Avidemux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Dillo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/ELinks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/FFmpeg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/FileZilla Server (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/GIMP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Krusader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Lynx (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/WinSCP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/iCab (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/lighttpd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Latest stable software release/w3m (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused software release version templates. If any gets reused during this TfD, remove it from list. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Election Results table
- Template:Election Results table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused election result table for a specific election. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- As explained below this is supposed to be a subst only template. However I'm amending my deletion rational as I still believe it should be deleted. This template is hardcoded to work only for India 2020, as can be seen from the links and references. If this needs updating each year, then the template fails its purpose and the code can just be copy/pasted. If this needs to be edited for every country before it can be used, it again fails is purpose. If this is indeed only for India, then an empty example should be placed in a sub-page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Election: Article structure so the project group and copy paste it. --Gonnym (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I created it. This template is used to substitute blank election results template on all the constituencies of a state after Election. The table fields can then be manually filled. The year and the state field in the table is updated depending on the need and then used. It was not marked for substitution, I have now added the template to mark this clearly and also added usage documentation. Please don't delete this useful template that is needed whenever an election is updated in the constituency articles. Also this template is now linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Constituencies: Article structure and WP:POI pages so it is no longer unused. Venkat TL (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Gonnym, I just added the parameters for the State and year, instead of hardcoding so this template can now be used for any year and for any set of constituency around the world. This template is used from AWB because lets say I want to update for 2022 Gujarat state election, I will need to substitute this on 200-300 pages using AWB. Deleting this useful template is pointless as it will have to be again recreated every time someone wishes to update election data in a set of constituencies. substitution cannot be done from he target location you have suggested. substitution templates are kept if they are useful. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I explained on your talk page, the template is still hardcoded. If you want to use it for your personal use, then just move it to your sub-page but it will take a lot more work than what you've currently did to make it viable for general use. Gonnym (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please look at the documentation page again. ALL the names in the template can now be substituted. It is made for community use, for anyone who wishes to update a set of constituency article. Please withdraw this nomination. I dont understand what is going to be achieved by deleting this (now) used and clearly usable template, that WILL be used again in future after every few months. Venkat TL (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I explained on your talk page, the template is still hardcoded. If you want to use it for your personal use, then just move it to your sub-page but it will take a lot more work than what you've currently did to make it viable for general use. Gonnym (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Gonnym, I just added the parameters for the State and year, instead of hardcoding so this template can now be used for any year and for any set of constituency around the world. This template is used from AWB because lets say I want to update for 2022 Gujarat state election, I will need to substitute this on 200-300 pages using AWB. Deleting this useful template is pointless as it will have to be again recreated every time someone wishes to update election data in a set of constituencies. substitution cannot be done from he target location you have suggested. substitution templates are kept if they are useful. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Born in
- Template:Born in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
We already have too many birth day templates, with the main ones being Template:Birth date and Template:Birth-date. The fact that this adds an abbreviation for the word "born" is not sufficient in creating a new template. Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a birth day template; it is an abbreviation template that happens to work with birth dates. It is also complimentary to the long-standing and much-used {{died-in}} template. The templates you suggest are not a substitute for {{born-in}}'s purpose, which is to visually denote a birth year in situations where a year alone would be otherwise ambiguous. Yes, the abbreviation could be done in other ways, eg, using markup like so d. 1995 ({{abbr|d.|died}} 1995) but on the complex family tree templates these are commonly used on that extra bit of clutter is really unwanted compared to the simplicity of d. 1995 ({{died-in|1995}}). It would make a difficult task even more difficult and I doubt anybody would question the value of {{born-in}} or {{died-in}} over the longer mark-up after creating just a few large family trees.
- Considering your proposal, {{Birth date}}'s documentation suggests not to use it when only the year is given, which is the typical intended case for {{born-in}}, because the template uses microformats. The only alternative then is {{Birth-date}}.
- One solution might be to add an optional parameter to both {{Birth-date}} and {{Death-date}} to add the "b." or "d." abbreviation, respectively. This however presents a problem. It is desirable to keep the ability to allow the {{circa}} template to be used between the abbreviation and the date. This would start to be cumbersome to add to the template. Maybe it should be done. Maybe not. But here's the key thing: {{Birth-date}} and {{Death-date}} are adding semantic meaning to the dates. That's their role. But that's not what {{born-in}} and {{Died-in}} do. They merely add presentation. The crux is that you can do both by combining the templates. For example, d. c. 1995 ({{died-in|{{circa|{{Death-date|1995}}}}}}) does everything desired. It includes both the presentational aspects and the semantics if wanted.
- It'd actually be nice if a new parameter would be added to {{Birth-date}} and {{Death-date}}. But not having {{born-in}} and {{Died-in}} would limit us in our expressive ability unless somebody really wants (and can) extend the other templates to include "b." and "d." along with an optional "c.". Jason Quinn (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Unless this is used by bots, in my view its much easier to just type in "b. 1234". As the Op states we already have so many templates focused on birth/death dates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Article for protection
- Template:Article for protection (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Article for move (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Seems to have been imported from somewhere else as this is full of red links and created by a user with 10 edits, all of which were reverted. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nonsense templates, probably created out of simple lack of knowledge about WP:RM and WP:RFPP. I had already redirected Template:Article for move to Template:Title notice, which is the closest equivalent we do currently use, and as its template description page contains an explanation of the process. This was reverted to start this TfD here, so obviously I'm in favor of deletion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
July 2
No transclusions. No main article for this navbox. The teams in this navbox that have articles for their men's lacrosse teams appear to have moved to other conferences. No longer usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Khans of Kalat
- Template:Khans of Kalat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Per this discussion, all except one of these articles were redirected to Khanate of Kalat. This navbox / succession template is no longer usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused and outdated as the teams listed are going to be part of American Athletic Conference and it's been replaced by Template:American Athletic Conference men's soccer coach navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 19:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused chart/table template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Cdots
- Template:Cdots (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Category:Pages using Cdots with unknown parameters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused station wrapper template. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:VR-K color
- Template:VR-K color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VR-K lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VR-K stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K left/A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K left/E (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K left/L (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K left/U (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K left/X (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K left/Y (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K right/A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K right/E (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K right/L (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K right/S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K right/U (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K right/X (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-K right/Y (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VR-L color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VR-L lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VR-L stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-L right/Z (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VR-R color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VR-R lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VR-R stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-R left/K (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-R right/H (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-R right/I (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-R right/K (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-R right/T (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VR-V color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VR-V lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:VR-V stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-V right/I/P (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/VR-V right/M (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/HSL. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all if they are unused and have been superseded, they serve no purpose any more. JIP | Talk 22:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:NYCS Platform Layout BMT Jamaica Line/Marcy Avenue
- Template:NYCS Platform Layout BMT Jamaica Line/Marcy Avenue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Platform Layout BMT Jamaica Line/Myrtle Avenue-Broadway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Platform Layout Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall Chambers Street Station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Platform Layout Canal Street Station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Platform Layout Delancey Street/Essex Street Station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:NYCS Platform Layout Fulton Street Station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused New York City Subway platform layout templates. Gonnym (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - All of these were single-use templates, so substing each of these onto just one article made them redundant. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, these ought to be deleted as well:
- {{NYCS Platform Layout BMT Jamaica Line/Marcy Avenue/doc}}
- {{NYCS Platform Layout BMT Jamaica Line/Myrtle Avenue-Broadway/doc}}
- {{NYCS Platform Layout Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall Chambers Street Station/doc}}
- {{NYCS Platform Layout Canal Street Station/doc}}
- {{NYCS Platform Layout Fulton Street Station/doc}}. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, these ought to be deleted as well:
Template:Prefix pages/doc/demo
- Template:Prefix pages/doc/demo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The demo is unused. Q28 (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Quote Quran translation
- Template:Quote Quran translation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template, no scope to be used. {{Blockquote}} is sufficient for quotation and there is already templates for citation. Zsohl(Talk) 05:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Quote Quran range
- Template:Quote Quran range (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template, no scope to be used. {{Blockquote}} is sufficient for quotation and there is already templates for citation. Zsohl(Talk) 05:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Negro League franchise
- Template:Infobox Negro League franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox baseball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Negro League franchise with Template:Infobox baseball team.
No reason for Negro league teams to have a separate infobox than other baseball teams. Will help with consistency of infoboxes on baseball team pages. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would strongly agree, this template is very restricted on information options. Consistency in infoboxes would provide consistent information and a uniform look for all baseball team pages.Skilgis1900 (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Template:Infobox baseball team was recently substantially redesigned by the merge nominator with no discussion or input from members of WikiProject Baseball (see this discussion about what changes were made). The changes are glaring and seem out-of-step with other baseball templates and formatting. For these reasons, Template:Infobox Negro League franchise should not be merged with Template:Infobox baseball team. I agree that consistency is good, but the current state of Template:Infobox baseball team is not, and merger would not be beneficial to Negro team articles or their readers. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Great points, thanks for the information on the recent redesign. Collaboration on infoboxes is essential and the current Template:Infobox baseball team redesign deserves further input before becoming universal. Skilgis1900 (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - as Template:Infobox baseball team was recently redesigned without input from WP:BASELL & therefore without consent. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Until further input from the Baseball project warrants such a change. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Consistency is fine, but why merge into Template:Infobox baseball team and not Template:Infobox MLB? Curious about that rationale. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @NatureBoyMD, Skilgis1900, GoodDay, and WikiCleanerMan: reconsider vote after changes reverted. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Negro League & Federal League teams don't belong in Template: Infobox MLB, but could be included in Template:Infobox baseball team. Only the American & National League teams belong in the MLB infobox template. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose it wouldn't hurt to merge with the current, reverted version of the generic baseball team infobox. I could see the possibility of some Negro league teams using the MLB infobox (i.e. those retroactively granted major league status), but that's another discussion. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Negro League & Federal League teams don't belong in Template: Infobox MLB, but could be included in Template:Infobox baseball team. Only the American & National League teams belong in the MLB infobox template. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Disputed changes to {{Infobox baseball team}} are irrelevant to this proposal and that matter can and should be resolved on the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- On reading the linked discussion, it appears that the disputed changes have in any case been reverted, rendering any objections on that basis effectively void. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
July 1
Template:Infobox Claxton Shield
- Template:Infobox Claxton Shield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox sports season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Claxton Shield with Template:Infobox sports season.
No reason for this defunct league with limited season articles to have a separate infobox for seasons. Proposing merge to {{Infobox sports season}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Municipality of Loreto Political Participation
- Template:Municipality of Loreto Political Participation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)- Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Brevicipitidae-stub
- Template:Brevicipitidae-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, no category. Her Pegship (?) 20:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It still has scope to be used in stubs. Excellenc1 (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It might be needed someday, but at the moment it is not being used and does not appear necessary. Her Pegship (?) 19:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Swedish Football Division 3
- Template:Swedish Football Division 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Severely outdated, not of any use 2022. Jonteemil (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not needed - outdated and low level league that does not need a navbox anyway. GiantSnowman 19:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Presidents of Alsace
- Template:Presidents of Alsace (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
It's used only in two articles, no scope to be used in any other article, and it is just a table that can manually be added. Also, it does not have reliable sources to cite the list of presidents, which could have rather been added if it were a table. Excellenc1 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Substr:Biography
- Template:Substr:Biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Same as {{Biography}}. Sole transclusion in a user's sandbox, who a minute before creating it, used {{substr:Biography}} instead of {{subst:Biography}} on that page. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Selecţia Naţională
- Template:Selecţia Naţională (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Barely-used navbox which is largely made up of red links and redirects. The majority of actual articles included in this template are already covered in Template:Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest, rendering this navbox redundant. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom: redundant. It's actually only in use on four articles, all of which also have the Romania in ESC template that navigates in the same manner. Grk1011 (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Pcc
- Template:Pcc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Ambiguous template name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Jdcompguy (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. MOS:NOTOOLTIPS is clear not to use tooltips to give information. This template does entirely that. Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. I note that this template has transclusions, categories, and some minimal documentation now. I have no objection to keeping it if it is useful and used. If this is kept, I strongly recommend rearranging the names so that {{Pcc}} is a redirect, {{Particular calendar change}} is the canonical template, and the current content of {{Particular calendar change}} is moved to a subpage of {{Particular calendar change}} to show that it is a fully dependent part of that template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts now that the template is in use?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)- My thoughts are in my deletion rational. The usage of this template violates the MoS without any good (or any) reason. Gonnym (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete As of now no valid "speedy keep" rationales found, contents in this template are still neo-spam contents, maybe G1 or G2 applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Unfriended
- Template:Unfriended (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template links to only two articles; does not meet guidelines at MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 07:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Chinese/Burmese
- Template:Infobox Chinese/Burmese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox Chinese/Filipino (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox Chinese/Mongolian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox Chinese/Zhuang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused Template:Infobox Chinese sub-pages. Gonnym (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Hansel Manzi Bugingo, Hal Kamanzi Bugingo, Harel Gisa Bugingo and Hazel Mahoro Bugingo
- Template:Hansel Manzi Bugingo, Hal Kamanzi Bugingo, Harel Gisa Bugingo and Hazel Mahoro Bugingo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and not something that needs a template. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Hasan ibn Ali
- Template:Hasan ibn Ali (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template links to only six articles, two of whom (Family tree of Ali and First Fitna), include scant info about Hasan. The other four (Twelve Imams, Event of Mubahala, Fourteen Infallibles and Ahl al-Kisa just include Hasan's name and nothing else. The template is just used on two articles (one is Hasan ibn Ali itself). The template was already deleted in a discussion of 5 November 2020. Furthermore, the same-styled template (previously named just 'Hasan') was deleted three other times as well. MixenXIX-(Talk) 15:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment User:RegentsPark, should this nomination be removed since the nom is a sock or should it move forward? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to content editors in this area to decide whether this should be deleted or not. Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE anyone can remove this (since they're appear to be no comments on it) or decide to let the discussion proceed.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
June 30
Template:WikiProject Olympics announcements
- Template:WikiProject Olympics announcements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The template has not been edited since 2014. The template is now obsolete and should be deleted. Q28 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:X9/styles.css
- Template:X9/styles.css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The styles.css of sandbox is not used at all. Q28 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- This was a sandbox to demonstrate a potential change to Module:Flex columns that I asked for feedback on and haven't gotten any. Regardless, it is in the template sandbox namespace, so that alone should prevent deletion. But if we want, it should be moved to a subpage of Module:Flex columns. Keep regardless. Izno (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is it a sandbox version of Module:Flex columns/styles.css? If so, then yes, move it to Module:Flex columns/sandbox/styles.css. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, and in my opinion it would be worth creating styles.css pages for say the first 10 template sandboxes. I think that these would be really useful for testing uses of templatestyles. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete G2 explicitly includes
Subpages of the Wikipedia:Sandbox created as tests
. By analogy that prohibition should be extended to subpages of other sandboxes. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Xpdopec
- Template:Xpdopec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This template has not been used in recent years. Q28 (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Xpdop3c
- Template:Xpdop3c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This template has not been used in recent years. Q28 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Han Chinese subgroups table
- Template:Han Chinese subgroups table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
列表中存在明显的原创研究而且缺乏明确的划分标准。所谓“幽燕人”的称呼既不是学术著作的称呼,也不是民间的称呼。事实上,这个称呼是一小群网友发明的。这群人幻想北京皈依于基督教并独立建国,他们四处推销他们创作的新概念,并长期在中文维基百科、日文维基百科上添加他们的原创研究。
尽管该表格已经说明了依照语言划分族群,但是其标准依旧是不明确的:例如,列表中列出了冀鲁人、河北人和山东人,但河北和山东是一个行政区划的概念,河北境内有说晋语、北京官话、冀鲁官话、东北官话的族群;山东境内有说中原官话、冀鲁官话和胶辽官话的族群。事实上,冀鲁官话即河北-山东官话,所以如果河北人和冀鲁人是并列的,那么河北人和山东人的概念中中就不包括说冀鲁官话的族群,这显然是荒谬的。
There are obvious original studies in the list and there is no clear division standard. The so-called "Youyan people" are neither the titles of academic works nor the folk. In fact, this title was invented by a small group of netizens. This group of people fantasized that Beijing would convert to Christianity and build an independent country. They sold their new concepts everywhere and added their original research to Chinese Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia for a long time.
Although the table has explained the division of ethnic groups according to language, its standard is still unclear: for example, the list lists the Jilu people, Hebei people and Shandong people, but Hebei and Shandong are the concept of an administrative division. There are ethnic groups speaking Jin Chinese, Beijing Mandarin, Jilu Mandarin and Northeast Mandarin in Hebei; There are ethnic groups in Shandong that speak the Zhongyuan Mandarin, Jilu Mandarin and Jiaoliao Mandarin. In fact, Ji-Lu Mandarin means Hebei-Shandong Mandarin, so if Hebei people, Shandong people and Jilu people are juxtaposed, then the concept of Hebei people and Shandong people does not include the ethnic groups that speak Jilu Mandarin, which is obviously absurd. Eguersi (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- delete per nOm. Q28 (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Parth Siddhpura
- Template:Parth Siddhpura (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
An unused navbox that has no blue links at all. Gonnym (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a navbox that doesn't navigate anywhere. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:European Athletics Championships medalists in men's hammer throw
- Template:European Athletics Championships medalists in men's hammer throw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Athletics Championships medalists in men's discus throw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Athletics Championships medalists in men's high jump (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Athletics Championships medalists in men's long jump (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Athletics Championships medalists in men's pole vault (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Athletics Championships medalists in men's shot put (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:European Athletics Championships medalists in men's triple jump (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Single-article content that should be substed and deleted. As mentioned in previous discussions, transcluding these tables makes them uneditable for editors using Visual Editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
June 29
Template:Infobox Australian baseball team
- Template:Infobox Australian baseball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox baseball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian baseball team with Template:Infobox baseball team.
Only 12 transclusions. Pretty straight forward merge. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Routesplit
- 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 withdrawn Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Template:Routesplit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused; appears to be an abandoned experiment. Useddenim (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Template:Routesplit is a redirect to Template:BSsplit; should go to WP:RFD if I'm not mistaken. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- wrong venue as indicated above. redirects are discussed at WP:RFD. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn and relisted at Redirects for discussion. Useddenim (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2022 (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:Current-PhiladelphiaCOTM
- Template:Current-PhiladelphiaCOTM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
While well intentioned, this has not been used recently and the page linked from the template for page curation is red-linked, leading me to believe it might not have ever been used. TartarTorte 12:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox natural region of Germany
- Template:Infobox natural region of Germany (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Not a standard request but this will make sure this gets more eyes. Propose to convert this template into a always subst template (if this is indeed a template used to convert German language articles) with a new template created with English parameter names. The template's parameters are in German and from past consensus we don't allow for non-English parameter names in articles. While it has only 11 transclusions, I don't see any other template it can be merged with which is why merge wasn't proposed. Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support the proposal (as the creator of the template) to convert it into a subst, provided it can copy with the parameters from de.wiki. The idea is that editors can import the German template and have it automatically converted into an English one. The only translation task is then to change any data if necessary. This is done elsewhere and is a huge time-saver. Bermicourt (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- If we want to make this a substitution-only template, then we need to decide which infobox we want to replace substituted instances with. Our
{{Infobox natural region}}
redirects to {{Infobox settlement}}; but {{Infobox protected area}} might be more appropriate in some cases. Either way, we don't need a separate new infobox just for a dozen regions of Germany (or any other individual country). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode/d
- Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode/d (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused. Removed from the template in 2018. Gonnym (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:In the news/random
- Template:In the news/random (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and non linked from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Defer to whatever User:David Levy wants to do with this. — xaosflux Talk 12:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:2022–2023 Rugby Europe Super Cup Eastern conference table
- Template:2022–2023 Rugby Europe Super Cup Eastern conference table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:2022–2023 Rugby Europe Super Cup Western conference table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and empty sports tables. 2022–23 Rugby Europe Super Cup uses different tables. Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, doesn't look like these table will be used for the upcoming season. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Hockey at the 2022 Commonwealth Games – Women's tournament Pool A standings
- Template:Hockey at the 2022 Commonwealth Games – Women's tournament Pool A standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Hockey at the 2022 Commonwealth Games – Women's tournament Pool B standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused sport tables. Hockey at the 2022 Commonwealth Games – Women's tournament uses the tables directly. Gonnym (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Costa awards intro
- Template:Costa awards intro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Whitbread intro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Yearly award pages redirected after this discussion. Gonnym (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Disney+ films
- Template:Disney+ films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
For the same reasons mentioned here. With so many Disney+ original films, it is better handled by this and this. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - very useful for its intended purpose of navigation, I would encourage undeletion of the prior template as well. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete (or should I use "strong delete"?). Copying my comment from previous discussion. These "original x" templates are really bad in general as they end of being a huge cluster of unrelated links. It is safe to assume that a user who is reading an article on an item in the group will not go on reading more from the navbox as they are not related other than the fact that they were both released by the same entity which most readers just don't care and for them it's just trivial (as an example, there is no connection between Marvel's Behind the Mask and Crater (film)). So other than failing at WP:NAVBOX points 3 and 5, what these navboxs end up to be are just huge. I couldn't find a Template:Warner Bros. original films template (and I really hope there isn't), but I can just imagine the size of such a template Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Will become too large and the category is going to be the better alternative way to navigate through. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Films based on the Ramayana
- Template:Films based on the Ramayana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Already fulfilled by Category:Films based on the Ramayana. As the creator myself, I now keep wondering, "Why on Earth did I create this?". Since I can't find any other navbox beginning with "Films based on", I think this shouldn't exist. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Besides speed and ease of navigation, I feel that the way it has been organized according to release date adds some value compared to alphabetical ordering of the category page. If you're seeking similar navboxes as precedent, see {{Batman in film}}, {{X-Men in film}} and {{James Bond in film}}. There appears to have been a botched attempt to incorporate it into Template:Ramayana, so merging instead of outright deletion is an option. Alternatively, convert to list article Ramayana in film or with expanded scope Ramayana in film and television. A basic sortable table (release date, country, language, etc.) will already be of value, and there is potential to flesh out further (see: Middle-earth in film, Tarzan in film, television and other non-print media). -- 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment There is Template:Films based on Arthurian legends. Kailash29792, you can tag it for speedy deletion under G7 since you're the creator. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:South Ossetia-note
- Template:South Ossetia-note (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:South Ossetia note (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:South Ossetia-note with Template:South Ossetia note.
{{South Ossetia-note}} was created in 2013 and {{South Ossetia note}} in 2020. I just edited the latter and created its documentation before being aware of the former. They basically serve the same function. Theurgist (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strong (conditional) merge First time back in a while, so pardon me if formatting is a bit off. Anyways, I see no reason not to merge these two as long as there's a balance between the languages of both templates in the final result. Back to you, Theurgist—I have given the consent, you do the magic. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 16:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox BBL team season
- Template:Infobox BBL team season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Replaced with {{Infobox basketball club season}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I made this Template for the British Basketball League teams. It has more labels covering just the BBL for example team colours, coaches, captains, BBL Cup and BBL Trophy results. Otherwise is there a way we could add their team colours onto {{Infobox basketball club season}}. Alextigers (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2022 (ADET)
- I just updated the templates document. Please don’t remove this template, because it has wrecked the 2021–22 London Lions season page. Alextigers (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2022 (ADET)
- weak keep, this edit removed a lot of information, so unless most of that information can be added back to the infobox, I don't think this is a step in the right direction. Frietjes (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Renominate as a merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
June 28
Template:Prime meridian
- Template:Prime meridian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Two-page template which is essentially content. Recommend substing, probably into the more specific page on the specific meridian which is the prime meridian today. Izno (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This used to be just a table in the Prime meridian article, before someone decided to turn it into a template. I'm not sure why. I would be quite happy to see it go back to being just a normal table (perhaps with simplified content). I don't think it's needed in IERS Reference Meridian as well. Bazonka (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:For timeline
- Template:For timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:For outline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose redirecting Template:For timeline and Template:For outline to {{further}} or {{seealso}}.
Lets redirect these overly long hatnote to {{further}} and/or {{seealso}}. Currently used for timelines and outlines articles that are self explanatory in their title. Simply no need for an explination of what is being linked. Seem to have a subset of these specialty hat notes for groups of articles being used out of the blue.Moxy- 14:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Examples:
- Moxy- 14:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep When used in isolation I tend to agree that there's not much value in the unique explanatory label that seems redundant with the target title. In cases where there are a large number of hatnotes though, I find this differentiation more helpful. It forces different types of content to new lines and lets me quickly scan in a vertical fashion to see what type of further detail is available. --N8wilson 🔔 19:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect as per proposal, No need for a long hatnote for a category of articles.204.237.50.240 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect. We don't need a custom template for every possible phrasing. Especially unneeded here since the title of most timeline articles is "Timeline of XYZ" which is rather obvious. SnowFire (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons explained by N8wilson. It is similar to {{Main list}}, which has not yet been merged into {{Main}} because of its value of specifically calling out a list article. Thrakkx (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect as proposed by Moxy, should we use {{seealso}} as for timeline sections? --5.16.0.18 (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:The Pentagon Papers
- Template:The Pentagon Papers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
looks like a test edit, there is no need for a template, just put the citation in the article directly Frietjes (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Sources exist
- Template:Sources exist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This cleanup template marks articles that have insufficient references to demonstrate notability
, but per WP:NEXIST, notability is based only on the availability of sources on a topic – it's not something that needs to be "demonstrated" in article text. References are there to help readers verify information in articles, not help editors decide whether or not to delete something. Adding extra citations purely to convey notability to other editors is not necessary and often detrimental to the article. As such, the problem this template claims to highlight is not actually a problem, and any useful purpose it could serve is already covered by {{more citations needed}}. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment From my experience, I use this template during NPP as a message to other reviewers. Heck, that's how I noticed this TfD so quick. I think it's useful, but could definitely use a rewrite for clarity. Curbon7 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, rewriting to remove the contradiction with WP:NEXIST was my first thought too, but then I realised it would just end up a copy of {{refimprove}}. I get that it can be useful for NPPers to see that someone has done a WP:BEFORE, but that kind of communication is better suited to a talk page. Cleanup templates should only be used to flag temporary, surmountable problems, and this isn't one. – Joe (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Not having sufficient references to demonstrate notability is different from saying that something is not notable. The tag does not and was never intended to indicate a lack of notability. Quite the opposite. It is intended to be added to articles where the WP:BEFORE search came up with some good results and to discourage other NPPs from taking it to AfD. This template is part of the NPP Toolbar tool package and should NOT be deleted. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 13:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. However, we have no policy that requires an article to contain "sufficient references to demonstrate notability" and it is not appropriate to use a cleanup tag for communication between reviewers. That's what talk pages and edit summaries are for. – Joe (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The lack of sources in an article is a valid reason for a cleanup banner (surely we are not about to delete similar cleanup banners like {{unreferenced}}, {{more citations needed}}, and their BLP variants), and this banner provides helpful information that may be used, not only as part of NPP, but among other editors as a way of targeting reference improvements to articles where that effort is most likely to be successful. Copyediting to fix the conflation of verification and notability may be helpful, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: What I don't understand is, after that copyediting is done, how will this be any different to {{more citations needed}}? – Joe (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is different before the copyediting is done, when the banner is present in the article, in that the editor doing the copyedits has been told that it should be easy to find sources, not always true for articles lacking sources. Therefore, the copyedits should be easier. It encourages the copyeditor to do them. Why do you think there should be a visible difference after the copyedits are done and neither banner is present any more? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: I think we're talking at cross-purposes. By "copyediting" I meant (and thought you did too) copyedits to the template text, not to the articles tagged with it. – Joe (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. So anyway, the difference is that this banner marks the easy-to-fix problems and guides editors looking for low-hanging fruit to these articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: I think we're talking at cross-purposes. By "copyediting" I meant (and thought you did too) copyedits to the template text, not to the articles tagged with it. – Joe (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is different before the copyediting is done, when the banner is present in the article, in that the editor doing the copyedits has been told that it should be easy to find sources, not always true for articles lacking sources. Therefore, the copyedits should be easier. It encourages the copyeditor to do them. Why do you think there should be a visible difference after the copyedits are done and neither banner is present any more? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: What I don't understand is, after that copyediting is done, how will this be any different to {{more citations needed}}? – Joe (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Not having sources is something that should be improved upon and is an important cleanup banner. MB 18:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Articles lacking sources are tagged with {{unreferenced}} or {{more citations needed}}. Why do we need this extra template? – Joe (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep it is a good tag to place on articles where an AfD has identified multiple reliable sources coverage but they haven't been added to the article yet. In those circumstances I add an edit summary of "sources found at afd" to make the situation clear. If it stops articles being renominated unnecessarily and snow-closed as keep then it's doing a job, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep this tag is perfect for new articles that are notable but no one has had the time or energy yet to add them. As another user noted, I use this tag during NPP. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Tag is helpful for distinguishing from "more citations needed", which conveys that information already present on an article is not sourced (and may be too plentiful to tag with overuse of individual citation needed tags). Ss112 04:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete/redirect per Joe. This is essentially a duplicate template, and I don't find the supposed semantic difference suggested by the 'keep's wanting. --Izno (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Semantically different from other templates in the same genre like {{unreferenced}} or {{more citations needed}}, in that it states there's good reason to believe that the requested sources do exist (and implies that somebody may already have listed them). The fruit labeled by this template is lower-hanging than that marked by the others. XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful/popular template, over 1000 transclusions. A helpful marker that indicates that a borderline article is confirmed to meet GNG, and that it would be easy to beef the article up. Marking "low hanging fruit" for folks that like to work on this sort of thing is useful. All articles should ideally contain GNG passing sources... the entire idea behind GNG is that it's impossible to write a policy compliant article without using GNG passing sources (top quality sources) as the base. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
All articles should ideally contain GNG passing sources
– not only is this not written anywhere in the notability guideline, it explicitly says the opposite, as I explained in the nomination. – Joe (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- It most certainly is true that all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on GNG-passing sources, and that fact is not in conflict with NEXIST at all. NEXIST is not a waiver that absolves articles of the need to be properly sourced; it exists precisely as a guide to what to do about an improperly sourced article when you come across it: if GNG-worthy sources exist to repair the article with, then keep it and either flag it for improvement or fix it yourself if you're so inclined, and if GNG-worthy sources do not exist to repair the article with, then list it for deletion. The entire point of NEXIST, in other words, is precisely because there is a dichotomy between the principle that all of our articles should be based on reliable GNG-worthy sources and the reality that not all of our articles actually are based on reliable GNG-worthy sources in their current states. We do have standards of sourcing that all articles are supposed to be meeting, but not all of them actually do — and of those that don't, some can be improved to meet the necessary standards because better sourcing does exist to fix them with, while others cannot be improved to meet the necessary standards because better sourcing does not exist to fix them with. And that's precisely the distinction this template is meant to reflect. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bearcat: Sources must exist to satisfy notability. Sources must exist and be cited to satisfy verifiability. Those two bodies of sources needn't be, and often aren't, the same. For example, consider this hypothetical article:
- Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a 1997 children's book by J. K. Rowling.[1]
- This is a perfectly valid stub requiring no cleanup tags. The cited source is reliable and fully verifies the information in the article. But it's from the book's publisher, therefore not independent, therefore not counted towards notability. Of course, we all know that there are hundreds of sources out there that do count towards notability – they just don't verify the key facts as succinctly as the non-independent one. So would the article be improved by making it look like this?
- Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a 1997 children's book by J. K. Rowling.[2][3][4][5]
- Obviously not – the extra citations only help patrolling editors. They don't do anything for readers except make the article harder to read. Yet according to the template's description, we should tag the first version with {{sources exist}} because it doesn't look like the second.
- – Joe (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- A Harry Potter book is a misleading example of what is actually under discussion, since Harry Potter books don't even require any sort of investigation to determine whether they're notable or not — we know they are, and a person would have to have just woken up from a 25-year coma to not know that Harry Potter was a thing.
- Let's instead try a more accurate example of what I'm talking about: "The Rabbits Are Eating My Toenails is a book by John Q. Paddywhack. (Reference: self-published website of a print-on-demand self-publishing company.) The end."
- That is not automatically a notable book just because its existence metaverifies itself on a directly affiliated website — and it's a book that does require some investigation into whether it passes our inclusion criteria for books or not. Does reliable source coverage exist to improve the article with, or does it not? If yes, then NEXIST pertains and this template becomes appropriate — if no, then the article has to be listed for deletion because it does not have any reliable source coverage, and is not presumed notable just because of a primary source.
- And if one does find better sources, then one does not just jengastack them on top of a single statement that the book exists, either: one uses them to add content to the article about the things those sources say about the book: a plot description, quotes from critical reviews, and on and so forth. So the article would not look like your second sample either; it would have substance and content going well beyond just a single sentence stating that the book exists, the end.
- All of that said, even a Harry Potter book does still have to have its article be based on independent third party media sources rather than primary ones regardless. Even for a Harry Potter book, your single-sourced example would not be a keepable article in any sense, and would still require improvement with better, more reliable and more independent sourcing than just the self-published website of its own publisher. The only difference is that we already know that better sourcing exists to improve a Harry Potter article with — but for John Q. Paddywhack and his rabbits, that's not a given, so his notability's in more question unless and until somebody actually shows the evidence. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bearcat: Sources must exist to satisfy notability. Sources must exist and be cited to satisfy verifiability. Those two bodies of sources needn't be, and often aren't, the same. For example, consider this hypothetical article:
- It most certainly is true that all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on GNG-passing sources, and that fact is not in conflict with NEXIST at all. NEXIST is not a waiver that absolves articles of the need to be properly sourced; it exists precisely as a guide to what to do about an improperly sourced article when you come across it: if GNG-worthy sources exist to repair the article with, then keep it and either flag it for improvement or fix it yourself if you're so inclined, and if GNG-worthy sources do not exist to repair the article with, then list it for deletion. The entire point of NEXIST, in other words, is precisely because there is a dichotomy between the principle that all of our articles should be based on reliable GNG-worthy sources and the reality that not all of our articles actually are based on reliable GNG-worthy sources in their current states. We do have standards of sourcing that all articles are supposed to be meeting, but not all of them actually do — and of those that don't, some can be improved to meet the necessary standards because better sourcing does exist to fix them with, while others cannot be improved to meet the necessary standards because better sourcing does not exist to fix them with. And that's precisely the distinction this template is meant to reflect. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Has a clear and obvious use in cases where notability has been established but is not yet reflected in the article itself, preventing people from deleting or merging the page by accident. "Unreferenced" tags are often used in articles later found to be non-notable. The problem that this template highlights is a definite problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. As a NPP, I use {{notability}} when I have been unable to find sufficient sources but suspect they exist and {{sources exist}} when I have found them. The distinction is extremely useful. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, an extremely useful tool for NPP tagging and general cleanup in order to mark the page for other editors that might otherwise send it to AfD, it's an entirely different thing from a notability tag, they serve functionally opposite purposes. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources" and "the article itself has to have a GNG-worthy volume of sources in it to be safe from being considered for deletion" can both be true at the same time — and the reason they can both be true at the same time is that there is a very, very real distinction between poorly sourced articles that do have a reasonable volume of useful sources out there with which they could be improved (and thus need to be kept), and poorly sourced articles that do not have a reasonable volume of useful sources out there to improve them with (and thus need to be deleted). So this template is an entirely appropriate way of tagging an article for the fact that an editor has assessed the topic to be in the former boat, and thus is a thing we do need. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - This has been a very useful template during NPP and sometimes at AfC. When notability has been demonstrated but reliable references are not added to support notability, this template has very effective use. Hitro talk 09:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/harry-potter-and-the-philosophers-stone-9781408855652/
- ^ https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/harry-potter-and-the-philosophers-stone-9781408855652/
- ^ https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/99/02/14/reviews/990214.14childrt.html
- ^ https://www.theguardian.com/books/2000/jun/25/booksforchildrenandteenagers.guardianchildrensfictionprize2000
- ^ https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/archives-scotsman-reviews-harry-potter-28-june-1997-1446777
Template:Indo-European topics list
- Template:Indo-European topics list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose deletion of this empty sidebar, which only links to Category:Indo-European. —andrybak (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I changed the link so it now goes to the Indo-European languages page. The point of the template is to be able to include a link to Indo-European topics without taking up a lot of space with the full template. Ario1234 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete to be replaced by a
|short=yes
version of {{Indo-European topics}} that only shows the heading, since that appears to be the intended use case. (inspired by {{COVID-19 pandemic}}) — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Uw-wrongreview
- Template:Uw-wrongreview (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Pending changes reviewers are generally editors who have enough experience editing Wikipedia that they are no longer considered novices; accordingly, this template will often run afoul of WP:DTTR. Moreover, this template is very vague and will almost never convey enough information to tell recipients what they did wrong. Mz7 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep since is helpful to have a template when a reviewer slips up. Those who wish to not template the regulars (notwithstanding that DTTR is merely an essay) can easily leave a personalised message. Lastly, the template clearly says that a review was unacceptable, why so ("violate our guidelines"), and provides a link for the reviewer to read the guidelines. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- While DTTR is indeed "merely an essay", do you disagree with anything about what it says? Giving a templated message to an experienced editor is often seen as patronizing, and I am willing to bet that editors who routinely use this template will eventually find themselves in a situation where another editor is quite annoyed at them. That's a net negative because it'll sour the mood of both the user of this template and its recipient. More fundamentally, while the template does say that a review was unacceptable, it's not clear why exactly the review was unacceptable. The bar for accepting pending changes is deliberately set extremely low: Per WP:RPC#General criteria, an editor merely needs to check whether an edit (1) has BLP violations, (2) is vandalism, (3) contains obvious copyright violations, or (4) contains legal threats, personal attacks, or libel. The guidelines expressly state that
It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting
. Because of this, just because a reviewer accepts an edit that was later reverted does not mean that the reviewer was wrong to accept that edit. Accordingly, reviewer slip-ups are quite rare, and when they do occur, this template does not go into enough detail about what exactly the reviewer did wrong (e.g. misidentifying edits as vandalism or missing an obvious BLP violation) for the reviewer to identify what happened and make an appropriate adjustment. Mz7 (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- While DTTR is indeed "merely an essay", do you disagree with anything about what it says? Giving a templated message to an experienced editor is often seen as patronizing, and I am willing to bet that editors who routinely use this template will eventually find themselves in a situation where another editor is quite annoyed at them. That's a net negative because it'll sour the mood of both the user of this template and its recipient. More fundamentally, while the template does say that a review was unacceptable, it's not clear why exactly the review was unacceptable. The bar for accepting pending changes is deliberately set extremely low: Per WP:RPC#General criteria, an editor merely needs to check whether an edit (1) has BLP violations, (2) is vandalism, (3) contains obvious copyright violations, or (4) contains legal threats, personal attacks, or libel. The guidelines expressly state that
- Delete Not completely convinced about the DTTR issue, but
this template is very vague and will almost never convey enough information to tell recipients what they did wrong
is sufficient reason for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - way too vague to give any useful information to the recipient. Pending changes reviewers are supposed to be trusted members of the community with a reasonable understanding of policies, I do not think this situation should be arising frequently enough to require a standardised warning template. Since having a HTML comment added in April 2020 this template has been used once [1]. It would be better in these situations to leave a personalised message that actually explains the issue with the review, rather than keeping a vague warning template around that gets used once every 2 years. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Ripcurrent Statement
- Template:Ripcurrent Statement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2018 and not edited since then. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Ouragan-class landing platform dock
- Template:Ouragan-class landing platform dock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
A navbox with only 1 main link. None of the two potential links has an article. Gonnym (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
June 27
Template:Sort nowrap
- Template:Sort nowrap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This template was deprecated in favor of the data-sort-value
attribute, has been fully replaced, and is no longer in use. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/numerical ratings
- Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/numerical ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/numerical ratings/criterion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect/formats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/checkextended (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/checkimportance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/checknormal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPBannerMeta/core/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/bchecklist/syntax/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The following sub-templates of Template:WPBannerMeta are unused. I've asked User:MSGJ, who is either the creator or a main editor of these templates and they said they are not needed. Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- delete, Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Metro Bilbao color
- Template:Metro Bilbao color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Metro Bilbao lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Metro Bilbao stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Metro Bilbao style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Metro Bilbao left/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Metro Bilbao left/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Metro Bilbao left/3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Metro Bilbao right/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Metro Bilbao right/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:S-line/Metro Bilbao right/3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Metro Bilbao. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Di-fails NFCC
- 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. No reason given. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Template:Di-fails NFCC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The result of the discussion was delete after replacement as discussed. 176.98.158.31 (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep as an incomprehensible nomination that does not put forward any rationale as to why this template should be deleted. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2022 (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:Akhtaruzzaman
- 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. ✗plicit 14:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Template:Akhtaruzzaman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Two links. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2022 (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:Turkish Second Basketball League clubs
- Template:Turkish Second Basketball League clubs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Not filling its navigational purpose. Never updated. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- delete, Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Shameem Akhtar
- 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. ✗plicit 14:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Template:Shameem Akhtar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
One link. No navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2022 (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 26
Template:Infobox disputed islands
- Template:Infobox disputed islands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox islands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox disputed islands with Template:Infobox islands.
Very little differences in the two templates. Section can be added to {{Infobox islands}} to accommodate country claims and perhaps a banner at the top to denote it as disputed if deemed necessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep, again, per all the same reasons as mentioned in previous attempts to merge these (see here and here). Pinging @Future Perfect at Sunrise, This, that and the other, Int21h, PyroFloe, Pigsonthewing, and Мастер Шторм: as they participated in the previous discussions. The differences are enough (and more than just "very little") that it would require extensive rewriting of Infobox islands to add functionality that only applies to a small subset of articles. As I wrote before, I tried to come up with a good way to incorporate it into the regular islands infobox template, but I could not come up with a way to do so due to the reasons already mentioned above. It's possible there may be a more efficient way to do it using Lua, but I don't know Lua, so I couldn't tell you about that. I posted a question about it over at Wikipedia talk:Lua. Unless Lua could be used to make them more efficient, I am very opposed to merging the templates. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)- Nihonjoe You should remember to ping everyone who has participated in prior discussions. Izno (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Izno: I thought I'd gotten everyone. It looks like I missed you. Sorry. It wasn't intentional. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to Merge as all of the information has been included. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nihonjoe You should remember to ping everyone who has participated in prior discussions. Izno (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge. I've changed my mind since 2013. No clearly-stated reason to keep them separate. The merger looks quite easy, since {{infobox islands}} supports multiple country sections (it did in 2013 too, but I possibly didn't realise it because it was buried in the documentation); it looks like it should just need a single additional parameter to add a "claimed by" heading in the appropriate place. This, that and the other (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other: See my comments below. Unless the same detail can be included in the merging, they should not be merged. The additional detail is important in remaining neutral in presenting the information. This is the exact same reason I (and others) used in opposing this merge in the past, and no one has ever bothered addressing it. Instead, people simply wait a few years and try to merge them again without addressing the concerns regarding the loss of information. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. The 4th testcase shows how a "claimed by" heading can be added with the current parameters of {{Infobox disputed islands}}. Please feel free to add additional test cases or take a look at Template:Infobox islands/sandbox and ping me if any errors come up. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Aidan721: The 4th testcase loses detail for the claimants who aren't administering the islands, drops the coastline information, removes the "Disputed" part at the top of the infobox, and changes the color change at the top (the green). The color change and coastline information aren't vital (though the coastline information is important for a summary, I think), but the other items remove information important to include in the infobox summary if we want to remain neutral. Removing the detail puts an emphasis on the country that controls the islands and relegates to an afterthought the claims by anyone else (they're just a comma-separated list). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nihonjoe: see now. {{Infobox islands/styles.css}} will have to be updated to add the green background to the top. All information is present now; however, I think many of the country subdivision information is overkill but that can be discussed another time. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Aidan721: The 4th testcase loses detail for the claimants who aren't administering the islands, drops the coastline information, removes the "Disputed" part at the top of the infobox, and changes the color change at the top (the green). The color change and coastline information aren't vital (though the coastline information is important for a summary, I think), but the other items remove information important to include in the infobox summary if we want to remain neutral. Removing the detail puts an emphasis on the country that controls the islands and relegates to an afterthought the claims by anyone else (they're just a comma-separated list). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox farm
- 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 keep. Izno (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox farm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox park (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox farm with Template:Infobox park.
The low use farm template is redundant to the park template. Apart for variations on image, address, dimension and mapping parameters, and |disestablished=
, all of which can equally apply to both subjects, the only parameter unique to the farm template is |produces=
. We don't need a whole new infobox for that. The advantages of merging such similar templates are described in my essay on infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Nothing has changed since this was last discussed; these topics are vastly different, despite currently-implemented parameters. Nor is this a common-sense grouping that will make editors' lives any easier; quite the contrary in fact. ɱ (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where was this last discussed, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- December 20, 2018 was the last discussion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where was this last discussed, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't merge. Different topics for two different things. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ɱ and WikiCleanerMan. These are two completely different things, with completely different needs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nihonjoe: Which of their "needs", in an infobox, are different? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. They may have similar parameters but they are completely different subjects. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per Ɱ and WikiCleanerMan. Two different land uses. I couldn't possibly imagine the logic in merging the two infoboxes. It would be like merging bicycles with sewing machines. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- It would not, because the parameters for bicycles and sewing machines are - unlike in this case, as demonstrated - not the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, and I urge the nominator to take a break from these merge nominations for, say, one year to clear their head. Abductive (reasoning) 10:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- My head, unlike your reasoning here, is perfectly clear, and WP:NPA has not been rescinded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. These are too different in the real world for this to be a logical grouping, even if the parameters are analogous. -McGhiever (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- The parameters are not "analogous"; they are the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 2 July 2022 (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 themed area
- Template:Infobox themed area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox amusement park (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox themed area with Template:Infobox amusement park.
{{Infobox themed area}} is simply a wrapper of {{Infobox amusement park}} that does not add any information. Perhaps a redirect would be a better suit. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: See previous TFD from 2019, closed as "no consensus". – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- It appears that by looking at the edit history {{Infobox themed area}} was a redirect after that TFD until January 18, 2022. Perhaps another discussion arose within Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks? –Aidan721 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom and per my 2019 nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Moon cabinet infobox
- 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. ✗plicit 14:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Template:Moon cabinet infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Single-use template used on Moon Jae-In's article. But instead of substitution on there, it should be outright deleted as the information on here is presented in list format as part of the article space of Cabinet of Moon Jae-in. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 26 June 2022 (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:SZM color
- 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. Izno (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Template:SZM color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused color template. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Shenzhen Metro. Gonnym (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2022 (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:FC Desna Chernihiv sections
- 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. Izno (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Template:FC Desna Chernihiv sections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
In fact, BC Chernihiv (basketball), Burevisnyk-ShVSM Chernihiv (volleyball) and Spartak ShVSM Chernihiv (women's football) have nothing to do with FC Desna Chernihiv (football), not legally affiliated with it and are not its sections or "active departments". These clubs are different legal entities with different owners. The template is essentially disinformation, its existence is not justified by anything. Dunadan Ranger (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2022 (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 magazine
- Template:Infobox magazine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox newspaper (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Propose merging Template:Infobox magazine with Template:Infobox newspaper.
The line between newspapers and magazines is increasingly blurred, doubly so in their online forms. These infoboxes have many key parameters in common, and those that are not common to both (and are not simply synonyms) easily could be. The advantages of merging such similar templates are described in my essay on infobox consolidation. Obviously, whatever the new template is called, the unused name(s) should be kept as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox journal should probably be in the pile too. Our citation system calls these periodicals, so that might be a potential name. --Izno (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Our citation system differentiates between {{cite news}}, {{cite magazine}}, and {{cite journal}}. It is useful to have consistency aligning cite templates with infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- CS1. CS2 not so much, and anyway, these are all called periodicals on the backend, if not somewhere in the documentation. Izno (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Our citation system differentiates between {{cite news}}, {{cite magazine}}, and {{cite journal}}. It is useful to have consistency aligning cite templates with infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose In what way are magazines and newspapers the same thing? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: In what way are they not? And more to the point, what differences do we need the two infoboxes to have? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- You should prove it. After all when one makes a nomination like this, you have to prove what lines are being blurred. If magazines and newspapers were the same thing, clearly Time Magazine is a newspaper. And The New York Times is known for being a magazine. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're asking me to prove something that I have not asserted. What I have said is that
"The line between newspapers and magazines is increasingly blurred, doubly so in their online forms"
; that the two infoboxes are almost identical in their properties; and that we don't need two infoboxes to cover the subjects. I also asked you"what differences do we need the two infoboxes to have?"
, and you have not replied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're asking me to prove something that I have not asserted. What I have said is that
- You should prove it. After all when one makes a nomination like this, you have to prove what lines are being blurred. If magazines and newspapers were the same thing, clearly Time Magazine is a newspaper. And The New York Times is known for being a magazine. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan: In what way are they not? And more to the point, what differences do we need the two infoboxes to have? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose two blatantly separate things Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs)`
- The separation is far from "blatant", and, as noted in the nomination,
"The line between newspapers and magazines is increasingly blurred, doubly so in their online forms"
. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The separation is far from "blatant", and, as noted in the nomination,
- Strong Oppose Magazines and Newspapers are not the same and the templates should be kept seperate. A newspaper like L'Acadie Nouvelle is a very different beast than a magazine like Rolling Stone. See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_9#Template:Infobox_journal, which also applies here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, there are differences at the opposite ends of the spectrum. But, like any spectrum, there is a blurring at the centre, You make no argument as to why the templates should be kept separate; nor do you say what parameters need to be different between the infoboxes. Infobox journal is not included in this proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Magazines and newspapers need separate infoboxes. And it is not needed because it would not produce any advantage, but it would yield unnecessary, undesired and incorrect representations. Egeymi (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Egeymi: Please explain why magazines and newspapers need separate infoboxes. How should they differ? How would there be "unnecessary, undesired and incorrect representations"? As noted above, the advantages are described in my essay on infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Create. How about creating {{Infobox periodical}} and then convert {{Infobox magazine}} and {{Infobox newspaper}} into a customized wrapper of {{Infobox periodical}} so that the two infoboxes can have more consistency in style and ordering, while not introducing new parameters to the two infoboxes that are not applicable. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's a merge, with a new name, as proposed here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support creation of {{Infobox periodical}} wrapper per Aidan721. Allows for the best of both worlds, namely consistency of parameter nomenclature and specificity of the different kinds of publications. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – magazines and newspapers are not the same thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: From a not too deep look into these two templates, it would seem that they share a lot of similar parameters (though named differently). If possible (@Pigsonthewing) a mockup of how a merge would look can help with this discussion. I'm also leaning to agree with Aiden that another possible outcome would be to create a parent template for both. That option would be best if there is a large section of different parameters, but not if they use almost the same exact ones. If a merge or wrapper happens, I support renaming the parameter names to follow WP:TMPG with parameter names using underscores to separate words (like Template:Infobox magazine does, mostly). Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- A merged template would look like the current templates do - there is hardly any difference between them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - These "List of manga magazines" are not newspapers. They are focused on demographics/genres with content aimed at a certain age groups. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The same could be said of The Children's Newspaper, "a long-running newspaper", which incidentally, is in Category:Children's magazines published in the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support merge (preferably with the title {{Infobox periodical}}) – There is nothing about the subjects that would suggest that the manner in which their infobox content is presented should be different. While the oppose comments rightly point out that there is a difference between newspapers and magazines, none of them have addressed how that affects infobox content. We can recognize the difference between the two forms of publication while using a common infobox, just as novels and monographs both use {{Infobox book}}.
Infobox consolidation provides for greater consistency in presentation of content and better facilitates template maintenance. Given that these are both forms of periodical and the infoboxes' parameters largely overlap, it's an easy decision. Graham (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's because nobody has given a visual on what this new merged template would look like. I'm fine with a merger here if all of the parameters display the same information in the infobox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: Magazine and newspaper aren’t same. Give Up (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. --Izno (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Old discussions
June 25
Template:3 strongest tornadoes of 2021
- Template:3 strongest tornadoes of 2021 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Templates of this manner have not been created in the past and are not especially useful since the same information already exists at Tornadoes of 2021. Also, “strongest tornadoes” is objective and could mean different things than just rating or highest estimated wind speeds. This template is redundant and should be deleted. United States Man (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Drafity and Fix — This topic itself isn’t notable, but it can be draftified and changed into a EF4s of 2021 template to use as a navigational template. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Like the idea, but it should not be used for tornadoes in one year. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. There's probably a reasonable template this direction, but that template is solely links and not any of the other stuff, and doesn't have an arbitrary cutoff like this one. --Izno (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Glossary term
- Template:Glossary term (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
I don't think it's appropriate to be directing users into wiki-space from article space in the general case, and I don't see sufficient need for this. Outside the mainspace, I think linking to the glossary itself directly suffices in lieu of this template. In general, I would support full deletion. Izno (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed; it should not; meant strictly for Talk or other non-mainspace pages. I’ll add a {{main other}} when I’m back in civilized wifi-land. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)- Okay, this change has been made now, and generates a red error message if used from mainspace. (Or, it could be changed to just generate nothing, if used from mainspace, if that's better?) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
June 22
Template:TVQ
- Template:TVQ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
There was a prior consensus to delete this template, but Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 24 found that it should be reconsidered. This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral myself on its merits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Explanation The reason I no longer believe the deletion of TVQ is necessary—as the one who supported it prior to the original TfD last year—has to do with the underlying database. TVQ is the TV Query template linking to a database maintained by the Federal Communications Commission in the US. At the time of TfD a year ago, this database was frozen in amber. The FCC has for years been effectuating a transition of broadcast databases from an older system known as CDBS to a system called LMS. TVQ was only pulling from CDBS, but years of television changes were recorded only in LMS. This meant some stations' records were so out of date as to be completely inaccurate, especially given major changes in TV channel allocations between 2017 and 2020. There is another template, {{FCC-LMS-Facility}}, that links to most of the same databases, but each transclusion of TVQ has to be manually edited with a new parameter to be replaced by FCC-LMS-Facility.
- The underlying issue is no longer the case, and TV Query now uses data from LMS and is up-to-date. There is no need to delete this template when we also have {{AMQ}} and {{FMQ}} (which, in radio, did not have as pressing a data accuracy issue vis-a-vis LMS as TVQ), templates that never needed to be deprecated at any time. This template is fine for use, even if there are fewer uses of it. My !vote is Keep. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie does {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} do the same thing as this template? Do they both link to the same page? If so, then I'd argue that deprecation of this template should still continue as we shouldn't have two templates doing the same exact thing. Seeing as how {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} is more used (4304 vs 598), that one should be the one kept and used. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- They do not, Gonnym. They link to different interfaces that mostly poll the same underlying data.
- FCC-LMS-Facility requires a Facility ID. For instance, let's use KTVH-DT (FID 5290) with
{{TVQ|KTVH-DT}}
and{{FCC-LMS-Facility|5290|KTVH-DT}}
and see what we get (click on both to see the different pages they yield).
- @Sammi Brie does {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} do the same thing as this template? Do they both link to the same page? If so, then I'd argue that deprecation of this template should still continue as we shouldn't have two templates doing the same exact thing. Seeing as how {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} is more used (4304 vs 598), that one should be the one kept and used. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
KTVH-DT in the FCC TV station database
- Facility details for Facility ID 5290 (KTVH-DT) in the FCC Licensing and Management System
- The LMS template has more uses because it works for radio stations (or anything with an FCC Facility ID) and because we proactively removed TVQ from hundreds of pages. Radio stations have their own query templates, {{AMQ}} and {{FMQ}}, which I never intended for total deprecation and are still in place in the vast majority of articles. (At the time, radio was much less intensively using LMS than TV, so it continuing to be primarily a CDBS-based query was not a major problem, and in any event LMS info is now used throughout the Query family.) The radio and TV station infoboxes can call an LMS link automatically for most US stations, but there's a quirk of the way they're coded that means that I can't recommend their use on most low-power (-LD/-LP) radio and TV stations. (They generate links to public inspection files as well, which do not exist for that class of station. I could avoid this if I could detect call signs ending in -D, -LD, and -LP...) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for now, tone down deprecation notice The main concern people had with this template was that it was generating broken/outdated links, but the link target has been fixed, so using the template is no longer such a bad idea. As such, this should probably be a "templates for merging" discussion at this point, as we now have two templates with the same purpose, both of which are currently functional.
Unifying everything to use {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} seems like it's probably a better idea in the long term – that template takes more information than this one, so it'll be easier to update for any future changes to the URL targets, and the two have much the same purpose – but I don't think there's any particular urgency for the merge. As such, I'd recommend updating the documentation of this template to suggest using {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} instead (but as a recommendation rather than a direct order to use the other template), and updating FCC-LMC-Facility's documentation to remove the "last updated" text and to recommend that the call sign is always specified (in case we ever want to change the links back the other way). It might also make sense for FCC-LMC-Facility to be given an additional parameter, that specifies whether the station is an AM, FM or TV station, so that it could easily be changed to replicate the functionality of {{AMQ}}, {{FMQ}}, and {{TVQ}} if the external links in question ever change again.
There's also been discussion about merging this template with {{Infobox television station}}, which seems reasonable (in particular, Facility IDs are the sort of information which could do with being listed in the infobox), but likewise not particularly urgent and is something that can wait until someone wants to do the work. --ais523 02:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ais523: If so, then I guess it's the time we list this to Holding cell for the proposed merger? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Leaning continued deletion. It has 223 transclusions left. That seems very doable in terms of replacement with {{FCC-LMS-Facility}}. --Gonnym (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} As explained above, there's need to completely convert the remote uses. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
June 19
Template:Import-blanktable
- Template:Import-blanktable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Row hover highlight (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Import-blanktable with Template:Row hover highlight.
Both templates serve the same purpose. — Guarapiranga ☎ 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge into MediaWiki:Common.css and delete both This is a much more complex situation than it looks – the developers are involved, see T287997. What seems to have happened is that there was useful functionality (with respect to table backgrounds and mouse hover) which was included into the site functionality by mistake, but because it was useful, started being used. The functionality was widely used, and then (because it was an accident rather than intentionally included in the software) ended up breaking at some point, and some people made templates to try to recreate it.
It seems uncontroversial that having highlight-on-hover behaviour is useful for at least some tables – generally speaking, tables that are being used to hold tabular data (as opposed to being used for some other purpose) benefit from it. As such, we either need to merge it into the main "wikitable" CSS class, or else split "wikitable" into two (together with WP:MOS guidelines as to when to use each version). Creating a template to do the same work via TemplateStyles and editing it onto every page indiviually is a clever short-term workaround, but a bad long-term solution to the problem – we'll end up with a range of different methods of row-highlighting tables and it'll be harder to move over to a coherent system once the software starts working again.
It's quite plausible that the situation will be fixed by changes to MediaWiki itself; however, if a short-term solution is desirable before then, it should surely be done via site CSS rather than via editing a template onto every page individually, and thus neither of the templates under discussion should really exist. (It is possible that we'll want "Wikipedia's own" data table CSS class with row highlighting, rather than using one which was incidentally part of MediaWiki, in order to be able to optimise it for usage on an encyclopedia; but in that case, we can do a one-time replacement of the CSS class name on articles using a bot, which has to be better than adding a template to every page and then removing the template again once the CSS is fixed properly.) --ais523 22:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's not
Merge into MediaWiki:Common.css and delete both
. WP:TemplateStyles are sufficient to support whatever is going on with the relevant templates and should always be preferred to Common.css for the general rationale behind TemplateStyles (see prior link) as well as my project to remove Common.css styles. Common.css should be reserved exclusively for modifications to site chrome. The functionality was widely used
is an incorrect assessment. It was used by some 300 pages or so. Widely used would be much more than that. --Izno (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)- The functionality was used on many more than 300 pages (with many uses being indirect via templates); see Timeshifter's comment at the end of this archived VPT discussion. (There are at least 1000 uses: over 300 direct, over 100 via {{Static row numbers table}}, and over 600 via {{Kommunestyre table}}.) It probably should be used on almost every table on Wikipedia, including the ones that don't currently use it, which is a reason to add it to the global CSS rather than placing it on every page individually. --ais523 23:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
It probably should be used on almost every table on Wikipedia
I don't think this is supported solely by the fact that essentially one user has added this class/styles to these 300 some odd pages +- template links. There remains no reason to add this to all tables (allwikitable
tables I presume, for obvious reasons like {{infobox}} opposing its general use), and if you think there is, you may submit the patch to the developers that does so. There remain sufficiently many cases where it should not be employed, so I anticipate it being shot down for that reason alone (because Wikimedians are bad at using tables as tables). This is an excellent use case for TemplateStyles. --Izno (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- The functionality was used on many more than 300 pages (with many uses being indirect via templates); see Timeshifter's comment at the end of this archived VPT discussion. (There are at least 1000 uses: over 300 direct, over 100 via {{Static row numbers table}}, and over 600 via {{Kommunestyre table}}.) It probably should be used on almost every table on Wikipedia, including the ones that don't currently use it, which is a reason to add it to the global CSS rather than placing it on every page individually. --ais523 23:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify: my second choice would be to merge the templates with each other, rather than to keep both as separate templates. --ais523 00:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's not
- Merge, but with full functionality of {{import-blanktable}} per User:ais523. (old:
Do not merge templates.). Currently, the older template (Import-blanktable) written by Krinkle on August 4, 2021 does more. See discussions: Template talk:Row hover highlight/styles.css and Template talk:Import-blanktable. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)- Normally, merging templates implies that we create one template which has the functionality of both of the original templates; the basic question about the merge, therefore, is "are there cases where we'd also want a template that does less, or could all situations where we'd want to use either be able to use an improved template that has the functionality of both?". You might want to recommend a particular functionality for the merged template (e.g. that it's based primarily on {{import-blanktable}}'s code), but as it is, your bolded recommendation and your comment with your reasoning don't match each other. --ais523 23:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK. The most advanced tables, in my opinion, are the automatically updated scrolling tables discussed at Help:Table#Scrolling. They have a white background due to {{import-blanktable}}. They are listed at Category:Automatically updated COVID-19 pandemic table templates. They are used, for example, in COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. Nearly all the other data tables in that article also use {{import-blanktable}}. I have seen those data tables there with and without the white background. They are more readable with the white background, especially the less bright one's monitor brightness setting is set at. I don't think the functionality should be tied to wikitable. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Full functionality also means that the white background works without changing already colored cells or rows. See: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox177. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Normally, merging templates implies that we create one template which has the functionality of both of the original templates; the basic question about the merge, therefore, is "are there cases where we'd also want a template that does less, or could all situations where we'd want to use either be able to use an improved template that has the functionality of both?". You might want to recommend a particular functionality for the merged template (e.g. that it's based primarily on {{import-blanktable}}'s code), but as it is, your bolded recommendation and your comment with your reasoning don't match each other. --ais523 23:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Clear merge of the templates. These are doing the same thing. My preference would be to support to end up with the title at Template:Row hover highlight. I would not reference
mw-datatable
as the above task would have been avoided if we were using our own classes. Secondly, I would generally support restricting row hovers towikitable
class tables (perhaps with some namerow-hover
). --Izno (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)I would not reference
mw-datatable
- Yeah, that's meant just as a legacy redirect. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
June 13
Template:Transclusion
- Template:Transclusion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The template alleges it is utilized to avoid disruption and unnecessary server load while editing heavy articles. The unnecessary server load claim is unsubstantiated, and what it calls avoiding disruption really is an excuse to store article text in single-use templates to make it more difficult to edit the content, in direct contravention of WP:TG, and in a clear sign of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- As a sidenote, I'll add that the accusation that this is somehow WP:OWN is not a valid delete rationale and seems off-topic (if you really think this is that, feel free to go make some dramah at the WP:Dramaboard) and a ridiculously obvious failure to AGF. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:IAR/WP:5P5.
avoid disruption and unnecessary server load while editing heavy articles
is a perfectly legitimate reason to use templates, particularly when those do not need to be edited frequently (for example, Template:2021 Canadian federal election synopsis documents the final results of an election - it is extremely unlikely there is any good-faith reason to go substantially messing with these, and what other minor edits tend to happen are not really hampered by the use of a template) and even more so when they are really large (for example, Template:2012 Summer Olympics calendar comes in at nearly 40 kb (!!) of wikitext; and the 2021 election template comes it at well over 100 kb (!!!)). Also "keep" as the nominator does not present an accurate reading of the guideline (a mere guideline, on top of that) they are citing:Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.
. So, beyond the fact that there are no firm rules on Wikipedia; the guideline itself makes clear that exceptions are possible. In this case, both on WP:KISS principles (since most editors will not need to edit those, such large templates being put directly in articles probably does more harm than good); and on the grounds that moving such tables out of mainspace is very likely to reduce disruption and vandalism to them (most vandalism is in article space, not in template space; and most vandals are not familiar with Wikipedia namespaces and template transclusion...). A template explaining this seems therefore perfectly appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It does make an excellent list of low hanging TFD fruit. :) --Izno (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Guarapiranga Searching for "lightweight transclusion" in template space turns up a load of other candidates that have copied the wording of this template without actually transcluding it, e.g. Template:Case Closed manga introduction which is just a paragraph of text. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good one, 192.76.8.94! But all I could find, in addition to that one, was Template:Case Closed anime introduction. Let's add'em to the list above. What did I miss? — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Guarapiranga There's something wrong with your "insource" search, but I can't figure out what it is, sorry. Use the "hastemplate" parameter instead and it turns up the full 42 results: [2]. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed! (It's the curly brackets that are useless there, 192.76.8.94).
- @Guarapiranga There's something wrong with your "insource" search, but I can't figure out what it is, sorry. Use the "hastemplate" parameter instead and it turns up the full 42 results: [2]. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good one, 192.76.8.94! But all I could find, in addition to that one, was Template:Case Closed anime introduction. Let's add'em to the list above. What did I miss? — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Guarapiranga Searching for "lightweight transclusion" in template space turns up a load of other candidates that have copied the wording of this template without actually transcluding it, e.g. Template:Case Closed manga introduction which is just a paragraph of text. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Btw, how does one batch list all these templates at once? Can Twinkle do that? I see people have requested this over the years—1, 6, 9, 11 years ago—but couldn't find a resolution to it. — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I ended up doing it manually here. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Btw, how does one batch list all these templates at once? Can Twinkle do that? I see people have requested this over the years—1, 6, 9, 11 years ago—but couldn't find a resolution to it. — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:PERNOM is not a good argument, particularly when there is a detailed counter-argument just above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your "detailed" counter argument doesn't persuade. This template seeks to eke out a broad exception to WP:TG, and that's not good enough. There may be some valid cases to keeping single/low-use templates out of mainspace (perhaps "complex use of other templates" is one), but I'm not willing to support a template that says so. As I said, it just makes a nice list of targets to ship to TFD. Your example Template:2021 Canadian federal election synopsis in fact is a good one to put back into mainspace, as "documents the final results of an election - it is extremely unlikely there is any good-faith reason to go substantially messing with these" is precisely a reason to put it back, because its presence defeats a central purpose of templates: to be a central place to make updates to many articles. Izno (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- How would sticking a 100+ kb template which doesn't need to be edited in an article be an improvement? It's much easier and in fact a good idea to split out these complex templates which only need infrequent (if any) editing, and this make the rest of the article easier to edit (by removing a massive amount of wikitext which most editors will have no reason to edit). Enforcing the "rules" would make Wikipedia harder to maintain; and this seems like a valid reason to make an exception (one which already has broad application in practice); ergo, a strict desire for enforcement of the "rules" should not be allowed to stand in the way of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Citing IAR is almost never persuasive and usually and actively damages the argument citing it in a consensus discussion.
How would sticking a 100+ kb template which doesn't need to be edited in an article be an improvement?
1) It's article content. Article content goes in article space. This is almost a QED. 2) Most of these templates are not complicated. Long, but not complicated. 3) It disrupts the ability to find templates that actually are used correctly for their purpose. 4) It disrupts some editing tools.only need infrequent (if any) editing
It's not about whether it's needed, it's about whether someone who is able, can. You don't get to choose who those people are. That's why what you have said is being likened to WP:OWNership. Izno (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)- 1) there are plenty of instances of article content being transcluded from other pages (for consistency, for ease of editing, ...). I don't see how this is any different.
- 2) long and simple = still a lot of wikitext to parse trough to edit it
- 3) doesn't follow, even if you assume that these templates are being used incorrectly (heck, by this line of reasoning, this template should be kept so people know which kind of template they've fallen upon)
- 4) Editing tools being disrupted by transclusions (a frequent feature of Wikipedia) is the editing tool's problems.
"only need infrequent (if any) editing" It's not about whether it's needed, it's about whether someone who is able, can.
so, what? Someone who is able to find the template definitively can edit the template when needed; and all the others don't have a huge amount of wikitext to parse through when they don't need to. This is consistent with the WP:KISS principle, making Wikipedia easier to edit even for those who are not aware of it's technical difficulties. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)- I'll stop at 1:
there are plenty of instances of article content being transcluded from other pages (for consistency, for ease of editing, ...). I don't see how this is any different.
Your're contradicting yourself:
Making the tables themselves harder to edit is a feature, not a bug[1]
Section transclusion does indeed make consistent editing across articles easier--especially of tables!--as the transcluded content can be edited in the source article with Visual Editor (which is not available for templates, as these should not normally be used to store article text (WP:TG), but... templates, i.e. repetitive material that might need to show up on a larger number of articles or pages (H:T)--I'm sorry you understood it differently, RandomCanadian). — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)- You are deliberately misunderstanding despite me having explained this multiple times.
for ease of editing
[of the affected articles, not of the tables themselves, as I have been very consistently saying]. Section transclusion requires more technical know-how (it's not as simple as plopping down a{{template}}
) and is more prone to vandalism and disruption (since disruption to the article it's transcluded from is more likely than for an equivalent template). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are deliberately misunderstanding despite me having explained this multiple times.
- I'll stop at 1:
- How would sticking a 100+ kb template which doesn't need to be edited in an article be an improvement? It's much easier and in fact a good idea to split out these complex templates which only need infrequent (if any) editing, and this make the rest of the article easier to edit (by removing a massive amount of wikitext which most editors will have no reason to edit). Enforcing the "rules" would make Wikipedia harder to maintain; and this seems like a valid reason to make an exception (one which already has broad application in practice); ergo, a strict desire for enforcement of the "rules" should not be allowed to stand in the way of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your "detailed" counter argument doesn't persuade. This template seeks to eke out a broad exception to WP:TG, and that's not good enough. There may be some valid cases to keeping single/low-use templates out of mainspace (perhaps "complex use of other templates" is one), but I'm not willing to support a template that says so. As I said, it just makes a nice list of targets to ship to TFD. Your example Template:2021 Canadian federal election synopsis in fact is a good one to put back into mainspace, as "documents the final results of an election - it is extremely unlikely there is any good-faith reason to go substantially messing with these" is precisely a reason to put it back, because its presence defeats a central purpose of templates: to be a central place to make updates to many articles. Izno (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- On the merits, all of the templates transcluding this one should be deleted roughly for the reasons explained by the nominator, and the argument for keeping is "let's randomly ignore established consensus" and should be given little weight. But that doesn't constitute a good reason to delete this template now rather than after it becomes unused. However, this template as written consists of two parts: a useless tautology that could be applied to almost every single template in existence, and a request to ignore WP:BOLD, so it should be deleted independently of whether its transcluding templates should be. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and pppery. I'm also not seeing a good reason to invoke IAR here. The template basically consists of two parts - some claims that transcluding a table via template is less server intensive than having it in an article directly, and instructions not to edit it because it might be disruptive. The performance claims are unsubstantiated and don't make any sense - how is it better for the servers to transclude a table in a template in addition to parsing it? The phrase "lightweight transclusion" doesn't appear to be used anywhere outside this template and clones of it. The instructions to avoid editing the template to avoid disruption are, again, unsubstantiated - How can editing a template transcluded onto one page cause so much disruption that you need to discus edits first? I also think the wording of this template is deep into WP:BEANS territory - if you tell people "don't edit this page or you'll break the servers" I think the most likely outcome is that you will scare off good faith editors and increase the incentive for vandals. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Convert to a cleanup template, eventually delete There are basically two issues involved in this TfD: a) is the practice of writing part of an article on a separate page and transcluding it into the original actually helpful? and b) if it is, is the template {{Transclusion}} itself useful? If the answer to a) is "no", then b) is mostly irrelevant – if every page on which the template is used is a candidate for substing and deletion, then the template can't possibly have any useful use and should be deleted. I think the answer to a) is in fact "no", for multiple reasons: contrary to what the template claims, it probably doesn't reduce server load (it reduces load on the client in some cases, but the server will have to read the whole template in able to transclude it, and this is slower than just using the wikitext directly); it makes pages harder for newer users to edit, whilst not doing much to stop experienced vandals, and as a side effect will make vandalism harder to spot (because it won't show up on the same watchlist as changes to the article); and (probably for these reasons) there's a guideline (WP:TG) specifically banning its use for article text (with the consensus for tables being unclear). I don't believe the server load argument (and suspect that most user's browsers will be able to handle long wikitext nowadays), and in cases where it's desirable to make a page harder for new users to edit, the generally accepted method is to semiprotect it. I can sort-of see the argument that it's more useful to inexperienced users to show some of a page's wikitext but not the rest when editing, but that's the reason why section headings come with edit links (and most of these sorts of long tables of data are likely to belong in sections of their own).
If consensus agrees with me that many of the pages with which this template is correctly tagged shouldn't exist, then we effectively have a cleanup/maintenance task on our hands – look at all the page fragments tagged with this template or its substed versions, and decide whether they should be subst'ed into the original article or whether using them as transclusions is preferable (in which case they aren't substantially different from the other pages in the Template: namespace, so we may as well remove this template from them). So what we'd logically want to do is to delete the template, then put a cleanup tag on every page that used it. We could save a lot of trouble by just editing the template into the cleanup tag, though – it should contain a summary of the relevant policy and an explanation of when these fragments should be in template namespace and when they should be WP:substed into the article. The main problem with this is that it's unclear what the relevant guidelines for this actually should be – this might need wider community input to come to a consensus on, rather than being confined to a single TfD.
Even if we decide that all the pages tagged with the template should exist, though, the template itself has serious wording issues; even though the policy is unclear, the current wording of the template definitely seems to be misrepresenting it (the "server load" argument seems specious, "lightweight transclusion" isn't defined and is probably misleading, and the only instruction is a WP:BOLD violation). The pages it's tagged with don't seem significantly different from everything else in the Template: namespace in terms of, e.g., what considerations are needed when editing them, so if we do keep them all, we should probably just remove this template from them and delete it. So either way, it makes sense to delete the template eventually; it's simply a matter of whether we want to do something about the pages tagged with it (and/or with subst'ed versions of it) first. --ais523 15:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- If consensus agrees with me that many of the pages with which this template is correctly tagged shouldn't exist
- I, for one, do, ais523.
- then we effectively have a cleanup/maintenance task on our hands
- Indeed we do.
- look at all the page fragments tagged with this template or its substed versions
- — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- And here they are, listed for discussion. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I won't fall into the trap of editors caught up in WP:OWN. If examples such as Template:2021 Canadian federal election synopsis fall by the wayside as a result of having this template deleted, I have the table backed up in my sandbox history to move it over to a new, or other main, article.Raellerby (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had a look at {{2021 Canadian federal election synopsis}} here, Raellerby, and tbh could't find anything so ominous and exceptional about it. It's a long table, yes, but transcluded into an article—the only one!—composed mostly of tables and maps, and little prose. Could it be 'minified' with row formatting templates? Sure. But that doesn't preclude {{2021 Canadian federal election synopsis}} from being subst'ed and deleted. So, yeah, not even that one is an exception to the rule (I'm not disagreeing with you). — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Completed discussions
A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".
For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.