V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 207 | 213 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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.
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.
- Moving and renaming
- Use Wikipedia:Requested moves.
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 in 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 {{Tfd notice}}
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
June 29
Template:Clone High
- Template:Clone High (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
All links are included in Clone High's infobox. Painting17 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery: I cleaned the template up; it can be kept now. Lo Chiamavano (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? You don't seem to have actually addressed the reason for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery: I cleaned the template up; it can be kept now. Lo Chiamavano (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - there is now a character article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- There's one article based on a character, and then a list of characters. I certainly enjoyed the show, but two Clone High-related articles aren't enough to warrant a navbox. Painting17 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are five. Clone High itself, obviously, the list of characters page, pages for Cleo and Gandhi, and Glenn (the Janitor from Scrubs, who appeared in the first season in a guest role, and silently in the second season). More than enough pages to justify a template. Lo Chiamavano (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- There's one article based on a character, and then a list of characters. I certainly enjoyed the show, but two Clone High-related articles aren't enough to warrant a navbox. Painting17 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment After removing unrelated links, the navbox still does not merit remaining. All these links can be accessible on the main article for the show. A navbox has to be more than a simple list, it must provide navigation outside of easy links found on articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- keep, used on 9 pages. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vitaium (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Coordinate
- Template:Coordinate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Is this template useful or exact copy of {{coord}}? This template is use to translate German to English coordinate. Should it just be a redirect to {{coord}}. Vitaium (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
June 28
Template:Waterloo Woo
- Template:Waterloo Woo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Very much premature. There is an (one) article about this club (established 2023), which I moved to draft space for lacking any source. Notability has not been established. Kleuske (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Maiden voyage sinkings
- Template:Maiden voyage sinkings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
As these ships have little to do with one another, this does not seem to be a suitable topic for a navbox. Half of them are redlinks anyway. Instead, this seems a lot more appropriate as a category. --woodensuperman 12:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, please realize that categories and navboxes work hand-in-hand on Wikipedia and should not be an either/or choice. This one is interesting, although the red links should be turned black or removed. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Randy Kryn. Alternatively, we could create the list of ships lost on their maiden voyage. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Listify -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- move to a list article. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Mobile compatibility issue
- Template:Mobile compatibility issue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Created over a year ago. I asked the template's creator if they had a plan for it, but no plan was explained. Redundant to {{Template display}}, which could be adapted with a different text option if one is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Collage
- Template:Collage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Transcluded in just one article talk page, showing a usage that has since been replaced by {{Multiple image}}, which does a better job of matching the prevailing style on the English Wikipedia. {{Photo montage}} is also widely used. This template has outlived its usefulness. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Tutorial sandbox header VE
- Template:Tutorial sandbox header VE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, and it does not appear to be used in the source of any pages. Since there is no documentation, it is not easy to determine if this was used anywhere. My guess is that the VE tutorial was modified, and this template was removed from the tutorial. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, no idea what this was for. Looking through my contributions at the time, there is a gap following the creation of the template. I can only assume the page I added it to at the time has since been deleted.
- This, that and the other (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:W-all/Graphical
- Template:W-all/Graphical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused template subpage with no explanation, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2009. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
June 27
Template:1976 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football standings
- Template:1976 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused with no article to add it to. Gonnym (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep; now transcluded at 1976 NCAA Division II football season. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:1951 Montana Collegiate Conference football standings
- Template:1951 Montana Collegiate Conference football standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused with no article to add it to. Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep; now transcluded at 1951 college football season. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Pi Kapp Stats
- Template:Pi Kapp Stats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Phi Kappa Psi Stats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Created in 2008 and 2010. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Prionezhsky District
- Template:Prionezhsky District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with no blue links in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Rome church
- Template:Rome church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or documentation. Created in 2006. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Swlf
- Template:Swlf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2012. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Swiss Federal Archives Doc ID
- Template:Swiss Federal Archives Doc ID (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Created in 2009. Used only in one editor's User draft page. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Suggested Article edit guidelines
- Template:Suggested Article edit guidelines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2006. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Storylink
- Template:Storylink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Created in 2010, and used in just one editor's User page. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- substitute and delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like y'all deleted the pages that were using it, so do whatever.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
June 26
Template:Legal position of secretaries of state
- Template:Legal position of secretaries of state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Article content with no template parameters, documentation, or categories. Use section transclusion instead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- merge and delete after updating articles to use WP:LST. it looks like Secretary of State (United Kingdom) has the corresponding section name, but merging with Powers of the home secretary might be better since it has a section with only this template as content. Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:CAN-AFG detainee issue
- Template:CAN-AFG detainee issue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single-article content with no template parameters, documentation, or categories. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Ahmed Raza Khan
- Template:Ahmed Raza Khan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to {{Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Dominican Summer League Cardinals Red roster
- Template:Dominican Summer League Cardinals Red roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused roster template. The one that is used appears to be at {{Dominican Summer League Cardinals roster}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate of {{Dominican Summer League Cardinals roster}} (though that one itself doesn't have many blue links to justify a template- that's a separate issue though). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Frederick Keys roster
- Template:Frederick Keys roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused roster template with no documentation or template parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Leeds Carnegie roster
- Template:Leeds Carnegie roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused roster template with no template parameters, categories, or documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete the template hasn't been updated since 2014 and none of the people listed look notable. I think that it was a team roster for the now defunct Leeds Carnegie (basketball), in any case it isn't needed as it doesn't link notable people, and would probably be single use at most anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Billings Mustangs roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Boise Hawks roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Grand Junction Jackalopes roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Great Falls Voyagers roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Idaho Falls Chukars roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Missoula PaddleHeads roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ogden Raptors roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Rocky Mountain Vibes roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
List of Pioneer League team rosters has been changed to use section transclusion instead of transcluding templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- delete, looks like these have all been merged with the parent articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:New York City Police Department vehicles
- Template:New York City Police Department vehicles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single-article content with no template parameters. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. This template was created to keep the information in New York City Police Department#Vehicles and Police vehicles in New York City synchronized. I'm not going to search through four years' worth of revisions to find which well-meaning but uninformed editor subst'd it and made it into a single-use template. Useddenim (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TG:
Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.
Joseph2302 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) - Delete This is a classic use case for {{excerpt}} * Pppery * it has begun... 23:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:National Members of the African Minifootball Federation
- Template:National Members of the African Minifootball Federation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Not enough links for a navbox. Category:National members of the African Minifootball Federation has only one article, so I do not see any other potential links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete not enough blue links. I'm not convinced that the one blue link Tunisian Minifootball Federation is actually notable, and thus don't expect articles for other countries to be created. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Mysore Kingdom Musicians
- Template:Mysore Kingdom Musicians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single-article content with no template parameters. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:2023 Cricket World Cup Qualifier final standings
- Template:2023 Cricket World Cup Qualifier final standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Not currently used, and will just be a single-use template on 2023 Cricket World Cup Qualifier (when the information for it is known). As such, not needed as a separate template, when information can just be added to the 2023 Cricket World Cup Qualifier instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:MedalTopPic
- Template:MedalTopPic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This shouldn't need to exist. Once we get into including an image in a medaltop template, what we really want is {{infobox}}, or in this case specifically {{infobox sportsperson}}. I made what was an essentially trivial replacement here just to show how easy it is to remove this template. It's apparently listed as deprecated at Template:MedalTableTop#Historical templates also, with other trivial replacement (that I would prefer not to switch to due to other reasons). Izno (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- delete, after converting to use {{infobox sportsperson}} or another infobox where appropriate (e.g., Edwin Scharff and Aale Tynni). Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
June 25
Template:Stott family of Oldham
- Template:Stott family of Oldham (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single use template. I additionally think it should be converted to use one of our standard "family tree" templates, but I could not understand how to make those go... Izno (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- substitute and delete, I converted it to use "tree chart". Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Should be replaced by {{infobox military rank}}, which incorporates the desirable qualities of this template while being more generally informative and standardized. Izno (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Bodmin RailTrail
- Template:Bodmin RailTrail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused and replaced by another rail template used on article it was created for. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Renaissance Pictures
- Template:Renaissance Pictures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Wrong use of template space to link films made by a production company. We don't list every work made by said company in template space rather leave it to categories for the respective articles. No article for the company exists as it has been deleted since January for lack of notability. Regardless, this template should not be here. Might be the only one like this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Potential 2024 Repub Candidates
- 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 delete under CSD G7, per author request below. Tollens (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Potential 2024 Repub Candidates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I probably should have G6'd this while it was still in mainspace. Whoops. Now it's in template space. It appears to be a {{#section}}
(excerpt) of a section of an article. Zero transclusions. Unless the creator can give a good reason and a planned use for this template, I think deleting it makes sense. cc Tollens. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, unless there's a particularly good reason I'm missing. I should probably note that I originally proposed the G6 deletion while the page was in mainspace. Tollens (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize, I am new to the Wikipedia editing world and I made a mistake. I'll delete if I can and if I can't one of you guys can delete it. Apologies. IEditPolitics (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2023 (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 song contest/Turkvision Song Contest 2016
- Template:Infobox song contest/Turkvision Song Contest 2016 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Sub-template for Template:Infobox song contest infobox to show map within infobox for a now-deleted article. Serves no purpose. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Turkvision Song Contest templates
- Template:Tsc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tsccnty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Templates no longer serve a purpose as all country articles have been deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest 2016; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyumen Oblast in the Turkvision Song Contest; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest) and any remaining related redirects are currently going through RfD and are likely to also be deleted (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 25#Xinjiang in the Turkvision Song Contest). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Indian footwear industry
- Template:Indian footwear industry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Something not useful for a navbox. A navbox should not be a directory of companies. If someone browsing Wikipedia is looking for articles on footwear companies in a country that has an article, they can find it through the categories related to the subject. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:WISFrecruit
- Template:WISFrecruit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Entirely unused template for a taskforce that was deleted in 2011. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The template is in fact transcluded. User:WikiCleanerMan, User:Pichpich, User:Lenticel, please review your comments in light of that fact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)- As the taskforce is deleted, there is no more future need for this. Subst it to the talk pages it was used on then delete. Gonnym (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Subst and delete even if the task force still existed, this is the sort of user talk template that is typically substituted. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Grandson
- Template:Grandson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused template created in an attempt by an editor to add a non-notable individual to a biography. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/state
- Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/subtopic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/topic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/typecats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/types (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused sub templates of Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads probably since this edit. Gonnym (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:2015 Munster Senior Football Championship bracket
- Template:2015 Munster Senior Football Championship bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template only used on one page with no clear uses elsewhere; recommend substituting and deleting. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:British Virgin Islands
- Template:British Virgin Islands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:British Virgin Islands topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:British Virgin Islands with Template:British Virgin Islands topics.
Both navboxes are covering the same subject. There should only be one main BVI navbox, British Virgin Islands topics. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
June 24
Template:Infobox NAIA basketball tournament
- Template:Infobox NAIA basketball tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox college basketball tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox NAIA basketball tournament with Template:Infobox college basketball tournament.
The two templates share much of the same functionality, and I don't think there's much of a compelling case for keeping them separate. fuzzy510 (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. Also Note the existing NAIA templates as they currently are do not work for NAIA without divisions. That functionality needs to be added to/fixed in the merged template. I know this is not cleanup but should be something to look out for.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nuetral/Merge I think I made this, no? Made this back in 2007/8-ish, and was a Wikipedia novice at the time. Can the MVP awards still retain their unique titles after the merge? At the time of creation I didn't know that process. I don't see why they couldn't merge right? Moonraker0022 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Filefolder
- Template:Filefolder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Framework (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Filefolder with Template:Framework.
Two adaptations of it:Template:Cartella, no significant difference. We can easily merge them into a single (and better coded) template. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Current tvOS
- Template:Current tvOS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused release version template. Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep: it's now used by Apple TV. Guy Harris (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)- Delete: Apple TV is now using {{Current tvOS/short}}; the non-short versions seem mainly to be used in infobxes for hardware - that's what the "Current:" is there for - and that's mainly useful for infoboxes about a particular piece of hardware, rather than a line of hardware. Unless there are pages for individual Apple TV models, this probably won't be used. Guy Harris (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Current macOS
- Template:Current macOS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused release version template. Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Current iPadOS 15
- Template:Current iPadOS 15 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused release version template. Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: unused no longer, now used in the infoboxes for iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini 4, as those iPads are supported by iPadOS 15 but not iPadOS 16. Guy Harris (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:State College Spikes roster
- Template:State College Spikes roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single-article roster template. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:NAFL Roster
- Template:NAFL Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Transcluded only in one editor's sandbox. No documentation or categories. Userfy, or subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Wild Health Genomes Roster
- Template:Wild Health Genomes Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single-article roster template. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:IT grades
- Template:IT grades (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single-article content with no template parameters. A simple table. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Iamshe
- Template:Iamshe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with a main article at I Am She–Miss Universe India but no links to different articles in the body. No opportunity for expansion, because the beauty pageant was discontinued after four years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Module:WikiProjectBanner
- Module:WikiProjectBanner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
2013 attempt at writing Module:WikiProject banner. Now redundant. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
June 23
Template:Haridasa poets (Kannada) of 17th-19th century
- Template:Haridasa poets (Kannada) of 17th-19th century (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single-article content. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Major Divisions of Antigua and Barbuda
- Template:Major Divisions of Antigua and Barbuda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions of this navbox, and very few links. Category:Populated places in Antigua and Barbuda is probably sufficient to link these places together. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 17:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. it's all fading awaytalk 23:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- However, I don’t exactly think they should be put into populated places in Antigua and Barbuda as these are 2nd level administrative divisions, I think Category:Major Divisions of Antigua and Barbuda would be better. it's all fading awaytalk 23:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Revisions query
- Template:Revisions query (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2009. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Regex/quote
- Template:Regex/quote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Railway stations served by Lumo
- Template:Railway stations served by Lumo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Not really enough content for a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reason as the nomination. Way too small. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Rah Ahan F.C. squad
- Template:Rah Ahan F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. The club does not appear to have played any matches since 2018. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:RCorrèze
- Template:RCorrèze (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Added it to one article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Subst and delete This, as well as its chain of dependencies, are a trivial succession of wikilinks and arrows that does not amount to enough code to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Prefectural football associations in Japan
- Template:Prefectural football associations in Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Empty navbox with no transclusions. Created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Pler
- Template:Pler (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Based on this discussion, it hasn't been used since August 2010 or so. Legoktm (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:PastACID
- Template:PastACID (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Namespace conversion talk
- Template:Namespace conversion talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in December 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Slur
- Template:Slur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Does not appear to have been adopted. Created in 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Solar Saros series 150
- Template:Solar Saros series 150 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, or template parameters. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier speed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier propulsion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier length (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier draught (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier displacement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier beam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier armour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier armament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
All of these undocumented article content templates have apparently been substed into the pages that transcluded them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Canadian federal election, 1997/Lisgar—Marquette
- Template:Canadian federal election, 1997/Lisgar—Marquette (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. According to Lisgar—Marquette and its sources, this electoral district did not exist in 1997. This template is not sourced, so it is unclear why it exists or how it may be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as an accidental duplication of Template:Canadian federal election, 1997/Portage—Lisgar. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Canadian federal election, 1891/Russell
- Template:Canadian federal election, 1891/Russell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. This template might be usable in one of the linked biographies or in Russell (Ontario federal electoral district), but with no text or sources either in the template or in the biographies that point to this election, it does not appear to be usable as is. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:British Columbia provincial election, 1933/Cowichan-Newcastle
- Template:British Columbia provincial election, 1933/Cowichan-Newcastle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Has been replaced in the relevant article by {{Canadian election result}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:BattleHonour/ZAR
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Template:BattleHonour/ZAR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. The documentation is for {{BattleHonour}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Speedy Delete. The template is now a LUA module and the data is kept as a subset of that module. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoonDock (talk • contribs) 19:50, 23 June 2023 (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:Airline seasonal hub
- Template:Airline seasonal hub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Created in February 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Zhing/Kunstig intelligens grafisk information
- 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 delete (G7). (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Zhing/Kunstig intelligens grafisk information (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or documentation. Created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete — that template is still being developed, I should have left it on my user page. ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 14:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (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:WIR
- Template:WIR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WIR-184 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WIR-188 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WIR-194 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- etc.
- Category:Wrapper templates for WikiProject Women in Red - list here
Propose merging all wrapper templates with Template:WIR.
All these wrapper templates should be consolidated into one single template. For example on Talk:2016 New York State Assembly 65th district special election the WikiProject Women in Red banner is duplicated. While we're here, can we also rename Template:WIR to the clearer and more standard name Template:WikiProject Women in Red? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. Vyvagaba (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Merge. Out of all talk page WikiProject banners, these are one of the less useful, as they don't contribute to future editing as other WikiProject banners do (as tagging adds useful information about importance and quality, etc.), but rather lets people know about a past event that some random editor did "some" editing on this page. That is hardly useful. That said, this isn't a question about deleting but merging. The current situation is that all WikiProject banners have one single instance of the banner on a page, regardless of the number of task forces (of the same WikiProject) that tag it, while these "Women in Red" banners can have multiple (and potentially, dozens or more) on the same page. This leads to clutter in the top section of a talk page and a real issue of undue weight for a single project. Gonnym (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Gonnym "
multiple (and potentially, dozens or more) on the same page
": No. There are up to 4 editathons a month plus perhaps 2 ongoing projects for the year, so no article would have "dozens" of templates. I was delighted, one month, to create an article for Wanda Szuman which was within 4 different editathons, but this was very much the exception. I'm open to ideas for change, but just wanted to correct the impression that an article might be flooded with "dozens or more" of WiR templates: it would have one, two, or very occasionally three or four. PamD 06:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Gonnym "
- Merge, but don't rename to "WikiProject Women in Red" since it doesn't support
|class=
and|importance=
, but is instead a "hey this was created or improved during an article creation drive" notice (similar to Template:Kansas City Jazz Edit-a-thon 2018, Template:Amherst edit-a-thon, ...). I would rather see that sort of thing posted in a section on the talk page, rather than a banner at the top of the page to reduce the clutter mentioned above. But, that's probably a longer conversation elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)- WikiProject banners do not need to support those parameters ({{WikiProject Mathematics}} did not for a long time) last I checked. The template already uses WPBannerMeta, so clearly it's thought of as a WikiProject banner.
- As for the permanence of interest of the banner, it's not different from {{GOCE}}. Which does make it a different discussion, but as we already have prior art on the point... Izno (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are quite a lot of WikiProject banners that do not support either class or importance -
{{WikiProject Accessibility}}
,{{WikiProject Article Incubator}}
,{{WikiProject Categories}}
,{{WikiProject Caves}}
,{{WikiProject Commonwealth}}
,{{WikiProject Days of the year}}
, etc. I can supply a much longer (but still incomplete) list if necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- An earlier discussion about merging. I retain the same opinion as there, that these should be merged. Izno (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really participate in TFMs, so lack the understanding of best practices here. I do support mergeing them all, however, I would not want loss of information, so I would appreciate it if the templates are merged together in such a manner that the banner supports multiple events simultaneously. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. This is akin to merging {{WikiProject Physics}}, {{WikiProject Biology}} etc... to {{WPBannerMeta}}. Merging these templates will create a huge mess and make an absolute nightmare of creating new templates for new editathons. This will break the workflow of WIR and cause substantial headaches to WIR coordinators, and limit the deployment of automated tools that really on these templates, like WP:RECOG. Also ping @Megalibrarygirl, Rosiestep, and Victuallers:. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose: I can understand the frustration of reviewers when more than one WIR tag appears on the same talk page but I for one find the individual tags very useful when reviewing new articles, especially those of new members of the project who frequently need assistance. I take special interest in those related to culture, music and writing but also look out for work on STEM and priorities such as climate and women's rights. We devote considerable efforts to promoting articles to DYK and I find it useful to see which articles have been created in connection with a specific event. Once they appear on DYK, they can then be listed under the corresponding event page, providing incentives for future work and possible upgrading. It is far easier to do this from the talk pages than to go into general listings and monitoring each and every article. I therefore very much hope we can continue including tags for individual events but I agree that not more than one WIR tag should be added on any talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose: Merging (or deleting) these templates will have quite a negative impact on the workflow of WP:WikiProject Women in Red. Being well-organized is one of our strong suits. These talkpage templates support being well-organized. Please don't start making changes until you have discussed this thoroughly at the WikiProject's talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose: What she said and ... (1) Surely its an advantage that WIR don't add to the over definition of class and importance. I know that you sometimes see a difference in importance or class from wikiproject to wikiproject (for the same article) but its usually due to lack of interest in updating these for multiple projects. There is too much duplication of info because each WP claims to independantly define these. These WPs could improve Wikipedia by not all having these parameters ... like WIR. and (2) Why object to the template being called WIR and not Women in Red - its a typing issue. They all say the full name of this project when they are displayed so the confusion is very shallow (if at all). Victuallers (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - no functional reason appears to be stated in the nomination statement while the negative impact on organizing and building the encyclopedia appears significant. For example, one of the current initiatives is {{WIR-272}} (LGBTQ+ women | Wiki Loves Pride | June 2023), which helps organize editors in a collaborative effort to create and improve articles, while the template on the article Talk page shows support for under-represented individuals and groups on Wikipedia, and directs readers and editors to further resources to help build the encyclopedia. WIR is a very active project and the various banners for editing initiatives reflects its wide scope; this is a significant support for editors and community building in a project with well-recognized disparities in coverage based on gender. Concerns about more than one banner being added to the Talk page of an article can be addressed with Wikiproject Women in Red instead of deleting (through a merge) all of the banners that represent editing initiatives. Beccaynr (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose It would be excessive to merge such large templates making the resultant template too unwieldy and unmaintainable. scope_creepTalk 15:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Checking the names of the people voting merge above, none appear to be members of the Wikiproject Women in Red. (That was not surprising to me, as we are typically a very interactive group and had such a topic been proposed on the project talk page, I am fairly certain there would have been civil discussion weighing it.) It seems illogical and somewhat bizarre that without discussing the proposal with the project itself or ascertaining the project members' input on their banner organization scheme that a proposal would be made to drastically alter said scheme. Perhaps a discussion with the project is in order, but this proposal verges on being disruptive to the project goals without valid reason to how it would be of greater benefit to wikipedia as a whole. SusunW (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose merger. It is pretty unusual for any article to have more than one WiR banner template, but if the article is created at the intersection of two or, very occasionally, three or four editathons, then it should have those templates. These are used by some members of the WiR project in their work on the project's articles, and the carefully-built structure of templates they rely on should not be broken without thorough consideration of how else to achieve the same data collection. PamD 19:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: besides the fact that personal summons where sent to rush in one side's "strong oppose" crowd (you guys know that isn't a thing, right?), the core opposition seems to really not understand what a merge is on a technical level. Here are a few quotes to illustrate that point:
This is akin to merging {{WikiProject Physics}}, {{WikiProject Biology}} etc... to {{WPBannerMeta}}.
- No it isn't. This is akin to having 200 versions of {{WikiProject Physics}} and having more than 1 of them on the same talk page.
- Yes it is. {{WPBannerMeta}} is used to create {{WikiProject Physics}}, which is then used to subscribe to WP:AALERTS and WP:RECOG] and other things distinctly from {{WikiProject Biology}}, exactly like how {{WIR}} is used to create {{WIR-1}} and {{WIR-100}}, which are then used as distinct templates for each edit-a-thons, which can be used to subscribe to WP:AALERTS and WP:RECOG] and other things distinctly from one another.
Merging these templates will create a huge mess and make an absolute nightmare of creating new templates for new editathons
- how will it create a mess? And I really hope it will be anabsolute nightmare of creating new templates for new editathons
, as that is the point. There won't be a need to create 200 of these templates. Instead, a single template or module will just need to be updated with a single line of new data.
Merging (or deleting) these templates will have quite a negative impact on the workflow of WP:WikiProject Women in Red
- it won't. If it will, please explain with examples.
- For one, we will no longuer be able to subscribe to WP:RECOG on a per-event basis. And that's touching the surface. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Pretty much incorrect. You can subsribe to Template:WIR and it should work. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Being well-organized is one of our strong suits. These talkpage templates support being well-organized.
- irrelevant. A merge won't change that. If it will, please explain with examples.
Why object to the template being called WIR and not Women in Red
- irrelevant. But because you asked, the naming convention for WikiProject banner templates is "Template:WikiProject project". If I'm not mistaken, there are some automated tools that also depend on that (but I may be wrong about that part).no functional reason appears to be stated in the nomination statement
- while not in the nomination statement, but a few comments below I wroteclutter in the top section of a talk page
which I eluded to Banner blindness.while the negative impact on organizing and building the encyclopedia appears significant
- how? Please explain with examples.It would be excessive to merge such large templates making the resultant template too unwieldy and unmaintainable
- how? From experience in merging, this is one of the more easiest and straightforward merges I've seen.
- {{WIR}} and its suite of templates have an extremely complex set of behaviour depending on their use case. Merging to preserve the same functionality would be a massive undertaking, and very likely break things, and make things more complex for those of us that actually use these templates.
- No they don't. Template:WIR-250 for example is just a wrapper for {{WIR}} and the only thing it does is slightly modify the banner text and placing the article in Category:WikiProject Women in Red 2022 articles. Again, this is nothing different than any other task force. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Checking the names of the people voting merge above, none appear to be members of the Wikiproject Women in Red
- And?
- That's like going to your house and giving away your kitchenware because we decided you no longer need it because we felt that it would be better for you if you were to eat with your hands instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Except this isn't your house, and you don't WP:OWN anything. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- When a group is housed in a shared space, one group does not get to secretly meet and impose decisions upon others who will be impacted by that decision. Common politeness and WP: Civility requires maintaining professionalism, a part of which is communication and care with the opinions of others, i.e. with the parties who will be impacted. SusunW (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
It is pretty unusual for any article to have more than one WiR banner template
- It isn't. See this list from the 2nd column
- Gonnym (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Inspecting a random 20 cases found 1 WIR "duplicate" in there. These banners don't populate that category. There were many {{WP Women}} duplicates however, but that's a different banner entirely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- The category is sorted by Wikiprojects, check this link out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_using_WikiProject_banner_shell_with_duplicate_banner_templates?from=Women%20in%20Red . There's 770 pages with the sortkey
Women in Red
. Note that some pages may have multiple duplicate banners, in which case the sortkey of one banner may override WIR's sortkey, so even the 770 number is not all-inclusive. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)- @CX Zoom That's 770 articles out of 202,704 WiR articles: 0.38%, or 1 in 263. I suggest that's "pretty unusual", and not worth disrupting a group of editors' useful work. PamD 10:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- I only see 45,776 (Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages)? Of them 1029 are non-article talk pages. For what its worth, the pages with a single WIR banner will see no visible or functional difference at all. Those with 2 or more will have all the available information consolidated together, instead of being redundant on a talk page. That being said, mergers should not disrupt any work you do. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom I took the figure from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red#Totals at a glance. And I have been told, by other editors, that merger will indeed disrupt work that they do based on the templates. PamD 12:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm suspecting that it picks up every article designated as female on Wikidata or some similar criteria, so the number gets a bit high (see Special:Permalink/732922555#Automated metrics report ready for feedback). As for workflow disruption, we are discussing that below. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom I took the figure from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red#Totals at a glance. And I have been told, by other editors, that merger will indeed disrupt work that they do based on the templates. PamD 12:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- I only see 45,776 (Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages)? Of them 1029 are non-article talk pages. For what its worth, the pages with a single WIR banner will see no visible or functional difference at all. Those with 2 or more will have all the available information consolidated together, instead of being redundant on a talk page. That being said, mergers should not disrupt any work you do. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom That's 770 articles out of 202,704 WiR articles: 0.38%, or 1 in 263. I suggest that's "pretty unusual", and not worth disrupting a group of editors' useful work. PamD 10:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- The category is sorted by Wikiprojects, check this link out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_using_WikiProject_banner_shell_with_duplicate_banner_templates?from=Women%20in%20Red . There's 770 pages with the sortkey
- re:
while the negative impact on organizing and building the encyclopedia appears significant - how? Please explain with examples
- I provided examples in my comment, specifically with how one current editing initiative functions (including a link), and generally with how WIR supports editors and helps build the encyclopedia. Each banner is a separate resource, and does more than note an association with WIR. Also, the result of this proposal seems to limit specific outreach and organizing efforts to improve coverage of women - the reduction in visibility of the wide range of collaborative efforts by WIR seems like a negative impact on building the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, the benefit of this proposal remains unclear to me. Beccaynr (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC) - @Gonnym You assert that there has been WP:Canvassing, under your link "personal summons" above, but as far as I know there was a routine notification to the creator of {{WIR-184}} who then, quite reasonably, informed the Wikiproject about this discussion. It is good practice to notify any involved Wikiproject when nominating templates for discussion here, so I see no "Canvassing", just the normal act of alerting the people who use the template. PamD 09:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- User:PamD, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear by what I was referring to, but notice the personal summons Headbomb sent to very specific editors above. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Gonnym Ah, I hadn't spotted that: but if Headbomb knows that the templates are used in the workflow of three particular editors, whose work might be seriously hindered by possible change, it seems reasonable to alert those editors, don't you think? Would you prefer those editors not to be notified in time to join the discussion? I see that there was no general notification of this discussion to the relevant project (ie WiR), as is good practice. Templates for Discussion don't seem to appear in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts. (I thought I was at fault for not looking down that page further than AfDs and PRODs, but now I go back to check I see no TfDs). PamD 10:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- User:PamD, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear by what I was referring to, but notice the personal summons Headbomb sent to very specific editors above. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Inspecting a random 20 cases found 1 WIR "duplicate" in there. These banners don't populate that category. There were many {{WP Women}} duplicates however, but that's a different banner entirely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support The opposers don't seem to understand the proposal or that no information will be lost with a merge. The individual templates link to specific meetups/events, and there will still be these direct links to the specific meetup/event after the templates are merged, as the main banner has parameters described here to link to them. Number 57 20:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep It's weird for this merge to be argued to both be very important and also not a big deal. In either such case, it is something that should have been discussed with the Wikiproject in question so that a resolution could be reached without even needing a TfD nomination at all. But to do this out of the blue without even bringing it up as an issue is incredibly rude and ill-proposed. I'm not seeing the problem the nominator is bringing up with the templates, as spot checks on the articles in question are not finding a meaningful issue. This just seems like an attempt to stir up trouble (for some reason). So, trout for the nominator. SilverserenC 23:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Merge, as the info for each editathon is still retained within and linked from the shell banner params. I don't see why each applicable editathon can't just be included within the same WiR banner heading, like how in the example WikiProject United States, WikiProject State Legislatures, and the 50,000 Challenge are all in one banner. Do any other WPs track every single editathon article alert/RECOG through separate TP banner templates?? JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: an example always helps to clarify. We are talking about moving from the top example (two separate templates) to the bottom example (one combined template).
- Current
WikiProject Women in Red | (Stub contest edit-a-thon) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
WikiProject Women in Red | (Asian Women Month edit-a-thon) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Proposed
WikiProject Women in Red | ||||
|
This is a real example (from Talk:Anita Udeep). Hard to believe but we are actually trying to help improve your templates and we do value all the work you do. There is absolutely no intent to disrupt anything. However banner bloat is a real issue and no other project gets to have two or three separate banners on a page and this one should be no exception. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- This seems like an elegant solution. Technical matters aside, I would hope to keep the banners as a stand-alone Talk page feature underneath the banner shell (like this), so that the lovely graphic logo remains visible. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Martin, I appreciate your intent to help, but I think a less formal, lower-stakes discussion at WIR would be helpful, so we can explain how the project works, and you could propose technical changes to prevent more than one WIR banner occasionally being added to an article Talk page. The example added above does not appear to match the proposal in nomination statement (which seems much broader), and seems to assume the same logo is always used.
- Overall, I think the concern about editors occasionally adding more than one template and a discussion about how to limit the visibility of WIR activities would be a more productive discussion at WIR. You can talk to us directly as a way to show our work is valued and there is no intent to disrupt it, instead of first creating a technical proposal here that looks like it could inhibit our work. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think a lot of the opposition is based on the assumption that some information will be lost, which is obviously not the case here. The demo should've been included beforehand for them to understand what it will actually be like, and then make up their minds. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- @MSGJ This looks very good, thanks, and visually is an improvement. But the visual display isn't the only function of the template. We need to hear from the members of the WiR project who use the banners for their tracking and analyses, as to whether this would hinder their work. PamD 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- The look is fine, but the functionality is not. Merged banners will still break our workflows. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- So, I still Oppose the merger, unless a solution can be found which will work for the hardworking technical people of WiR as well as producing a good-looking article talk page. PamD 10:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please explain, which part of workflow will be broken. You wrote WP:ARTICLEALERTS but it appears to be working seamlessly for other WikiProject taskforces. Here, the various events will technically be taskforce-equivalent. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- WP:AALERTS won't be affected by it, because it relies on a common category (Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages) and things are tracked at the project level. WP:RECOG will be affected by it, because it relies on {{WIR-1}}, etc. being present on the relevant pages, because we track these at the event level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is not true. WP:RECOG#Project parameter documents that either template or categories could be used. It specifically attends the case of banner mergers and says "
If the project's template can be "merged" into another project's template (example), then the category parameter is probably a better option as not all the project's articles will be tagged with the template.
" Since, no functionality is lost following merger, and all relevant categories retained, one could use the specific category instead of template to get the desired data. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 11:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)- Categories which don't exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Creating categories doesn't take much effort though. Each event can be linked to a (new) relevant category, and automated tasks can be dealt with it. In the Talk:2016 New York State Assembly 65th district special election example above, we have it categorised in Category:Articles created or improved during WikiProject United States' 50,000 Challenge for example, alongside several other taskforce categories. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed - categories are perfect for keeping track of these articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Categories which don't exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is not true. WP:RECOG#Project parameter documents that either template or categories could be used. It specifically attends the case of banner mergers and says "
- WP:AALERTS won't be affected by it, because it relies on a common category (Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages) and things are tracked at the project level. WP:RECOG will be affected by it, because it relies on {{WIR-1}}, etc. being present on the relevant pages, because we track these at the event level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- The look is fine, but the functionality is not. Merged banners will still break our workflows. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Question: Am I right in thinking that categories like this would have to be added to the talk pages of all relevant articles? Unless this can be automated, it would take months of editing time to develop and add the correct categories to thousands and thousands of articles currently displaying a specific WiR editathon on their talk pages. Is it seriously being proposed that so much time should be wasted by those keen to reduce the gender gap?--Ipigott (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, the categories would be populated by the template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- In this case, would these templates still be used?
WikiProject Women in Red This page was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes. - -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, the categories would be populated by the template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Infobox station/Header OASA
- Template:Infobox station/Header OASA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox station/Header OASA/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
In preparation for the opening of Thessaloniki Metro, a new module-based template called {{Infobox station/Header GR}} was created to implement custom headers for the infoboxes of all railway stations, metro stations, and tram stops in Greece.
All stations have migrated to the replacement template, allowing for the retirement of the "Header OASA" template. --Minoa (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Minoa note that Greece has Category:Greece rail succession modules and the modules there already support header styles. What was missing there that needed a new module? Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: if you read the documentation of {{Infobox station/Header GR}}, the new template's module emulates the signage of Greek railway stations (example), like {{Infobox station/Header CTA}} (example). The replacement template supports special designs for some stations (as far as image licences allow), such as the Athens Airport station (source). --Minoa (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- I find the usage of both the old templates (those nominated here) and the module to be a bad idea. {{Infobox station}} has a field specifically for a non-English name, while this design uses the name field for both names. Additionally, as can be seen at Syngrou–Fix station uses the non-English name first, which it should never do on the English Wikipedia. Using the standard {{Infobox station}} and Module:Adjacent stations/Athens Metro design is how we should move forward. Gonnym (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: if you read the documentation of {{Infobox station/Header GR}}, the new template's module emulates the signage of Greek railway stations (example), like {{Infobox station/Header CTA}} (example). The replacement template supports special designs for some stations (as far as image licences allow), such as the Athens Airport station (source). --Minoa (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:International 14 World Championship medallists
- Template:International 14 World Championship medallists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused chart which isn't needed as the International 14 World Championships has the same chart as part of the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
June 22
Template:Hotline Miami
- 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 delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Hotline Miami (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I created this in 2015, but it's unnecessary. There's just two games, all directly related articles (sequel, predecessor, developer, publishers) are repeatedly mentioned in the articles. Not needed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment User:Soetermans, you can tag it under G7 since you created it and find it not of use anymore. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:WikiProject Writing/litspotlight1
- Template:WikiProject Writing/litspotlight1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
While this is marked as a transclusionless template, the page it is said to be used on, Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing/litspotlight, does not exist. There are also no incoming links to this. Gonnym (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:IMDb rating
- Template:IMDb rating (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
seems excessive, especially since IMDb ratings are changing as people vote at IMDb, and the icon goes against MOS:ICON. Frietjes (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Template:Rating already exists for someone who wants stars. Izno (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. According to WP:IMDB, IMDb is a user generated content and hence it is generally unreliable source. Because the template violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it is eligible for deletion. Vitaium (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:PH elevation/high
- Template:PH elevation/high (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PH elevation/low (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused and seems that Template:PH elevation was never a tempalte. Gonnym (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:PH electorate
- Template:PH electorate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused. 5 years ago this was apparently used and kept at TfD, but has since had its usages removed. Gonnym (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:PH empty
- Template:PH empty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused, undocumented and has no code in it. Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Chronology of Gaullist groups in the Senate of France
- Template:Chronology of Gaullist groups in the Senate of France (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused political related table. Gonnym (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- delete, after the articles were redirected, this is no longer being used. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Pseudo image
- Template:Pseudo image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
generally redundant to the more widely used {{image frame}} as demonstrated here, should be replaced and redirected. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Template:Image frame and Delete the module it uses (Module:Pseudo image) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Float box
- Template:Float box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
can be replaced by {{stack}}. float box has the same purpose as {{stack}} (which has much heavier usage), should be replaced and redirected. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Nations at the 2026 Winter Olympics
- Template:Nations at the 2026 Winter Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Too early for this. Can be recreated in a couple years. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:TOOSOON. And there is literally nothing to navigate. --woodensuperman 15:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete way WP:TOOSOON, these article should be getting created a few months before the event i.e. late 2025 (though I imagine people will start creating them too early before that, as they are with the 2024 Summer Olympics articles for these). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We don't know the country that will 2026 Winter Olympics or possibly it will change. Vitaium (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Liberty ships templates
- Template:Liberty ships index (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships E (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships F (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships G (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships H (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships I (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships J (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships K (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships L (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships M (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships N (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships O (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships P (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships R (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships T (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships U (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships V (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships W (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberty ships Z (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
A prime example of where categories and lists are a far better method than a navbox (WP:CLT). These navboxes are horifically excessive and really aren't a particularly useful or efficient way to navigate between the topics, especially with most of them them lost in a sea of redlinks. --woodensuperman 15:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- delete, better to use a list article and category to navigate here. if I am viewing an article about a Liberty ship starting with "A", why would I only be interested in navigating to other Liberty ships with the same starting letter? Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Football at the 2019 South Asian Games
- Template:Football at the 2019 South Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Not enough blue links- only 2, and I don't believe that the squad articles that are red linked should be created, as the tournament doesn't have enough coverage for them to be independently notable Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Soft keep: Have coverage not bad actually, the SAG women tournament is played by the respective senior teams, and considered a big achievement in SA region. Adding few sources here for clarification, Firstpost, The Quint, AFC, Nepal Times, The Katmandu Post, India Today, Sportskeeda There are more. However, I am not sure of the red links, I can try to create the squads, but not now, occupied with other project right now. Drat8sub (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If any blue links are created, then they can form part of a new {{2019 South Asian Games}} navbox - we don't need a standalone sidebar. GiantSnowman 11:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Timeline of Paul
- Template:Timeline of Paul (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused in mainspace. Izno (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Old discussions
June 21
Template:NJHPO header
- Template:NJHPO header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template unused in mainspace. Izno (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:NJHPO row
- Template:NJHPO row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single page template meant for table rows with insufficient quantity to need a full template of its own. Izno (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would lean toward Keep, even though this is used only in New Jersey Register of Historic Places. It appears to be sufficiently complex that using its code directly in the article would be pretty unpleasant and more difficult for regular editors to modify. If there are similar templates for other states, it may be possible to generalize this template for use in articles elsewhere, or to use those other templates in this New Jersey article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- It looks complex, but it ultimately isn't if you look at its use. There's quite a bit of repetition regarding sorting, some coord links, a lot of parsing of wikitext that would be avoided by it not being a template. In reality, this is trivial once substed. As for generalization, there are other historic places row templates that have much more use than this one, and given how little this one is used, I don't think the new uses are going to spring up anywhere. Izno (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Subst and delete I played around with Special:ExpandTemplates and came to the same conclusion as Izno. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- substitute and delete per above, not that complicated once it is expanded. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Reflinks
- Template:Reflinks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Used on only a handful of pages, this can be trivially reproduced in wikitext without the need of a template. Izno (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
June 19
Template:Myarchive
- Template:Myarchive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template can only be used by a single user. Should be moved to userspace. WOSlinker (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- I must have missed the policy that forbids us to make templates for personal use, and I have used this one for many many years. Can you please update me.--Berig (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is no problem with transcluding things from your user space that are for your personal use. However, template space is for all wiki users to use, as it is the common place for transcludeable content. Therefore, it should at least be generalizable; no-one wants to use the archive box specifically for Berig. In that case, we have the generalized template living at {{archives}} and do not need this template for that reason. (See also WP:Template namespace and WP:TFD#REASONS.)
- Userfying is a common outcome in these scenarios, so I expect this will be moved to User:Berig/archives or similar; you can transclude it with
{{User:Berig/archives}}
at that point. Izno (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Userfy per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Userfy, of course. Good for WOSlinker for going through the motions of a TFD. I would have just moved it as uncontroversial. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- move to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Reese–Connor family tree
- Template:Reese–Connor family tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only contains three links. Painting17 (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- weak keep, used in six articles. but, I would also support merging this with one of the two "list of characters" articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, substing on List of Terminator (franchise) characters and removing elsewhere. This template doesn't need to exist as a template per WP:SUMMARY. Izno (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
June 17
Template:Non-free use rationale 2
- Template:Non-free use rationale 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Non-free use rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Non-free use rationale 2 with Template:Non-free use rationale.
NFUR2 was originally introduced as an "alternative" to NFUR that was intended to be more compatible with the "experimental" WP:File upload wizard. Fast forward a decade to now — the file upload wizard is certainly no longer experimental, and having two separate templates with the same functionality creates unneeded redundancy and complexity. We should WP:CONSOLIDATE them into a single template that is both compatible with the wizard and embraces all the best practices for non-free use rationales. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Having two templates allows choice and caters to different user preferences, providing flexibility. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Neveselbert, can you be more specific? What differing user preferences are the different templates catering to?
- Overall, I have to sigh on reading your comment, as I'd thought that WP:CONSOLIDATE was a baseline understanding among TfD editors, not something still open for debate. The core point is that the costs of forking, which is what has been done here, are massive. It basically doubles the amount of maintenance work, since it now has to be done in two different places. Given that we have limited editor resources, that's not what we want. It also means that template users have to examine and choose between the options, which is a cost for them. When there is disagreement over how a template should be set up, the best course of action is the same as when there is disagreement over how an article should be set up: talk it out and try to reach a consensus (which, in the case of templates, can include flexible functionality). It is not to create an entirely new template, any more than it would be to create a new article over a disagreement in mainspace. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your perspective and understand the rationale behind WP:CONSOLIDATE, I believe the situation with NFUR and NFUR2 warrants a different approach. Your argument assumes that the maintenance costs and the burden of choice for users outweigh the benefits of having two templates, but I'd argue that the existence of two templates offers a certain degree of flexibility that caters to varying user preferences, something that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach might stifle. The differences between the templates, however slight, accommodate for diverse ways editors interact with the File Upload Wizard. Also, redundancy, though seemingly wasteful, serves as a contingency mechanism in technical systems, a safeguard in the event of failures or issues with one template. Finally, the historical significance of NFUR2, as a part of Wikipedia's growth and progress in enhancing the user interface, deserves preservation. Rather than merging the templates, I propose we strive to refine and optimise each while maintaining their distinctive functionalities, thus reducing maintenance burden without compromising user experience or operational safety. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- That didn't really answer the question. And the redundancy argument does not make sense. If either one of these templates fails, we'd have a significant problem. It's not like we could easily say, "oh, NFUR2 isn't working today, so let's just temporarily switch all the transclusions to TFUR1." Two templates means two different potential points of failure, which is just another example of the additional maintenance burden created by an unneeded fork. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- See my comment below. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Neve, serious question. What distinctive functionalities? There is zero documentation on this question. What's the difference? Why would I choose one over the other? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- That didn't really answer the question. And the redundancy argument does not make sense. If either one of these templates fails, we'd have a significant problem. It's not like we could easily say, "oh, NFUR2 isn't working today, so let's just temporarily switch all the transclusions to TFUR1." Two templates means two different potential points of failure, which is just another example of the additional maintenance burden created by an unneeded fork. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your perspective and understand the rationale behind WP:CONSOLIDATE, I believe the situation with NFUR and NFUR2 warrants a different approach. Your argument assumes that the maintenance costs and the burden of choice for users outweigh the benefits of having two templates, but I'd argue that the existence of two templates offers a certain degree of flexibility that caters to varying user preferences, something that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach might stifle. The differences between the templates, however slight, accommodate for diverse ways editors interact with the File Upload Wizard. Also, redundancy, though seemingly wasteful, serves as a contingency mechanism in technical systems, a safeguard in the event of failures or issues with one template. Finally, the historical significance of NFUR2, as a part of Wikipedia's growth and progress in enhancing the user interface, deserves preservation. Rather than merging the templates, I propose we strive to refine and optimise each while maintaining their distinctive functionalities, thus reducing maintenance burden without compromising user experience or operational safety. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose — I concur with the rationale by Neveselbert. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I'm surprised this isn't standardized. More flexibility is a minus when NFCC isn't optional. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:The reason is the same as Neveselbert 78-YellowcatTalk 11:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support: {{Non-free use rationale 2}} is very amateur, and the upload wizard should allow only {{Non-free use rationale}}. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- How is NFUR2 “amateur”? It actually offers additional parameters. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I don't find any substance to Neveselbert's current argument. As Sdkb has asked,
What differing user preferences are the different templates catering to?
is the actual question here. From looking at both templates, I can't really say. Also, these aren't user page templates where we allow users to use whatever they want however they want. A standard templates makes it easier for more editors to use and also see when something is missing. It also requires less maintaince when fixing issues. See Neveselbert's March 2 edits on both templates. Gonnym (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)- Regarding my March 2 edits, they were indeed corrections, but this doesn't necessarily support the argument for a merger; instead, it underscores the importance of each template having a dedicated maintenance focus. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- The edits you did show what maintaince burden is - doing the same thing in indentical templates. And I'm sure I can find more, that was just very recent and also by you which is why I pointed them out. To anyone closing, I also support Izno's argument below about not supporting different styles if a merger goes through. The end result should be one consistent style. Gonnym (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- WP:DONTFIXIT. I'm yet to come across any valid reason not to carry on supporting both styles. For example, we have WP:CS1 and WP:CS2 as different citation styles, and that's not to mention the whole Vector saga, so there is precedent for having at least one alternative style based on user preference. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- The edits you did show what maintaince burden is - doing the same thing in indentical templates. And I'm sure I can find more, that was just very recent and also by you which is why I pointed them out. To anyone closing, I also support Izno's argument below about not supporting different styles if a merger goes through. The end result should be one consistent style. Gonnym (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding my March 2 edits, they were indeed corrections, but this doesn't necessarily support the argument for a merger; instead, it underscores the importance of each template having a dedicated maintenance focus. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge in some fashion: I am undecided on which formulation is better, but slightly leaning towards Template:Non-free use rationale 2, but I don't see the benefit of having more than one - having two templates does not automatically equal "flexibility" nor a reason to keep unless there were usecases for which only one template is suitable. That isn't in evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- The benefit of two templates is not inherently about flexibility in form but rather in function, based on user preferences and habits in interacting with the File Upload Wizard. This flexibility is often difficult to quantify, as it hinges on individual user experience rather than objective measures. Yes, both templates essentially serve the same purpose, but the minor differences in their structure or usage could make one more suitable than the other for certain users. Furthermore, the redundancy of two templates offers an operational safety net in case of issues with one. Instead of a merge, a more beneficial approach might be to continue refining each template based on user feedback, catering to a broader range of user preferences while maintaining the integrity and resilience of our system. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- From what I can see, these templates have no distinction between the display text and NFUR2 having a few more parameters. Is there any hypothetical usecase that one template is suitable for but not the other? We can't customize for every possible user preference.
With respect to B's comment, it seems like the only upload form that uses NFUR2 is MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js, with additional mentions at User:A930913/vada/plugin/commoncopy.js, User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum/modules/FileTemplates.js, User:Crimsonfox/Covery.js, User:Dylsss/Sandbox/MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js, User:The Earwig/FileUploadWizard.js and User:Sdkb/sandbox/FileUploadWizard.js and in most of 'em it doesn't seem like the template does anything special. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to merging the templates if the formatting could be retained in one template for different such uses. It took a lot of time and effort getting {{Non-free use rationale/styles.css}} up and running properly, and I wouldn't want to have to play with that page again. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- From what I can see, these templates have no distinction between the display text and NFUR2 having a few more parameters. Is there any hypothetical usecase that one template is suitable for but not the other? We can't customize for every possible user preference.
- The benefit of two templates is not inherently about flexibility in form but rather in function, based on user preferences and habits in interacting with the File Upload Wizard. This flexibility is often difficult to quantify, as it hinges on individual user experience rather than objective measures. Yes, both templates essentially serve the same purpose, but the minor differences in their structure or usage could make one more suitable than the other for certain users. Furthermore, the redundancy of two templates offers an operational safety net in case of issues with one. Instead of a merge, a more beneficial approach might be to continue refining each template based on user feedback, catering to a broader range of user preferences while maintaining the integrity and resilience of our system. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm very very very hesitant on this because of the risk of breaking something. If one template is being used by the automated upload form and the other is used manually by humans, that seems like a very good reason to have two of them - the one used manually by humans can be modified without breaking the upload wizard. There's some utility in enforcing a consistent UI, but that should be done by making one of the templates consume the other. --B (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support. The two templates are incredibly similar in form and function. Accommodations can be made in the resulting template to reflect the necessary flexibility, so I'm confused at Neveselbert's argument. Also, does the wizard need better maintaining? SWinxy (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support a downsizing to one template. I prefer the template (NFUR2) that makes direct reference to the axes on which we consider hosting non-free content, but I am not sure if it melds well with the freer form earlier Template:NFUR. I do not see any particular need or reason to support different styles (CSS). Izno (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- There is no reason not to support both styles, which are perfectly operational. In the event of a merge, both styles should be supported. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- They gain us nothing, so they should go, and like others say above add to maintenance burden. The different styles should never have existed in the first place, never mind the existence of two templates. Izno (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I couldn't disagree more. The styles are perfectly fine, and there isn't a maintenance burden now with TemplateStyles having been introduced. It would be even more of a burden to have to rely on just one template. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- They gain us nothing, so they should go, and like others say above add to maintenance burden. The different styles should never have existed in the first place, never mind the existence of two templates. Izno (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- There is no reason not to support both styles, which are perfectly operational. In the event of a merge, both styles should be supported. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support: per nom. I also do not understand @Neveselbert:'s argument about choice, and he has pointed out that both styles of templates can be supported after a merge. - nathanielcwm (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support This isn't about "different user preferences", this is (quasi-)legal requirement. It should be as simple and as standardized as possible. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support - the templates are very similar so I fail to see this supposed flexibility being provided. My preference is NFUR2 as it is more explicit about the NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Merge. Should have happened over a decade ago. The "winner" should be {{Non-free use rationale 2}} since it is more user friendly by allowing auto-populated fields. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support. These two templates do the same job, with only minor differences in appearance. @Neveselbert says that having two templates accommodates user preferences, but I see that as insignificant here, because fair use templates are very boring, utilitarian parts of Wikipedia that anyone is unlikely to think twice about. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: My problem is that the two templates do not have the same parameters, by design. Merging at this point would thus cause a lot of breakage. The second template was specifically designed in tandem with the newer uploader. But you'll note the old methods of uploading are still provided, as they are often more convenient to use for power users like me who do a lot of uploads. Before any talk of merging should take place, you need to where template 2 can completely replace template 1, accepting all the same parameters, so that you will not have breakage. — trlkly 20:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- For reference, NFUR 2 has a few more parameters than NFUR (which is why I am inclined to merge NFUR into NFUR2) - but other than renaming one or two parameters, there wouldn't be anything else to do when merging NFUR into NFUR2. Or swapping NFUR2 into NFUR, rename transclusions and the one or two parameters that have different names, and then redirect NFUR2 to NFUR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per trlkly. If it ain't broke... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- ...The thing with that "It ain't broke" claim is that since there is a valid WP:CONSOLIDATE claim, it is broke by creating unnecessary redundancy and template maintenance. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I can't see that. We have WP:CS1 and WP:CS2 as different citation styles, does that create "unnecessary redundancy and template maintenance"? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes actually, it does. That one is just a much harder question to fix. Izno (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes actually, it does. That one is just a much harder question to fix. Izno (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I can't see that. We have WP:CS1 and WP:CS2 as different citation styles, does that create "unnecessary redundancy and template maintenance"? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- ...The thing with that "It ain't broke" claim is that since there is a valid WP:CONSOLIDATE claim, it is broke by creating unnecessary redundancy and template maintenance. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support merge with no preference of which into which as long as the NFCC criteria are displayed — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Strongest possible oppose. The idea, I agree with. But this merge is plainly impossible. If we merge 1 into 2, the first template has low resolution and portion used, and the second has minimal use. It might be possible to concatenate the sentences or something, but it would look really ugly.Trying to go the other way around is totally impossible. There's literally no feasible way to split minimal use into low resolution and portion used. Author or copyright owner would just go into the abyss I guess, along with a couple other optional params in 2.This TfD is going to pass, and then absolutely nothing is going to happen, because the only way to reconcile this is for someone to try to make a completely new NFUR template (dealing with the really long amount of time and discussion it will take to get to an agreement on that) and then make a bot to edit every single fair use file on the website, which is in the hundreds of thousands (or, alternatively, make a template that works out-of-the-redirect, which would be heavily riddled with technical debt). The whole ordeal would be a multi-week or perhaps multi-month project, not even including how long it will take for the bot to run......and all that for what? To resolve some minor inconsistencies with how we write fair use file descriptions?Forgive the slippery slope argument, but I also feel I must mention that, if this happens, I guarantee you someone will come along a few years later and notice all the file description pages have changed, decry local consensus, make yet another alternative NFUR template, and oh look where we are now.Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Or you add another parameter to the merged template to accomodate the nonoverlapping parameter, or rename it so that it can cover both. It's not impossible, especially since it's only 1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is no nonoverlapping parameter, there are 2 half-overlapping parameters. And if we rename it to cover both, how do we merge 2 arguments into 1? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nah, it's "low resolution" and "minimality" which cover the same ground. And actually, "minimality" is the better name since it doesn't reduce the "minimal use" question down to resolution; resolution isn't the only consideration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- You forgot NFUR1's "portion used", which should also be part of minimality. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that merging two parameters is as difficult as you are making it out to be. Or we make a combined template with both parameters if it's that much of a problem - multi-parameter templates are much less of a maintenance burden than multiple templates. Besides, I am pretty certain there have been more complex mergers in the past. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I am not convinced that merging two parameters is as difficult as you are making it out to be.
How do you do it then?Or we make a combined template with both parameters if it's that much of a problem
But then why would we do the merge in the first place? Maintenance burden how? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)- Because keeping one template is easier than two, which will confuse folks about which one to use, or accidentally apply the wrong template. It's not as flashy as the effort of merging a template, but it does not make it non-existent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that merging two parameters is as difficult as you are making it out to be. Or we make a combined template with both parameters if it's that much of a problem - multi-parameter templates are much less of a maintenance burden than multiple templates. Besides, I am pretty certain there have been more complex mergers in the past. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- You forgot NFUR1's "portion used", which should also be part of minimality. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nah, it's "low resolution" and "minimality" which cover the same ground. And actually, "minimality" is the better name since it doesn't reduce the "minimal use" question down to resolution; resolution isn't the only consideration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is no nonoverlapping parameter, there are 2 half-overlapping parameters. And if we rename it to cover both, how do we merge 2 arguments into 1? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Or you add another parameter to the merged template to accomodate the nonoverlapping parameter, or rename it so that it can cover both. It's not impossible, especially since it's only 1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I see no reason why this situation is broken and in need of fixing. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support – differences are too niche. This is the kind of template that should be singular in nature—too confusing as multiple. Aza24 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support per the nomination rationale. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support Per nomination Hajoon0102 💬 03:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose having 2 is neither harming nor complicating anything, see not benefit to merging, If it ain't broke. -J04n(talk page) 19:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Having two duplicate templates complicates things, with additional redundancy and maintenance overhead. I don't agree with the argument that the current situation isn't broken — we have two different templates that do the same thing, and this is generally a sign that something is in need of fixing. I also disagree with the argument that merging the templates would entail too much work to be worthwhile: I believe most parameters are similar enough that the manual work required would not be overly difficult, and, ultimately, it would result in a net benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support: the two templates are redundant and due to the freeform text in the parameters and option to include information outside the template but within the File page, there is no potential application that could only use one template and not the other. Historical reasons for creation (possibly dubious at the time, too) are no longer applicable. Notice also that these pages are not forward facing so aesthetics are not an important consideration. — Bilorv (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, it isn't broken, and there is little to be gained from a merge. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Merge Firstly, a lot of people using these templates don't use it very often. I, for example, just placed one and only realized that #2 existing after I put it there. And as an infrequent user, I really don't see any significant difference between the two, and would have no idea how to choose one over the other. I'm frankly glad that I didn't know that 2 of them existed, because trying to make sense of why one would be better than the other would have been a waste of my time. I'll also add that the documentation pages of each only give passing mention to the other and don't say a single word about what the differences are. While this isn't a reason to merge or not merge, it is not helping the case of those who are claiming that these are somehow different in important ways. It seems the fact that nobody has bothered to explain the difference but there's never been a problem means that there's no reason for two templates. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I've performed a "superficial" analysis of the parameters used by each template. But before that, the templates themselves show their overall usage: {{Non-free use rationale}} is transcluded in about 461,000 pages and {{Non-free use rationale 2}} is used in about 211,000 pages. Any merging should be done carefully since any missing parameters could potentially break hundreds of thousands of pages. Now, with that out of the way, here is my analysis:
- Fields common to both (note that {{Non-free use rationale 2}} is more permissive in its parameters, allowing all-lowercase parameters and other variations) :
{{{Article|}}}
{{{Description}}}
{{{Source|}}}
{{{Purpose}}}
{{{Replaceability}}}
{{{other_information|{{{Other information|}}}}}}
- optional
- Fields only in {{Non-free use rationale}}:
{{{Special_header|}}}
{{{Portion}}}
{{{Resolution|{{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution}}}}}}}}}
{{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution}}}}}}
(only used as an alternative name for Resolution)
- Fields only in {{Non-free use rationale 2}}:
{{{Author|{{{author|}}}}}}
{{{Publication|{{{publication|}}}}}}
- optional{{{Date|{{{date|}}}}}}
- optional{{{Replaceability_text|{{{replaceability_text|{{{replaceability text|}}}}}}}}}
- optional{{{Minimality|{{{minimality|}}}}}}
{{{Commercial|{{{commercial|}}}}}}
- Note: this template defines "other information" as:
{{{Other information|{{{other information|{{{other_information|{{{Other_information|}}}}}}}}}}}}
- Overall, it looks like {{Non-free use rationale 2}} has more parameters (several of them optional) but is missing 3 parameters from {{Non-free use rationale}}. Please also note that "optional" fields above hide their entire section if missing. The rest do not. Instead most headers will leave a blank entry if the parameter is missing, except for
{{{Portion}}}
in {{Non-free use rationale}} which has no default. All "mandatory" fields that display some sort of warning when missing are shared between the two templates. --Stux (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- merge, confusing to have two templates for the same thing. the parameter analysis above has convinced me that merging shouldn't be that difficult. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Merge with all the parameters from both templates available. Can't see how the original template is effective without some of those parameters, as they are required for WP:NFCC. One comprehensive template is better than two lacking templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Merge as there is no valid reason to keep both, based on all the arguments presented above. In this case, there is good reason to have only one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
June 16
Unused ZSU templates
- Template:OPBr ZSU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:3 OTBr ZSU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:17 OTBr ZSU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:57 OMPBr ZSU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:80 ODShBr ZSU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:95 ODShBr ZSU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:101 OBrO HSh ZSU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Still adding these to articles. Also some are new units created and will be added to battle articles later. Do not delete. Fang Luo (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete with prejudice, not just for being unused but for being a generally bad pattern. One, per MOS:ICONS, and two, because without that use case this is a case of trivial image linking. Izno (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see a particular reason why there needs to be a template for these shields. That they are also links feels like they violate some MOS guideline. SWinxy (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per the consensus about the unused templates (see original nom), I have deleted them. Regarding the templates that are now in use: as a question to the participants (WikiCleanerMan, Frietjes, Izno, and SWinxy), how are these different than other templates (for example, the half-dozen used in the Battle in Shakhtarsk Raion infobox)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Izno. To answer Primefac's question, they aren't - I would support deleting those too. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:57, 17 June 2023 (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.