Wikipedia:Templates for discussion
V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 15 | 18 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 17 | 21 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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
[edit]What not to propose for discussion here
[edit]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
[edit]- 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
[edit]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 this link 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. Deletion sorting lists are a possible way of doing that. 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
[edit]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.
Notifying related WikiProjects
[edit]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 {{subst: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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]- Template:Iw2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Duplicates {{interlanguage link}}, unmaintained and more or less unused (no article-space uses, only 7 transclusions). Primefac (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. {{Iw2}} does not duplicate {{interlanguage link}}. Compare
- {{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} Hanning Schröder
- with
- {{iw2|Hanning Schröder|Hans Schröder|de}} ‹See Tfd›Hans Schröder[the article is translated]
- — Yuri V. (t•c) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC).
RussiaAdmMunRef sub templates
[edit]- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/alt/munlist/belokurikha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/ba/munlaw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/bel/admlist/borisovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/bel/munlaw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/bel/munlaw/starooskolsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/cu/munlaw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/kda/admlaw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/kya/munlist/sosnovoborsk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/nvs/admlaw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/per/munlist/gubakhinsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/alexandrovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/andropovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/apanasenkovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/arzgirsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/budyonnovsk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/budyonnovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/georgiyevsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/grachyovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/kirovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/kochubeyevsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/krasnogvardeysky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/kursky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/levokumsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/mineralovodsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/novoselitsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/predgorny (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/shpakovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/stepnovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/trunovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sta/munlist/turkmensky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sve/munlist/volchansky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/ta/munlist/alkeyevsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/ta/munlist/cheremshansky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/ta/munlist/drozhzhanovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/tul/munlist/aleksinsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/tul/munlist/leninsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/tul/munlist/yefremovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/ty/admlaw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/vgg/munlist/mikhaylovsky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The above list are all unused Russian municipality related citation templates. A lot of them unused since at least 2013 (evidenced by appearing on Tim.landscheidt's unused report). --Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Uncessary as it is full of non-Wiki links with the exception of three ceremonies. CNMall41 (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Exists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template appears to be redundant to {{If}}'s "exist" option. It may be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted template, depending on the content of the deleted template of the same name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to ask for it to be deleted myself. I thought it could check interwiki which would be a new feature, but it can't. Please delete. JoeJShmo💌 00:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Domain parking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Domain name speculation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Domain parking with Template:Domain name speculation.
These two navboxes share almost all entries and it is unclear the link between the entries and the title ZandDev 22:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Rft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Refactored (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I was going to originally suggest merging these two templates together, but after looking at the almost-zero transclusion count I realise that neither of them are really necessary; if a discussion gets moved to another location, we can easily use {{moved}} or type out "discussion moved to <link>", and if someone changes something (e.g. a signature) they can just... say so? It's not a bad idea but in practice it doesn't seem to have much use. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Harry Potter book links
[edit]- Template:DH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:GF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:GoF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HBP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP linked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP1 linked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP2 linked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP3 linked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP4 linked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP5 linked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP6 linked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HP7 linked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HPCS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HPF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HPF linked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HPQ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:HPQ linked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:OotP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PoA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PStone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
To put it bluntly, this family of templates should not exist. They simply create a wikilink in the style of a reference to the book, in a manner that appears to imply that the text it succeeds is supported by the "reference". Recommend that it is replaced by either full references, or the HPXref family of templates that are found in the same category, as those are actual references (though their names should be expanded, but that's a different discussion). Primefac (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and replace existing uses with the proper referenced template versions e.g. {{HP5ref}}, which are clearly better. These ones at TfD are inferior duplicates. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Does not aid navigation JMHamo (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete only one blue link, and doesn't look like other players are notable enough right now, so template not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:GOP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I can sort of see where this would be a useful convenience template, but given that an insource search shows zero uses across the entirety of the project, methinks that people are not using it (opting instead to just type out the full wikilink). Primefac (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary navbox. 88.97.195.160 (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Text and an icon, uses likely violate MOS:ICON but otherwise it's just a wikilink as a template. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:United States Military Auxiliaries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Military and Police Auxiliary Organizations within the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:United States Military Auxiliaries with Template:Military and Police Auxiliary Organizations within the United States.
Clearly overlapping templates, so there's no need for both. The more expansive Template:Military and Police Auxiliary Organizations within the United States is a little busy and could use some better organization, but covers everything that Template:United States Military Auxiliaries, so this just reduces clutter. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Empty-warn-NPF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Similarly to {{Empty-warn}} (see RfD) the name is confusing. "Empty" is understood to mean either A3 or C1 but not A1 which does not apply to empty pages. This template was kept at a previous TfD because it was used by PageCuration but this no longer applies as it has been removed from Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Deletion is my preferred outcome since the template is unused butI wouldn't oppose moving it to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF which would be a reasonable title and would match the pattern in Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)- Oppose. Still used by mw:PageTriage. See deletionTags.json line 22. There are plans to convert PageTriage to use standard rather than custom (-NPF) templates in phab:T362477, but we're not there yet. These -NPF templates should stay in the meantime. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not ideal. Cam we at least move the page to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF? The redirect left behind will make it so nothing gets broken and we can delete it as soon as deletionTags.json gets updated. Nickps (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I feel strongly enough about to bring it here. Let's make it happen. Nickps (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nickps Can you file a task to update deletionTags.json Sohom (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- We should probably wait for the TfD to close. For all I know someone may object. I'll do it right after that. Nickps (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's how I picture it going. First the TfD closes as move so the template is moved to the new title and the redirect at the old title makes it so PageTriage won't get broken. Then I open the task to update deletionTags.json and finally when the update is made, I tag the redirect for WP:G6. Is that fine? Nickps (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't G6 the redirect. Redirects from page moves are supposed to exist forever, to help people track down pages that have moved. They cost nothing for us to keep :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well in this case the redirect falls under WP:R#D2 since, as I've said above "empty" is not really associated with A1 but since the deletion isn't uncontroversial anymore, I'll take it to RfD when the time comes. Nickps (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't G6 the redirect. Redirects from page moves are supposed to exist forever, to help people track down pages that have moved. They cost nothing for us to keep :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's how I picture it going. First the TfD closes as move so the template is moved to the new title and the redirect at the old title makes it so PageTriage won't get broken. Then I open the task to update deletionTags.json and finally when the update is made, I tag the redirect for WP:G6. Is that fine? Nickps (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- We should probably wait for the TfD to close. For all I know someone may object. I'll do it right after that. Nickps (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nickps Can you file a task to update deletionTags.json Sohom (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I feel strongly enough about to bring it here. Let's make it happen. Nickps (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not ideal. Cam we at least move the page to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF? The redirect left behind will make it so nothing gets broken and we can delete it as soon as deletionTags.json gets updated. Nickps (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
2014 Football League play-offs templates
[edit]- Template:2014 Football League One play-offs table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2014 Football League One play-offs semi-final 2B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2014 Football League One play-offs semi-final 2A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2014 Football League One play-offs semi-final 1B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2014 Football League One play-offs semi-final 1A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2014 Football League One play-offs final (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2014 Football League Championship play-offs table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2014 Football League Championship play-offs semi-final 2B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2014 Football League Championship play-offs semi-final 2A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2014 Football League Championship play-offs semi-final 1B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2014 Football League Championship play-offs semi-final 1A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2014 Football League Championship play-offs final (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Templates are redundant, being used only by 1 or 2 articles and can easily be replaced by substituting content. Also inconsistent with other seasons where these templates are not used and with previous TfD consensus that similar templates were not necessary. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Subst and delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 11:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Subst and delete as per nom and previous TfD consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Box-r (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template little-used since its creation 16 years ago (~30 transclusions). We don't need anything this remotely flexible either, and there are plenty of other templates that could be used for a box floating right. Izno (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Entirely contained within Template:Toy Story. Split is unneeded. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Should be replaced with {{WikiProject United States|Purdue=yes|Purdue-importance=importance}}
. Thanks to Ejgreen77 for pointing out the duplication. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and replace in all instances with
{{WikiProject United States|Purdue=yes}}
, per nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC) - Delete Replace per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Contains only one link outside of the title navbox. All are red links to this Wikipedia. With the rest being external links to the French Wikipedia. No navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion I will be using the template to create new articles about these neglected colonial units. +JMJ+ (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- You should create articles before the navbox. Navboxes are meant to link articles that exist not to be created down the line. If you want to work on this, then this should be userfyed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- How would I "userfy" it? +JMJ+ (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- You could copy it to your WP:SANDBOX --woodensuperman 15:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- How would I "userfy" it? +JMJ+ (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- You should create articles before the navbox. Navboxes are meant to link articles that exist not to be created down the line. If you want to work on this, then this should be userfyed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. At the very least it needs trimming so that the WP:EXISTING articles aren't lost amongst a sea of redlinks and external links to the French Wikipedia (P.S. No external links in navboxes). --woodensuperman 15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with one blue link in the body. DB1729talk 22:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Category link if exists 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Category link if exists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Category link if exists 2 with Template:Category link if exists.
Version 2 grays out nonexistent categories; version 1 does not apply any styling to nonexistent categories. If there is really a need, we can add something like |gray=no
. But I do not see a need: version 1 had three (3) transclusions (compared to 61,000 for v2), so there is clearly a lack of demand for the non-grayed functionality and I don't think it is worth the added complexity. For transparency, I did just indirectly remove two transclusions of v1 because they were substitutions from an old version of {{estcatCountry}} (diff1 and diff2), but that template should not have been substituted in those two instances. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I realize that I did not make this clear: I am proposing we keep the functionality of v2 but host the template at {{Category link if exists}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Duplication of Template:Jimmy Carter. All links here are featured on Carter's main navbox. I can understand the the navbox being larger. But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Discussion of the template and other presidency vs. president biography templates is currently ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- @WikiCleanerMan and Randy Kryn: As I've noted in the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page, I believe there are serious content policy issues with the how the biography templates of U.S. presidents were before the creation of the separate navigation templates for their presidencies, specifically the WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX policies. Contrary to the comments made by User:Randy Kryn, I am not including every bill signed into law by a president during a presidential administration and only the ones that have Wikipedia articles. If a law, executive order, regulation, or other public policy has a Wikipedia article that meets the requirements of the general notability policy (WP:N) and is related to a particular presidential administration, then that should be major enough for inclusion in a navigation template about the presidential administration because the WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE policies explicitly require editors to not make judgments that certain topics related to a broader topic have greater importance than others when including them in a navigation template. In the absence of subject-specific notability guidelines, and if a law, executive order, regulation, or public policy does not meet the requirements of WP:N, it is not supposed to have a Wikipedia article in the first place.
- Likewise, speeches and foreign policy summits that do not meet the requirements of WP:EVENT are not supposed to have Wikipedia articles either since they are events under the terms of that guideline. Before I created the separate template, there were only a selection of topics related to a presidential administration in the biography templates with a greater focus
ofon foreign policy, state of the union addresses and other speeches, presidential inaugurations and transitions, and judicial appointments rather than domestic and economic policies. Criteria 4 of the WP:NAVBOX policy for good navigation templates requires that therethatis a Wikipedia article on the subject of the templateexist, and not every President of United States (POTUS) has a separatearticlesarticle about their presidency (i.e. William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield). WP:NAVBOX also suggests that navigation templates are better for small and well-defined groups of articles, which is why the I'd argue that only a link to the presidency article should be included in a biography template for a POTUSshould be included, and all other articles related to a presidency should be split into a separate template about the presidency. This would preclude duplication, and there wasn't any duplication until User:Randy Kryn reverted the templates to how they were before the Template:Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox was created. WP:NAVBOX also does not ban templates with large numbers of links. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, this is an unneeded duplicate navbox of entries already present on the main Jimmy Carter nabox, and other duplicate navboxes have been created and entries removed (but reverted) from the individual navboxes. And yes, scores if not hundreds of tangential additions where the president is not mentioned in the article could be trimmed from presidential navboxes, which should not include every law that the president signed but only those which they initiated and/or worked to pass and were then semi-identified with them (LBJ's Voting Rights Act, FDR's New Deal legislation, etc.). This does not need additional discussion elsewhere, an obvious duplication of existing material. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This can be solved easily..., just add an expandable section for 'Presidency' on the very few oversized navboxes in the style of {{John Paul II}} (but without multiple expanded sections, just one would do). This would solve everyone's concern, and would keep the rest of the links about the subject - Wikipedia's map of the topic - in the same navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep. Izno (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't find references to confirm these results Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- keep, https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/ElectionsRidings/Ridings/Profile?OrganizationId=2768 is a source. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- keep Obviously the nomination proved false. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This doesn't need consensus as the premise to delete was shown to be false. No need to relist IMO. JoeJShmo💌 14:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
No transclusions. Line 1, Ho Chi Minh City Metro uses {{RouteBox}}. The city has only one and a half metro lines, so this template is probably not needed yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in April 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Don't you think it should be given more time for someone to use it, @Jonesey95. I don't see the need for these robotic nominations for well-documented and properly working templates and modules. Ponor (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not robotic at all. I am ignoring or deciding not to nominate many unused templates when making these nominations. This one has been around for three months. That's long enough to have found at least one usage, or to be linked to from a discussion explaining why it is useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a general purpose template, to be used in other templates; a generalized version of Switch parser function. It won't be transcluded. Give it a year. Ponor (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not robotic at all. I am ignoring or deciding not to nominate many unused templates when making these nominations. This one has been around for three months. That's long enough to have found at least one usage, or to be linked to from a discussion explaining why it is useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and creator's own comments. Izno (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Izno, pardon me for asking: which comment of mine did you find in support of deletion? Further down there were templates made 3 to 9 years ago. What's the damage in keeping this one for a year or two? On another wiki I found some good use for it on some 12k pages; I or someone else might find it here too. Ponor (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in April 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Mathrubhumi Film Award for Best Male Débutante (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with no transclusions and no main article. This alleged award is not mentioned in any of the linked articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Cycling data HEB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Cycling data KSZ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Cycling data PPJ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Cycling data SCD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Cycling data SRT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Cycling data Samarkand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused Cycling data templates created 6 months ago for teams that don't have articles. Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Tubeexits2016 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tubeexits2017 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused as it has been commented out in Template:Infobox London station. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 7#Template:Tubeexits2010 for related deletions. Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:DLRexits2017 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused as it has been commented out in Template:Infobox London station. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 7#Template:DLRexits2012 for related deletions. Gonnym (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Settlement infobox templates
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep. It is WP:SNOWing. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 20:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox political division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox settlement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox country and Template:Infobox political division with Template:Infobox settlement.
This will be a controversial proposal, but I think {{Infobox political division}} should be merged into {{Infobox settlement}}, while {{Infobox country}} should also be merged into, or at least become a wrapper for that template, because those three templates share many similar parameters with each other and because 'Template:Infobox political division' has the most parameters out of the three and is therefore the most flexible. I also think 'Template:Infobox settlement' should then be redesigned to look more like 'Template:Infobox country' does now, because the latter template looks much nicer in my opinion than the former one. PK2 (talk; contributions) 09:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pls no....simply a nightmare for content editors ....we already have a problem with too many parameters that cause many edit wars. We have been going in the opposite direction to avoid problems like with Template:Infobox micronation. Moxy🍁 12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Slight oppose @Moxy: Personally, I don't want the country infobox to be merged with the infobox for settlements. I have a more moderate proposal. How about merging Template:Infobox settlement with Template:Infobox political division? Perhaps Template:Infobox former subdivision could be considered for merging as well? Let just leave Template:Infobox country as it is for now. RyanW1995 (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No and close this now: Per Moxy's reasoning. This seems like unnecessary change just for wanting to have change. We should also be discussing these things with such highly-used templates elsewhere first before directing every single person on an article about a country or settlement here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No - for the reason Moxy has stated.
- GeographicAccountant (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, for reasons previously mentioned and because not all human settlements are political divisions, thereby creating confusion. An Errant Knight (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, as per all above. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too many parameters already, as Moxy stated. Cedar Tree 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- God no - For all the above reasons. Don't try to fix what's not broken. EmilePersaud (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- oppose, per reasons above, too many parameters ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 16:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. Keep how it is. As per reasons stated above by editor Moxy. Nubia86 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, these large super flexible templates end up not working well due to the human desire to fill gaps, which unused parameters appear to be. The country infobox as it stands faces the occasional issue of people using the website parameter which is meant to be for international organisations. CMD (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as largely unnecessary, described above. Country, political division, and settlement may not control an equal amount of territory and may have very distinct laws. HarukaAmaranth 13:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. Q: Why must the first text line of every U.S. article suffer unsightly broken type just to "discuss" this template format change? It's ridiculous. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I am wondering the same. Absolutely uncalled for in my opinion. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. There is no benefit to readers or editors from merging. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is nonsens, and it would break any efforts towards easier translations and the development of the translation tool. Isn't it enough that in similar way it won't be possible anymore using the translation tool for almost every country in the world because all(?) or at least most other language versions have infoboxes on a country base. Very sad that that thrive wasn't stopped earliert. What a pity of time wasted. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, and snow close this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No + WP:SNOW. NLeeuw (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as stated above it is not needed. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No per all the above. Since we are strongly in agreement, can we just close this now to remove the message? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:TRAINWRECK -1ctinus📝🗨 19:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for basically every reason listed above. I am now the 21st person to comment here, and all are in opposition. This discussion has messed up every single country, city, settlement, community, village, town, etc. page on the English Wikipedia which is really obnoxious. SpokaneWilly (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong no as per reasons stated above. There is nothing wrong with the existing templates imo, and they seem to work well enough on their respective pages. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Fails WP:NENAN after the season articles were merged (three links, two bar the header). -- Alex_21 TALK 00:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template with no transclusions that has been marked as deprecated since 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This seems to be another instance of User talk:Enterprisey/script-installer#Confusing history of importScript - the template never should have been deprecated, and it has always been subst only so having no transclusions is of no note. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for two reasons. One is that this is a pretty valuable name. Two is that this template also has been practically un-linked to since its creation, which for this particular variety of subst-only template indicates to me that people aren't using it. Izno (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Module:Citation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The 2018 TfD says that "a soft redirect in a module is not possible". That's not true anymore. require('Module:Module wikitext')._addText('{{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}}')
would do exactly that. I'm not saying the closer made a mistake; Module:Module wikitext was created two years after the TfD, but that doesn't mean we can't reevaluate the close since things have changed now. Nickps (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Trappist the monk since their comment on RfD brought the module to my attention. Nickps (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Umm, that
require()
doesn't work. I don't know why and I'm not going to take the time to figure it out. Currently, if Module:Citation is invoked you get:{{#invoke:Citation|citation}}
- Lua error in Module:Citation at line 1: This module is retained for historical and structural reasons; consider using Module:Citation/CS1..
- I think that error message appropriate. Readers should never see it but editors will if they are doing something that they ought not do (and are paying attention ...).
- If we want to 'soft redirect' Module:Citation can't we just add
{{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}}
to someplace in Module:Citation/doc and be done? - —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That require doesn't work because it just redirects the page. If you add a second line that says
return require [[Module:Citation/CS1]]
under it, then the module will be functional too. Nickps (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)- I've edited Module:Sandbox/Nickps to demonstrate. {{#invoke:Sandbox/Nickps|citation}} gives Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which doesn't look too promising at first but it's the same error as {{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation}}: Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which means the redirect is working. Nickps (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I just pushed the change to Module:Citation directly as a proof of concept. It can always be reverted later. Nickps (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- What is it that I am not understanding? You get the Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150 error message because of line 2 at Module:Citation (permalink). It is not obvious that line 1 (permalink) is doing anything that we want. If, as WP:SOFTREDIR says,
Soft redirects differ in that they leave the reader on the redirect page
that isn't happening because line 2 is pretty much the equivalent of a hard redirect. So tell me, what it is that you are attempting to accomplish with your edit? That edit puts the soft redirect outside of the module documentation. Wouldn't it be better to add{{soft redirect}}
to the ~/doc page? - Part of my misunderstanding was that I expected an invoke of Module:Citation to do nothing but put up a soft redirect annotation and halt as WP:SOFTREDIR sort of suggests that it should. The soft redirect annotation is for direct wikilinks (
[[Module:Citation]]
→ Module:Citation). That being the case, I see no benefit to be gained by using the module to create the soft redirect annotation when the same can be accomplished by including{{soft redirect}}
in the ~/doc page. - Just what am I missing?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now I'm confused. If you open Module:Citation you're left at the redirect page. So by the definition you provide, that's a soft redirect. I don't see how a redirect being soft or hard has anything to do with what it does when transcluded. Now, we could move the soft redirect template to the documentation page, although that would require changing the second line (then only line) to
return require('Module:Citation/CS1')
to avoid creating a hard redirect. Or, we could avoid this entire conversation and go with Pppery's suggestion of making a hard redirect. Nickps (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)- If it must be a redirect, let it be a hard redirect or (my preference) leave it as it was and delete
{{Citation/lua}}
as unused/unnecessary. And then let us be done with this. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed on a hard redirect being better than a soft one. Nickps (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it must be a redirect, let it be a hard redirect or (my preference) leave it as it was and delete
- Now I'm confused. If you open Module:Citation you're left at the redirect page. So by the definition you provide, that's a soft redirect. I don't see how a redirect being soft or hard has anything to do with what it does when transcluded. Now, we could move the soft redirect template to the documentation page, although that would require changing the second line (then only line) to
- What is it that I am not understanding? You get the Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150 error message because of line 2 at Module:Citation (permalink). It is not obvious that line 1 (permalink) is doing anything that we want. If, as WP:SOFTREDIR says,
- Actually, I just pushed the change to Module:Citation directly as a proof of concept. It can always be reverted later. Nickps (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've edited Module:Sandbox/Nickps to demonstrate. {{#invoke:Sandbox/Nickps|citation}} gives Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which doesn't look too promising at first but it's the same error as {{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation}}: Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which means the redirect is working. Nickps (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That require doesn't work because it just redirects the page. If you add a second line that says
- Umm, that
- Here's a link to the previous TfD. Nickps (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep it's marked historical, that's sufficient. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ideally we would move Module:Citation/CS1 to this title - there's no reason things are the way they are other then history. Otherwise just hard redirect now that hard redirects are possible - there's no reason for a soft redirect which would deliberately get in all possible users' way. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of simple and full deletion, without particular prejudice in this discussion about the location of Module:Citation/CS1. Beforehand, probably the minimum regardless that needs to happen is a history merge for everything that ended up in Module:Citation/CS1, which I'd guess is everything up to the neat cutoff point that Dragons flight made obvious (the diff). (Well, IMO, Module:Citation/CS1 is probably better located at Module:Citation Style 1 [or Module:Citation Style 1 and 2] than anywhere else, since CS1 is not an atomically-named title and the reason for it presently living at a subpage is that Module:Citation could reasonably hold a whole bunch of differently named things in its subspace (see e.g. the Module:Cite LSA discussion elsewhere....) Izno (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Not enought articles here to justify a navbox. Even the original work, the book is just a direct as of now. The articles in the related section are way too broad. ★Trekker (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox atom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Per WP:TFD#REASONS #1, as it is only used in a single article, atom. Moreover, this is a static template that forks {{infobox}}; it would be more convenient for editors to just have this be an instance of infobox in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Subst and delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Makes sense. Odd to have a separate page for one article's infobox. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The basic infobox is supposed to be a meta template but Infobox_atom is not that long anyways Mrfoogles (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The basic infobox documentation says it can be used in an article in precisely these kinds of situations. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The basic infobox is supposed to be a meta template but Infobox_atom is not that long anyways Mrfoogles (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Pointless template, as there has only ever been 1 Chinese F1 driver. So this template doesn't actually do any navigation, which is the purpose of templates Joseph2302 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Doesn't cost anyone anything, and there will eventually be another Chinese Formula 1 driver. Easier to just keep it for consistency, and so that it doesn't have to be remade when there finally is another one. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is pure speculation, no evidence it will ever actually be a valid template. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless clutter as it offers no navigation. A navigation template should have a few links (editors typically point to 5) for it to be valid, so even if there will be one more driver this still should not be remade. Gonnym (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused timeline. Previously deleted. Gonnym (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused route template. Duplicates Template:Strymon–Kulata railway diagram. Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC) delete per nom. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused route template. Content added to Template:Sealdah Rajdhani Express Route. Gonnym (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused route template. Duplicates Template:Mandurah Line. Gonnym (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The inclusion of all the bridges and tunnels is not necessary. Template:Mandurah Line is better as it is less cluttered. Steelkamp (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused route template. Partially duplicates Template:London bus corridor SL8. Gonnym (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. It only partially duplicates the bus corridor (which should be renamed anyways), and it is for a specific route on the SL8 page. 92.20.253.61 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused route template. Partially duplicates Template:London bus corridor SL8. Gonnym (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. It only partially duplicates the bus corridor (which should be renamed anyways), and it is for a specific route on the 207 page. Also, it does not run the full length of the corridor, which may cause confusion. 92.20.253.61 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused route template. Duplicates Template:Joondalup Line. Gonnym (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The inclusion of all the bridges and tunnels is not necessary. Template:Joondalup Line is better as it is less cluttered. Steelkamp (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks like this template is completely redundant nowadays. It seems that it was created to handle cross-wiki rename requests or something back in Ye Olde Days before Single-User Login was invented (checking if a user who wanted username X was the same as the user with username X on the other language wiki). However, with SUL now being a thing, this template seemingly hasn't been used since 2010 (no transclusions since december 2010), so it should be safe to subst out all 5 remaining uses of this and then delete this template (along with its redirect, {{ver}}) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 10:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
This is not needed and is not even really being used to experiment with anything. This should just go to the relevant page about the Illinois Democratic primary. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. We generally keep sandboxes, even if they are unused. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Sandboxes for a template like this are not necessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Module:Location map/data/Manila (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Module:Location map/data/Manila with Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila.
The module uses a low resolution map based on probably outdated OpenStreetMap data. The module can be redirected to Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila (preferred) or Module:Location map/data/Metro Manila. Sanglahi86 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have just finished revising all articles that transcluded the Module:Location map/data/Manila to use the Philippines City of Manila and/or Metro Manila pushpin maps. There are currently no remaining articles. Thus, I propose Module:Location map/data/Manila be redirected to Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Edit tag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Created in 2014. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:LTA top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:LTA bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions and apparently no substitutions. Created in 2010. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions or template parameters. There is a better map at Telephone numbers in Iran. Created in 2010. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Iswas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Created in 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Identifier (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Created and proposed in 2016 and 2017, but never adopted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- This was effectively replaced by Template:Catalog lookup link Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions. As with the nomination below, it is tricky to determine if this template subpage is actually used or is just leftover cruft from a development process. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. No, this is not leftover cruft from development. It is one of the integral functions of the base ISO 15924 templates, a repository of Wikipedia metadata (i.e. category name) about the information from the ISO standard. I don't know about other editors, or even if there are others who have used this functionality, but I have used it in
substitutionpreview to permanently populate pages into writing system categories, thus the lack of transclusion. This is in direct contrast with the below nomination, which is a tabular presentation of ISO 15924 content, and these two should be judged on their individual merits, not collectively. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 21:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)- Thanks for the clarification. Should {{subst only}} be added to the documentation? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, only
{{may be substituted}}
might be appropriate. It works just fine not being substituted. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 00:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, only
- Can you explain where you previously used this? Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dear lord, I created and edited so many writing systems articles back in the day, and it's been so long I don't even know where to start. Note that my recollection has changed from above when I thought I'd substituted - but I'm pretty sure I previewed
{{ISO 15924|wp-category|Qaaa}}
to generate the category name instead of delving through the category:Writing systems tree. I happened to know about it because I created the wrapper functionality back in 2011 when{{ISO 15924}}
was previously just a documentation guide to all the subtemplates that had been created. I was deep into the process of my own Unicode proposal at the time, so I had a lot of research and knowledge at my fingertips to fill in holes in our content at that time. But that has not been the case for a while now, and my contributions in that area are mostly building out category:Indic letters, which includes a good deal of image creation and adapting formulaic language to describe the different writing systems as they are incorporated, but no novel categorization in the writing systems sphere. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 16:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dear lord, I created and edited so many writing systems articles back in the day, and it's been so long I don't even know where to start. Note that my recollection has changed from above when I thought I'd substituted - but I'm pretty sure I previewed
- Thanks for the clarification. Should {{subst only}} be added to the documentation? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions. This is either article or project-space content that is being stored in template subpages. I could be wrong; the parent template and its subpages are used very narrowly, if at all, and are a nest of interlocking parts typical of their (now-blocked) creator's creations. It appears that the content of this template mirrors much of Script (Unicode)#List of scripts in Unicode. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Harvrefcol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This is an unused, depreciated template with a consensus recommendation to switch it to another depreciated template. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 14:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: This template has an interesting history. See this RFD for more details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with just two possible links in the body, since this tournament started in 2023. Too soon to be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:WinLossPct6Color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WinLossPct6LColor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WinLossPct8Color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused sports related table templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
All red links right now, no possible articles to transclude to. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am in progress creating each article, please be patient. MintyFresh201 (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. First create the articles, then the navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, but can you let me know how I can still view the template after deletion? MintyFresh201 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- MintyFresh201, just copy the code into a page in your user space. Drop a note on my talk page if you don't know how to do that, and I will help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, but can you let me know how I can still view the template after deletion? MintyFresh201 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. First create the articles, then the navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as the club doesn't play at a high level, it's unlikely these season articles even if created will meet WP:GNG. Therefore this template is not needed, and a mass-creation of season articles just to satisfy this template would be inappropriate, unless each season article demonstrates significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302 I'm sorry that we don't agree, but I was wondering, at what level would a club have to be to make a template such as this notable. MintyFresh201 (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 11:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions. Created in 2021. Does not appear to be useful, unless it is used in a temporary way or in if statements that do not manifest on any pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Userify without redirect per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_16#Template:Adopt-a-typo_Talk/Support deeming it unused. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Restore subpage: This is kind of a mess. The nominated template is transcluded in a dozen user talk pages. The subpage linked above was unused during the TFD because this template was blanked inappropriately. I think the proper resolution is to restore Template:Adopt-a-typo Talk/Support. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is this project even active? Seems restoring just for the sake of restoring is a bit pointless. If the project is dead, just subst the talk template and delete it. Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Drummers by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Guitarists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Pianists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Violinists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging All of the above together.
These category templates basically set three parameters:
|Occupation=
|JobPortal=
|ParentOccupation=
Where the last two are the same value between the templates.
|Occupation=
can be easily retrieved by using {{last word|
, thus eliminating the need for endlessly creating these template for every single item, and using code to handle things more efficiently. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
{{PAGENAME}}
}}
- Lean oppose for now. Hey there (as the template creators); I don't think that "
|Occupation=
can be easily retrieved by using{{last word|{{PAGENAME<nowiki>}}}"
this actually applies. There are several nationalities that follow the structure of FOOians from COUNTRY, such as the Russian Empire and Georgia, and Northern Ireland. So it would not always grab the template. I do think that this could be generalized to a broader range of musical instruments, but not how you have described it. Part of the advantage of making the template specific to a given occupation is to keep flexibility if the parents change or another parent category is added. Each of the nominated templates have different parent categories.
- accordionists is parented by Aerophone players and Keyboardists
- pianists is parented by Category:Keyboardists,
- violinists is parented by Category:Bowed-string musicians,
- guitarists is parented by Category:String musicians,
- drummers is parented by Category:Percussionists
At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. But merging them, as you have suggested, would eliminate that possibility down the line. I could see creating another layer on top that called a specific subtemplate based on the presence of a specific occupation, similar ot how Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header current works using |"{{#if:{{in string|source={{PAGENAME}}|target=FOO INSTRUMENT|plain=true|nomatch=}}"
. But I really would be reluctant to overgeneralize it. Mason (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overgeneralizing this system is much more better than having hundreds of similar templates like this. The maintenance burden in continuing with your current system is just insane. Regarding countries that won't work in the proposal, if you show a current category that it fails with it, I'm sure we can get it to work. Also, if the templates aren't complete then please stop creating more uncomplete templates and finish the ones that you've created. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please explain why it is "insane" to have templates that are specific to a given occupation. Right now there are 5 in your nomination, not hundreds. These templates are designed to be flexible so that changes in the category nesting can be easily applied, and ease the present burden on handling parent and child categories for a given occupation. I see this is much less burdensome than having to go through each nationality. As I already said, "At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. ". What I mean what there is no need right now, because the parent categories don't exist at the intersection of century and nationality. I've added in an example for accordionists [1]. I thought it wasn't a good use for resources to go through multiple if checks for categories that don't presently exist. It isn't that the templates are incomplete, its that there is the potential that these categories might eventually differ. Mason (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I think that a couple of questions and a suggestion on my talk page would have been more constructive than using ableist language to better understand the the purpose of the templates. Mason (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please explain why it is "insane" to have templates that are specific to a given occupation. Right now there are 5 in your nomination, not hundreds. These templates are designed to be flexible so that changes in the category nesting can be easily applied, and ease the present burden on handling parent and child categories for a given occupation. I see this is much less burdensome than having to go through each nationality. As I already said, "At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. ". What I mean what there is no need right now, because the parent categories don't exist at the intersection of century and nationality. I've added in an example for accordionists [1]. I thought it wasn't a good use for resources to go through multiple if checks for categories that don't presently exist. It isn't that the templates are incomplete, its that there is the potential that these categories might eventually differ. Mason (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Analects (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Almost all of this is not actually a navbox in function as 20 of the 22 chapters are redlinks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Australian domestic cricket winning team squads
[edit]- Template:Queensland Gillette Cup Winners 1975/76 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Queensland McDonalds Cup Winners 1980/81 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Queensland McDonalds Cup Winners 1981/82 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:South Australia 2010-11 KFC Twenty20 Big Bash Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:South Australia 2011-12 Ryobi Cup Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tasmania Squad 1978/79 Gillette Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tasmania Squad 2004/05 ING Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tasmania Squad 2006/07 Pura Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tasmania Squad 2007/08 Ford Ranger Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
As per previous consensus at TFDs in 2022, here and here, domestic cricket winning squad templates are considered excessive navbox clutter. JP (Talk) 09:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per previous TfD consensuses (which I notice were both TFDs started by me). These are the same unnecessary clutter as those were. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - do not need 'winning' squads like this. GiantSnowman 15:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Fourteenth Doctor stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tenth Doctor stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Fourteenth Doctor stories with Template:Tenth Doctor stories.
The template is unnecessary given that the three episodes plus specials page all link to each other through inline links and with {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}}. Though with the inclusion of The Power of the Doctor a merger was proposed with Template:Tenth Doctor stories. As the two incarantions are pretty linked and both played by David Tennant. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: They are still two distinct incarnations. The point about inline links is arguably a non-issue (seeing as navboxes are, y'know, there for ease of navigation so people don't need to dig around the article for said inline links). Granted, the similarity between this and {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}} is more of a concern. However, I'd argue that keeping these templates separate would be better for futureproofing (in case any more notable 14th doctor content gets made), better for organization (as the content for each incarnation is categorized away from the other incarnation's content), and a bit more user-friendly (as the 14's content won't get buried under the mountain of 10's content, and it avoids the potential ugliness of splitting one navbox between two incarnations which itself is likely to be a bit of an organizational headache). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 10:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I second the above. While there isn't much content in the Fourteenth Doctor's box so thus far (the 3 episodes are listed in other navigational boxes so I get the concern), but more content might come along in the future. Bigwhofan (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update an article for Desination Skarro was made. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I second the above. While there isn't much content in the Fourteenth Doctor's box so thus far (the 3 episodes are listed in other navigational boxes so I get the concern), but more content might come along in the future. Bigwhofan (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:1874 Canadian federal election/Drummond—Arthabaska (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I couldn't find sources to add confirming the information Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- keep, I clicked on the link in the sources section of the template, and found the election results. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:They aren't (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Too specific, plus it can be done by just {{they are|Example}}n't
. Currently not used. Nardog (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)- Delete: Per Nardog, "didn't, haven't, weren't" would be the same issue. There is no need for these negative forms. Nobody (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Would wrapperifying the base verb, plus "n't", as proposed by the OP, be an acceptable alternative to deletion? I could see the template names as used now being convenient shorthand, and the simpler base implementation should reduce overhead. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 14:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's no difference between that and keep. And keep doesn't reduce overhead. Nardog (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:2022 Hawaii House of Representatives elections in 25th District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused template. Article for this election has election boxes as part of the article. Not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Redundant to {{Sunak Shadow Cabinet}}. Also still transcluded on a lot of previous Labour shadow cabinet members. --woodensuperman 12:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'd rather see {{UK Shadow Cabinet}} become a redirect to the current instance (so, right now, {{Sunak Shadow Cabinet}} than it be deleted.
- Either way, clearly it should be rapidly removed (by bot? by AWB?) from politicians where it is no longer appropriate. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I see the benefit of this, as it leaves it open for more instances of out of date transclusion in the future. --woodensuperman 12:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Move the content of British shadow cabinets template into this template (UK Shadow Cabinet was created earlier than British shadow cabinets), and merge the templates altogether. —— Eric Liu(Talk) 12:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Those two templates cover very different topics. {{UK Shadow Cabinet}} shows the current UK shadow cabinet (i.e. the same topic as {{Sunak Shadow Cabinet}}), whereas {{British shadow cabinets}} lists all of the different shadow cabinets in the past. I have no objection to discussing renaming {{British shadow cabinets}} in the future if this one is deleted, but that isn't what's being discussed here. Reading between the lines, I don't believe you are actually advocating a "keep" !vote for this specific template. --woodensuperman 12:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Only by its name, I mean that we should merge the content of this template to Sunak Shadow Cabinet first, and then subsequently merge the content of British shadow cabinets to UK Shadow Cabinet. —— Eric Liu(Talk) 12:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Then please strike your "keep" !vote, as it is misleading. I believe what you are actually advocating is a delete/merge. A move of the unrelated template can be discussed afterwards. --woodensuperman 13:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Only by its name, I mean that we should merge the content of this template to Sunak Shadow Cabinet first, and then subsequently merge the content of British shadow cabinets to UK Shadow Cabinet. —— Eric Liu(Talk) 12:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Those two templates cover very different topics. {{UK Shadow Cabinet}} shows the current UK shadow cabinet (i.e. the same topic as {{Sunak Shadow Cabinet}}), whereas {{British shadow cabinets}} lists all of the different shadow cabinets in the past. I have no objection to discussing renaming {{British shadow cabinets}} in the future if this one is deleted, but that isn't what's being discussed here. Reading between the lines, I don't believe you are actually advocating a "keep" !vote for this specific template. --woodensuperman 12:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:AbuseFilter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Edit filter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:AbuseFilter with Template:Edit filter.
There is no need to have 2 separate Templates for this. The differences could be added as parameters. Nobody (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fine as long as you add the link to the filter log into the target. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Guy I think that should be easy with something like
{{#if:{{{log|}}}|({{plain link|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/?wpSearchFilter={{{1}}}|name=log}})}}
Nobody (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)- I'm sure. I didn't want to edit the original, but if anyone with template-fu can do it, please fill your boots. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Guy I think that should be easy with something like
Old discussions
[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonial Empires/Userbox/CEBASICBOX, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Template:User_WP:AGS, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Category:WikiProject_Dacia_participants and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:WikiProject Colonialism participants. Although the WikiProjects are gone, these templates and their accompanying categories have historical interest. It would have been helpful to bundle these related nominations together or at least link them. And polite to notify the successor wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. – Joe (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but change "is a participant" to "was a participant". There's no reason that past relationship can't be expressed through a userbox. Also this is the wrong venue (should be at MfD). * Pppery * it has begun... 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:User WP:AGS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonial Empires/Userbox/CEBASICBOX, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Template:User_WikiProject_Dacia, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Category:WikiProject_Dacia_participants and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:WikiProject Colonialism participants. Although the WikiProjects are gone, these templates and their accompanying categories have historical interest. It would have been helpful to bundle these related nominations together or at least link them. And polite to notify the successor wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but change "is a participant" to "was a participant". There's no reason that past relationship can't be expressed through a userbox. Also this is the wrong venue (should be at MfD). * Pppery * it has begun... 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Can someone explain why this was merged into Wikiproject History? Where was this discussed? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Blink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template has been deleted multiple times. The creator removed a speedy deletion tag, so rather than get in a dispute, here's a TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The previous, unrelated version of this template was deleted because it didn't work (it used the actual blink tag, which has been deprecated for around twenty years). There was not a consensus to forbid any template from ever existing on the English Wikipedia with the pagename
blink
, although if it would make you happy, I could rename this to {{blink2}} so that it isn't a "recreation". jp×g🗯️ 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)- JPxG, what do you want this gross thing for? Folly Mox (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's an article about the blink element, whose primary illustration is rendered with this template, which makes text blink. There is also a section about the deprecated blink and marquee tags at HTML element. It's obvious that the template is not appropriate to randomly be used for emphasis in article text, which is why there's a bold exclamation-pointed sentence on the /doc page telling you not to use it this way. Indeed, we have lots of content that would be inappropriate to put in random articles, like File:Communist Hammer and Sickle Star Flag.svg or File:Flag of the Ku Klux Klan.svg (which are illegal to display in some countries). The <blink> tag was quite bad, but hopefully we can agree it was less bad than the Khmer Rouge, whose insigna we display in their article; I think we can similarly depict a <blink> tag in the articles about <blink> tags, or deprecated HTML tags more broadly.
- It's true that it would be in theory possible to delete the template, and replace its invocations entirely with inline formatting on the two articles where it's in use -- but that inline formatting would still require TemplateStyles, so it would still require a stylesheet to be located somewhere. The idea of attaching a
/styles.css
subpage to a mainspace article, and then invoking that stylesheet from a different mainspace article (or having two identical .css pages on two different mainspace pages) seems quite obtuse and unorthodox to me, especially if a template for doing this already exists and works fine. - In general, my understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia templates is that they're supposed to allow code to be used on multiple pages, rather than forcing people to manually copypasta large complicated blocks of 100% identical code (in this case,
<templatestyles src="Blink/styles.css" /><span class="blink-css">{{{1}}}</span>
andblink, .blink-css { animation: blink 1s step-end infinite; } *::@keyframes blink { *:: 67% { opacity: 0 } *::}
, and additionally a content-model change to enable the second to be loaded from a separate page because it can't be styled inline with MediaWiki). jp×g🗯️ 00:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)- Just like with Template:Marquee, you build it and people use it and we end up with horrible (User:Alpine0x37 User:One cookie) GeoCities like pages. Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it is reasonable for us to try to completely prevent people from making silly userpages, that doing so should be an objective of our template system, or that it should take a higher priority than using said system to write articles. jp×g🗯️ 06:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- At any rate, if it is really earnestly demanded with gusto and urgency, I can write something that makes it physically impossible to use this in userspace, or perhaps on any article other than HTML element or Blink element, but this seems unneceessary to me. jp×g🗯️ 04:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing so is indeed trivial, but I don't think the benefits of this template outweigh the detriments even after doing so. Izno (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- At any rate, if it is really earnestly demanded with gusto and urgency, I can write something that makes it physically impossible to use this in userspace, or perhaps on any article other than HTML element or Blink element, but this seems unneceessary to me. jp×g🗯️ 04:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it is reasonable for us to try to completely prevent people from making silly userpages, that doing so should be an objective of our template system, or that it should take a higher priority than using said system to write articles. jp×g🗯️ 06:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just like with Template:Marquee, you build it and people use it and we end up with horrible (User:Alpine0x37 User:One cookie) GeoCities like pages. Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- JPxG, what do you want this gross thing for? Folly Mox (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I find neither argument convincing here. Deleting {{blink}} won't stop people from building GeoCities-style pages if they want to, and I'm not even convinced we should care if they do. But I also don't see the value in a fake (because it doesn't actually use the blink HTML tag) self-demonstrating example in pages like blink element - it seems to me that people can understand what an element blinking means without it being shown to them. And I agree G4 doesn't apply. Since the burden is normally on the nominator in deletion discussions weak keep I guess. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: the 2007 discussion covers all the same ground that I probably would have processed this as a G4. If you really want to demonstrate in article space blinking without encouraging all the things a template encourages (or for that matter, marqueeing), consider creating an SVG (which can accept the same CSS). Izno (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- To whit, the fundamental reason neither of these templates should exist is WP:Accessibility. There's a reason the actual elements were nuked off the planet and that it took another decade before CSS finally added a way to fuck around with the same visibility "properties". Izno (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Surely no more offensive than a guy having his head cut off with a giant sword, which we have a great many illustrations of at decapitation. jp×g🗯️ 04:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes, that was definitely a great comparison. Either answer the core of it or move on. Izno (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Surely no more offensive than a guy having his head cut off with a giant sword, which we have a great many illustrations of at decapitation. jp×g🗯️ 04:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- To whit, the fundamental reason neither of these templates should exist is WP:Accessibility. There's a reason the actual elements were nuked off the planet and that it took another decade before CSS finally added a way to fuck around with the same visibility "properties". Izno (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)- Delete per Izno's accessibility argument and because this template is not the blink property which makes it incorrect to use in HTML element. As a personal opinion, we should also make life as hard as possible for any user wanting to use these very annoying effects and not create for them easy to use templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the caption for it at HTML element and Blink element say explicitly that it's a simulation of the effect using CSS. I submit here that the article pipe is illustrated, not with a pipe, but a digital representations of a photograph depicting a pipe. jp×g🗯️ 04:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think it's a particularly valid criticism to say this isn't the actual element. Izno (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment couldn't uses at blink element be replaced with animated gifs? (same with marquee) -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- A gif also works in addition to an SVG. One of those is probably easier to manufacture. Izno (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, per JPxG. It's got a real use (illustrating old HTML capabilities), and it does it succinctly. Whether or not people could maybe use it to make their user page look a bit ugly is irrelevant. Arguments for deletion seem weak to me (no examples of it actually being misused in a user page has been shown; accessiblity issues would be exacerbated if blink demos were replaced with SVG/GIF files or bespoke inline CSS). Blinking html was ugly but this template is helpful to convey that historical ugliness. BugGhost🦗👻 12:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Taiwan political party templates
- Template:Congress Party Alliance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:DPP/short (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Green Party Taiwan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Hakka Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Independent (Taiwan) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Kuomintang Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:New Party Taiwan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:New Power Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Non-Partisan Solidarity Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:People First Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan Constitution Association (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan Farmers Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan Home Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan Independence Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan People's Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan Solidarity Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Third Society Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Young China Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This family of templates contains just wikilinks, maybe with an icon (mostly used for decoration in violation of MOS:ICON). Over the last few years we've been moving away from the "one template for every version of X" system (be it for political parties, national sports, etc) in order to allow for easier updating and centralised coding. This is also a good example of "text stored in a template". Primefac (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at most of these templates and several transclusion cases. I'm not seeing a violation of MOS:ICON, but I agree that this is a lot of templates for what could be easily accomplished with a single template taking a single parameter (and maybe an optional boolean controlling icon display). I'm thinking combine and replace, although I'm not presently volunteering to do the work, since I've been pretty busy and will almost certainly forget. Folly Mox (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I agree that simple links should not be hosted in a template. There is just no reason for that. If such a thing is actually valid, then there probably should be a template for every single concept. In reality, writing New Power Party or {{New Power Party}} is no different and if {{NPP}} is valid as a redirect, then it would have been valid as redirect, which NPP is not. This just seems to bypass the basic system of how links work here. Other than that, we already have a module that acts as database for political party names and colors. So that should already take care of this. Regarding the icons, I also agree, but for some reason during the merge a few years back, we left the group of templates with icons out of it. So if this passes, we should take care of the other templates in Category:Political party name templates (which also includes US templates like Template:GOP, which is exactly the same). Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Deomyinae (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template is unnecessary as we can always navigate the taxonomy via the taxonomic infoboxes. And now we have to maintain the taxonomy in 3 different places: the infoboxes, the genus articles (which list the species), and navigation templates like this. Why do we need such redundant systems that just create more work? Nosferattus (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a standard navbox that is used in many articles. Clearly useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete is my preference, as I share concerns about keeping redundant information up-to-date across multiple pages. However, I don't understand why this template was singled out over everything else in Category:Mammal species templates and it's subcategories. Many (but not all) mammal species have navboxes. Very few other organisms have navboxes like mammals do. If I was going to single out one mammal species navbox for deletion it would be {{Murinae (Others)}}. The subfamily Murinae is split across 10 navboxes, why not just make one (massive) navbox for the subfamily? And putting two genera in the "Others" navbox is completely unintuitive for readers when the other navboxes are arranged by parts of the alphabet. Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think broadly the idea of navboxes which link the tree of life are reasonable. So from that direction I think this is a keep. However, I think this navbox does too much. It links pages which are clearly not WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (the parent taxa), and links multiple of the child taxa and their children, which I am not generally a fan of (see also User:Izno/Navbox constellations which pretty-naturally apply here). Izno (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, these topics are usually well-linked on the articles themselves to the child and parent topics. So yeah, I don't totally see the point in navboxes for tree of life stuff. Izno (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- delete, there is extra overhead of maintaining subfamily navboxes and I don't think there is significant added benefit (due to the navigational redundancy). Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions or incoming links. Created in early 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please keep , it's part of a series, and it will be used at some point. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This template is part of a series of over thirty template maps of Continental Asia across different time periods. I know I've seen this one transcluded in an infobox before, early in article development prior to replacement by a newly created more specific map template.Our encyclopaedic coverage of circa 200 CE Asia history topics is not yet particularly thorough, and it would be a shame to discard this work just because it's currently unused.In general and as a set, I think all templates in this series should be kept whether or not they have any transclusions at the moment. I think my memories of how this template was previously used could be extrapolated to future use cases: templates from this series are transcluded until a more specific map is located or created, if ever. Just because the usage is temporary doesn't mean that it's not useful. Folly Mox (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. No objections to userspacing. Izno (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- move to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Completed discussions
[edit]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.