Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 48 91 37 176
TfD 0 0 0 0 28 28
MfD 0 0 0 1 13 14
FfD 8 1 7 36 16 68
AfD 0 0 0 0 31 31

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

How to use this pageEdit

What not to propose for discussion hereEdit

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 "general" or "template" 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}}. If it is a hardcoded instance or duplication of another template, tag it with {{Db-t3|~~~~~|name of other template}}.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects
List at Redirects for discussion.

Reasons to delete a templateEdit

  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template (see also: WP:Infobox consolidation).
  3. 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.
  4. 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 templateEdit

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

Note:

  • If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the Tfd notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators or Template editors.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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 {{subst:tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the Tfd, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020_September_25#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at Tfd. Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

  • For deletion: {{subst:tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous Tfd without brackets|result of previous Tfd}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

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 | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

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 | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
III: Notify users. Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts.

Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editorsEdit

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 an template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets, such as "T3" for hardcoded instances.

Notifying related WikiProjectsEdit

WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{Tfdnotice}} for this.

Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

Notifying substantial contributors to the templateEdit

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.

At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.

Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

TwinkleEdit

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

DiscussionEdit

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 discussionEdit

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 discussionsEdit

September 25Edit

Template:Falcons2010sEdit

Non-notable team honor. Subject does not have its own article and seemingly does not merit its own navigational box. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:AR talkEdit

Marked "currently inactive and is retained for historical reference".

Nonetheless transcluded on over 100 pages, mostly if not all IP talk pages, on which it says "this IP address is currently the subject of an open Abuse Response investigation", which is patently false.

I asked about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 65#Abuse response template and got no response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Blank and retain for historical reference? Also note previous 2 TfDs, the earliest of which was yours and found consensus to orphan and mark historical. Not exactly sure why that wasn't done then. Not sure if it should be removed from talk pages, or left there (for some kind of record?) and just blanked on the template itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The template is not useful anymore as the Abuse Response process has been retired. --Gonnym (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Template has been orphaned per the 2015 TFD, now looking for further opinions on "mark historical" vs "delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Mark historical If this template shouldn't be in place on IP talk pages, remove it. Deleting old templates because it isn't currently used seems like a solution looking for a problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-sandbox1Edit

Unneeded templates. Anyone that violates policies when in sandbox should be given the template most appropriate to the policy. We can still give vandalism templates for sandbox blanking and blp templates for adding blp violations to the sandbox. There is little point in having a warning series for the sandbox. Aasim 20:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

To add on, there is no sandbox-specific policies about content that can be added to the sandbox. We do have policies where sandbox does apply as well, but those policies are not exclusive to the sandbox. We have an information page explaining "Hey, while this is a sandbox, our policies still apply when adding stuff here." But violations of a particular policy can be addressed by using the specific policy-specific template, like {{uw-npov1}}, {{uw-disruptive1}}, {{uw-blp1}}, etc. Aasim 20:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep We can still give vandalism templates for sandbox blanking and blp templates for adding blp violations to the sandbox Why can't these templates serve that purpose? They're more useful than the more generic warning templates in notifying users that the sandbox is not exempt from the policies regarding vandalism, BLP violations, copyright violations, spam, etc. Adam9007 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Templates could be useful -- also in the sandbox it does say not to put libelous content inside, so it is technically to vio of policy to put libelous content in the sandbox. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    Isn't libel covered by Project:Libel? That applies across all pages, not just the sandbox. Aasim 21:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete uw-sandbox4im, keep the others. It's not clear to me how one can vandalize the sandbox, so perhaps the content of the user warnings warrants some discussion. But certainly other policies do apply there. The uw-sandbox templates may actually be helpful in that they provide an alternative to potentially using the wrong user warning template for a sandbox edit. Clearly, the "npov" and "blp" series do not apply to the sandbox, since the sandbox isn't an article. The "defamatory" series clearly would apply. Having the extra reminder to a user that these policies apply even in the sandbox seems worthwhile enough. However, if someone is using the "4im" level for something a user has done in the sandbox, I think it really should be the appropriate 4im template for that specific conduct, so that the specific policy is clearly identified in that extreme case. So I would support deleting the 4im template for that reason. --Bsherr (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all templates as per reasons above and there's no consensus to delete it. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete some above comments don't make sense to me - keep because no consensus to delete?
    Delete per nom - this is completely redundant to the vandalism templates. Vandalism, libel and defamation are prohibited throughout Wikipedia, and we have templates for all of that. We don't need a sandbox specific variant. What's next? {{Uw-categorytalk-libel-4im}}? Second, is not consistent with our sandbox policy what sandbox policy? The template is both redundant and incorrect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete use the appropriate general templates. - "there's no consensus to delete"? - Let's see. Also per ProcrastinatingReader What's next? - Maybe: "You vandalized an Australian place/Canadian province article"? TerraCyprus (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Big Four (tennis)Edit

Other than the rivalries and maybe the (incomplete) notable matches links, none of the extensive links are really "Big Four"-related. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep or listify This is a useful navigational tool for this period of tennis. I think it should either be kept as a navbox or, if there is consensus it is unsuitable for template space, moved to a list that is linked in the main article.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This set is an invention of sports commentary. The subject article, and the existing textual links between the constituents, are sufficient for navigation. --Bsherr (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant navigation to the individual players' navboxes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know this is swinging towards deletion, but in deference to the size and number of transclusions, relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a useful information box for tennis.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

September 24Edit

Template:Infobox NG stateEdit

The states of Nigeria use {{Infobox settlement}} directly. Creator of template had the first edit in article space in 2013 and now has 33: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=SundayA.James&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions TerraCyprus (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete This is documentation for a non-existent template, not an actual usable wrapper. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:Mailing list memberEdit

There are only 4 pages that use the "inactive" parameter, and 1 page that uses the "blocked" parameter, and User:Yapperbot is approved to remove inactive members from mailing lists. Once you get rid of the rarely-used parameters, you are left with an extremely simple template that has no reason to be implemented in Lua. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment I removed the functionality of those two parameters from this module in Special:Diff/977772093 so that if anyone does really care about these parameters, they'll have the next week where they can just revert me to get them back. If nobody cares about those parameters enough to revert me, then I'm fine with deletion. I also updated Template:Mailing list member/sandbox with a non-Lua version. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    You were reverted, but I'm not withdrawing this TfD since I still don't think the template should be bloated with functionality used on only one page, even if one person happens to care about it. * Pppery * it has begun... 11:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:RenderProfileEdit

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Does it work? Is there another tool we have for debugging module performance? I personally don't give that much regard to performance when writing modules, at least not enough to optimise it, but if this is accurate at showing slow renders, what's the harm? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:RangeEdit

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Doesn't seem fundamentally useless? Might even be useful in various scenarios. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:HexEdit

Redundant to Module:BaseConvert. The only functionality that is used is d2h in Template:R from Unicode character, and I've coded a version using Module:BaseConvert instead in Template:R from Unicode character/sandbox * Pppery * it has begun... 04:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Capital InicialEdit

Only navigation is between the band article and one album. Is this necessary? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Amnesia seriesEdit

Only navigates two games which are interlinked anyway and the two developing companies which are heavily linked anyway. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

September 23Edit

Template:R from historic nameEdit

Propose merging Template:R from historic name with Template:R from former name.
These two templates were both created in mid-2007 (I'm not sure if the creator of each was aware of the other), and they have often been used interchangeably. Their documentation tries to make a distinction, but it's not at all clear, only saying that one is for former names with "a significant historic past" and advising checking transclusions for examples. I'm not sure how it helps Wikipedia to be making this distinction. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I notice that there's also {{R from predecessor company name}}, which is not part of Twinkle and thus has only 200 transclusions, compared to several thousand each for the other two. If there's consensus for this merge, I may nominate that next, so let me know if there's any reason I shouldn't. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No current opinion on this, but if the merge goes through, the title should be "former" as the template is used for more than historic names of places. --Gonnym (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I created the "former name" one, which was made first, and was not aware of the other. While I can think of some clear-cut examples where one of these would apply more than the other, I think most pages are more ambiguous and I don't see the point in policing the distinction. Rigadoun (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge into "former", unless someone defines a clear distinction between them and provides a reason for keeping both. Certes (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Carleton S. Coon Racial DefinitionsEdit

Unused, an apparent very old user experiment. The maps linked are original research, as on inspection they are not faithful reproductions from Coon's publications. The template is problematic due to the contentious subject matter (science no longer recognizes these human race theories), which itself can be considered part of Arbcom's race and intelligence discretionary sanctions. So it's a bit of a bear trap waiting to be set off, frankly. (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Finnish municipalityEdit

Replace (subst:) with Infobox settlement and delete

"Finnish municipality"-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template. TfD outcome 2 March 2020 was delete [1], 22 March 2020 it was in DRV [2] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 22. The relist was done, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 6#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality, had a dubious closing "no consensus" despite that the votes before relist were:

  • Subst and delete
  • Delete after replacement
  • Keep until replacement
  • SPEEDY CLOSE ("is a wrapper since creation" and the IP proposed it itself for substitution)

There was another Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 June 9, which was closed with This means that the "no consensus" closure of the TfD is maintained by default. I'm not giving much weight to the opinion by the IP with an edit-count of one. In that DRV a user said Today I separated all data from the infobox, the replacement could now be done similar to how data is handled for the municipalities in the Netherlands. It was also said The vote was clear, only one opposer, still you decided to call it "no consensus". . But the one person closing as "no consensus" again supported his view stating I think it would be more productive to spend 7 days on a new Tfd (as I mentioned you could do so on my talk page), likely getting a consensus for subst and delete, rather than spending 7 days at DRV

But it seems people got tired by the closures and relists and no one started a new TfD, despite the actual template code now being much better suited to substitution than it was after the initial outcome "delete". 77.183.162.229 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Archive indexEdit

Banner intended to be used on archive indexes such as Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive index. The problem is that these are bot generated and legobot would remove it if you tried to add it. The solution here would be to modify the top text of all pages by updating the bot to include this message not having a banner on 23 random pages that either are normal archives where {{Archive}} would be more suitable or indexes that don't update anymore. --Trialpears (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep? Trialpears, I'm having trouble understanding your nomination. If this is included to standardise text on those pages, which are still actively being updated, then it should be kept and the template's documentation should be updated. It seems by deleting this we will just be requiring manual instead of grouped updates to the text on those pages?--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Not a reference deskEdit

Template used on 15 pages that largely duplicates the very first thing on every talk pages it's used on: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ARTICLENAME article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." --Trialpears (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No real complaints (as the author), though I imagine (thinking back twelve years) that the original impetus was because people were using talk pages as helpdesks despite {{talkheader}}'s admonitions even back then. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Agree --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:KK Bosna current rosterEdit

The template is unused and there has no updates since April 2019. --DragonFederal (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

OK delete the template if you must, or maybe i will update them. Bosna Sarajevo (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:User is blockedEdit

I think this falls under G4 per the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 17, since the content is substantively the same (not identical, but the intent of that discussion was pretty clear.) Nonetheless, I don’t have a problem taking it here since Anomie doesn’t think it falls under it.

The short of it is that the same logic from the April 2019 discussion applied: there’s a community consensus against simply tagging as blocked, and there are better tags for socks. There’s no valid use case in line with consensus as expressed at multiple ANs/ANIs over the years (against people going around adding tags for no reason) culminating in the April 2019 TfD deleting their most prominent tag of this type. This one was used today out of the blue on a long blocked account for no reason, so it appears we need to delete it too. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:User talk-page headerEdit

Delete as low usage duplicate, replacing usages with {{Talk header preload}}. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  • It looks like {{Talk header preload}} actually has fewer instances of usage (30s vs. 50s). Is the "preload" one meant to be an editnotice? Both seem like attempts to make a friendlier/more informal version of {{Talk header}}. A merge would certainly be nice, but given the latitude we traditionally allow in userspace, if someone shows up objecting, I won't try to force it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I support overall consolidation of user space templates, however these ones are quite different. One is, I assume, intended to be frank, is grey in colour, and just states to leave a message. The otherwise is, I feel, intended to be more welcoming, has more text / formatting / colouring, so I think their intended tones and messages are different. There is no harm in having some variation in messaging between our tens of thousands of editors, so I support keeping these. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sydney Ferries templatesEdit

Deprecated {{s-line}} templates replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Ferries in NSW. Fleet Lists (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

September 22Edit

Reference search tools talk page templatesEdit

The number of banners on many talk pages has reached comical proportions. We need to start more aggressively limiting them, and these banners are a good place to start.

Their problem is that they offer general editing advice rather than advice specific to a page. Referencing is obviously important, but so is being bold, and we don't put a Remember to be bold when editing this page! notice on talk pages.

We don't have any clear inclusion/exclusion criteria for which pages should have these banners, so the pages they end up on are just those where someone felt like adding them. If we really wanted something like this on general talk pages, we'd add {{Find sources}} as a line in {{Talk header}}. (There's also a clear consolidation problem; deletion is one way to solve that.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete I agree with the nom having so many things doing the same job is pointless. I think sometimes these notices are useful as they do prompty you to upgrade references and provide ways to search for this. It is confusing when editing to have templates doing similar things with different names, so I think these templates should be replaced as they are merged. I think the final template should be called {{Find sources notice}} because this is closest to plain English. A parameter or wrapper can be used to include these where the field is relating to health or biographical data. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per Tom to standardize on one name. No need for wrapper for med or bio (or any other), just add a |med= that when set, includes whatever unique sources it needs. --Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as proposed. I agree with Sdkb that there are rather too many banners on some talkpages. I don't agree, though, that these particular banner are the ones to delete. The search banners are specific to the article talkpage they are placed on because the search function is just for that particular article. They are one of the most useful banners to place on a talkpage as they give assistance in helping to find material and sources for an article. Articles should not be written purely from editors' personal knowledge or understanding of a topic as this knowledge may be out of date or slightly wrong or simply lacking. Editors should be encouraged to look for sources not just to cite what is already in the article, but also to find new information. So, a solid no to deleting search tools templates. There are however, suggestions within Sdkb's nomination statement which are worth discussing. Should we have a search function on every talkpage? Hmmm. Perhaps not. While all articles can be improved, even FA and GA articles, there is less of a need for a search function tool on the talkpages of such articles. Should they be included on the talkpages of articles that have some sort of "cite needed" tag on? Should they be included on the talkpage of every article below B grade? Perhaps, given that such articles may be missing content and or citations. Can we trust that editors who see an article that may benefit from a search tool template will put one on? Perhaps not, but that's probably a better way of doing it than forcing them on millions of talkpages, many of which may not need such a banner. Can they be merged, as Tom suggests? Perhaps. But merging has been tried previously with no success. And when templates get merged, as with the recent merge of the archive templates, some functionality is lost. Perhaps it's me, but I'm not seeing the confusion of people going to talkpages and finding slightly different wordings in the search tools banner. After all, there are many talkpages where the selection and arrangement of the banners is different. We have Wikipedia:Talk page layout, which gives some guidance on these matters. I think Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout is probably the best place to be discussing these templates and matters related to them. As regards talkpages with too many banners, {{Banner holder}} with "|collapsed=yes" can hold them neatly. SilkTork (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    SilkTork, interesting thoughts. To respond to a few: the idea that they'd be less needed on GAs/FAs is an interesting point. If we did wrap it into {{talk header}}, I think it might be possible to code so that it'd only show up on articles without one of those designations. It could also be made an optional parameter. Here's a quickly-thrown-together demo of what it might look like:
Regarding merging as a general practice, see the arguments at WP:CONSOLIDATE (about infoboxes currently, but applies more broadly). The most salient point for me is that even the most stable templates develop over time, and when there are duplicates, that increases by multiples the amount of work needed to maintain them and, where that work is just not done, slows it down.
I wasn't aware of WP:Talk page layout, but I put a {{Please see}} notice there, and we could use that page for hosting future discussions.
And it's funny you mention {{Banner holder}}, since the thing that led me to making this nom was actually building a list on that page's documentation of which banners are generally collapsed and which are not. I noticed that these banners were generally not collapsed, which struck me as odd, and thinking about it then led me to question whether they should exist at all. I don't think it'd be practical to enforce putting this within the holder, especially given that many pages with too many banners don't yet use the holder (it only has a few hundred transclusions). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I like your talk header with the search function. Though the reason some of the additional "friendly" search templates were made was to nudge or encourage people into building articles by using sources - the brusque "Find sources" may not always be addressing or attracting the right people. Indeed, the sort of person who would completely understand such an imperative would in fact not need the instruction, they would already be engaged on research. The guidance should sometimes be friendly and attractive and eye-catching (with an appealing image) to serve as more than just a shortcut for those of us who already know how to research. Indeed, lets be honest, the best research does involve a little more than simply the name of the article. I think there is a lot of benefit to be gained from discussing that idea further, though I'm not sure this is the right venue as discussions here tend to be time limited and may be closed without warning by a well meaning editor who feels it has gone on long enough. SilkTork (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge if possible: I frequently use these templates to find references for stub articles. To avoid link rot, the redundant templates could be redirected instead of deleted. Jarble (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge. I support consolidating these templates. Indeed, I remember some prior work to do so, back when there were even more of these banners. I don't support adding this to the talk header. The talk header does exactly what it is supposed to do, which is provide a summary explanation of a talk page. Consolidating additional functions (as unfortunately archiving already has been) defeats the ordering prescribed in WP:TPL. I also am wary of displaying this on every page. It seems to me it would be appropriate on pages that need additional sources or that need continuing updates to remain current. That's not every page. --Bsherr (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Bsherr, {{talk header}} isn't quite just describing the functionality of talk pages; the "Article policies" column veers into editing advice. I do agree with the general thrust of your point, though—it would be a shame to, in the course of an effort to declutter talk banners, end up cluttering that template. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox province or territory of CanadaEdit

Replace and delete

Province-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions (13), on pretty stable sets of articles, and no other {{Infobox settlement}} wrapper has that few transclusions. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". -- PK2 (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Canada place infobox usage: Infobox settlement increased
Infobox usage on articles about places in Canada
  • Note that the OP has changed his nomination rationale without indicating that it's been changed. I continue to disagree with the rationale: it is to be expected that this template has relatively few transclusions given its scope, but it's working for those articles and the editors who work on them, and consensus has been that the set of parameters available are appropriate for these articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:T3: /T3. Duplication and hardcoded instances ... Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days./ There is more about duplication at WP:INFOCOL. 77.191.9.108 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Bugs around that template:
    1. Template talk:Infobox settlement#Non-standard links for time in wrapper Infobox province or territory of Canada. 77.191.9.108 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    2. |government_type= was based on |EntityAdjective=, but the latter only present on some of the province articles. Editors would have to inspect the template code to know how to make a government type show up. 77.191.9.108 (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as per all the other talks. Highly active Wikiproject template designed specifically to omit certain things and add other things. Done so to avoid unwanted parameters inserted over and over and over. Pls stop killing wikiprojects by ignoring consensus that made these types of sub templates.--Moxy 🍁 01:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
    WP:NPA, nobody is "killing wikiprojects by ignoring consensus". Re "Highly active Wikiproject template" - that would be bad if true: time spend on a template with only 13 transclusions, despite of this it and the articles where it is used are buggy. 77.191.9.108 (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Bugs around that template: parameters that are not implemented, e.g. Nova Scotia:
 | Flower              = [[File:Trailing arbutus 2006.jpg|left|30px]]{{Spaces|2}}[[Epigaea repens|Mayflower]]
 | Dog                 = [[File:Tollers.jpg|left|30px]]{{Spaces|2}}[[Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever]]
 | Tree                = [[File:Picea rubens cone.jpg|left|30px]]{{Spaces|2}}[[Picea rubens|Red spruce]]
 | Bird                = [[File:OspreyNASA.jpg|left|30px]]{{Spaces|2}}[[Osprey]]
 | Mineral             = [[File:Stilbite Orange Fans.jpg|30px]]{{Spaces|2}}[[Stilbite]]
 | Gem                 = [[Agate]]
  • only half of the parameters are actually implemented. The dog is there since at least 2014 [5]. 77.191.9.108 (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
We are trying to avoid edit wars like this. Sure what your doing is best for our readers fir these articles or your preference to add parameters that the project sees as non worthy for inclusion. One of the main reasons we have such a backlash on infoboxes over the past few years is because they are getting so bloated that many now impead the learning process. --Moxy 🍁 02:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
"We are trying to avoid" - who is "we"? Bug fixing for mineral undone: "(The way the template has worked for over 2 years can't possibly have "too many bugs")" : for me, three bugs are "too many bugs". Would like to see another definition. 77.191.9.108 (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Bugs around that template: parameters that are not implemented, e.g. British Columbia:
 |Slogan = [[Beautiful British Columbia]]
 |Flower = [[Pacific dogwood]]
 |Tree = [[Thuja plicata|Western red cedar]]
 |Bird = [[Steller's jay]]
 |Animal = [[Spirit bear]]

... Slogan and Animal were not implemented. 77.191.9.108 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep per the previous discussion. The template has only 13 transclusions because that's the number of sub-federal political divisions there are in Canada. If that's the only reason you keep coming up with to remove the customized functionality for the Canadian template, maybe stop nominating it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not its own infobox, it's a wrapper. The idea of the wrapper is it makes it easier to make changes across all Canadian provinces. --Bsherr (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The count is not a factor, there are only 13 provinces and territories. A province is considerably different to a Settlement. Having it as a wrapper is helpful rather than just creating a complete new non-wrapper template. As you say, only used 13 times so why go to the trouble of creating a complete new template when one exists that has some overlap. Canterbury Tail talk 19:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep It's an extremely useful infobox for those of us working in Canadian matters. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep and replace every instance of {{Infobox settlement}} in articles about Canadian territories with this wrapper to standardise them. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment - @Soumya-8974: - Do you mean that this infobox template has fields that are useful for other data about a province or territory in related articles? Can you provide an example? I would think that would be accomplished based on the simple Infobox template rather than Infobox settlement. I think the only benefit would be some logo or image sharing if so. Alaney2k (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep A province is not a settlement, and obviously there would only be 13 instances as there are only 13 provinces and territories. This is a case of a "solution" looking for a problem. trackratte (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The general consensus in the English Wikipedia seems to be to delete the wrappers that have few transclusions:
Wrappers with less than 200 transclusions are usually deleted
Wrappers with less than 20 transclusions have never been kept
Some items blue in the list, due to redirects
Template Transclusion count
{{Infobox Austrian district}} 88
{{Infobox Bangladesh district}} 63
{{Infobox Belgium settlement}} 31
{{Infobox Bulgarian province}} 30
{{Infobox Canton}} 27
{{Infobox Chaco}} 25
{{Infobox Chilean region}} 16
{{Infobox County Romania}} 19
{{Infobox District PT}} 17
{{Infobox District Slovakia}} 80
{{Infobox Egyptian Governorate}} 29
{{Infobox England region}} 11
{{Infobox Finnish former municipality}} 82
{{Infobox French region}} 32
{{Infobox fylke}} 20
{{Infobox Fylkeskommune}} 19
{{Infobox German Regierungsbezirk}} 33
{{Infobox German state}} 23
{{Infobox Greek prefecture}} 13
{{Infobox Helsinki subdivision}} 90
{{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} 306
{{Infobox Kelurahan}} 1
{{Infobox Kenya county}} 3
{{Infobox Korean settlement}} 448
{{Infobox Latvian district}} 28
{{Infobox Latvian municipalities}} 114
{{Infobox London Borough}} 34
{{Infobox Luxembourg commune}} 119
{{Infobox Luxembourg former commune}} 20
{{Infobox Maldives}} 234
{{Infobox Maldives atoll}} 30
{{Infobox Neighborhood Portland OR}} 95
{{Infobox Nepal district}} 75
{{Infobox Omaha Neighborhood}} 1
{{Infobox Palestine municipality}} 434
{{Infobox Partido Argentina}} 214
{{Infobox Peru region}} 26
{{Infobox Philippine region}} 18
{{Infobox Prefecture Japan}} 55
{{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}} 29
{{Infobox Province Peru}} 191
{{Infobox Province Spain}} 38
{{Infobox Province TR}} 81
{{Infobox region of Italy}} 21
{{Infobox Russian city district}} 1
{{Infobox Russian governorate}} 40
{{Infobox Scotland council area}} 35
{{Infobox Scotland county}} 23
{{Infobox Singapore neighbourhood}} 119
{{Infobox South African municipality}} 296
{{Infobox South African town}} 2,114
{{Infobox St. Louis neighborhood}} 79
{{Infobox Town AT}} 2,411
{{Infobox townlands}} 87
{{Infobox UAE community}} 83
{{Infobox Ukrainian oblast}} 26
{{Infobox Ukrainian raion}} 400
{{Infobox Uruguayan Department}} 19
{{Infobox Venezuelan municipality}} 216
{{Infobox Venezuelan state}} 23
{{Infobox Vienna District}} 27

Here are some of the following test cases:

Old versus new (for regular people)
Old New
Templates for discussion
[[File:{{{image_map}}}|300px|Canadian Provinces and Territories]]
CountryCanada
ConfederationJuly 20, 1871 (7th)
CapitalVictoria
Government
 • TypeConstitutional monarchy
 • Lieutenant GovernorJanet Austin
 • PremierJohn Horgan (NDP)
LegislatureLegislative Assembly of British Columbia
Federal representationParliament of Canada
House seats42 of 338 (12.4%)
Senate seats6 of 105 (5.7%)
GDP
 • Rank4th
 • Total (2015)CA$$249.981 billion[7]
 • Per capitaCA$53,267 (8th)
HDI
 • HDI (2018)0.930[8]Very high (2nd)
Time zones
most of provinceUTC-08:00 (Pacific)
 • Summer (DST)UTC-07:00 (Pacific DST)
far easternUTC-07:00 (Mountain)
 • Summer (DST)UTC-06:00 (Mountain DST)
Postal abbr.
BC
Postal code prefix
Rankings include all provinces and territories
British Columbia
Colombie-Britannique  (French)[9][10]
Motto(s): 
Latin: Splendor sine occasu
(English: Splendour without diminishment)
 
Map of Canada with British Columbia highlighted
Coordinates: 54°00′00″N 125°00′00″W / 54.00000°N 125.00000°W / 54.00000; -125.00000
CountryCanada
ConfederationJuly 20, 1871 (7th)
CapitalVictoria
Largest cityVancouver
Largest metroMetro Vancouver
Government
 • TypeConstitutional monarchy
 • Lieutenant GovernorJanet Austin
 • PremierJohn Horgan (NDP)
LegislatureLegislative Assembly of British Columbia
Federal representationParliament of Canada
House seats42 of 338 (12.4%)
Senate seats6 of 105 (5.7%)
Area
 • Total944,735 km2 (364,764 sq mi)
 • Land925,186 km2 (357,216 sq mi)
 • Water19,548.9 km2 (7,547.9 sq mi)  2.1%
Area rank5th
Population
 (2016)[4]
 • Total4,648,055
 • Estimate 
(2020 Q2)[5]
5,120,184
 • Rank3rd
 • Density rank7th
Demonym(s)British Columbian[11]
Language(s)
 • Official language(s)English (de facto)[12]
Time zones
most of provinceUTC-08:00 (Pacific)
 • Summer (DST)UTC-07:00 (Pacific DST)
far easternUTC-07:00 (Mountain)
 • Summer (DST)UTC-06:00 (Mountain DST)
Postal abbr.
BC
Postal code prefixV
ISO 3166 codeCA-BC
GDP 
Rank4th
Total (2015)CA$$249.981 billion[7]
Per capitaCA$53,267 (8th)
HDI 
HDI (2018)0.930[13]Very high (2nd)
Websitewww2.gov.bc.ca
Symbols
BirdSteller's jay
FlowerPacific dogwood
TreeWestern red cedar

-- PK2 (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Note that the display above appears broken due to the large number of edits subsequently made to the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why the box got 10 feet longer causing mass sandwiching in our articles and now implements sidescroll in mobile view. Can this be fixed? --Moxy 🍁 14:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Substitute and delete. The articles contain dozens of parameters in that infobox which the infobox does not support. The sorting of the parameters is terrible, and some user without any reason restores "ordering" [6] which at least is no ordering by display at all. The alignment of the "=" was terrible too, I fixed at least that deficiency. Some functionality existed in the template that I removed after seeing it can be done by {{Infobox settlement}}, there might be more. It seems the template and the related articles are not well maintained. Bizarr are the texts promoting "Keep.": 1) "It's not its own infobox, it's a wrapper." 2) "The count is not a factor, there are only 13 provinces and territories." 3) "It's an extremely useful infobox for those of us working in Canadian matters." 4) "A province is not a territory, and obviously there would only be 13 instances as there are only 13 provinces and territories." (three days later changed to "A province is not a settlement") - either the claims state something everybody knows ("13", "province is not XYZ"), or something illogical "The count is not a factor" (what would the template help if only used on 1 page?) or don't provide evidence ("extremely useful") especially in light of only being used on 13 articles and the bad state the boxes inside the articles and the box code itself have/had. TerraCyprus (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • You/IP have raised a number of issues you believe to be bugs, and made a significant number of undiscussed changes to the template while this TfD was ongoing - some of which are fine, others which are disputed. But deletion is not cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Notifying interested WikiProjects is part of the TfD process. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Notifying only one interested WikiProject and notifying only readers of articles that use the template that is the delete-candidate leads to a biased set of people discussing the topic. TerraCyprus (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Anyone is free to inform more if they like...but informing the project that built it and has worked on it for over a decade would be a common courtesy that was neglected in this case.--Moxy 🍁 17:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    TerraCyprus, are you suggesting that it's unfair for a template's deletion proposal to be advertised to the editors who use this template in their day-to-day activities, and that the discussion would be less biased if it were restricted to the set of TfD regulars, which mostly consists of editors who propose the deletion of templates? – Uanfala (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Uanfala what I wrote can be found few lines above, I am sure you too can find it. It suggests nothing of what you wrote. "[T]he editors who use this template in their day-to-day activities" would have noticed the tagging performed during nomination by User:PK2 2020-09-12 11:28 and would have no use for an extra notification on a Canada-centric board 2020-09-12 15:49. Given the poor state of the template and the related boxes in the articles before TfD started, one cannot find any hint that such editors - if they exist at all - did include in said "day-to-day activities" much care to bring that template up to the technical standards of the English Wikipedia for infoboxes, e.g. checking for unsupported parameters or to the rules laid out in MOS:INFOBOXES mentioned further down by ProcrastinatingReader. But removing support for |timezone_link= |timezone= (edit comment "restore") |timezone_link= |timezone= (edit comment claim not based in reality: "It's the same link across the whole set, no rationale for change"), |timezone_link= (again), reverting parameter groupding and sort standardization, a second time including headline removal and removing soil from New Brunswick, animal from BC and dog, mineral, gem from Nova Scotia, |website= from the template (even when leaving, as done here, the values and calls in the articles) take up time, so maybe none left for the activities mentioned first. TerraCyprus (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Not everyone who uses a particular template in articles necessarily has that template on their watchlist, which is one reason why notifying interested WikiProjects is part of the TfD process. If you object to the edits you cite, you (I hope) know where to find the relevant talk pages. They mostly fall into two groups: reverting undiscussed and disputed changes by you/IP, and doing exactly what you complain about people not doing - addressing unsupported parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria, this is "Templates for 'discussion", understand what other said, not make up something they didn't say. Nobody said: "everyone who uses a particular template in articles necessarily has that template on their watchlist". Insinuating users might be dumb by combining "If you object to the edits you cite [...]" with "doing exactly what you complain about people not doing" is obnoxious. And no, on Template talk:Infobox province or territory of Canada not you nor anyone else did explain why you reverted the parameter sorting, and whilst implementing the standard parameter sort order was not "discussed" beforehand, it didn't fall into the category "disputed changes". Help:Reverting says: "In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea." - The reverting editor failed to do so. TerraCyprus (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    You stated that "'[T]he editors who use this template in their day-to-day activities' would have noticed the tagging performed during nomination". I simply explained that this cannot be assumed. And the onus is on you to seek consensus for your changes when they are disputed - for example, by being reverted. But that is best discussed on the relevant talk pages rather than here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Substitute and delete. The issues identified by TerraCyprus and the IP above are issues which tend to happen with wrappers, especially with low usage wrappers. The en.wiki infobox system was not built to support Inheritance (object-oriented programming) and while the wrapper system seems to support that, it really doesn't. It requires active editors to modify wrapper template to allow them to support new features of the main template. That requires editor time spent on looking up what wrappers are, modifying that code and, as can be seen by TerraCyprus's comment above, even then you might get reverted for no reason. Seeing as how this is a very low usage template with no foreseeable way of adding even one new transclusion, there is no issue with converting the current usages to use the non-wrapper directly. I'll also note that I'm a bit concerned by some of the comments of our Candian editors which use sentences such as Why won't people leave us to do what is best for our articles. Please see WP:OWN. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes please read all of WP:OWN including WP:SHEPHERD. What many need to understand is there is a huge portion of content editors that feel that mergers of this nature lead to a huge amount of parameters causin bloated boxes...and is why we have a new generation of editors that dislike the box's. Bigger is not allways better. --Moxy 🍁 13:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
If you have concern over specific parameters, the correct way to address it is to gain consensus to remove them from the infobox (which then might be beneficial to many more articles and create a consistent style for our readers), not have a fork or wrapper and then claim ownership of "your" articles and for people to "leave you alone". --Gonnym (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
All backwards....What we have is a template build out of a decade's worth of talks. To imply that those involved with building this consensus over a decade now need to conform to I'll advised parameters for the sake of coding uniformity is forgetting that the reader is our purpose here. Main problems with arguments being made here is about who maintains the articles not about what is best for the readers and these specific articles. Currently the undiscussed changes have left some of the articles with accessibility problem. What we are looking for is relevant data and accessability concerns to outweigh uniformity wishes of editors not interest with the articles themselves.--Moxy 🍁 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • After thought, and on balance, Delete. Nothing exceptional done by this template, just a basic wrapper around IS. Two solely technical issues, however: (A) it uses non-standard parameters, e.g. a number of parameters are TitleCase. This violates the MOS:INFOBOXES guideline, it's also not helpful to editors to have to remember multiple sets of parameters, especially remembering a different set of params for a settlement via a wrapper (or having to look them up). It should be easy for editors of different IS templates to get stuck into this template without reading any extra docs. (B) it doesn't provide access to multiple IS parameters, and will continue to constantly fall out of date as more parameters are added or changed. It also makes maintenance more difficult.
    On a non-technical note, it propagates a bit of a "not-invented-here attitude" towards templates. This attitude mostly only remains on old legacy templates these days - if a new WikiProject or country tried to create eg {{Infobox Indian state}} (as a wrapper around IS), it would almost certainly get nominated for deletion and, with little opposition, be deleted. The leftovers are the thorns in this sense. This particular leftover is, at least, not visually problematic, hence I didn't care much to nominate it myself, but now that it has been nominated I don't see any reason that justifies keeping it. On a technical note of implementation, it should not be blindly substituted, as was done with the Australian template - that results in empty parameter fields. Please get one of the TfD bot operators to implement it properly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PK2 (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep (edited) Since the only reason given is to reduce templates, I would say no. It is not broken. The above example shows that it mangles the display of the infobox. I think that is an unacceptable compromise. If parameters could be added to Infobox settlement to make an identical/acceptable presentation, then I would say, ok, merge. Alaney2k (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    Alaney2k, it is broken every time a new parameter is added. And it is unmaintained - bugs bugs bugs, I fixed several. Regarding display, this is already a wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}}, there is no single change in display in the articles involved. Any such claim that display would change is wrong. TerraCyprus (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, and moratorium on further mergers with this template. Infobox settlement aims to cover all forms of human grouping. As such it takes functional templates and forces them into a super template that I imagine is both hard to maintain, and also hard to keep all the merged wrappers going. This results in a lot of discussion and effort for no benefit to readers or the encyclopedia. I do not agree with INFOCOL in this instance --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Template is not broken and does what was designed for. No benefit in merging with {{infobox settlement}}. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

September 21Edit

Template:Infobox Israel municipalityEdit

Replace (subst:) with Infobox settlement and delete

"Israel municipality"-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, there is no such wrapper for any other municipality in Asia, no "India / China / South Korea / Thailand / Vietnam / Pakistan ... municipality " wrapper. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template. 89.14.196.193 (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Standardising would help make the parameters more consistent. I note that it was turned into a wrapper in 2011, so visually it is already consistent. I notice that some functionality around IS is wrappered around / simplified, so I only wonder if removing the wrapper may encourage undesired visual inconsistencies (eg see impl of |district=), by requiring all local articles to paste in these repeated basic param values. An easy solution would be IS to have basic country-specific support to add this stuff in automatically when a usage indicates it's from Israel, for example (I may look into that at some point, it seems useful for other recent merges too) -- it's a fact that infoboxes with many usages end up with some weird inconsistent quirks on some pages, so more functionality being centralised in that respect seems to be good. We do similar stuff on other IBs to prevent these issues. Not a barrier to merge by any means, but something that should be done first perhaps to be less work long-term. I'm slightly concerned that all these IS nominations will end up with hasty implementations that create a mess. Yes, they should be merged, but with some care. Nobody bothers reverse a mess if it happens, and it has happened before on some IB merges, and I think it's partially why some WikiProjects are so hesitant to submit to infobox consolidation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose afraid I will have to oppose, per my comments above, and because this merge would achieve the opposite of simplicity, currently.
      I'm still quite disheartened with what happened with the Australian states, and I feel some responsibility because I nominated it. There's only 13-ish so they can be cleaned up, but still, it doesn't demonstrate trust. I now see the Japan infoboxes wasn't the smoothest implementation, either. Plus, whilst substitution isn't the end of the world, blank params are unhelpful, and it can remove "note params" (eg I know the UK stations just comment out old years, and I can see why they might be helpful; in any case unilateral removal of these efforts isn't helpful). I also recall Ymblanter's discontent with what happened with the Russian templates, and the issues with the joint Wikidata integration (some of which linger today, what, ~2 years later?).
      On merits this should be merged, and it is technically not a problem, but I have little confidence this will be merged smoothly given recent examples. It requires some prerequisite changes to IS, first. Blind substitution is not helpful. Look at Special:Diff/979596480 (which is a subst of Haifa) -- it replaces one param with a dozen complicated ones, this is not achieving simplicity or reducing cognitive burden for editors, rather the opposite. This is even worse than parameter inconsistency. If we're merging templates, especially when it's against the wishes of WikiProjects and many long-time editors (and there are valid reasons for doing so) it should at least be a competent merge, otherwise it's just inappropriate. Unless an editor with relevant experience demonstrates their desire to make this a proper, smooth merge, I'm opposed to it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
      ProcrastinatingReader Australia has six states and three internal territories - if there is any problem with the substitutions carried out manually it would be easy to fix. But there seems to be no problems like weird code as demonstrated by your subst-example. Russia is the only country to have three wrappers, what substitution took place there? Japan is an example for a recent large substitution by scripts [7]. Not happy with the raise/lower code, but otherwise? Re IS: repeating hierarchy in each usage is weird, this could probably be generalized. But it is maybe easier for programmers if fewer type-specific place infobox templates exist. Except for Russia, no country in Asia beside Israel seems to use a country specific infobox. In Africa it's only Cape Verde, created by a user who created several country-specific multi-type templates. 77.11.212.140 (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      @Frietjes, Primefac, and Anomie: can you make the template subst-safe to avoid Special:Diff/979596480 as mentioned by ProcrastinatingReader? TerraCyprus (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      In a word, yes. Taking an infobox wrapper and just slapping "safesubst:" at the front isn't how it's done; there's a method, and there are a few of us kicking about that know how. If it's an "easier" wrapper I can also just do parameter swaps using my bot. I would say, based on a recent clearout of {{Infobox city Japan}}, that if the wrapper is being used to add a large number of "static" parameters (for example, things like |native_name_language=ja), then all those params will all be added in and might reduce "the point" of removing the wrapper. But to roll back to the initial question/request, any wrapper can be converted to a subst-only wrapper that will not add any empty parameters.Primefac (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      Blank params is an issue but it’s not what I was getting at in the diff. The native language params turn into a dozen.
      1. |translit_lang1_type2=Translit - plus type1, type3, Lang info, all that good stuff.
      2.  {{Hlist
         | {{#if:{{Hebrew|חֵיפָה}}|{{Lang|he|{{Hebrew|חֵיפָה}}|rtl=yes}}}}
         | {{#if:{{lang|ar|حيفا}}|{{Lang|ar|{{lang|ar|حيفا}}|rtl=yes}}}}
         }}
      Requiring local articles to fill in redundant params (1) and understand the syntax in (2) is definitely not an improvement. When I say prerequisite changes to IS, I mean it needs better support for this. Or a different way of doing it that is more friendly at local articles. But turning two simple string value params into that stuff is just confusing. And even if it wasn’t confusing, any control given to local articles will create inconsistencies, so params like district are likely to end up messed up over time. Merge is only a net positive if IS supports this stuff better, and by that point you wonder what was so bad about a wrapper? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      ProcrastinatingReader, why would "redundant params" be needed? Looking at first example from whatlinkshere, Dimona:
      |name=Dimona
      |hebname={{Hebrew|דִּימוֹנָה}}
      |ISO=Dimonah
      heb/Heb is redundant already now. ISO? Why does that need to be made by hand, shouldn't an ISO conversion be made by a template/module/script? Just provide "דִּימוֹנָה" and "he" and done. But it is needed for many more languages, Israel is the only non Roman/Cyrillic/Greek country to get an extra treatment? I would prefer to put all countries on equal footing and improve IS for all countries. TerraCyprus (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      It is still an improvement over what it would be using IS directly, without a wrapper. Can it be improved in IS, yes, and it should be. That should be done before a merge of this. They can be done together, but the likelihood if this closes with merge someone just does a quick merge, rather than makes the changes to IS first. Whilst we're improving this functionality in IS, we might want to decrease the usage of blank params (eg for government) too - maybe can be done using location data templates for example. "Equal footing" is a bad way to look at it. Israeli places tend to have names in 3 languages, thus 'the bloat' hidden behind the wrapper. Just because some countries have to put up with non-ideal design doesn't mean they all should. IS should be improved first. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      The current template is just weird:
      | name                   = {{{name}}}
      | native_name            = {{Hlist
       | {{#if:{{{hebname|}}}|{{Lang|he|{{{hebname|}}}|rtl=yes}}}}
       | {{#if:{{{arname|}}}|{{Lang|ar|{{{arname|}}}|rtl=yes}}}}
       }}
      | translit_lang1         = {{#if:{{{ISO|}}}{{{stdHeb|}}}{{{altOffSp|}}}{{{altUnoSp|}}} |Hebrew}}
      | translit_lang1_type1   = [[ISO 259]]
      | translit_lang1_info1   = {{{ISO|}}}
      | translit_lang1_type2   = Translit.
      | translit_lang1_info2   = {{{stdHeb|}}}
      | translit_lang1_type3   = Also spelled
      | translit_lang1_info3   = {{br separated entries|{{#if:{{{altOffSp|}}}|{{{altOffSp}}} (official)}}|{{#if:{{{altUnoSp|}}} | {{{altUnoSp}}} (unofficial) }} }}
      there are six parameters on the right side, some hard to understand: name, hebname, arname, stdHeb, altOffSp, altUnoSp and nine on the left, straightforward. BTW: What is "translit_lang1_type2 = Translit."? It's a mess. Why for type3 two parameters are fed in, instead of having type4? ...why is Arabic not transliterated? Re "Israeli places tend to have names in 3 languages" - Say hello to India: List of languages by number of native speakers in India. No 2(!) country specific inboxes. TerraCyprus (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment At Template:Israeli administrative jurisdictions there is no type=municipality. 77.11.212.140 (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    Looking at first example from whatlinkshere, Dimona, no type is displayed. TerraCyprus (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Substitute and delete. per nom. Israel should be treated the same as the rest of Asia. TerraCyprus (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:LeapyearEdit

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

September 20Edit

Template:Infobox basketballEdit

Seems redundant to Template:Infobox basketball season Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This template I made is a merge of Template:Infobox basketball season and Template:Infobox basketball league season. My template was going to be used for Basketball league seasons. This template has more categories rather then season template. It is being used for the Australian National Basketball League seasons from 2017 till now.

The NBL has been previously using Template:Infobox basketball league season, but the template has many issues. Firstly it has no links to Finals or List of Seasons. Template:Infobox basketball league season needs improvements. Reason I haven’t fixed the issue was because changing templates would cause many issues on other pages using that template. Leaving template is best otherwise removing it will cause too many problems.

Can guys please help me fix Template:Infobox basketball league season rather then deleting page. :( Giacontigers 08:46, 21 September 2020

  • Forking is never the solution. If you saw issues with the template, you should have brought them up in the talk page so they can be fixed. --Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox drum & bass collectiveEdit

Only used on Reckless Crew, author of this template and Reckless Crew are same editor. Recommend subst: and delete. Template arguably has creative content, so preserving history may be required, either by way of a left-over redirect or copying history to to Talk:Reckless Crew. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:ARBIPAEdit

Low usage duplicate of {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ipa}} (and Ds/editnotice in some cases). 3 total usages. Propose replacing 3 usages as appropriate (1 to talk, 2 to editnotice) and delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, given that the nominated template is easier to type than the ds notice template, would it make sense to convert it into a wrapper (potentially subst-only) for ease of use? Primefac (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, hmm, I think it could run the risk of getting mixed up with {{IPA AE}}, which is the non-generalised version of {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ipa}} (contains 1RR + CR restriction options). Generally, the ArbCom DS system only has sanction-specific templates available (Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates) for extra restriction variants of the generalised template (see eg {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}, {{ARBGMO talk notice}}) - none exist which are just wrappers around {{Ds/talk notice}}. We also can't redirect this ({{ARBIPA}}) to {{IPA AE}} because that one has restrictions applied, and this one doesn't (and its usages on pages don't have extra sanctions authorised), so we'd have to change the transclusions anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more thoughts on my query above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Student OrganizationEdit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Author can request the deleted page be userifed. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Recommended outcome: WP:Userfication. New template, not used, not ready for prime time, original version was self-referencing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:ONGC F.C.Edit

One link, doesn't need a template. Club is defunct, so no more links will be created Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep: The club isn't defunct. The club plays in the MDFA Elite League. You can add more links to the template. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Can you show what other links we have, as existing articles, or topics which can be shown as notable to create as an article, to add to this template? I'm aware of none. If that's the case, this is a poor navigation template, and I would support delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving keep voter a chance to add some more links to the template and demonstrate its usefulness.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:SpümcøEdit

Propose merging Template:Spümcø with Template:John Kricfalusi.
All but one of the blue links in these two templates are shared, so there is little reason to have two separate templates. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 20:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Well my count is somewhat different... The Spümcø navbox presents at least 20 bluelinks that do not appear on the John Kricfalusi navbox. Also The John K template presents at least 2 bluelinks and 3 "blacklinks" (?) that do not appear on the Spümcø template. So there may be more like 25 total differences between the two. Nevertheless it is obvious from the 12 links that appear on both templates that the topics are related. Considering the Venn diagram of the two topics, it would appear that John K has fewer non-Spümcø bluelinks than Spümcø's non-John K bluelinks, so I'm tempted to give a merge !vote to merge John K into Spümcø possibly with a group10 subcategory entitled "Other works of John K" or "See also". But full disclosure: I created the Spümcø template and Cartoon Boy created the John K template. -Thibbs (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Also pinging Patriarca12 who created Template:The Ren & Stimpy Show for additional thoughts/consideration. -Thibbs (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Well things seem to be pretty quiet here... Perhaps it would help if you clarified your position, Molandfreak. Are you suggesting a merge from the Spümcø template into the John Kricfalusi template or a merge from the John Kricfalusi template into the Spümcø template? And have you put any thought to the The Ren & Stimpy Show template? Should that be merged in as well? Where do you stand on the details of this proposal? -Thibbs (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I guess I'll !vote weak keep for now until some reasonable plan comes along. If a merge was to take place then I'd prefer Spümcø to remain as it is currently the largest of the templates and somewhat subsumes "John Kricfalusi" and "The Ren & Stimpy Show" as topics. -Thibbs (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Extended techniquesEdit

Combined with Template:Musical techniques; don't really need two now do we? Why? I Ask (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment: Extended techniques are things that are outside of normal "classical" technique. Like using your bow parallel to the string, rather than perpendicularly (which results in a bunch of high harmonics of the string, which are screechy and high pitched). But if Template:Musical techniques does and should include extended techniques, then you would be correct that Template:Extended techniques is unnecessary. My only concern would be that extended techniques are already marginalized, so editors are more likely to remove Template:Musical techniques from an article about "not musical" techniques (that are musical techniques). Hyacinth (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Dearne and Dove Canal Worsborough branch mapEdit

This is a semi-procedural nomination; was put up for T3/duplicate of {{Dearne and Dove Canal map}} but does not in my mind meet that criteria (it's a reasonable split to make a smaller template for that fork). That being said, it has no uses and is unlikely to be used given that most of the stops on the map are unlinked. In other words, I don't see any controversy to deletion but there is no speedy criteria that fits (and no PROD in template space). Primefac (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete, per my original nomination. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

September 19Edit

Template:X2 review helpEdit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Moved without redirect to User:User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Template:X2 review help with comment "Move back to original sandbox location for use in possible future translation projects, as a result of [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_19#Template:X2_review_help|this Tfd]]." by Mathglot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 01:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Unused template, associated with deprecated criterion X2. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Huh, guess I missed one. In my defense it doesn't have links to or from the actual CSD criteria, the main CXT page or any of the other pages deleted in the cleanup. --Trialpears (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Moved – returned to its original sandbox location, for possible reuse in translation projects. Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Mathglot: You moved it to a title with a double namespace prefix. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Pppery: Oops, thanks for the heads-up! Also, I didn't include a redirect, because I didn't think anyone would inlink to it, but I checked, and there are inlinks, although mostly archives and places that don't seem to matter; should I put the redirect back, or what happens when a Template is deleted, normally? Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    It's standard not to leave a redirect when userfying templates; leaving a redirect defeats the point of the userfication entirely. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Jctint/AUSEdit

Apparent failed test from 2016. Needs a rename to a title that is not a subpage of a non-existent page if kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:IndianPremierLeague/GroupStageTableEdit

Unused. Needs a rename to a title that is not a subpage of a non-existent page if kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tunisian presidential election, 1999Edit

Unused template as 1999 Tunisian general election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tunisian parliamentary election, 2009Edit

Unused as 2009 Tunisian general election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tunisian presidential election, 2009Edit

Unused as 2009 Tunisian general election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Mauritanian presidential election, 2009Edit

Unused as 2009 Mauritanian presidential election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Mali presidential election, 2007Edit

Unused as 2007 Malian presidential election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Senegalese presidential election, 2007Edit

Unused as 2007 Senegalese presidential election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tunisian presidential election, 2004Edit

Unused as 2004 Tunisian general election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:HomininEdit

Unused and seems the consensus is against such templates with 4-5 recently deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  • KEEP - As OA of the template - the template seems sufficiently worthy for some relevant articles (some perhaps TBD) and related imo - however - no problem whatsoever if WP:CONSENSUS considers otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sydney Trains templatesEdit

Deprecated {{s-line}} templates replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Sydney Trains. Fleet Lists (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete, thank you for working through those. Cards84664 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Weak Keep {{Sydney Trains color}} as it has older colour sets for Sydney Train lines, Delete everything else.
BTW you should update Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations with new guidance. Techie3 (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The old colours are now available in Template:TFNSW lines so it does not need to be kept. Yes will update the guide lines.Fleet Lists (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Di-disputed fair use rationaleEdit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by me. --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If the template can't be deleted, then it should be deprecated instead. Whether the template is often or rarely used is not the main concern. My main concern is the template itself, now that we have PROD extended to files since 2017.

While PROD and dfu have similar purposes, they also function differently. PROD can allow uploaders to remove the tag itself, but dfu as-is does not. Furthermore, dfu can be potentially abused (if not misused). Imagine a file being PRODded, de-PRODded, and finally dfu-ed (possibly a loophole?). Dfu requires hassle(s) in order to have the tag removed, like resolving issues that a tagger raises and communication with the one who placed the dfu. PROD, however, can be removed by anyone without any other hassle, and reinserting the PROD tag in the same page is disallowed.

I'm not well convinced that dfu is a better alternative to PROD and WP:FFD. I have either rarely or stopped using the dfu tag since the implementation of File PROD in 2017 for the reasons above. Others still using the dfu tag have been apparently reluctant to use File PROD for primarily their mistrust toward the way File PROD functions, but I still don't know why they still want to prevent uploaders from simply removing the dfu as one of methods to contest the deletion proposal.

Dfu is still part of WP:F7, especially since the discussion I made earlier this year very few people, less than what I hoped for. Moreover, changes to the dfu tag were suggested, but the suggestions didn't receive much support. Furthermore, seven days seems longer than what CSD normally intends, but I guess I can say the same for {{npd}}, {{nsd}}, and a few or several others under CSD. Other criteria for speedy deletion can make files deleted at rushed pace, on the other hand.

The previous nomination in 2009 failed, by the way, but that was before PROD 2017 extension to files, and the deletion rationale was different. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy keep: This is for when the fair use rationale is questionable. I think this template still has use as is. And I think file PRODs are for non-copyright issues (like file accuracy). This template is for when a file is being used in a "fair use" scenario that is not really fair use (such as a screenshot of Fortnite being used in the article "video games") or when there may be a free replacement, but one has not been found yet. This is different from {{di-replaceable fair use}} in which there is a free replacement found or that can be created. Also, I am pretty sure template-related discussions when there are policies attached to them do not belong at TfD but at the relevant policy talk page. Aasim (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
File PRODs also apply to "fair use" disputes. But thanks for the heads up about policy-based templates. Deciding to withdraw the nomination for now. --George Ho (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

September 18Edit

Template:PR-reminderEdit

Last significant edit was in 2004. Used four times, and currently not in use. It isn't currently used in the peer review process. I propose substitute and delete. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:PPRnomEdit

Unused, and the parent project Wikipedia:Portal peer review is also inactive Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:VtextStartEdit

Used once in the creators page who hasn't edited in over 7 years. No real gain in subst so propose deletion. Vtext was created by a different user but also just used once. Gonnym (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:VH1Edit

Used once in the creators page who hasn't edited in over 7 years. No real gain in subst so propose deletion. (and as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with VH1) Gonnym (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Coord missing testEdit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Welp. It was deleted per WP:G2 by The Anome. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparent failed test. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment: Tagged with {{db-g6}} because I believe that removing broken templates is uncontroversial cleanup. Aasim (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:PageLinks/redirectEdit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete. Per WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure)MJLTalk 21:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently failed 6-month-old test (note that Template:Page-multi/testcases, the only page that uses it, is Lua erroring) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:InfoboxVGEEdit

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:I Can See Your Voice (American game show)Edit

Fancruft. Not needed? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Userpage no borderEdit

Propose merging Template:Userpage no border with Template:Userpage (no table).

Substantially similar templates; with a minimal number of transclusions each.

We should also consider whether they are needed at all, or should be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Userpage otheruseEdit

Propose merging Template:Userpage otheruse into Template:User page.
Substantially the same, apart from the inclusion of If you were looking for {{{1}}}, you want this article: [[{{{2}}}]]., which can be included in the parent template, as an option. The "otheruse" version has fewer than 80 user-space transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Merge. As Andy says, adding that line is pretty straightforward. --Gonnym (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:False versionEdit

Unused template. I do not think a disclaimer is needed here. It is kind of obvious that doctored media is spreading on the Internet. I understand that we are struggling with misinformation related to COVID-19 and mail-in voting on social media, but what does a template do? If a user is taken to an outdated Wikipedia mirror or fork or a completely different website, it does not help. Firstly, all out of date revisions on Wikipedia have a "this is an old revision of this page", so readers can understand that the revision is old/dated. Secondly, we already have a disclaimer that details that not all information that you find on Wikipedia is 100% accurate. It is very easy to use typosquatting to fake the URL for Wikipedia. Plus, its format as an mbox makes it confusing for readers and editors alike, who usually see the messages when there are problems with an article. Aasim 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose, and suggest withdrawing nom. @Awesome Aasim: this template was brought up for TfD a few months ago and easily survived, and the reasons it was kept are the same now. It was also discussed at VPP. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Firstly, I'd suggest reworking the template to maybe have a blue strip instead of an orange strip if the template was kept (or not use the mbox). I agree that we should fight fake news, I am not sure how this template helps. Secondly, it is the responsibility of SNS companies to make sure that misinformation does not spread on their platforms and to make sure that attempts to discredit reliable sources fail. We have had a lot of misinformation before, and what these companies have done to fight this misinformation is show excerpts from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. Hoaxes and fake "cures" for COVID-19 are quickly deleted on Wikipedia anyway, and we have authorized sanctions on editors who edit in the "COVID-19" topic area. So far, only one article uses this template, and I do not know if this template helps, especially because it has been 3+ months since the template's first and only use. And with all these browser extensions like "NewsGuard" and Wikipedia's history of being (for the most part) a good starting point to learn about information, people have used it as a great starting point for learning about a variety of topics. Oh, and that screenshot, only the image is from Wikipedia. I do not know where the text is coming from or who it is being attributed to, but I do not think this case counts as a "falsified version of this article", even though it is misinformation definitely for sure. Aasim 18:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    And that village pump discussion has mixed support/opposition, making consensus a little blurry. I think an RfC on how we should handle misinformation attributed to Wikipedia that is not really on Wikipedia may be in order. Aasim 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep While not currently in use, has a clear and obvious use case in fighting misinformation. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Cricket squad templatesEdit

Un-used cricket squad templates with no incoming links. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)}

  • Delete per nom. Harrias talk 16:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - the last one is particularly bizarre as no squad really exists for that invitational team. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:JewishholidaysEdit

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:GradientEdit

Only used in old talk page archives, possibly superseded by Module:Weather box. Suggest subst and delete * Pppery * it has begun... 15:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Leave me a messageEdit

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Leave me a talkbackEdit

Does not appear to be used, other than in a couple of archives or the page of a blocked sock. Redundant to other "leave message" templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:IRANPOL GS editnoticeEdit

Next up in my cleaning up of GS. Seeking deletion of both the template, and its sole 3 usages in editnotices. Their existence stems from a misunderstanding. No page-level restrictions apply on these articles, and there are no topic-wide restrictions for IRANPOL, thus the existence of these editnotices is erroneous. Regular discretionary sanctions (a) does not require an editnotice and (b) de facto do not use an editnotice. It's also not helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: I can agree to disagree, but it is always a good idea to know when sanctions are in effect on articles. Please also see Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Post-1978_Iranian_politics. Aasim (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    I’m aware of the GS/DS system, rather intimately at this point I must say. If we want to move to a system where all pages where DS applies shows an editnotice, an interested individual can seek consensus at WP:AN for this. In the meantime, as Isaacl and I recently discussed, the status quo is *not* to show DS editnotices on articles. DS policy only suggests and requires it when page level sanctions are in force (per page, or general prohibitions). None apply to Iranian politics. This uncategorised template with its arbitrary 3 usages, and the COVID templates, are exceptions to the norm of over 20 active DS authorisations, created out of misunderstanding rather than deliberate attempt to be exceptions. So imo this deletion is routine housekeeping per existing policy, rather than a discussion on what the policy should be (on that note, I don’t think this template is helpful at all, as it doesn’t instruct or advise an editor to do anything differently. DS alone inherently prescribes no restrictions on editors, it’s an expansion of admin authority not a limitation on the part of an editor, at least until page-level sanctions are placed under DS’s authority) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

October Railway templatesEdit

Above listed templates are now deprecated after transition to Module:Adjacent stations/RZD. - AJP426 (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Old discussionsEdit

September 17

Observations & suggesting a possible solution

[edit] I am noting that based upon the above discussion:

  • The RfC deprecates inline Harvard referencing, whether manually or using the {{harv}} independent of footnote tags (<ref></ref>).
  • The RfC supports Harvard referencing when it is part of or produces a footnote. For instance, {{sfn}}, or {{harv}} inside footnote tags (<ref></ref>).
  • {{Use Harvard referencing}} is confusing, because it could refer either to inline or footnote versions of Harvard referencing.

Therefore I propose:

  • A template, Template:Use Harvard referencing footnotes Template:Use shortened footnotes, mostly based on the existing template, with clear documentation that it (only) supports shortened footnotes
  • A cleanup template Template:Uses inline Harvard referencing, with documentation indicating that inline Harvard referencing is deprecated
  • Maintain {{Use Harvard referencing}} until pages can be tagged with one or both of the above templates, then remove this template from each page once this is done. This requires changing the documentation indicating that this is the course of action & summarizing the RfC concisely & clearly.

I count 982 pages currently in the month/year subcategories of Category:Use Harvard referencing. Going through less than a thousand pages seems achievable to me. Peaceray (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • ☝Do what Peaceray said.☝ --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Peaceray's proposal is still incompatible with terminology both as used in guidelines, and as used where the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template occurs in mainspace. {{Use Harvard referencing}} can not be used in a transition period, while confusing: it says that Harvard referencing needs to be used, which is incompatible with the outcome of the current RfC. Also, there is no such thing as "Harvard referencing footnotes" (Harvard referencing is always inline, or it isn't Harvard referencing), which makes the proposed {{Use Harvard referencing footnotes}} a confusing abomination. Also, Harvard referencing needs to be converted per the RfC outcome, but it should not be imposed as a one-solution-fits-all to *what* it should be converted (it is a page-by-page decision to what it should be converted). I could agree with replacing the {{Use Harvard referencing}} by a {{Convert Harvard referencing}}{{Convert parenthetical referencing}} template in around 982 mainspace pages, which is a solution that can be implemented without delay, after which {{Use Harvard referencing}} should be deleted, also without further delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC) updated name of proposed replacement template, per various comments by others: less confusing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree & disagree with Francis Schonken.
In the non-Wikipedia world, Harvard referencing AKA parenthetical referencing "is a citation style in which partial citations—for example, "(Smith 2010, p. 1)"—are enclosed within parentheses and embedded in the text".
However, in English Wikipedia, Template:Harvard citation documentation, & other documentation conflates (as in mixes up) Harvard citation style, parenthetical referencing, Harvard no brackets, and shortened footnotes. I think that we should work to emphasize that we support shortened footnotes, ({{sfn}} being the easiest form, & specify in documentation that {{harv}} & {{harvnb}} are only supported with <ref></ref> tags.
Any change should be deliberate in all senses of the word. Simply to delete the template would cause more harm than to deprecate & replace it. Let's do the thing properly & not rush it.
Doing it propely means changing a number of templates & WP documentation. Where to make the list?
Peaceray (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "in English Wikipedia, Template:Harvard citation documentation, & other documentation conflates (as in mixes up) Harvard citation style, parenthetical referencing, Harvard no brackets, and shortened footnotes." – confusing template documentation is a very weak excuse, see WP:CONLEVEL policy: if the template documentation is confusing it should be updated to current applicable guidance, and until these updates are performed template documentation should, of course, not be followed. The whole reasoning of "let's follow the confusing wording of the template documentation", which is at the root of much of the resistance against a clear-cut depreciation of the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template, should of course be rejected. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: The problem is not just the content of the documentation at Template:Harvard citation documentation, as you said above, but the name of the {{Harvard citation}} family of templates. Ideally they would be called the {{Short citation}} family. But the fact is that they have always been called, and are still called, Harvard citation templates, and it is reasonable to call their use "Harvard referencing" since citation = reference and citing = referencing. Even if you disagree, you have at least admitted that it is confusing. So it is very important, when referring to what has been deprecated by the RfC, to use the word "inline" to avoid confusion: e.g., "inline Harvard referencing" and "inline parenthetical referencing". Biogeographist (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "The problem is ... the name of the {{Harvard citation}} family of templates" – whether or not that is true: those names need to follow guidance too (duh), and not the other way around. If a template name is problematic, then it should be changed. That's what this TfD is about: "{{Use Harvard referencing}}" has become, since the RfC, a problematic template name, so it should be discontinued, without clinging to obsolete essay-level guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Above I already suggested a replacement name for the {{Harvard citation}} family of templates: {{Short citation}} templates. But until the name is changed, confusion will persist, because people will keep referring to the templates as {{Harvard citation}} or Harvard referencing (to use one of your favorite words: "duh"). Biogeographist (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: I agree that {{Use Harvard referencing}} should be deprecated. My concern is that we be methodical about it. Simply deleting the template will lead to template redlinks at the top of featured & good articles. Please see my comments below to Biogeographist. Peaceray (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "deleting the template will lead to template redlinks at the top of ... articles" – of course all instances of a deleted template should be removed from mainspace (duh!). That was understood in my OP proposal. If not, then now it is made explicit: delete, including eradication from mainspace, categories, etc. is my OP !vote. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
However, merely removing the template does not magically make the underlying problem go away. Ripping the top of a weed off does not address the roots. Such articles will continue to have inline citations, hence the need to do this methodically & address the problem, rather than simply remove a template & pretend that there are no longer any inline Harvard citations. Yep, the correct action is to replace with the proper template(s). If one simply removes the template, then we lose all track of the problem. Peaceray (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Biogeographist that we should use {{Uses inline Harvard referencing}} & {{Use shortened footnotes}} as the template names. Peaceray (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#CITEVAR update after parenthetical citations RfC, Nikkimaria wrote: "What we want to avoid is edit-warring in the case that Editor X wants to change an article to sfn and Editor Y thinks the existing cites should just be wrapped in ref tags, or prefers any of the myriad other acceptable replacement styles." (my emphasis) – It is not here the place to push one style, i.e. "shortened footnotes". Even if it seems logical that Harvard references would in many instances be replaced by shortened footnotes, this should not be imposed top-down, and certainly not as the result of a limited discussion about a single template. For that reason, I reject {{Use shortened footnotes}} as only one of two replacement options, it is too pushy in one direction. As proposed above, replacement of all mainspace instances of {{Use Harvard referencing}} by {{Convert parenthetical referencing}} is the way to go in the short run. The rest is already covered by WP:CITEVAR: if editors want to make specific templates for specific citation styles, let them do so, but this has no relation to the depreciation of {{Use Harvard referencing}}, which is the discussion here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Reading Francis Schonken's argumentation above, I don't think he's correct that differentiating inline Harvard referencing from shortened footnotes in pages that are currently tagged with {{Use Harvard referencing}} would push one style, since any page tagged with {{Use shortened footnotes}} could be changed by consensus. But now it is not clear to me that there is a need for {{Use shortened footnotes}}, so I struck my !vote above and added a new one below. However, there is still a need to clarify that what is deprecated is inline Harvard referencing, not Harvard referencing within <ref>...</ref> tags (see my comment about this above), so "inline" should be in the replacement template name. Biogeographist (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Biogeographist and Francis Schonken: There absolutely a need for Template:Use shortened footnotes! The simple deletion of Template:Use Harvard referencing without the addition & substitution of something like Template:Use shortened footnotes in places where shortened footnotes are appropriately used, including the sfn, harv, & harvnb templates, will affect featured articles such as Cleopatra, the Finnish Civil War, & the Winter war. There are good articles as well, like Basil II and Patsy Mink. Please do due diligence. This would not be a huge cleanup effort to switch to Template:Use shortened footnotes or Template:Uses inline Harvard referencing. In some cases in which both inline Harvard references & shortened footnotes are present we would need both, so that inline Harvard referencing can be converted to shortened footnotes. Peaceray (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peaceray: I am open to changing my !vote again, but I don't understand your argument that removing {{Use Harvard referencing}} from featured and good articles that use shortened footnotes would be a problem. Are there corresponding templates for "use standard footnotes" and "use footnotes with list-defined references"? If not, why would there need to be a template for "use shortened footnotes"? In other words: Generally speaking, "footnotes", "footnotes with list-defined references", and "shortened footnotes" are now the three accepted citation systems, so why would there need to be a template for only one of them (if indeed there are not templates for the other two—if there are, please correct me)? Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Biogeographist, deleting the {{Use Harvard referencing}} without doing anything else would produce the redlinks to which I alluded. Simply removing it, when it was really meant to designate that shortened footnotes should be used, would be a disservice, because future editors would not be aware of the prevailing citation style. Simply removing it in the case when there was inline Harvard referencing would be a disservice, because future editors might not be aware of the need for maintenance clean-up. Hence the need for either {{Use shortened footnotes}} or {{Uses inline Harvard referencing}}, & in some cases, both. BTW, I would make Template:Uses inline Harvard referencing a visible template, not a hidden one. Peaceray (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peaceray: OK, I now see that {{Use list-defined references}} is a thing, and that you created {{Use shortened footnotes}}, which makes sense as a counterpart to {{Use list-defined references}}. Good work! Biogeographist (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
For everyone's info, I also added Category:Use shortened footnotes, Category:Use shortened footnotes from May 2020, Category:Monthly clean-up category (Use shortened footnotes) counter, & Template:Shortened footnote editnotice, & modified Template:Parenthetical referencing editnotice & Template:Editnotice templates. There are a lot more moving pieces than I thought! Peaceray (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
... but all quite unrelated to *this* discussion. None of these newly created templates are suitable as a one-solution-fits-all replacement for the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template, which should be deleted, and which is the only topic of this TfD. As said, I'd agree with a replacement of {{Use Harvard referencing}}, but thus far it seems impossible to agree on a name (and, as said, replacement names that push towards a particular type of conversion are not a suitable replacement), so simplest seems to delete the template, and remove it wherever it is transcluded outside talk or project space. Also, this would be least upsetting to those who used parenthetical referencing in mainspace (and might be proponents of the system that has now been deprecated): replacing a template that is only visible in edit mode by one that, with an ugly banner, alerts that something is wrong (as in "... a visible template, not a hidden one ...") is also a one-solution-fits-all route I'd prefer not to go, as there is no time limit for the conversion. I don't oppose creating such banner template, that can be placed in mainspace by human editors, when, over a long period of time, a few articles are still not converted from the deprecated style, but such templates should only be placed by human editors as a deliberate choice (non as a one-solution-fits-all replacement of the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template by bot or whatever). Thus, as such, the creation of such banner template is *also* completely unrelated to this TfD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It is highly relevant to this discusion. The two proposed templates together will solve the problem. I am highly opposed to deleting {{Use Harvard referencing}} until we arrive at a solution that will methodically address the underlying problem two problems:
  1. Articles that contain inline Harvard or parenthetical citations
  2. Articles with shortened footnote style that were incorrectly identified with {{Use Harvard referencing}} & can now instead be marked with {{Use shortened footnotes}}
Francis Schonken, either you have failed to carefully read our comments or you are ignoring the {{Use shortened footnotes}} template. I have not seen anyone objecting to it. Do you have an objection to this naming convention, given Help:Shortened footnotes & what I have created to go with it, Category:Use shortened footnotes, Category:Use shortened footnotes from May 2020, Category:Monthly clean-up category (Use shortened footnotes) counter, & Template:Shortened footnote editnotice, & the modifications that I made to Template:Parenthetical referencing editnotice & Template:Editnotice templates?
Peaceray (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Other approach on "Use Harvard referencing" template

[edit] Proposing another approach:

  • Step 1: replace all instances of {{Use Harvard referencing}} by {{Use footnoted references}}
  • Step 2: delete {{Use Harvard referencing}}

Reasoning behind this approach: the only types of non-footnoted references I know of are:

  1. Harvard referencing, a.k.a. parenthetical referencing, a.k.a. author-date referencing not in footnotes: deprecated by the RfC;
  2. In-line external links, a.k.a. embedded links: not OK per the Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links guideline;
  3. General references, which, according to the relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Citing sources#General references, are mostly better converted to in-line references.

Current guidance does not exactly "forbid" general references, but as long as they are used the article does not adhere to a very high standard of referencing. The {{Use footnoted references}} tag can in such case be used to indicate that editors want that the article adheres to a higher standard for referencing.

Unless I'm missing some other form of acceptable non-footnoted referencing system (am I?), the replacement template proposed in this subsection is thus useful to get rid of the less desirable general references, and to keep an article in that more qualitative state of referencing once the conversion of all low-standard/undesirable/deprecated/inconsistent referencing types has been performed.

I'm not a big enthusiast for the system I'm proposing here (maybe all a bit too self-evident not needing clutter in edit-mode), but am proposing this as something which may be acceptable enough to move forward on getting rid of the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template, which has become untenable after the parenthetical referencing RfC. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I just rewrote the documentation for {{Format footnotes}} to reflect that inline parenthetical referencing is deprecated per WP:PARREF. Note that articles tagged with {{Format footnotes}} are added to Category:Articles needing footnote reformatting. Biogeographist (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I am at work right now; otherwise I would start changing the instances of {{Use Harvard referencing}} to either {{Format footnotes}} or {{Use shortened footnotes}} as appropriate. {{Format footnotes}} will be more used heavily. I have seen that the inline Harvard referencing tended to be used more in musical articles. Currently, those predominate the nearly 600 at Category:Use Harvard referencing from May 2019! Peaceray (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Biogeographist (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peaceray: If it's not too much work, it may be a good idea to create a page in your userspace titled "List of articles that used parenthetical referencing in September 2020" or something like that, and list in it the titles of relevant articles that you're tagging with {{Format footnotes}}. This could be worth the extra work because Category:Articles needing footnote reformatting holds other kinds of articles, and it could be useful to have a list of the articles formerly in Category:Use Harvard referencing that use inline parenthetical referencing. Biogeographist (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Peaceray's approach above. Once all of the articles are correctly tagged with {{Format footnotes}} (for articles using parenthetical referencing) or {{Use shortened footnotes}} (for articles using sfn and the harvnb family), we can delete the nominated template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist comment There has now been a lot of discussion here and we have not come to a consensus for the overall close yet. At this stage I feel like it may be useful to look at what I read as having a rough consensus and what still needs to be figured out. The following three statements are the things I believe have consensus:
  • There is significant confusion about what Harvard referencing mean and it may be possible to alleviate by changing/removing/replacing the name of the template.
  • There are two main types of articles that have {{Use Harvard referencing}}: Articles with inline citations deprecated by the RfC and articles with footnotes containing Harvard/shortened/parenthetical references.
  • The two types of articles should probably be treated in different ways or the same way for different reasons.

The two big remaining questions then are "What should we do with the articles with deprecated citations?" and "What should we do with the articles with acceptable, footnoted, citations?" If we can answer those two questions the remaining details can be ironed out at talk pages or in the holding cell if necessary. --Trialpears (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Trialpears (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Attempt at summary

[edit] Here's my understanding of the current best answers to the questions asked by the relister:

When those two actions are done and Category:Use Harvard referencing is empty, then both Template:Use Harvard referencing and Category:Use Harvard referencing can be deleted. Biogeographist (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Support this process, which I suppose would lead to a TFD close of something like "deprecate, replace with {{Format footnotes}}/{{Use shortened footnotes}} as appropriate, and then delete."
I note that at least one editor above has said something like "Keep this template, because articles tagged with it use sfn/harv templates." If the process above is accepted, those articles would be converted to contain {{Use shortened footnotes}} instead of the current, confusing template. No other changes would be required for those articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose using the (visible) {{Format footnotes}} in this case: that template is for cleanup which is needed when the referencing system is so confusing that a casual reader would be seriously challenged to make sense of a hotchpotch. A system that is coherent, but deprecated, does not need such alarming template. See also what I wrote above, "... least upsetting to those who used parenthetical referencing in mainspace (and might be proponents of the system that has now been deprecated): replacing a template that is only visible in edit mode by one that, with an ugly banner, alerts that something is wrong (as in "... a visible template, not a hidden one ...") is also a ... route I'd prefer not to go, as there is no time limit for the conversion." I'm not going to reiterate here the reasonable objections made, by more than one editor, against the {{Use shortened footnotes}} template, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15#Template:Use shortened footnotes. All in all, seriously thinking and rethinking all options proposed here, and even a few not having been proposed anywhere afaik, I suppose I come back to the original option of just deleting the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template (and obviously: removing it where it is transcluded). Per the RfC close: there is no time limit on converting parenthetical referencing systems to more appropriate ones. I'd give it at least a year before starting to tag the inconvertibles, or the ones that otherwise resist conversion. It is far more important to remove, without further delay, messages that, to this day, continue inviting to use the deprecated system. For the conversions I already did, I found it easy enough to spot parenthetical referencing by using the transclusion list of the original {{harv}} template, so please, don't use alarming cleanup templates for this issue at this point in time. At this stage I'd prefer to avoid, as much as possible, to upset proponents of the parenthetical referencing system, who maybe are already not in the best mood for having !lost the RfC, not upsetting them may mean they would be more easily amenable in helping with conversions. Give it some time, per the recommendation in the RfC close, for those who want to convert, including myself who will probably be doing quite some of the music-related articles, and re-assess whether tagging is necessary for the remaining ones in a year or so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Biogeographist: and all: I started with Category:Use Harvard referencing from August 2014, which is now empty & might be deleted at any time. I am tallying my results & actions at User:Peaceray/Conversions from Use Harvard referencing.
One of the three articles in that category was a featured article, Actuary. For that, I converted inline citations to shortened footnotes, swapped out {{Use Harvard referencing}} to {{Use shortened footnotes}} & used {{Shortened footnote editnotice}} in the edit notice. If you want to see the full-blown combination, this is it. The only thing sullying it is the "‹ The template below (Use shortened footnotes) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›" display.
I agree with Francis Schonken that {{Format footnotes}} is not ready for prime time. I altered the section at Template:Format footnotes/doc#Parenthetical reference. I wish we could just link to that documentation, but the current version of the template does not do that. Maybe we need to put the content in a help page.
I do think fixing, followed by tagging, is the best means of identifying those pages that need conversion. I just do not see any other way of keeping track of what needs correction if we eliminate the {{Use Harvard referencing}}. Francis Schonken, do you have any alternative means of tracking the pages that need fixing to that of {{Format footnotes}}?
A clarification on "objections made, by more than one editor, against the {{Use shortened footnotes}} template": that currently means exactly two, & it is currently running at 75% for keep. IMHO, I think we ought to just close it at the end of its week run & get on with the work. I'm sorry, that was just my opinion.
Peaceray (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "Francis Schonken, do you have any alternative means of tracking the pages that need fixing to that of {{Format footnotes}}?" – yes, I said so, in what I wrote just above your comment: "For the conversions I already did, I found it easy enough to spot parenthetical referencing by using the transclusion list of the original {{harv}} template,..." Here is the direct link to that transclusion list: [9] For clarity:
  1. Whereas Category:Use Harvard referencing, and subcategories, contain pages that were deliberately set to Harvard referencing, the "transclusion list of the original {{harv}} template" also contains pages with stray Harvard references, e.g. a few Harvard references erroneously inserted in a page that otherwise uses a consistent referencing style (in which case conversion is usually pretty easy), or, quite often, pages that have a throughout inconsistent referencing style, are not tagged for any style, and thus would best be converted to a consistent style, per WP:CITEVAR. Also pages that use Harvard referencing consistently but which were not tagged for doing so would be spotted by this method, and not by the "Category:Use Harvard referencing" approach (I have not encountered any of this type yet, but suppose that with continuing conversions it is likely some would turn up).
  2. An at least theoretical disadvantage is that this method would not catch Harvard referencing implemented without the usual Harv family templates (note that the examples elaborated at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing seemingly do so without templates, so, at least theoretically, it is possible to implement the referencing style without them). I say "theoretically" while I suppose this would not often be the case (but if you know any examples, I'd be happy to learn whether this might be a real problem).
In sum, I'm quite confident that this method is actually more accurate than the Category:Use Harvard referencing method for spotting articles that need conversion, and thus one more reason to just abandon the whole idea of converting the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template manually: a lot of work and the resulting categorisation would be incomplete for grouping problematic articles anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I am missing some information here: What is the alternative to removing the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template manually? Is there a bot that will remove the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template automatically if the template is deleted? If yes, then I guess Francis Schonken is right (I did not realize that such a bot exists). If no, then Francis Schonken is wrong: The template has to be removed manually anyway, and it would be best to keep track somehow of the pages from which the template is being manually removed but which have not yet been converted to footnotes, because that set of pages will already be known as candidates for conversion, which is valuable knowledge. In contrast, the pages in the {{harv}} template transclusion list are not already known as candidates for conversion: as I look through the {{harv}} template transclusion list now, I see pages that I know are not candidates for conversion because I have worked on the pages and I know they do not use inline parenthetical referencing. Not only is the {{harv}} template transclusion list not a list of already known candidates for conversion, but also as Francis Schonken said above, it is not even a complete list of potential candidates for conversion. So it is not a replacement for a set of pages that are already known as candidates for conversion. Biogeographist (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "What is the alternative to removing the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template manually?" – Afaik there are two possibilities:
  1. when the template is deleted as a result of a TfD, afaik an admin-closer has the necessary tools to delete all transcluded instances (which, if I'm not erring, is plain standard procedure, that's why I didn't mention "and remove instances of the template" in my OP) – compare the bot that removes an image from English Wikipedia, when the image is deleted at commons.
  2. there is consensus on a more complex proceeding, involving other steps beside the plain deletion & removal of the template: if that multi-step procedure can be automated as a bot task, then a request for such task can be posted at WP:BOTREQ, in which case it is best to have a prior consensus on a task description (if the consensus still needs to be formed at the time of posting the request it would usually be turned down).
Hope this clarifies! --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. If the template can be automatically removed from all pages, then I would change my !vote to delete and everything I have said here has been a waste of time due to my lack of that information. Even though the harvard citation templates transclusion lists are imperfect for this purpose, they would be less work than the proposal at § Attempt at summary. Biogeographist (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
As an addition to my point #1 above, the "plain standard procedure" for a template deletion, involving removal of all instances of the template and categories exclusively used by the to-be-deleted template, is described at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions#Delete. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment My main concern at this point is that we have some means of listing all the articles that have used {{Use Harvard referencing}} so that we can track inline Harvard referencing / parenthetical referencing & convert the ones that have used shortened footnotes to {{Use shortened footnotes}}. That must be done via a bot or by another means before deleting {{Use Harvard referencing}}. Peaceray (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Streatorland

[edit]

The article on the region this navbox is based on was recently deleted as a neologism, making the navbox a lot less useful. Even if the region's article hadn't been deleted, it's not a very useful navbox: it covers a small region, most of the places listed are also listed in the LaSalle County, Illinois navbox, and the scope of the region isn't well-defined. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Moscow Railway templates

[edit]

Above listed templates are now deprecated after transition to Module:Adjacent stations/RZD and Module:Adjacent stations/MCD. AJP426 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Support, the replacement is way more user-friendly, and the old templates are currently not in use.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Use Harvard referencing

[edit]

The Harvard referencing citation style is deprecated, see RfC (concluded 5 September 2020) – no use to continue this template that says to use the deprecated style. Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Move to {{Uses Harvard referencing}} {{Uses parenthetical referencing}}: Since these articles have already been tagged with their reference style, let's not lose that information. We should transform it into a cleanup template that says something like "This template may use the deprecated in-line parenthetical referencing style (... instruction and links to how to convert it)". Someone will then need to review each article to confirm that it really uses in-line parenthetical references (some articles may have been tagged because they use linked sfn and harv templates). There are only 1,000 articles, so it's not a huge task. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey9: The directive to Use Harvard referencing is still valid. Please see my comment below.Peaceray (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Even after the move proposed by Jonesey95, the original {{Use Harvard referencing}} should be deleted, while inherently confusing wherever it is used in mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for fairly obvious reasons. To conclude that the Harvard referencing citation style itself has been deprecated is a misreading of the RFC. Only the inline use of Harvard referencing is deprecated.
From the first indent in the RfC discussion:
Note There has been some confusion about the wording, so let me clear that up. I am not proposing we ban ALL parenthetical references. I am merely proposing that we do not use inline, non software based, text parentheticals. This is NOT a proposal to ban Template:sfn, or Template:Harv (as long as it is properly nested in a ref tag).
At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Parenthetical citation closure, it reads:
This discussion supports the deprecation only of parenthetical style citations directly inlined into articles. It does not deprecate the use of the entire citation format when it is used within <ref></ref> tags, nor the use of the {{sfn}} and {{harv}} templates.
Again, the RfC does not deprecate the Harvard referencing citation style, only the inline use of it. Peaceray (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This is why the RFC was so confusing; people interpret "Harvard referencing" to mean two different things. If you go to this template and follow the link to "the Harvard referencing citation style", it links to a description of inline parenthetical referencing, which is now deprecated. That's why I recommended converting this template into a cleanup template so that people can check to see if inline referencing really is used in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
{{Use Harvard referencing}} is still valid & I plan to continue to use it on articles that exclusively use {{sfn}} & {{harv}}. However, I see your point in that we need a cleanup template, perhaps something like Template:Uses deprecated inline Harvard referencing. Peaceray (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
See Parenthetical referencing, which says Parenthetical referencing, also known as Harvard referencing, is a citation style in which partial citations—for example, "(Smith 2010, p. 1)"—are enclosed within parentheses and embedded in the text, either within or after a sentence. If you want to tag articles that use sfn and harv in the non-deprecated fashion, another "Use xxx" template will be needed, perhaps {{Use short citations}}. The cleanup template that I recommend here could instruct cleanup editors to replace it with the new template if (justifiably) confused editors have used "Harvard referencing" to mean "short citations". – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going into the confusion that speaks from Peaceray's explanation of their !vote above: as explained above, whatever template will be used in the future, {{Use Harvard referencing}} should not redirect to it, while inherently confusing (the confusion displayed above reinforces that point rather than diminishing it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep – Many of the articles that carry this template use {{sfn}} and siblings. These are unaffected by the RfC. If anything, the misguided REDIRECT at Template:Use parenthetical referencing should be the subject of some deliberation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Re. "Many of the articles that carry this template use {{sfn}} and siblings" – they shouldn't: "{{sfn}} and siblings" is not WP:HARVARD referencing. There is no part of WP:HARVARD referencing that isn't deprecated by the RfC. And... my point exactly is that when WP:HARVARD referencing, WP:Parenthetical referencing, template techniques, and whatnot is all too confusing (Michael Bednarek just illustrated that once more!), then we should not have a template like {{Use Harvard referencing}} that sends confusing messages to (mainly) editors... there's nothing difficult about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I read the above discussion and WP:HARVARD which was linked to. That page clearly states that Harvard referencing is inline. The {{sfn}} and {{harv}} templates, when used inside ref tags, do not produce Harvard referencing. I agree with Francis Schonken that this template should not be be kept or redirected as its name is clearly no longer valid per the RfC. Per the above suggestions, new templates such as what Jonesey95 proposed and a temporarily maintenance category for the current pages using this template can be created. --Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I have updated my proposed new template name. It is VERY clear that the phrase "Harvard referencing" is confusing to many editors and should not be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Your proposal is still to "move" the template, which is not the way to go: the "{{Use Harvard referencing}}" text should not appear anywhere in mainspace (i.e. in edit mode, which is the only place where that template is visible in mainspace), while it sends a confusing message to editors. Just "moving" the template (from one name to another in template namespace), leaving the old name of the template intact in mainspace, does not address that problem. The template needs to be either deleted, and removed from mainspace, or replaced by another, in mainspace, after which the unused template would best be deleted too (in order to avoid future confusion around a de facto deprecated template). The second option (i.e., replacement in mainspace) allows to use the new template, whatever useful name it is given, as a maintenance aid. Of course, a template with a wrong name should not be used as a maintenance aid, and {{Use Harvard referencing}} is, after the parenthetical referencing RfC conclusion, too misleading a name for such maintenance purposes. So either way, that is, whether replaced or not, {{Use Harvard referencing}} should be deleted, while it is no longer tenable after the parenthetical referencing RfC: it is inherently too confusing, and also too inviting for those who are unaware of the RfC's outcome, or disagree with it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Observations & suggesting a possible solutionEdit

I am noting that based upon the above discussion:

  • The RfC deprecates inline Harvard referencing, whether manually or using the {{harv}} independent of footnote tags (<ref></ref>).
  • The RfC supports Harvard referencing when it is part of or produces a footnote. For instance, {{sfn}}, or {{harv}} inside footnote tags (<ref></ref>).
  • {{Use Harvard referencing}} is confusing, because it could refer either to inline or footnote versions of Harvard referencing.

Therefore I propose:

  • A template, Template:Use Harvard referencing footnotes Template:Use shortened footnotes, mostly based on the existing template, with clear documentation that it (only) supports shortened footnotes
  • A cleanup template Template:Uses inline Harvard referencing, with documentation indicating that inline Harvard referencing is deprecated
  • Maintain {{Use Harvard referencing}} until pages can be tagged with one or both of the above templates, then remove this template from each page once this is done. This requires changing the documentation indicating that this is the course of action & summarizing the RfC concisely & clearly.

I count 982 pages currently in the month/year subcategories of Category:Use Harvard referencing. Going through less than a thousand pages seems achievable to me. Peaceray (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • ☝Do what Peaceray said.☝ --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Peaceray's proposal is still incompatible with terminology both as used in guidelines, and as used where the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template occurs in mainspace. {{Use Harvard referencing}} can not be used in a transition period, while confusing: it says that Harvard referencing needs to be used, which is incompatible with the outcome of the current RfC. Also, there is no such thing as "Harvard referencing footnotes" (Harvard referencing is always inline, or it isn't Harvard referencing), which makes the proposed {{Use Harvard referencing footnotes}} a confusing abomination. Also, Harvard referencing needs to be converted per the RfC outcome, but it should not be imposed as a one-solution-fits-all to *what* it should be converted (it is a page-by-page decision to what it should be converted). I could agree with replacing the {{Use Harvard referencing}} by a {{Convert Harvard referencing}}{{Convert parenthetical referencing}} template in around 982 mainspace pages, which is a solution that can be implemented without delay, after which {{Use Harvard referencing}} should be deleted, also without further delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC) updated name of proposed replacement template, per various comments by others: less confusing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree & disagree with Francis Schonken.
In the non-Wikipedia world, Harvard referencing AKA parenthetical referencing "is a citation style in which partial citations—for example, "(Smith 2010, p. 1)"—are enclosed within parentheses and embedded in the text".
However, in English Wikipedia, Template:Harvard citation documentation, & other documentation conflates (as in mixes up) Harvard citation style, parenthetical referencing, Harvard no brackets, and shortened footnotes. I think that we should work to emphasize that we support shortened footnotes, ({{sfn}} being the easiest form, & specify in documentation that {{harv}} & {{harvnb}} are only supported with <ref></ref> tags.
Any change should be deliberate in all senses of the word. Simply to delete the template would cause more harm than to deprecate & replace it. Let's do the thing properly & not rush it.
Doing it propely means changing a number of templates & WP documentation. Where to make the list?
Peaceray (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "in English Wikipedia, Template:Harvard citation documentation, & other documentation conflates (as in mixes up) Harvard citation style, parenthetical referencing, Harvard no brackets, and shortened footnotes." – confusing template documentation is a very weak excuse, see WP:CONLEVEL policy: if the template documentation is confusing it should be updated to current applicable guidance, and until these updates are performed template documentation should, of course, not be followed. The whole reasoning of "let's follow the confusing wording of the template documentation", which is at the root of much of the resistance against a clear-cut depreciation of the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template, should of course be rejected. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: The problem is not just the content of the documentation at Template:Harvard citation documentation, as you said above, but the name of the {{Harvard citation}} family of templates. Ideally they would be called the {{Short citation}} family. But the fact is that they have always been called, and are still called, Harvard citation templates, and it is reasonable to call their use "Harvard referencing" since citation = reference and citing = referencing. Even if you disagree, you have at least admitted that it is confusing. So it is very important, when referring to what has been deprecated by the RfC, to use the word "inline" to avoid confusion: e.g., "inline Harvard referencing" and "inline parenthetical referencing". Biogeographist (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "The problem is ... the name of the {{Harvard citation}} family of templates" – whether or not that is true: those names need to follow guidance too (duh), and not the other way around. If a template name is problematic, then it should be changed. That's what this TfD is about: "{{Use Harvard referencing}}" has become, since the RfC, a problematic template name, so it should be discontinued, without clinging to obsolete essay-level guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Above I already suggested a replacement name for the {{Harvard citation}} family of templates: {{Short citation}} templates. But until the name is changed, confusion will persist, because people will keep referring to the templates as {{Harvard citation}} or Harvard referencing (to use one of your favorite words: "duh"). Biogeographist (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: I agree that {{Use Harvard referencing}} should be deprecated. My concern is that we be methodical about it. Simply deleting the template will lead to template redlinks at the top of featured & good articles. Please see my comments below to Biogeographist. Peaceray (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "deleting the template will lead to template redlinks at the top of ... articles" – of course all instances of a deleted template should be removed from mainspace (duh!). That was understood in my OP proposal. If not, then now it is made explicit: delete, including eradication from mainspace, categories, etc. is my OP !vote. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
However, merely removing the template does not magically make the underlying problem go away. Ripping the top of a weed off does not address the roots. Such articles will continue to have inline citations, hence the need to do this methodically & address the problem, rather than simply remove a template & pretend that there are no longer any inline Harvard citations. Yep, the correct action is to replace with the proper template(s). If one simply removes the template, then we lose all track of the problem. Peaceray (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Biogeographist that we should use {{Uses inline Harvard referencing}} & {{Use shortened footnotes}} as the template names. Peaceray (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#CITEVAR update after parenthetical citations RfC, Nikkimaria wrote: "What we want to avoid is edit-warring in the case that Editor X wants to change an article to sfn and Editor Y thinks the existing cites should just be wrapped in ref tags, or prefers any of the myriad other acceptable replacement styles." (my emphasis) – It is not here the place to push one style, i.e. "shortened footnotes". Even if it seems logical that Harvard references would in many instances be replaced by shortened footnotes, this should not be imposed top-down, and certainly not as the result of a limited discussion about a single template. For that reason, I reject {{Use shortened footnotes}} as only one of two replacement options, it is too pushy in one direction. As proposed above, replacement of all mainspace instances of {{Use Harvard referencing}} by {{Convert parenthetical referencing}} is the way to go in the short run. The rest is already covered by WP:CITEVAR: if editors want to make specific templates for specific citation styles, let them do so, but this has no relation to the depreciation of {{Use Harvard referencing}}, which is the discussion here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Reading Francis Schonken's argumentation above, I don't think he's correct that differentiating inline Harvard referencing from shortened footnotes in pages that are currently tagged with {{Use Harvard referencing}} would push one style, since any page tagged with {{Use shortened footnotes}} could be changed by consensus. But now it is not clear to me that there is a need for {{Use shortened footnotes}}, so I struck my !vote above and added a new one below. However, there is still a need to clarify that what is deprecated is inline Harvard referencing, not Harvard referencing within <ref>...</ref> tags (see my comment about this above), so "inline" should be in the replacement template name. Biogeographist (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Biogeographist and Francis Schonken: There absolutely a need for Template:Use shortened footnotes! The simple deletion of Template:Use Harvard referencing without the addition & substitution of something like Template:Use shortened footnotes in places where shortened footnotes are appropriately used, including the sfn, harv, & harvnb templates, will affect featured articles such as Cleopatra, the Finnish Civil War, & the Winter war. There are good articles as well, like Basil II and Patsy Mink. Please do due diligence. This would not be a huge cleanup effort to switch to Template:Use shortened footnotes or Template:Uses inline Harvard referencing. In some cases in which both inline Harvard references & shortened footnotes are present we would need both, so that inline Harvard referencing can be converted to shortened footnotes. Peaceray (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peaceray: I am open to changing my !vote again, but I don't understand your argument that removing {{Use Harvard referencing}} from featured and good articles that use shortened footnotes would be a problem. Are there corresponding templates for "use standard footnotes" and "use footnotes with list-defined references"? If not, why would there need to be a template for "use shortened footnotes"? In other words: Generally speaking, "footnotes", "footnotes with list-defined references", and "shortened footnotes" are now the three accepted citation systems, so why would there need to be a template for only one of them (if indeed there are not templates for the other two—if there are, please correct me)? Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Biogeographist, deleting the {{Use Harvard referencing}} without doing anything else would produce the redlinks to which I alluded. Simply removing it, when it was really meant to designate that shortened footnotes should be used, would be a disservice, because future editors would not be aware of the prevailing citation style. Simply removing it in the case when there was inline Harvard referencing would be a disservice, because future editors might not be aware of the need for maintenance clean-up. Hence the need for either {{Use shortened footnotes}} or {{Uses inline Harvard referencing}}, & in some cases, both. BTW, I would make Template:Uses inline Harvard referencing a visible template, not a hidden one. Peaceray (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peaceray: OK, I now see that {{Use list-defined references}} is a thing, and that you created {{Use shortened footnotes}}, which makes sense as a counterpart to {{Use list-defined references}}. Good work! Biogeographist (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
For everyone's info, I also added Category:Use shortened footnotes, Category:Use shortened footnotes from May 2020, Category:Monthly clean-up category (Use shortened footnotes) counter, & Template:Shortened footnote editnotice, & modified Template:Parenthetical referencing editnotice & Template:Editnotice templates. There are a lot more moving pieces than I thought! Peaceray (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
... but all quite unrelated to *this* discussion. None of these newly created templates are suitable as a one-solution-fits-all replacement for the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template, which should be deleted, and which is the only topic of this TfD. As said, I'd agree with a replacement of {{Use Harvard referencing}}, but thus far it seems impossible to agree on a name (and, as said, replacement names that push towards a particular type of conversion are not a suitable replacement), so simplest seems to delete the template, and remove it wherever it is transcluded outside talk or project space. Also, this would be least upsetting to those who used parenthetical referencing in mainspace (and might be proponents of the system that has now been deprecated): replacing a template that is only visible in edit mode by one that, with an ugly banner, alerts that something is wrong (as in "... a visible template, not a hidden one ...") is also a one-solution-fits-all route I'd prefer not to go, as there is no time limit for the conversion. I don't oppose creating such banner template, that can be placed in mainspace by human editors, when, over a long period of time, a few articles are still not converted from the deprecated style, but such templates should only be placed by human editors as a deliberate choice (non as a one-solution-fits-all replacement of the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template by bot or whatever). Thus, as such, the creation of such banner template is *also* completely unrelated to this TfD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It is highly relevant to this discusion. The two proposed templates together will solve the problem. I am highly opposed to deleting {{Use Harvard referencing}} until we arrive at a solution that will methodically address the underlying problem two problems:
  1. Articles that contain inline Harvard or parenthetical citations
  2. Articles with shortened footnote style that were incorrectly identified with {{Use Harvard referencing}} & can now instead be marked with {{Use shortened footnotes}}
Francis Schonken, either you have failed to carefully read our comments or you are ignoring the {{Use shortened footnotes}} template. I have not seen anyone objecting to it. Do you have an objection to this naming convention, given Help:Shortened footnotes & what I have created to go with it, Category:Use shortened footnotes, Category:Use shortened footnotes from May 2020, Category:Monthly clean-up category (Use shortened footnotes) counter, & Template:Shortened footnote editnotice, & the modifications that I made to Template:Parenthetical referencing editnotice & Template:Editnotice templates?
Peaceray (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Other approach on "Use Harvard referencing" templateEdit

Proposing another approach:

  • Step 1: replace all instances of {{Use Harvard referencing}} by {{Use footnoted references}}
  • Step 2: delete {{Use Harvard referencing}}

Reasoning behind this approach: the only types of non-footnoted references I know of are:

  1. Harvard referencing, a.k.a. parenthetical referencing, a.k.a. author-date referencing not in footnotes: deprecated by the RfC;
  2. In-line external links, a.k.a. embedded links: not OK per the Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links guideline;
  3. General references, which, according to the relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Citing sources#General references, are mostly better converted to in-line references.

Current guidance does not exactly "forbid" general references, but as long as they are used the article does not adhere to a very high standard of referencing. The {{Use footnoted references}} tag can in such case be used to indicate that editors want that the article adheres to a higher standard for referencing.

Unless I'm missing some other form of acceptable non-footnoted referencing system (am I?), the replacement template proposed in this subsection is thus useful to get rid of the less desirable general references, and to keep an article in that more qualitative state of referencing once the conversion of all low-standard/undesirable/deprecated/inconsistent referencing types has been performed.

I'm not a big enthusiast for the system I'm proposing here (maybe all a bit too self-evident not needing clutter in edit-mode), but am proposing this as something which may be acceptable enough to move forward on getting rid of the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template, which has become untenable after the parenthetical referencing RfC. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I just rewrote the documentation for {{Format footnotes}} to reflect that inline parenthetical referencing is deprecated per WP:PARREF. Note that articles tagged with {{Format footnotes}} are added to Category:Articles needing footnote reformatting. Biogeographist (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I am at work right now; otherwise I would start changing the instances of {{Use Harvard referencing}} to either {{Format footnotes}} or {{Use shortened footnotes}} as appropriate. {{Format footnotes}} will be more used heavily. I have seen that the inline Harvard referencing tended to be used more in musical articles. Currently, those predominate the nearly 600 at Category:Use Harvard referencing from May 2019! Peaceray (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Biogeographist (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peaceray: If it's not too much work, it may be a good idea to create a page in your userspace titled "List of articles that used parenthetical referencing in September 2020" or something like that, and list in it the titles of relevant articles that you're tagging with {{Format footnotes}}. This could be worth the extra work because Category:Articles needing footnote reformatting holds other kinds of articles, and it could be useful to have a list of the articles formerly in Category:Use Harvard referencing that use inline parenthetical referencing. Biogeographist (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Peaceray's approach above. Once all of the articles are correctly tagged with {{Format footnotes}} (for articles using parenthetical referencing) or {{Use shortened footnotes}} (for articles using sfn and the harvnb family), we can delete the nominated template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist comment There has now been a lot of discussion here and we have not come to a consensus for the overall close yet. At this stage I feel like it may be useful to look at what I read as having a rough consensus and what still needs to be figured out. The following three statements are the things I believe have consensus:
  • There is significant confusion about what Harvard referencing mean and it may be possible to alleviate by changing/removing/replacing the name of the template.
  • There are two main types of articles that have {{Use Harvard referencing}}: Articles with inline citations deprecated by the RfC and articles with footnotes containing Harvard/shortened/parenthetical references.
  • The two types of articles should probably be treated in different ways or the same way for different reasons.

The two big remaining questions then are "What should we do with the articles with deprecated citations?" and "What should we do with the articles with acceptable, footnoted, citations?" If we can answer those two questions the remaining details can be ironed out at talk pages or in the holding cell if necessary. --Trialpears (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Trialpears (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Attempt at summaryEdit

Here's my understanding of the current best answers to the questions asked by the relister:

When those two actions are done and Category:Use Harvard referencing is empty, then both Template:Use Harvard referencing and Category:Use Harvard referencing can be deleted. Biogeographist (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Support this process, which I suppose would lead to a TFD close of something like "deprecate, replace with {{Format footnotes}}/{{Use shortened footnotes}} as appropriate, and then delete."
I note that at least one editor above has said something like "Keep this template, because articles tagged with it use sfn/harv templates." If the process above is accepted, those articles would be converted to contain {{Use shortened footnotes}} instead of the current, confusing template. No other changes would be required for those articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose using the (visible) {{Format footnotes}} in this case: that template is for cleanup which is needed when the referencing system is so confusing that a casual reader would be seriously challenged to make sense of a hotchpotch. A system that is coherent, but deprecated, does not need such alarming template. See also what I wrote above, "... least upsetting to those who used parenthetical referencing in mainspace (and might be proponents of the system that has now been deprecated): replacing a template that is only visible in edit mode by one that, with an ugly banner, alerts that something is wrong (as in "... a visible template, not a hidden one ...") is also a ... route I'd prefer not to go, as there is no time limit for the conversion." I'm not going to reiterate here the reasonable objections made, by more than one editor, against the {{Use shortened footnotes}} template, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15#Template:Use shortened footnotes. All in all, seriously thinking and rethinking all options proposed here, and even a few not having been proposed anywhere afaik, I suppose I come back to the original option of just deleting the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template (and obviously: removing it where it is transcluded). Per the RfC close: there is no time limit on converting parenthetical referencing systems to more appropriate ones. I'd give it at least a year before starting to tag the inconvertibles, or the ones that otherwise resist conversion. It is far more important to remove, without further delay, messages that, to this day, continue inviting to use the deprecated system. For the conversions I already did, I found it easy enough to spot parenthetical referencing by using the transclusion list of the original {{harv}} template, so please, don't use alarming cleanup templates for this issue at this point in time. At this stage I'd prefer to avoid, as much as possible, to upset proponents of the parenthetical referencing system, who maybe are already not in the best mood for having !lost the RfC, not upsetting them may mean they would be more easily amenable in helping with conversions. Give it some time, per the recommendation in the RfC close, for those who want to convert, including myself who will probably be doing quite some of the music-related articles, and re-assess whether tagging is necessary for the remaining ones in a year or so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Biogeographist: and all: I started with Category:Use Harvard referencing from August 2014, which is now empty & might be deleted at any time. I am tallying my results & actions at User:Peaceray/Conversions from Use Harvard referencing.
One of the three articles in that category was a featured article, Actuary. For that, I converted inline citations to shortened footnotes, swapped out {{Use Harvard referencing}} to {{Use shortened footnotes}} & used {{Shortened footnote editnotice}} in the edit notice. If you want to see the full-blown combination, this is it. The only thing sullying it is the "‹ The template below (Use shortened footnotes) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›" display.
I agree with Francis Schonken that {{Format footnotes}} is not ready for prime time. I altered the section at Template:Format footnotes/doc#Parenthetical reference. I wish we could just link to that documentation, but the current version of the template does not do that. Maybe we need to put the content in a help page.
I do think fixing, followed by tagging, is the best means of identifying those pages that need conversion. I just do not see any other way of keeping track of what needs correction if we eliminate the {{Use Harvard referencing}}. Francis Schonken, do you have any alternative means of tracking the pages that need fixing to that of {{Format footnotes}}?
A clarification on "objections made, by more than one editor, against the {{Use shortened footnotes}} template": that currently means exactly two, & it is currently running at 75% for keep. IMHO, I think we ought to just close it at the end of its week run & get on with the work. I'm sorry, that was just my opinion.
Peaceray (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "Francis Schonken, do you have any alternative means of tracking the pages that need fixing to that of {{Format footnotes}}?" – yes, I said so, in what I wrote just above your comment: "For the conversions I already did, I found it easy enough to spot parenthetical referencing by using the transclusion list of the original {{harv}} template,..." Here is the direct link to that transclusion list: [10] For clarity:
  1. Whereas Category:Use Harvard referencing, and subcategories, contain pages that were deliberately set to Harvard referencing, the "transclusion list of the original {{harv}} template" also contains pages with stray Harvard references, e.g. a few Harvard references erroneously inserted in a page that otherwise uses a consistent referencing style (in which case conversion is usually pretty easy), or, quite often, pages that have a throughout inconsistent referencing style, are not tagged for any style, and thus would best be converted to a consistent style, per WP:CITEVAR. Also pages that use Harvard referencing consistently but which were not tagged for doing so would be spotted by this method, and not by the "Category:Use Harvard referencing" approach (I have not encountered any of this type yet, but suppose that with continuing conversions it is likely some would turn up).
  2. An at least theoretical disadvantage is that this method would not catch Harvard referencing implemented without the usual Harv family templates (note that the examples elaborated at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing seemingly do so without templates, so, at least theoretically, it is possible to implement the referencing style without them). I say "theoretically" while I suppose this would not often be the case (but if you know any examples, I'd be happy to learn whether this might be a real problem).
In sum, I'm quite confident that this method is actually more accurate than the Category:Use Harvard referencing method for spotting articles that need conversion, and thus one more reason to just abandon the whole idea of converting the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template manually: a lot of work and the resulting categorisation would be incomplete for grouping problematic articles anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I am missing some information here: What is the alternative to removing the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template manually? Is there a bot that will remove the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template automatically if the template is deleted? If yes, then I guess Francis Schonken is right (I did not realize that such a bot exists). If no, then Francis Schonken is wrong: The template has to be removed manually anyway, and it would be best to keep track somehow of the pages from which the template is being manually removed but which have not yet been converted to footnotes, because that set of pages will already be known as candidates for conversion, which is valuable knowledge. In contrast, the pages in the {{harv}} template transclusion list are not already known as candidates for conversion: as I look through the {{harv}} template transclusion list now, I see pages that I know are not candidates for conversion because I have worked on the pages and I know they do not use inline parenthetical referencing. Not only is the {{harv}} template transclusion list not a list of already known candidates for conversion, but also as Francis Schonken said above, it is not even a complete list of potential candidates for conversion. So it is not a replacement for a set of pages that are already known as candidates for conversion. Biogeographist (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "What is the alternative to removing the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template manually?" – Afaik there are two possibilities:
  1. when the template is deleted as a result of a TfD, afaik an admin-closer has the necessary tools to delete all transcluded instances (which, if I'm not erring, is plain standard procedure, that's why I didn't mention "and remove instances of the template" in my OP) – compare the bot that removes an image from English Wikipedia, when the image is deleted at commons.
  2. there is consensus on a more complex proceeding, involving other steps beside the plain deletion & removal of the template: if that multi-step procedure can be automated as a bot task, then a request for such task can be posted at WP:BOTREQ, in which case it is best to have a prior consensus on a task description (if the consensus still needs to be formed at the time of posting the request it would usually be turned down).
Hope this clarifies! --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. If the template can be automatically removed from all pages, then I would change my !vote to delete and everything I have said here has been a waste of time due to my lack of that information. Even though the harvard citation templates transclusion lists are imperfect for this purpose, they would be less work than the proposal at § Attempt at summary. Biogeographist (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
As an addition to my point #1 above, the "plain standard procedure" for a template deletion, involving removal of all instances of the template and categories exclusively used by the to-be-deleted template, is described at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions#Delete. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment My main concern at this point is that we have some means of listing all the articles that have used {{Use Harvard referencing}} so that we can track inline Harvard referencing / parenthetical referencing & convert the ones that have used shortened footnotes to {{Use shortened footnotes}}. That must be done via a bot or by another means before deleting {{Use Harvard referencing}}. Peaceray (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:User page 1

[edit]

Fork of {{User page}}. Only five users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge: I created this; feel free to merge it into the other template, but there clearly needs to be a user page template that isn't so big and needlessly wordy. In my cases, I'm the only one viewing and editing, I just feel the need to clarify it's not a live article. ɱ (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright, the navbox listing them all was created later, in 2016, so I suppose I never found {{Userpage bar}}. A closer can delete this and use that template in its stead. ɱ (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Legend2

[edit]

Both {{legend2}} and {{legend-inline}} focus on the same task, producing an inline legend. I've made some recent updates to the latter, and, looking at others to decide whether they needed updating, realized that {{legend2}} is redundant. {{Legend2}} has more transclusions, but {{legend-inline}} has a preferable name (immediately explains its purpose) and is technically superior. We should "delete" {{legend2}} and redirect it to {{legend-inline}}. There are some trivial cosmetic differences between the two templates at the moment, but I'm ignoring them as a matter of triviality. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Minor addendum: {{legend2}}'s parameters allow it to be redirected to {{legend-inline}} without breaking any transclusions, but the reverse is not true. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Support seems logical to me. Kiwichris (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Seems like a logical, more streamlined approach. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Metricate

[edit]

Redundant to {{Units attention}}. The latter can be modified to render like the former. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

September 16

Template:Ds/extended-confirmed-editnotice

[edit]

Low-usage duplicate of {{Ds/editnotice}} and EN templates in Category:Standardised Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates (for the 500/30 part), e.g. {{IPA AE/Edit notice}}. Proposed to replace usages with appropriate template, and delete. In some cases no substitute is desirable, as 500/30 is now enforced by technical means (ie ECP protection), thus doesn't need a notice telling people not to edit if they have less than 500/30. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Living things in culture

[edit]

This template is completely useless and a waste of space. It is being included on a variety of pages for which it is only obliquely related (e.g. toad). As a template which is preposterously overbroad, bloated, and almost entirely novel, it seems to violate any number of Wikipedia policies and is generally unhelpful to the reader. No rational reason to keep it. jps (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep --- None of the reasons given have substance to them. People have used many species of animals for a wide variety of purposes, and these are documented overwhelmingly in many centuries of reliable historical and modern sources. The template, created some years ago, offers convenient navigation of the articles about these uses of these kinds of animal. Most of the entries are specifically about such uses of animals; a few document significant uses in substantial 'Human uses' sections of articles on the names species; these are all candidates for full articles on those uses. Human use of animals is a major aspect of human culture, indeed the earliest form of agriculture, and animals continue to play many roles in human life today, from providing food and leather to pets, the models for gorilla suits, ingredients in folk magic, even animal-headed Egyptian deities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Convenient navigation in what context? I am trying to imagine a reader going to an article such as toad and needing this template. Can you explain why they would? jps (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Zoological articles like "Toad" should have zoological templates, not vague collections of distantly related topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are no coherent or consistent inclusion criteria; the mixture of food, myth, tech, etc. is overly broad and disparate; and the subcategorization is utterly OR. Additionally, the template is intractably incomplete: where are keyhole limpet hemocyanin, firefly luciferase, limulus amebocyte lysate, [any of the] model organisms (the only worm listed is leech, which is incorrectly classed under "other phyla"; apparently humans just don't interact with parasitic worms or C. elegans?), and all the thousands of other lab applications of natural products? No other flowers besides lily, rose, and tulip (e.g. poppy)? If we were to include these items, the template would be millions of bytes, and yet not including them is inconsistent and confusing. JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. As the others noted above, it's overly broad and nonsensical. If, as JoelleJay suggested, the criteria seemingly being used was applied evenly it would conceivably include nearly all life/species on the planet, both extant and extinct. Quite a few links are devoted to "dinosaurs", and when the question of why a Stegosaurus is included it was explained thus by the creator "Because it is one of the most popular dinosaurs and much has been written about it, summarized in Stegosaurus and indeed at Stegosaurus in popular culture. More than enough, in fact, to earn it a place in the 'Living things in culture' template, or in "don't know what culture means"-speak, "Human uses of living things". For a symbolic usage is indeed a "use". [11]. If all it takes to be included is symbolic usage, even for a creature that went extinct 150 million years before the genus Homo existed, exactly what is the cutoff criteria for inclusion? One I found even weirder, until it was removed earlier today the template contained "Gorilla suit"[12]). And currently contains: Dragon, Sacred trees and groves in Germanic paganism and mythology, Monkeys and apes in space, World Turtle, Fictional plants, Lists of legendary creatures, and Jaws (film), mixed in with links to various taxonomic articles. Heiro 00:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - following the given inclusion criteria we would need to add tens of thousands of articles with basically no connection, which makes no sense. No one has found meaningful narrower criteria either. --mfb (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hopelessly random. This tells us nothing about either the articles itself or the other articles linked. It's like version 0.01α of Amazon's suggestions. People who bought shoes were also interested in pencils. Guy (help! - typo?) 06:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the current one, but split into smaller ones if scopes allows. Some of these links can be their own navbox for sure. The "in x" pages (Insects in art, Insects in literature, Insects in medicine, Insects in music, Insects in mythology, Insects in religion, Cephalopods in popular culture, Molluscs in culture, Arthropods in film, Frogs in culture, Salamanders in folklore and legend, etc) can be in a navbox as their scope is well defined and a reader will very possibly would like to navigate from one of these topics to another of these. --Gonnym (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Macclesfield Town F.C. squad

[edit]

Sadly the club has been liquidated EchetusXe 13:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Redundant template now that the club has been liquidated. JMHamo (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep They still have players (#4, 6, and 15 are still at the club), plus others (See sites like Transfermarkt or Macclesfield Town's website) (User:ShadowBallX2, Talk To Me Man) 20:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, sadly. Also @ShadowBallX2: please note that Transfermarkt is not considered notable. GiantSnowman 20:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment Their 1st game in the 5th tier is on 26 September against AFC Telford United. If they cancel/postpone the game, then delete. However, if the game goes on as planned, then they have to have an XI and bench for the game, meaning they have a squad. I reccomend wait until either September 26, or the game is postponed before making a decision. (User:ShadowBallX2, Ok) 21:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with ShadowBall, if they cancel or postpone the game then by all means delete the template, if they play then it should be kept. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:ASC Daco-Getica București squad

[edit]

ASC Daco-Getica București was dissolved, the template is outdated and as the club was dissolved no players are currently under contract, so no need for this template anymore. Rhinen (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The wiki page for the club doesn't say its dissolved, so I'm not sure if the team is actually dissolved. If it isnt, then Keep. If it is, then Delete. ShadowBallX2 (A Talk Page)

@ShadowBallX2 Only the senior squad is dissolved, but the template was made for the senior squad. Rhinen (talk) 6:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh... In that case, Delete ShadowBallX2 (A Talk Page) 12:27, 23 Septeber 2020 (UTC)

Template:Year Zero alternate reality game

[edit]

Template used to group together separate pages for the Year Zero ARG, all of which are heading for deletion as being WP:FANCRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. All of the pages in the template will then be able to be linked from the album's page, leaving the template redundant. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Argentine films

[edit]

Redundant to the bottom navbox {{Cinema of Argentina}}, which appears to be on all the pages this template is on except (ironically) Cinema of Argentina. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep Convenient side template, perfect for lists like this, Template:Cinema of Argentina is the one which should be deleted, how is going to see the template sandwiched down there?† Encyclopædius 09:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:R2

[edit]

Not a high-quality, widely used template. Sysages (talk | contribs) 02:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - Looks like it came from a 2007 discussion here where {{R1}} might have a similar fate. From my understanding, {{R-phrase}} replaces these? – The Grid (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:Db-r2 after replacing all uses. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - The problem with that family of templates is they use the html tag abbr which is both against our MoS and also semantically wrong and not following HTML specifications. See also {{abbr}} and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 9#Template:Tooltip. --Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gonnym is right. --Bsherr (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    Keep. On closer review, it seems the issue is with {{R-phrase}} as opposed to this one of many templates that uses it. I don't think it makes sense to delete just one of the whole series like this. --Bsherr (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems like {{Rlink}} was made to consolidate all the templates in Category:R-phrase templates perhaps a group nomination to deal with them all would be more appropriate? Having a template system that works for all but one code seems like a potential source of confusion and issues. I do agree however that this template ultimately should be redirected to {{Db-r2}}. --Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. There wasn't consensus to use Template:Rlink and it is only transcluded in two articles; R2 is used in four and another of these (Template:R34) is in 88 articles. According to the infobox where these are used, R-phrases were replaced by GHS data. If this is correct, when the articles have been updated these can probably all be deleted. Peter James (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pppery, Gonnym, and Bsherr: Do you people have comments about {{Rlink}}? I personally think full deletion wouldn't be appropriate as the generated code is decently lengthy and errors in what exactly the code stand for could be introduced. Abbreviations seems quite suitable in this case actually since the R# stands for a phrase describing a risk. I could also see the case for using something like "R2 (Risk of explosion by shock, friction, fire, or other sources of ignition)" to make it easier to read on mobile and when possible on screenreaders. The longer version wouldn't work in infoboxes though so perhaps a |short= parameter for these cases? For now I've converted {{R-phrase}} to use {{Abbr}} instead of the abbr span. --Trialpears (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    I would prefer to see most use of abbr avoided, especially if a simple wikilink to the meaning is a viable alternative. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    No, it still goes against the MoS and the HTML specifications. "Abbr" isn't used for when you want to write text that is too large and want someway to hide it. How is "R2" exactly an abbreviation of "Risk of explosion by shock, friction, fire or other sources of ignition"? The correct usage would be to convert the the parent template to use note system which is exactly what this template tries to do and fails. Changing from abbr tags to the Abbr template is exactly the same and doesn't change anything. Also, I'd also support a merge of all R2 into one central template/module. --Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

September 15

Template:Ccnorm

[edit]

Only use is an example in a 2016 talk page post announcing its creation. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep. It's a tool. You can emulate the edit filter ccnorm function with it, in the Mediawiki edit pane. There's no need to save, and if you do you might very well use subst. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC).

Template:Janáček operas

[edit]

Unused. Everything in this navbox template, bar the image, is in {{Leoš Janáček}}, which appears on all the pages in this one, and does so in the more usual position at the foot of the article. Furthermore, it does not appear for mobile users - over half of our readers, AIUI - and so hides the image from them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Concur. Tim riley talk 23:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, redundant. the navbox version is better since it doesn't crowd the article prose. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: For the avoidance of doubt, I'm proposing that the template be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Lecocq operas and operettas

[edit]

Unused. Everything in this navbox template, bar the image, is in {{Charles Lecocq}}, which appears on all the pages in this one, and does so in the more usual position at the foot of the article. Furthermore, it does not appear for mobile users - over half of our readers, AIUI - and so hides the image from them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I find these horizontal navboxes at the bottom of the page inconvenient and difficult-to-read. A vertical list at the top is far better. When we had them, I used them frequently, but these new horizontal ones, almost never. I'm very happy to see a vertical drop-down is still used for Handel's operas. I'm in favor of adding a drop-down chronological list of operas by the same composer to the opera infoboxes. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has clearly standardised on horizontal navboxes at the foot of articles. {{Navbox}} is, apparently, "used on approximately 2,780,000 pages" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Andy's opening comments, but he is premature in thinking WP has standardised on horizontal navboxes at the foot of the page. I wish! Coincidentally there is a discussion (getting a little heated in spots) here on that very subject, where comments from Andy and Robert and anyone else will be most welcome. Meanwhile, I support the deletion of the Lecocq operas and operettas template, which has specifically been declared pretty much mothballed here. Tim riley talk 22:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Afterthought: if the template is deleted will the discussion on its talk page vanish with it? I'd rather regret that, as it's a useful snapshot of opinion at the time. Perhaps I should copy and paste the discussion to my talk page archive or some such? Tim riley talk 23:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing wrote: it does not appear for mobile users - over half of our readers, AIUI - and so hides the image from them – Not quite. On my Android mobile device using Wikipedia 2.7 (2020-08-04) the image from the navbox is shown above the article. OTOH, horizontal navboxes at the desktop's version bottom are not shown on that version, so that doesn't seem to be a convincing argument. The same point applies to the nomination below, #Template:Scarlatti operas. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Not quite. An extract from the page's lead image is shown, which may or not be the image from this template, but often not the full image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing wrote: and so hides the image from them and An extract from the page's lead image is shown – a) so it's not hidden; b) isn't that the case for (almost) every article's lead image in the mobile app, navbox or stand-alone? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The image in the template is hidden. The lead image on, for example Mozart (which has no such template) is shown in the header in the manner you describe; but it is also shown in full as an on-page image. furthermore, what you describe occurs in the mobile app. The image in the template is not shown at all on the mobile website. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that Wikipedia has standardised on horizontal navboxes; I demonstrate that it has, quoting that they are "used on approximately 2,780,000 pages". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I think Tim Riley has a good point. Isn't it also true that when a legacy template is deleted, the history of the pages that utilized the template in the past will no longer render correctly when it is called? If so, maybe it is not a good idea to be deleting these old templates? --Robert.Allen (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, redundant. the navbox version is better since it doesn't crowd the article prose. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tfdl2

[edit]

Apparent fork of {{Tfdl}}; little used - around 20 transclusions, mostly in old archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment: I created this template in 2009 apparently to "fix several annoyances [with Template:Tfdl] and make [the] template more intuitive", but I've long since forgotten what any of those changes were, and {{Tfdl}} looks pretty intuitive these days. At any rate, I'm not involved any more with any areas of the project this template might be used in, so I don't really care what the outcome here is. ディノ千?!☎ Dinoguy1000 20:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Substitute then delete. I see the differences. Tfdl is formatted like a heading, while Tfdl2 is formatted in such a way that it could be used in-line where Tfdl would be awkward. That said, one could also just use a wikilink for the same purpose as Tfdl2 so, if usage is low, the template can be substituted and deleted. But we should avoid replacing tfdl2 with tfdl here. --Bsherr (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Usercomment

[edit]

Redundant to several other talk page welcome templates; and duplicative of the standard editing window text, which reminds people to sign messages. Also mostly used on the talk pages of long-departed, or banned, editors, with only a handful of uses otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge (if suitable destination exists): I created this template back in 2004, and I abandoned it myself some time ago once duplicate functionality was added to the standard edit window. @Pigsonthewing: How thoroughly did you review the template's current use? Before deleting, could we enlist a bot to post a TFD notification to the 587 talk pages where it's still transcluded? Some semi-random clicks on the transclusions list did turn up active users. --Theodore Kloba () 20:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pigsonthewing, would you suggest redirecting to one of the other templates it's redundant to? If so, which one? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:Wikidata Infobox

[edit]

Propose merging Module:Wikidata Infobox with Module:WikidataIB.
We should have one Wikidata infobox module and make life easier for our editors as learning a new module everytime takes time. This one is used on less than 400 pages with minimal documentation, while Module:WikidataIB is used over 1m times. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  • @Gonnym: Module:Wikidata Infobox is extra Lua code that is used by {{Wikidata Infobox}} beyond Module:WikidataIB. It provides extra functions that are useful in that infobox, and while they may also be useful elsewhere I don't think other templates use it. It is used a lot more on Commons than it is here (>3 million times). I don't mind if they are merged, but if they are then they need to be kept in sync across all of the wikis. @RexxS: probably has views on this! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I'm a bit less concerned what other wikis do and if or how they keep their modules updated, and more concerned with what code is used here. Template:Infobox telescope is an example, of a very badly coded template, which uses Wikidata Infobox, WikidataIB and Module:Wikidata (which is deprecated). I'm pretty sure that WikidataIB can either handle the required functions now, or be made to handle it without a lot of trouble. --Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The argument presented here about Template:Infobox telescope is inapplicable since the only use of Module:Wikidata Infobox there is ifThenShow, which is an unnecessary Lua module that could be implemented in Wikitext. Module:Wikidata Infobox is intended to be a module implementing Template:Wikidata Infobox, not a general purpose Wikidata infobox module, and I would support removing all usages of it from templates other than Template:Wikidata Infobox to support that purpose. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    • That still leaves only 14 transclusions of {{Wikidata Infobox}}, which some are pointless and others can use {{Infobox person/wikidata}} or the actual standard infobox for that type. I doubt this template has any consensus to be used in place of the standard infoboxes as its style is completely different. --Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
      • The style is easily changeable (see {{Wikidata Infobox/styles.css}}). I use it regularly, but people always come along and change it to a non-Wikidata infobox, hence why there aren't more transclusions. It's worth keeping at least as an example, and there will probably be discussions about it in future (but having that discussion here is not appropriate, I think). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Deleting Template:Wikidata Infobox is not what is being proposed here (although I would support that proposal as well if it were properly proposed) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I would support moving some of the common helper templates, like ifThenShow, into WikidataIB - they are useful, and are mostly implemented by small templates like {{if then show}} that aren't very portable. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
      • And I would strongly oppose that. Template:If then show is working just fine in wikitext as is, and there is no reason it and several other equally simple functions should be aggregated into some sort of mega-module. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that the purpose of the two modules is sufficiently different to justify keeping them separate. Module:WikidataIB was designed to function at the individual infobox field level, supplying the tools that allow a template editor to upgrade an infobox to draw information from Wikidata for some or all fields individually, for any infobox. Module:Wikidata Infobox was designed to implement an entire particular infobox template (albeit one that is completely generic). I can see value in moving a few of the generic helper functions into WikidataIB, iff they would find use in other templates, but I don't really see what value would result from a wholescale merger. For what it's worth, I implemented {{if then show}} using template functionality, because it's so simple that I didn't see the need for a Lua implementation. My preference is reserve Lua for functionality that's messy or impossible using template syntax, but where to draw that line will depend on individual taste. --RexxS (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, per RexxS, different purpose. But looking at the names Module:Wikidata Infobox and Module:WikidataIB, reading from left the different parts are " Infobox" and "IB". If IB is replaced with "Infobox" then the only difference is in a space. I am happy Gonnym oppened the discussion. Since Module:Wikidata Infobox is an infobox module, Rename (withdrawn see below) Module:WikidataIB so it makes transparent what it is about, e. g. Module:Wikidata data retrieval, dropping "IB" completely if neither the structure of the output nor the manner to call it is confined to infoboxes. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @TerraCyprus: you make a valid point, but I think it's too late to rename now. When I wrote Module:WikidataIB, it was a fork of Module:Wikidata designed specifically to meet the needs of bringing Wikidata into infoboxes, so I named it to reflect that. Since then, I stopped development work on Module:Wikidata, which then became deprecated. I've concentrated on improving the functionality of Module:WikidataIB over the years so that it can now be imported unchanged into almost any other language wiki or Wikimedia project. That means that 100+ other wikis depend on the enwiki version and so I'd be loathe to rename Module:WikidataIB now. It's also in use on about a million pages here (and two million on Commons), so that would take a bit of effort to rename all the invokes (modules can't be redirects). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
      @RexxS: thank you for the explanation, didn't know redirects don't work on modules. If it is used under the same name in other wikis then it would make copying code between wikis harder. I withdraw my proposal until knowing more about how renaming could be done. Maybe some magic WMF-wikiwide dbside edit. ETA not before 2030. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:Kana

[edit]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I would like to hear from the creator, but until then this looks useful. It could for example enable the creation of a template that can accept a string in Hiragana and then display it along with an automatic transliteration. – Uanfala (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:I18n

[edit]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is used by Module:Wikidata to provide internationalization for non-english wikis. If deleted, the non-english wikis that newly import Module:Wikidata after that time will hardly find the code for Module:I18n to import. To let non-english wikis to guess for some other non-english wikis and import the code from that is not a good practice --Ans (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC) --Ans (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't commons:Module:I18n be the place where such a module exist? --Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Most non-en wikipedia import module codes (like Module:Wikidata) from en wikipedia, not from commons, they have very little chance to know that related module is on commons. Moreover, mixing import like importing Module:Wikidata from en wikipedia, while importing Module:i18n from commons is not a good practice, since modules from different project doesn't guarantee that they are compatible.
      • If the reason to delete Module:I18n is just that it is unused here, so the code block if wiki.langcode ~= "en" then ... end should also be removed from Module:Wikidata, since that code block is also unused here. If that code block is kept here, then Module:I18n should also be kept for same reason.
      • --Ans (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
        • I disagree with this line of argument entirely. Modules should not exist on the English Wikipedia unless they are actually going to be used on the English Wikipedia. The purpose of the English Wikipedia is not to serve as a template repository. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
          • To keep Module:I18n is not to serve as template/module repository, but to serve internationalization purpose, and Module:I18n is important part of internationlization in Module:Wikidata. --Ans (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
            • Modules that could theoretically be used but the conditions required for their use never apply on the English Wikipedia have been deleted in the past. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
              • The English Wikipedia does not need to have a module of this sort: it is written in English and there is no reason to write code that dynamically conjugates text in other languages.
              • I disagree with this line from Module:Linguistic deletion. Many modules on English Wikipedia is designed to also apply on any non-English Wikipedia. Many modules on English wikipedia have the code like, local i18n = { ["errors"] = ... }, which is the evidence that the purposes of those modules are to also serve messages translation on any non-English wikipedia, so the mechanism to serve these purposes should be kept.
              • --Ans (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
          • I disagree completely with the suggestion that The purpose of the English Wikipedia is not to serve as a template repository. Any module that is used on multiple projects needs to have a repository somewhere, i.e. an authoritative version that other projects can import. Most big modules have a principle maintainer and developer, and doing that job quickly brings you to the conclusion that you need to do maintenance and development on a wiki where it is in widespread use and where you are comfortable editing. For me that's the English Wikipedia, and I expect to be able to do maintenance and development of modules here, which means that the 100+ projects using WikidataIB will expect to import updates from here. That makes enwiki the default repository for such modules, regardless of unsupportable assertions to the contrary. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Where is it used in Module:Wikidata? And why can't mw.message.newRawMessage be used, along with the enwiki module itself moving strings into a separate page? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
      • It's used in Module:WikidataIB, but only for wikis that don't have English as their site content language. See lines 83-86 (approximately). WikidataIB contains all of the English internationalisation strings and functions within the opening section of the code. That allows the module to be used on other wikis which can then override the English text with their own by using a module called Module:WikidataIB/i18n, which is not needed on enwiki, of course. The concept of moving bits of functionality out of a module into other modules makes importing the module into another wiki a nightmare, and nobody who has ever tried to implement an enwiki module into another language would dream of suggesting separate pages.
        As far as the deletion request goes, the module performs the function of merging an external table from another module, with the ability to replace (or not) the corresponding keys in an existing module table. It may have functionality beyond just integrating a local internationalisation module, but if you decide to delete it, I can just duplicate its functionality directly into Module:WikidataIB. --RexxS (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Ans and User:RexxS. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep module is in use. No apparent benefits to deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    No, it is not in use (the only link there is a self-transclusion). The fact that this module could be transcluded if en does not equal en does not mean that it is "in use" in any significant sense. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:Lunar eclipse

[edit]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

September 14

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment is being used to discuss the RfC process itself, not the information page it is parented to. This will need to be salted after deletion, to prevent it from being immediately recreated by a bot. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't see that purpose as inconsistent with the edit notice. Even though the talk page is often used to address RfC issues, it is also the place to discuss improvements of the subject page. The edit notice doesn't contradict either of those purposes. --Bsherr (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    So, what policy or guideline is Wikipedia:Requests for comment summarizing? This edit notice only makes sense if there is an actual distinction between the contents of the page itself, and the consensus it describes. What consensus does Wikipedia:Requests for comment describe that should be discussed elsewhere? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, isn't it? --Bsherr (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    Please point to a recent post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment that should have been posted at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not about to go browsing the archives, so I will concede your point, but I don't believe that is a sufficient reason to deviate from the practice of putting this edit notice on all information pages. --Bsherr (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Except that practice has already been deviated from for over a year, with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 15#Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Lua, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 October 12#Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Wikidata, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019 November 10#Unnecessary Template:Wikipedia information pages talk page editnotice uses and so on. This TfD is not requesting a unique exception from an otherwise universal status quo, but instead continuing a trend dating back to February 2019 of removing the editnotice in places where it doesn't belong. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Eh. Looking at Archive 16 (latest archive, June 2018 onwards) seems like the de-facto purpose of the talk is not to discuss changes to the information page. At the same time, I think most of this stuff should've been somewhere else. Archive 16 is full of people asking if an RfC is the right thing to do in XYZ case, or for procedural advice on their particular case -- it actually makes up the majority of the archive. Some sections are for general inquiries on the RfC process, and only one discussion seems to be of changing the RfC process (the recent RfC by Guy).
    As it relates to the editnotice, I think an editnotice may be required saying something, but not sure if the current one accurately describes the role of the page. The purpose of the talk, de facto, seems to be varied. Maybe there's a better place to ask for procedural advice for ones particular case, and if so that should be made more clear. Or perhaps WT:RFC intends to be a place for all things RfC related, in which case this editnotice is misleading and should be deleted. More active participants on that page may be able to better advise on what they think the purpose of that talk is, or should be (if de facto usage is contrary to actual purpose, an editnotice+talk notice should be kept/modified). I think it'd be helpful to relist this and advertise it to that talk page for more thoughts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a stretch to call this an information page anyway; this is used as the authority for the RfC process; there isn't any better authority. If you want the RfC process changed, you change this page, usually after gaining consensus on the talk page.
In addition to there being the long history of discussing the RfC process on this talk page as mentioned above, the scope of the talk page was recently explicitly expanded by consensus (on the page) to include seeking and getting advice on opening a particular RfC (whether/where/wording). Because it's just the most convenient place to do that. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

September 13

Template:Uw-3rr

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Uw-3rr with Template:Uw-ew.
These two templates are very similar and appear to be intended for the same purpose. There's no need for two separate templates. Edit: I've just noticed Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_7#Template:Uw-ew, but I'd like to point out that three reverts isn't a right, and that one can stil be blocked for edit warring even if 3RR is not violated. I'm not convinced there's enough difference to warrant separate templates. Adam9007 (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Merge. Here we go again. --Bsherr (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    Bsherr, Yeah, I probably wouldn't have nominated had I been aware that there was one just four months ago. Adam9007 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to Template:Uw-ew per nom. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and WP:CONSOLIDATE. The differences pointed out in the previous nom are too minor to warrant a separate template. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to Template:Uw-ew: way too similar. No need for a 3rr-specific variant. 3RR isn't even the focus of the 3RR variant (only appears in second para, and it even says that 3RR doesn't need to be met for blocks). 3RR can be mentioned in the EW one in a similar same manner, and should be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:UE

[edit]

Propose merging Template:UE with Template:Uselanguage.
Both serve the same purpose, to notify a user about their contribution in a language other than English. No need for different templates saying the same thing in a slightly different way. Gonnym (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete this template seems to be used once and looks like a direct duplication, so it may even meet speedy deletion criteria. I think it's more confusing for editors t have lots of potential redirects than a single option, particularly in this case where I can't see any evidence of use of the template "UE" (happy to be corrected if I'm missing something).--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Both templates are subst and not transcluded (I know as I fixed a lot of incorrectly formatted substs of both). Not sure if they are still in use, as those that I fixed were from 2008-09.
  • Comment: Not relevant to this discussion but annoying nevertheless, Template:Use english leads to {{Uselanguage}} while Template:Useenglish leads to Template:Uw-english. --Gonnym (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Completed discussionsEdit

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

ToolsEdit

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussionsEdit

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To reviewEdit

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

  • 2018 April 19Fb_cl_header ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
    Would it be possible for a bot to convert the transclusions of these templates to Module:Sports table? S.A. Julio (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
    Should be doable, yes. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    I could probably do something while I am converting all the {{Fb team}} templates. But, I will have to see how complicated the code is. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Plastikspork and Primefac: Can your bots using Module:Sports table instead in this case, such as [13]? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    Hhhhhkohhhhh, sure. That particular template only had one use, and that use was in userspace, and the title of the page was "concept", so I didn't bother to fully convert it. But in general, the plan is to convert the various table/cl header/cl footer/cl team templates to use sports table. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    I am replacing all of these fb templates Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Frietjes What is the status for the last 280? Looks like they only use the header and not the row templates making it basically necessary to do it manually (or at least largely manually). Is this the case and do you plan on tackling these? If you are not I'm considering going for them as a break from all the aircraft specs. --Trialpears (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    I am still replacing all of these. as people spot raw tables, they are replacing the table headers with the {{fb cl header}} template since they know I will convert it to Module:Sports table eventually. so, the number left on the list is not monotonically decreasing, but will eventually converge to zero. I scripts to assist with the conversion, but there is also manual checking to make sure the team abbreviations are consistent, and that the various columns sum to consistent numbers. I check the sources when the numbers don't add up. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    Oh wow, I just noticed that the count hadn't really been going down so thought you ran into some issue or something. By the way, shouldn't it be possible to detect empty tables using regex searches or at least a quarry? Just a (probably mistaken) thought. Keep up the great work! --Trialpears (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge into {{Aircraft specs}}:
    There's a discussion about this merger at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive_45#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot --Trialpears (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm giving this another go with an extra year of experience and this time it seems a lot more manageable. I've made a mostly working AWB setup based on my old bot code for Aircraft specifications. Should be done with that run in a few days. Aerospecs should be about the same complexity but with significantly more transclusions. --Trialpears (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 2020 August 7Endocrine_pathology ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
    Template has been split (see talk page), but the ~50 pages still transcluding it are not in the new templates. Will need to be added to the appropriate places and the template calls swapped (as seen in this series of edits) before it's converted to a list.
    A nice tool that can help - [14]. --Gonnym (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    Normally I think this would be useful, but in this case it's just a matter of replacing the existing transclusions with the appropriate template (+ this one) that was split off - in other words, it's more of a matching game! Primefac (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

To mergeEdit

Templates to be merged into another template.

InfoboxesEdit

Param mapping
    mapping = {
        # Header / misc
        'boxtype' => nil, # only support boxtype = 'locomotive'
        'Farbe1' => nil, # color
        'Farbe2' => nil, # color
        'Baureihe' => 'name',
        'Abbildung' => 'image',
        'Name' => 'caption',

        # General
        'Nummerierung' => '', # "Number(s) allocated to the vehicle(s)"
        'Hersteller' => 'builder',
        'Baujahre' => 'builddate',
        'Indienststellung' => 'firstrundate',
        'Ausmusterung' => 'retiredate',
        'Anzahl' => 'totalproduction',
        'Wheel arrangement' => 'whytetype | aarwheels', # ambiguous? which one is it?
        'Achsformel' => '', # same as above
        'Gattung' => '', # some form of class (eg "S 37.19")
        'Spurweite' => 'gauge',
        'Höchstgeschwindigkeit' => 'maxspeed',

        # Wheels (should wheelbase sub-params be used in [[Template:Infobox locomotive]]?)
        'Laufraddurchmesser vorn' => 'leadingdiameter',
        'Laufraddurchmesser hinten' => 'trailingdiameter',
        'Laufraddurchmesser außen' => '', # Outer carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives
        'Laufraddurchmesser innen' => '', # Inner carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives
        'Laufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'Treibraddurchmesser' => 'driverdiameter',

        # Weight, dimensions and Axles
        'Leermasse' => 'locoweight', # "Total weight of vehicle when empty"
        'Dienstmasse' => 'tenderweight',
        'Reibungsmasse' => 'weightondrivers',
        'Radsatzfahrmasse' => 'axleload',
        'Höhe' => 'height',
        'Breite' => 'width',

        # Steam traction / cylinders
        'Zylinderanzahl' => 'cylindercount',
        'Zylinderdurchmesser' => 'cylindersize',
        'Kolbenhub' => '', # "[[Piston stroke]] - I think current template requires this to be <br>'d onto cyclindercount, if so, that should probably be changed in template"
        'Heizrohrlänge' => '', # Heating tube length. totalsurface/tubearea is provided, but this is an area, not a length?
        'Rostfläche' => '', # "Grate area"
        'Strahlungsheizfläche' => '', # "Radiative heating area, Firebox + combustion chamber"
        'Überhitzerfläche' => '', # Superheater area
        'Verdampfungsheizfläche' => '', # Evaporative heating area, Firebox heating area + combustion chamber + heating tubes + smoke tubes (total heating area)

        # Misc
        'Steuerungsart' => 'valvegear',
        'Tenderbauart' => '', # Tender
        'Wasser' => 'watercap',
        'Brennstoff' => 'fueltype + fuelcap', # in practice, may solely be 'fuelcap'
        'Lokbremse' => 'locobrakes',
        'Bremsen' => 'trainbrakes',

        # Undocumented
        'VorneLaufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'HintenLaufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'LängeÜberPuffer' => 'length/over bufferbeams', # ?
        'Kesseldruck' => 'boilerpressure',
        'AnzahlHeizrohre' => '',
        'AnzahlRauchrohre' => '',
        'IndizierteLeistung' => '',
        'HDZylinderdurchmesser' => '',
        'NDZylinderdurchmesser' => ''
    }
Parameter comparison
Infobox reality talent
competition parameter
Infobox reality competition
season parameter
Result from the merge
name
series
season_name
(Infobox television season parameter)
Delete (unnecessary)
logo image Rename to image
logo_size image_size Rename to image_size
image_alt
logo_alt
image_alt Keep (change any uses of logo_alt to image_alt)
caption caption Keep
season season_number
season_number
(Infobox television season parameter)
Delete (unnecessary)
British
british
Australian
australian
N/A Delete
aired released
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename to released
first_aired first_aired
(Infobox television season parameter)
Keep
last_aired last_aired
(Infobox television season parameter)
Keep
judges
judge
judges Keep (change any use of "judge" to "judges")
coaches N/A New parameter, merge over
presenter
presenters
presenter Keep (change any use of "presenters" to "presenter")
host host Keep
copresenter N/A Delete, merge content to "presenter"
cohost N/A Delete, merge content to "host"
broadcaster network
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename to network
competitors num_contestants Rename to num_contestants
finalsvenue
venue
N/A New parameter, merge over
country country
(Infobox television season parameter)
Keep
num_tasks num_tasks Keep
runtime N/A Delete, unnecessary
num_episodes num_episodes
(Infobox television season parameter)
Keep
website website
(Infobox television season parameter)
Keep
winner-name winner Rename to winner
image N/A Delete (this one is for the winner image)
winner-origin N/A Delete, unnecessary
winner-song N/A Delete, unnecessary
winner-genre N/A Delete, unnecessary
winner-mentor
winner-coach
N/A Keep, rename to winner_mentor, winner_coach
runner-name runner_up Rename to runner_up
last prev_season
prev_series
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename (but may not be required)
next next_season
next_series
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename (but may not be required)
year
main
N/A Delete, unnecessary
Template updated with the new parameters, just need to convert old uses now. --Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Soon as my other bot run finishes I'll get on it. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thank you! Let myself or Gonnym know if you have any questions. I hope my table above will be useful in figuring out what needs to be kept, replaced, or outright deleted. And as Gonnym said, the new parameters are all ready to go once the merge has been made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll have to re-think the usage of the bot, though... {{Infobox reality talent competition}} is an infobox proper, while {{Infobox reality competition season}} is designed as a child/subbox. Some might be easy enough to convert into an {{infobox television}} usage, such as at Singapore Idol, but in places like World Idol it will need merging into the main IB. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Correct. Whatever had {{Infobox reality talent competition}} will ultimately now need to have {{Infobox television season}} as the infobox proper, and the {{Infobox reality competition season}} as a child/subbox through |module1=. If I can help define or clarify anything for you to help you with the bot, let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  Doing... TheTVExpert (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Navigation templatesEdit

Link templatesEdit

  • None currently

OtherEdit

2020 February 1Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

MetaEdit

To convertEdit

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substituteEdit

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphanEdit

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletionEdit

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently

Archive and IndicesEdit

  1. ^ Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada. "Place names - British Columbia / Colombie-Britannique". www4.rncan.gc.ca. Retrieved 2020-04-16.
  2. ^ "BC Geographical Names". apps.gov.bc.ca. Retrieved 2020-04-16.
  3. ^ According to the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage (ISBN 0-19-541619-8; p. 335), BCer(s) is an informal demonym that is sometimes used for residents of BC
  4. ^ a b "Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, 2016 and 2011censuses". Statistics Canada. February 8, 2017. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  5. ^ a b "Population by year of Canada of Canada and territories". Statistics Canada. June 14, 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
  6. ^ a b "Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, 2011 and 2006 censuses". Statistics Canada. February 8, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  7. ^ a b Statistics Canada. Gross domestic product, expenditure-based, by province and territory (2015); November 9, 2016.
  8. ^ "Sub-national HDI - Subnational HDI - Global Data Lab". globaldatalab.org. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
  9. ^ Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada. "Place names - British Columbia / Colombie-Britannique". www4.rncan.gc.ca. Retrieved 2020-04-16.
  10. ^ "BC Geographical Names". apps.gov.bc.ca. Retrieved 2020-04-16.
  11. ^ According to the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage (ISBN 0-19-541619-8; p. 335), BCer(s) is an informal demonym that is sometimes used for residents of BC
  12. ^ "The legal context of Canada's official languages". University of Ottawa. Archived from the original on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 7 March 2019.
  13. ^ "Sub-national HDI - Subnational HDI - Global Data Lab". globaldatalab.org. Retrieved 2020-06-18.