Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
  Feb Mar Apr May TOTAL
CfD 2 13 30 87 132
TfD 0 1 32 13 46
MfD 0 0 18 6 24
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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 an unused, 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
  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:
  • For deletion: {{subst:tfd}}
  • For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:tfd|type=sidebar}}
  • For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:tfd|type=inline}}
  • For deletion of a module: {{subst:tfd|type=module|page=name of module}} at the top of the module's /doc subpage.
  • For merging: {{subst:tfm|name of other template}}
  • For merging an inline template: {{subst:tfm|type=inline|name of other template}}
  • 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.
  • 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). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

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/2019_May_20#Template:template_name.css */

Protected pages: If you are incapable of tagging a page due to protection, please either leave a note on the page's talk page under a {{edit protected}} header, or leave a note at the Administrators' noticeboard, requesting tagging of the page.

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 WikiProjects

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

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

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

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

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

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.

Contents

Current discussionsEdit

May 20Edit

Template:НаселениеEdit

After unraveling the excessively complicated code, this is nothing more than a template that is used to store data, and each piece of data it stores is used on one or zero pages. * Pppery * survives 23:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  • The Russian equivalent of the template (ru:Шаблон:Население) is used on over 74,000 pages, so I'd assume having an English equivalent at least helps when translating articles from there. – Uanfala (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Dorothy DavenportEdit

Includes no links - violates WP:EXISTING. DannyS712 (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Links have been added by the creator, however, there is still many unlinked (and redlinked) items in the navbox. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
If I might ask - how may links do you need to justify an actor/actress/director's template? As more silent films are added to wikipedia, more links will be created for this very famous silent film actress. This template provides an instant access to this actress's body of work in several areas. I'm just curious, of all the actor/actress/director templates in wikipedia - why was this one singled out?

Thanks Mtjannetta (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:2016 NCAA Division I baseball independents standingsEdit

Unused standings template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It is used now.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Chronology of military events in the American Civil WarEdit

unused MASSIVE navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: First of all, this template is within the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Then, it is an extension at a chronological level of this template: Template:American Civil War wich it is linked: see navbox "Combatants Theaters Campaigns Battles States" in "Template:American Civil War". Furthermore, the number of its navbox is lower than that of "Template:American Civil War". It was more useful (for Wikipedia Community) "alive" than "dead": can, where appropriate, also be modified rather than deleted! Finally, this template is cleary designated to help the users to navigate in the American Civil War "in the timeframe" related to: "Campaigns", "Battles" plus one general "Appendix" >>> No valid reason for deletion: improve (it is possible) do not destroy! User talk:FDRMRZUSA (26 March 2019; 15,45 UTC+1).
  • Keep. The template is not unused but used subordinate to another template. However I agree that this is not optimal and could need some thoughts and work; e.g. usage on its own and the Appendix section being either deleted or replaced with a link to the aforementioned superior template. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – As GELongstreet says, it's not unused, it's linked through Template:American Civil War on 600 or so pages. But I agree it could use some rework, with the appendix surgically removed. Mojoworker (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Since someone undid my change which nested this template in Template:American Civil War, saying it should be merged, I concur and support merging this template into Template:American Civil War (which may be the best long term solution), with keep as second choice. Mojoworker (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The template is linked to repeatedly, but still has no transclusions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's not linked from those articles directly, but through another template (Template:American Civil War). And while it shouldn't be linked in that way, it should instead be transcluded as a nested template, but kept nonetheless. It's not really a candidate to be converted to an article, as it really is a template. Mojoworker (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD and made the transclusion. Mojoworker (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
While I was gone on vacation someone undid my change, saying it should be merged instead of nested, so I'm switching to merge (see above). Mojoworker (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • convert to an article or delete if there is already an article. links from navboxes should generally point to articles, not to content hidden in other navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The argument that this template "is useful" is somewhat evenly matched by the long-standing belief that templates holding what is essentially article-space content (whether in navbox form or directly storing article text) should not be linked to directly. Given that this template was viewed less than 10 times a day before this TFD nomination the "is useful" argument is somewhat weakened. At this point it's a tossup between deleting outright and converting into some sort of article (which can then still be linked from {{American Civil War}}); I would like to see more opinions on which way this should go before a final decision is reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

May 19Edit

Template:Form factorsEdit

Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 00:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Super OverEdit

Template includes ball-by-ball detail which is excessive and no reliable source is providing for verification. SocietyBox (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Added the module, which should clearly suffer the same fate as the template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an overly esoteric way of essentially saying X team won in extra time. As the nom says, it fails WP:V. All the cricket scorecards will show that a team beat another team in the super over, and that's all we need to add to matches on WP when that applies. Adding the whole template for a single over for one match is a hugh distraction to the rest of the fixture. If someone wants a more detailed breakdown of what happened, ball by ball, they can find it elsewhere. There's no need to replicate it on WP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this is just WP:FANCRUFT, no need for such a detailed template on an over of cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see some very slight value in keeping it, but only for matches where there is detailed coverage of the match on the article page (including a full scorecard), which would typically only be tournament finals. Using alongside a standard {{Single-innings cricket match}} is completely disproportionate: the Super Over template is 10 lines long, a basic usage of the match template is 5 lines long. Spike 'em (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This is similar to penalties in football. However, I agree that it need not be that detailed. 117.198.112.144 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep , it's shows a special innings (Super Over) in T20 cricket. For a whole match we update the singl innings template, just like that super over is also should be shown. Nivas88 (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Keep, How can you are not getting source about Super over for the inngings. Super over Scorecard is available in the original link of that match. It's so funny Lol...
If super over template will delete then add another single innings template to show super over details... 2405:204:610F:AC6A:97F9:E182:439A:E12F (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is way too much detail and would be better served by a sentence of prose added as a note, if necessary, to the template dealing with the match scorecard. Even that is essentially a MIRROR of something that would be even better served by an external link to one of the many places that cricket scorecards are kept online. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessarily long and verbose. Also, what's the point of having a bowler column and putting the same name 6 times? sudhanva (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, overly detailed and rarely properly sourced. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - To address comments that this is too detailed, I propose that the "Bowler" column be dropped, since the entire is bowled by a single nominated bowler. Also, the "Batsman" column should be called "Batter" so that it can also be used for women's matches. MadScientist (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified WP:CRICKET.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject International lawEdit

This template is no longer in use. According to WP:Wikiproject International law, it is no longer to be used. I have replaced all remaining instances of it with the International relations box. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:FailedGA/SmallEdit

Unused, except for one use in an archive here. Unnecessary because {{FailedGA}} has a |small= parameter. eπi (talk | contribs) 13:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Genome headerEdit

No longer used, probably not that much use from the beginning Artoria2e5 🌉 01:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Table headers are by their nature, wont to change, and standardizing templates can be tricky as a result. Unused table header templates are certainly unnecessary. eπi (talk | contribs) 11:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Just as an additional note, this edit is where the header was originally added, and Artoria2e5 changed the table format in this edit. eπi (talk | contribs) 21:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

GA quick-fail user talk messagesEdit

Propose merging Template:QF-NPOV, Template:QF-source, Template:QF-tags, Template:QF-unfolding and Template:QF-unstable with Template:QF.
I've just created {{QF}} to merge the functionality of all these templates. It takes no more typing to put the rationale into a parameter (|) instead of a hyphen (-) after the template. Since the templates are subst-only, no transclusion cleanup is required, so these can be cleanly deleted. eπi (talk | contribs) 00:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 18Edit

Template:Small/styles.cssEdit

Not used (implementation reverted by author, see Special:Diff/859227814) DannyS712 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:2014 Swedish football Division 1 Norra tableEdit

unused after being merged (with attribution) with the parent article per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:ChiropteraEdit

Content is unverifiable, contradictory to the articles it appears at, and at best, redundant. cygnis insignis 08:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox South Korean neighborhoodEdit

Replace and delete

South Korea dong-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. 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".

Counties, provinces, and several entities of other types already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly.

Visualisation of South Korea place infobox usage
 
Infobox usage on articles about places in South Korea

Most settlements of Asia and Latin America and all of continental Africa use only the standard infobox.

  • green : Infobox settlement (only)
  • turquoise: 1 Infobox settlement wrapper having less than 10000 transclusions (light 0-99, medium 100-999, dark 1000-9999 transclusions) and optionally Infobox settlement
  • blue : >1 Infobox settlement wrapper and optionally Infobox settlement (light: 1 wrapper [>10000 transclusions], medium : 2 wrappers, dark : 3+ wrappers)
  • red : other infobox(es) (light: 1, medium : 2, dark : >2 infoboxes) and optionally Infobox settlement and wrappers

Data source: Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Geography and place#Place

77.11.217.119 (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment on type and replacement procedure: The transclusions are restricted to the type "dong". The wrapper could state in the code "type= dong". Also, "pushpin_map = South Korea" could be hardcoded. Then the dongs could go through replacement / subst:itution. 89.12.170.179 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

May 17Edit

Template:Nenhum de NósEdit

This band's navigational template consists of one valid link: the band's article. The template has a lot of redlinks, two albums redirected back to the band's article for being non-notable and a related band article that does not include this template. This navigational template navigates nowhere, is unnecessary and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

May 16Edit

Template:DangerousEdit

This template was only relevant when {{High-use}} and {{High-risk}} were two separate templates, but they have been merged in this TfD.

This survived a previous TfD, but the circumstances are different now. eπi (talk | contribs) 21:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

New York and Long Branch Railroad s-line templatesEdit

{{S-line}} templates for the New York and Long Branch Railroad. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/New York and Long Branch Railroad. All transclusions replaced. There are also two dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Missouri Pacific Railroad s-line templatesEdit

{{S-line}} templates for the Missouri Pacific Railroad. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Missouri Pacific Railroad. Sole article-space transclusion replaced. There are also two dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Railroad s-line templatesEdit

S-line data modules

{{S-line}} templates for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Pennsylvania Railroad. All transclusions replaced. There are also 72 dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Trinity Metro s-line templatesEdit

{{S-line}} templates for Trinity Metro, which runs TEXRail. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Trinity Metro. All transclusions replaced. There are also two dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Spoken Wikipedia/TempEdit

Unused template, no edits since 2009. Presumably some sort of test page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:TXSenateSuccession boxEdit

Redundant template. All uses have been replaced (I've just replaced the final 3 hidden in user space) with the standard set of s-bef/s-ttl/s-aft. WP:SBS/T Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Prefecture JapanEdit

Replace and delete

Prefecture-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. 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".

Other entities either use Infobox city Japan or transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly. No reason found, why 49 prefectures shall have their own wrapper.

Visualisation of Japan place infobox usage
 
Infobox usage on articles about places in Japan

78.54.185.74 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

May 15Edit

Template:Contains Akan textEdit

This template was only used on Ghana national football team, but I've removed it there because there were (AFAIK) no Akan special characters on that page. Also, as far as I can find (we don't have a lot of info about the Akan alphabet onwiki), the Akan language only uses Latin characters and some IPA symbols, which are probably well supported on almost all platforms. rchard2scout (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Contains Ashanti textEdit

Same as Contains Akan text. Barely used, and the only special characters that this language uses are the "open o" (`ɔ`) and epsilon (`ɛ`), which are part of IPA and generally well-supported. rchard2scout (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:MoreInfoEdit

Propose merging Template:MoreInfo, Template:Notsure, Template:Investigating and Template:LEG? with Template:Question.
This set of templates all feature a blue question mark inside a blue circle with some text. {{Question}} offers the option to customize the text, as such there really is no reason why there should be a different template for every variation of text anyone can think of, when it can be done with {{Question|label=foo}}. Gonnym (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep We still use all of these templates at SPI (except LEG? and Question). I don't see an issue with keeping shorthand templates, might as well remove {{=}} and use HTML syntax directly. The key differentiator is user experience. --qedk (t c) 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It's just pointless having the same exact template 5 times in this example (there are others of this kind with even more). Just write what you want in the free-form text like any other template is made to work. This system just leads to endless versions. --Gonnym (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Gonnym: How is it pointless? If they're being used with the default text, they're not pointless. It's not more convenient to type more text if you used to have a shorthand. On the large scale, it might simplify the user experience by having less templates to choose from, but it certainly doesn't seem to simplify the experience for the existing users.
      • Drawing from a personal example, I think it's more productive to merge templates that aren't being used with their default text. eπi (talk | contribs) 11:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Gonnym: As an additional note, I'm in favor of template simplification where templates are functionally equivalent or identical in purpose. I just don't think that's the case here. eπi (talk | contribs) 16:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @QEDK: You said We still use all of these templates at SPI, but that is inaccurate. {{moreinfo}} is the only one that has been used at SPI. However, this doesn't appear to affect the rest of your point. eπi (talk | contribs) 16:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still more comments needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. {{moreinfo}} is used frequently at SPI. LEG? seems to be a very specialized template for List of Ediacaran genera. Overall, I don't see any harm in keeping these around – merging them seems to create more work than it saves. Mz7 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep We use {{moreinfo}} at SPI. Agree with Mz7 that this creates a lot of work for mergers and for those who code our SPI page and scripts. Katietalk 14:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, with one caveat {{LEG?}} merits separate discussion as part of a set of 4 similar unused subst-only templates; I'll open a TfD after this one is closed, if no one else beats me to it. For the other four, here's the number of direct transclusions:
  • {{notsure}} and {{investigating}} are rarely used, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're worth deleting. I suppose we could go back and replace all the transclusions with {{question|label=Not sure.}} and {{question|label=Investigating}}, but I don't think template simplification outweighs the costs of disturbing already-completed discussions or denying these options to future users. {{moreinfo}} should clearly remain a separate template. eπi (talk | contribs) 12:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Module:Other uses2Edit

Propose merging Module:Other uses2 with Module:Other uses.
If there really needs to two templates for this, then this module should be handled as another function inside Module:Other uses. Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Module:Other uses2 without merging; unnecessary lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 23#Module:Other uses2. (Trivia: I believe that this may be the first ever module merge that wasn't nominated by me). * Pppery * has returned 18:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete: the functionality of adding the disambiguation suffix is somewhat needless; I'd support deleting {{Template:Other uses2}} entirely, merging its uses to {{other uses}} with manual addition of "(disambiguation)" as necessary. The former saves some effort for power users, but it's otherwise needless maintenance bloat and extra confusion for newbies. If the template is to be kept, then yes, I've got no problem with simply merging the functionality into the other module—its separate nature is just an artifact of piecemeal Lua-fication of the templates. That said, I strongly oppose implementing the template as a wikitext injection to {{other uses}} in the way that Pppery proposed in the earlier TfD, with the same rationale as I mentioned there. As reference, I'm currently the sole author of both modules. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 03:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, all of the options you have suggested are preferable to me to the status quo of having two separate modules. * Pppery * has returned 20:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this needs a bit more input on how a merger/offboarding-of-purpose ought to take place
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Design-EUEdit

Propose merging Template:Design-EU with Template:Intellectual property laws of the European Union.
Overlapping templates. {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}} was just recently merged with {{Trademark-EU}} per this TfD for the same reasons. Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't know much about the topic area, but since the intellectual property rights template has a section for design rights already, having a separate small design rights navbox seems superfluous. I did a spot-check and added the one missing link Hague Agreement from {{Design-EU}} to {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}}. eπi (talk | contribs) 00:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a bit more commentary
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:32TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeedsEdit

Folk of {{32TeamBracket-Compact|seeds=no}} Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment would the two work in the same way?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    UCO2009bluejay, the only difference is that one invoke module while the other do not. But both output and usage is the same Hhkohh (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • replace with {{32TeamBracket|compact=yes|seeds=no and delete. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input is needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace. When it takes basically the same amount of typing to use two templates as one, there's no reason to split the code between two. eπi (talk | contribs) 00:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment See User:Nigej/sandbox which shows that the replacement is not actually identical to the original, just similar. The "score" field is more compact in the replacement and in addition the replacement causes some wrapping issues for me, again being more compact (see Charles Whitcombe/Ernest Riseborough). Nigej (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Nigej: Can you take a screenshot of the wrapping issues you refer to? I don't see any from the sandbox example you gave, but I probably missed them.
    In any case, {{32TeamBracket-Compact|seeds=no}} can probably be revised to remove these differences, but this was good to bring up. eπi (talk | contribs) 12:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Not sure how to upload a screenshot. In any case the issue seems to be that the column is created somewhat narrower than the original and when displayed, my browser decides to split Charles and Whitcombe, so they appear on different lines. Nigej (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Transit visibility tableEdit

All but four of the 28 non-header articles were deleted by AfD in 2016. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 00:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm neutral on this one but you might want to check whatever tool you used to emplace the Deletion Notice as it messed up the link to this discussion. I've fixed it but you might also like to check any other templates you've nominated just in case. —Phil | Talk 14:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Venezuelan municipalityEdit

Replace and delete

Municipality-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. 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".

States, towns, villages etc. already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly. 78.55.48.101 (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox townlandsEdit

Replace and delete

Northern Ireland townland-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. 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".

Counties, towns, villages etc. already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly.

Visualisation of Northern Ireland place infobox usage
 
Infobox usage on articles about places in Northern Ireland

89.12.139.236 (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

May 14Edit

Template:Gregorian chants of the Roman massEdit

Propose merging Template:Gregorian chants of the Roman mass with Template:Mass of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.
While destination template is already quite populated, you could argue that in some techninal topics still offered as an overview, some maximalism tend to occur here on Wikipedia. Though, if insisted upon, some contents in the destination template may perhaps be moved to the more general scope of Template:Sacraments, rites, and liturgies of the Catholic Church, and some calender-related stuff to Template:Liturgical year of the Catholic Church? PPEMES (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't even understand the request. Why would you want to merge chants here, and liturgy there? Apples and pears, it seems, common noun only that they have to do with the Catholic Church. What I'd suggest is getting rid of "Roman" in the titles, - our prime topic for Catholic Church is that one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Having looked closer, I don't understand "Gregorian" in this template title, because Kyrie is chanted many melodies in today's Catholic mass, not only Gregorian, - and perhaps that way - just as part of the mass - a merge might make sense. On the other hand, Kyrie is also part of [[Missa_brevis#Kyrie–Gloria_masses|Lutheran masses}}, it's more general than merely Catholic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments The "Roman" in the titles refers specifically to the Roman Rite, which is the most common form of liturgy in the Catholic Church, but not the only one, and omitting it would render the names of the navboxes inaccurate. That said, I think we can leave out the "of the Latin Church" part as overly wordy and unneeded. As for the second template, it's purpose is to highlight the parts of the mass that have standard Gregorian Chant settings. But those are just the parts of the Mass and already included in the more general template (indeed, I don't think there's any link in the Gregorian Chant template that is not in the Mass template. I don't really think we need both. More than a merge, should just delete the Chant template as a redundant template. oknazevad (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:PapacyEdit

Propose merging Template:Papacy with Template:Holy See.
Not sure myself, but perhaps arguments could be evaluated. There's arguably a significant content overlapping. The thing is, part of what's confined to the Papacy template might as well be included in the Holy See template, and the other way around to some extent. If merged, indeed a section "Papacy" with subsections pretty much (merged) retained from the previously merged Papacy template would probably be needed. Again, not sure, though. PPEMES (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Reach of the European UnionEdit

Propose merging Template:Reach of the European Union with Template:European Union topics.
Might as well keep this in one, collected overvew? PPEMES (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Substantive human rightsEdit

Propose merging Template:Substantive human rights with Template:Human rights.
Might as well keep this in a one glance template? PPEMES (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Culture by religionEdit

Propose merging Template:Culture by religion with Template:Culture.
Might as well incorporate this to keep it in a collected overview? PPEMES (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Periods of the History of EuropeEdit

Propose merging Template:Periods of the History of Europe with Template:History of Europe.
Redundancy. Better keep it simple and collected? PPEMES (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:U.S. space program sidebarEdit

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; deleted as T3 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Redundant copy of Template:United States space program sidebar. -- Beland (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • No need for a discussion, the template was a direct copy of the older template. --Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Province TREdit

Replace and delete

Province-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. 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". TerraCyprus (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Faryl SmithEdit

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 13:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason based on a policy or guideline presented. This did at one time have other links, but they were removed. One of them was removed by Woodensuperman without comment, which is exceedingly bad form generally, but especially as (s)he then went immediately on to nominate this for deletion. Whether this is relevant or not I don't know, but: This navbox links together the articles contained in a featured topic, which is something favoured by the featured topic criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:BuffyverseEdit

Just a collection of all the other navboxes. There is no article where it would be appropriate to place every single one of these navboxes on per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, so this should never be used. --woodensuperman 10:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - it's also placed on the top of talk pages for some reason. Never seen a navbox placed like that. --Gonnym (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Gauri KhanEdit

Not primary creator per WP:FILMNAV --woodensuperman 10:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:C. V. KumarEdit

Not primary creator per WP:FILMNAV --woodensuperman 10:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Dinesh VijanEdit

Only primary creator of one film in the list. See WP:FILMNAV. --woodensuperman 09:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Capitals of provinces of ThailandEdit

There is no such thing as the concept of a province "capital" in Thailand. Originally, this listed the towns/cities the provinces were named after (and which served as the seat of the provincial offices), but as the offices of some provinces have moved location, this has morphed into an WP:OR listing of municipalities in which the offices are located, labelling them as "capitals" where no reliable source does. It's absurd to say Ban Tom is the capital of Phayao Province and Bang Rin of Ranong. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of capitals in Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Paul_012 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep (I've copied and pasted this from the List of Capitals in Thailand AfD) for now, at least procedurally. For instance, searching "Phetchaburi" "capital" brings up a number of sources which cite it as a provincial capital. For instance, [1] lists several regional cities as capitals. The infobox for each province lists a capital as well. If we take the nom at face value, there's going to be a fair bit of cleanup required, but considering there's evidence of provincial "capital"s existing in English, I think this list is valid until otherwise shown. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I haven't researched this yet but just a comment on your last statement. There is no such thing as evidence of provincial "capital"s existing in English - either Thailand has provincial capitals or doesn't. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:DART RR infobox headerEdit

There's a couple issues with this template. For one, orange/yellow text on a white background is hard to read (officially fails WCAG 2.0 AA contrast, but even as a sighted person it's indistinct). Beyond that, the presentation bears no resemblance to actual Dallas Area Rapid Transit station signage. Per the Design Criteria Manual (scroll down to Appendix E, page 307 or so) the station font is some variation of ITC Avant Garde. You can see it in File:DART Parker Road Station 2009-11-25.jpg; black text on a silver-gray background. The default text in {{Infobox station}} is a good deal closer to that presentation than this template. If there's a need for custom styling it can be achieved through the existing {{DART style}}. Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Province SpainEdit

Replace and delete

Province-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. 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".

Regions, municipalities, parishes, towns, villages etc. already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly.

Visualisation of Spain place infobox usage
 
Infobox usage on articles about places in Spain

77.183.15.167 (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete per nom. Simplify editing and maintenance. TerraCyprus (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

May 13Edit

Template:High heelsEdit

Propose merging Template:High heels with Template:Footwear.
Arguably redudant, much of the essential contents are already in destination template. As for the "Brands/firms people", quite some warning of commercial content there, isn't it? I doubt listing this secltion, for whatever criteria, is motivated in such a template. PPEMES (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Parts of a crownEdit

Propose merging Template:Parts of a crown with Template:Types of crowns.
Might as well merge to form a "Crowns" template? PPEMES (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Austrian LandesstraßeEdit

de:Vorlage:Infobox Austrian Landesstraße (or de:vorlage:Infobox Landesstraße Österreich) no longer exists, so this is no longer needed for translation functions. Imzadi 1979  13:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not quite true. All that's happened is that they've split the template into two: one for B roads and one for L roads. If we delete this, we'll lose the code needed to shim both of those. Also please note there is a separate move discussion for this template. My sense is that we should move this in line with that move proposal and tweak the code so it deals at least with the B roads and, ideally, the L roads as well, to avoid having two shims. Bermicourt (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Could you point to the de pages please? I couldn't find them. --Gonnym (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Sorry, yes. There are two templates, but not with the names I mentioned above. For major roads (motorways, dual carriageways, state highways) there is de:Vorlage:Infobox hochrangige Straße and for urban roads there is de:Vorlage:Infobox Straße. These are the equivalent of Template:Infobox road. The two templates I referred to above for B and L roads are for a different purpose. Bermicourt (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox District SlovakiaEdit

Replace and delete

District-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. 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".

Regions, towns, villages etc. already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly.

Visualisation of Slovakia place infobox usage
 
Infobox usage on articles about places in Slovakia

78.55.157.228 (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Autostrada-itEdit

it:Template:Infobox Autostrada-it, which this template purports to import, was deleted in 2012, rending this template redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - unless this is used to import something else, this is no longer needed. --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There was a previous TfD in 2010, which resulted in "keep". – Uanfala (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Bill AyersEdit

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 G7. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Only serves to copy contents of Template:Editnotices/Page/Barack Obama, which has been blanked; notice obsolete, since Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation has expired DannyS712 (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2019 (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:Amanita varietyEdit

Only contents are article contents, which should be added directly to articles rather than through a template per WP:TG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge - Agree this should be moved to an article. I imagine this was intended to be in all the articles for varieties of Amanita muscaria, which seems to be about three that are not redirects. It probably would be best added to the species article. --Nessie (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

GRTC s-line templatesEdit

{{S-line}} templates for the Greater Richmond Transit Company, mostly GRTC Pulse. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/GRTC. All transclusions replaced. There are also two dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


Old discussionsEdit

May 10

Template:Topic series doc

Propose discussing Template:Topic series doc.
So, this is probably a weird nomination (since I just created this template only a few minutes ago)...

People might right remember the discussions that happened on sidebars. You know those "[Person's name] series" templates? Well, I looked at the documentation on a few after creating {{Tom DeLay series}}. I learned a bunch of them had copy/pasted docs, and I figured I should possibly do something about that.

Basically, I am looking to replace a bunch of /doc subpages with this template. I have currently implemented this template at {{Tom DeLay series}}, {{Xi Jinping sidebar}}, and {{Gary Johnson series}} for the purposes of this TfD.

Is this template redundant to the doc subpages, and should it be deleted? –MJLTalk 05:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC) CE 00:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Bossier City, Louisiana Mayors

Several of the pages have already been deleted at AFD. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  • delete if the articles are deleted, and keep if the articles are kept. Frietjes (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Bossier's not large enough for mayors to be presumptively notable. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Revised Minden, Louisiana Mayors

Same reason as the Pineville navbox: most of the articles listed have been deleted at AFD. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  • delete if the articles are deleted, and keep if the articles are kept. Frietjes (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete most corresponding articles have been deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 9

Template:Away goals

This template reproduces a simple wikilink that would be better off written in wikicode than having to call a template every time. This is not what templates are for. Every instance of this template should be subst'ed and then the template should be deleted. – PeeJay 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 09:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. A category should be added to the template to track matches where it was applied. It's more consistent to use the template and its redirects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Why add a category when you can just check the "What links here" page? – PeeJay 22:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per Walter. The templates are better for consistency. Bmf 051 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • In what way? If people want to write something different than what the template displays, they can do so by simply not using the template. It is utterly pointless. – PeeJay 22:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete This has no reason to be in a template as opposed to standard wikitext. * Pppery * survives 00:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 8

Template:Tram in Algeria

Propose merging Template:Tram in Algeria and Template:Urban public transport in Egypt with Template:Rapid transit in Africa.
These templates have the same scope as {{Rapid transit in Africa}} and should be merged into this one, as was done at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 19#Template:Urban public transport in Algeria. Gonnym (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:1500sProtestantwomen

More suitable to categorise this as Category:16th-century Protestant women. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep--I made this template for women who were a factor in the Reformation, either theological or political. You can't call them all "Reformers" because that would be only the theologians and would also exclude the ones whose role included influencing which type of Protestant church there would be. I went through the plausible 16th century women by nationality categories as well as the list on Women as theological figures to find possibilities. I did not include ones that were women who just happened to be Protestant because it was common in their area. The title of the template is now 16th century Protestant women in the Reformation and I have added four subcategories--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Just a seemingly random set of women from the 16th century. Either there should be article about whatever links them or, failing that, a category for them will suffice. Nigej (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - it seems that people are using this template. I put it up in the end of February, see page views for March. Both of these are former nuns with low name recognition. Possibly this is due to other wikilinking changes, but I think this template is the most significant one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, only make more apparent these are not just women practicing Protestantism, but significant to its practice. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, better to navigate by categories which are automatically populated. Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Steelers1946DraftPicks

Unused navbox with no navigational links Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unused and not a navbox that should be.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the navbox is not unused but is only listed on 2-3 pages at this time, at the time it fails for the amount of links.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Navbox is now fully used. As far as this entire class of navboxes as a concept, a broader discussion would have to take place at WT:NFL before we should be taking any action there. Additionally, any WP:ACCESS concerns that may exist here actually involve a different template, not this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ejgreen77: I opposed the rest of these TfDs but on this one (at the moment) he has a point as only 3 pages are linked to this one, I thought 5 was the minimum.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seconding Ejgreen77 with the fact that further discussion should take place at WT:NFL, for there are a large amount of templates of this style and category that will need to be taken into account if we delete a small portion of the templates but not all of the templates. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, over-navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the template's now doing what it's designed to do, and deleting one item out of a series is only good if there's a particular problem with that one item. Please renominate all of them if you disagree with the idea of having a navbox of this sort. Nyttend (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Rand Paul series

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Rand Paul and {{Rand Paul}}. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - duplicate of {{Rand Paul}}. --Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Further, as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. As for "NOTDUPE", actually read what it says. I wasn't against having a navigation template, just not a side bar. These navigation templates aren't different than any other bottom navbox and should be placed there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x10) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x11) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This one specifically. links to only 5 articles, plus one sub-section. All are easily and logically found on the original Rand Paul page, which also has {{Rand Paul}} Hydromania (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. As per TheSubmarine, this sidebar is beneficial to navigation. Although a separate Rand Paul category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE. I will change my comment to Keep if we can WP:IMPROVEIT. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, subset of navigation found in {{Rand Paul}}, which doesn't crowd the content the way that these sidebar templates do. Frietjes (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ælfgifu theories

Unused chart template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete This template just presents one possible answer to a web of hypothetical relationships for which there is no scholarly consensus, with as many different versions as scholars who have published on it. I suspect this chart was prepared by someone who was entirely unaware of the century of medievalists who have produced alternative reconstructions of the same set of vague relational statements and possible associations. It is inherently POV, and there is no way to fix it - one can't present in a single chart the different mutually-exclusive permutations, nor would having the numerous charts necessary to summarize all the alternative solutions workable. When it comes down to it, this template can't help but produce more smoke than light. Agricolae (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Now linked again from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, as it was until November 2018 when User:Agricolae removed the svg of the chart and the link to the template it was based on. The section discussing these theories is well-referenced and notes that they are only tentative and not conclusive. They are not just some individual editor's flight of fancy. It is notable that Agricolae did not remove the text. Why then remove the diagram, which merely illustrates what is written in the text and makes it easier to follow? I have therefore restored the diagram to the text, and the link to this template which provides clickable links, and from which the svg diagram was created. Jheald (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The template was also similarly linked from Æthelstan Half-King, which Agricolae also removed (diff). I haven't yet restored the revision there, but it seems to me it would be similarly useful to illustrate Æthelstan's direct family, and it did state that the possible connections to the Anglo-Saxon royal family should be regarded as tentative. That seems to me an appropriate presentation, so I would be fully minded to restore it there too. Jheald (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I removed it, because it gives a misleading simplistic representation of what is a very complex issue, even with a caveat (that we both know will be ignored) about it being tentative. Agricolae (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Agricolae: And you also removed it from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, where it directly corresponds to what is written in the text there? Jheald (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I removed it. I thought I would have made this clear by saying in my previous response that "I removed it".
We do no favors by making a pretty chart template that hides the tenuous nature of these guesses (and completely ignores alternative reconstructions), a chart that can (and no doubt will) then be placed on other pages that lack even the context of the problematic discussion found on the Ælfgifu page. That one could select different sources and end up with a different chart with different relationships (e.g. with Æthelfrith the son of Æthelhelm and father-in-law of Æthelgifu via marriage to Eadric, thereby turning almost all the blue people green, or perhaps aqua) just demonstrates we shouldn't be memorializing any single set of hyper-speculative guesses in this way. Agricolae (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The chart has faults but I do not agree that it is worse than useless and should be deleted. It does show the two alternative lines which are discussed by modern historians and in the article and will help the reader. The fact that other versions, which are not mentioned in the article, have been discussed by scholars is not a reason to delete the chart. The main fault with the chart is that it is not referenced. It is not satisfactory to rely on referencing in the article on Ælgifu, which in any case is very unsatisfactory. Also the article does not cover all the (possible) relationships shown in the table. The descent from Æthelred I is supported by Yorke and Wormald, but not that the line went through through Æthelhelm, which is claimed by genealogists and rejected by historians. It should be removed. The alternative of descent from Ealhswith's parents is supported by Stafford but only discussed in detail by Hart so far as I am aware. I am not familiar with the details of this theory and they need to be fully referenced to Hart. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I would not object as much to this chart were it to be restricted to the Ælfgifu page where the details are discussed, but were that the case it could just be a chart and wouldn't need to be a template. The whole purpose of making it a template is to propagate it to pages where it is not discussed, where it will appear undocumented as if it were established genealogy and the existence of alternatives will not appear. Fundamentally, though, the whole thing is so speculative that it should only be mentioned in overview, not attempting a generation-by-generation ancestry. Agricolae (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Agricolae's analysis. I'm not qualified to assess the details of that analysis but I trust it particularly since the events occurred over a thousand years ago. Given that the template is unused and that it probably presents a misleading picture, it should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The template is not transcluded, but it is not unused -- it is linked to in multiple places where the SVG version is shown -- on the Ælfgifu page, on the Ælfgifu talkpage, and on the description page of the SVG itself. The advantage of the SVG is that it can be thumbnailed. But the advantage of the template is that it contains active links which the SVG does not; it is also the raw material from which the SVG was created, and from which any modified version (presumably) would need to be created. Jheald (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
And the disadvantage is that it allows the such widespread distribution of material that fails to meet some of the most basic standards of Wikipedia - the argument that it is helpful on the original page to show this one scholar's pet theory as described in the text is completely invalidated when the same context-free chart is then transcluded onto other pages that lack any description or relevant context whatsoever about the level of guesswork involved. It is engineered to propagate a POV. Agricolae (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The chart was unused at the time of nomination as it had been deleted from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, but it is specifically intended to show the two lines of descent discussed in that article and in my view does help to explain them to readers, subject to the improvements I suggested above. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete if not used in article - a template is not an article. It should not be linked to from the article namespace, but should be transcluded. If it fails in this task, then there is no reason for it to be kept. --Gonnym (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • delete unless someone wants to turn it into an article with proper sourcing. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Red Rose Speedway

Only 3 songs from the actual album have articles while everything else with links is redundant to {{Wings}}. With the number of non-linked items as well (the entirety of side two and most of the outtakes, the article for Red Rose Speedway provides better info on those groups, and none of which aids in navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Note: Nom was inadvertently removed the day after it was listed and has not been able to receive proper discussion. Could this be relisted? Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

May 6

Template:Aramean political parties

Propose merging Template:Aramean political parties with Template:Assyrian people footer.
Might as well be merged? PPEMES (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties

Propose merging Template:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties with Template:Assyrian people footer.
Might as well be merged? PPEMES (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd support that as second best. PPEMES (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I support MJL's proposal. What name did you have in mind? Currently it's Template:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties. Charles Essie (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Not sure, but since terminology has been rather an issue in this topic, perhaps it should remain "Template:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties"? PPEMES (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@PPEMES: Wasn't your original proposal to just call it {{Assyrian people footer}}? Also, per our article on Assyrian people, Assyrian people (Syriac: ܐܫܘܪܝܐ‎), or Syriacs (see terms for Syriac Christians), are an ethnic group indigenous to Western Asia. Some of them self-identify as Arameans, or as Chaldeans. Speakers of modern Aramaic and as well as the primary languages in their countries of residence, modern Assyrians are Syriac Christians who claim descent from Assyria, one of the oldest civilizations in the world, dating back to 2500 BC in ancient Mesopotamia. (citations omitted). I am aware of the intricacies of the dispute, but at the end of the day it really should just match the main article. We're not renaming any of the organisations, so we should be okay if you ask me. –MJLTalk 12:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, OK, I wouldn't contend as long as it doesn't mean an obstacle to realising the merge. PPEMES (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Module:ParseVauthors

Obsolete now that Module:Citation/CS1 natively supports a |vauthors= parameter. * Pppery * has returned 19:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A few more comments would be nice; also, just to clarify, the talkpage transclusions are inconsequential?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect to template:vcite journal. If deleted, pppery's plan can be implemented, selectively, so that discussions about this template don't point to the wrong thing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

April 19

Template:SunClock

This template has multiple inaccuracies. I think it should be deleted because there are other places like this one that show the same thing. Mstrojny (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't see any inaccuracies, the SunClock template has benefits above other versions because it not only shows the sun's position relative to time of day but also takes into account season, climate, distance from equator, and daylight savings effects. Plus, the example you link is offline and is relatively non-secure (according to check performed with my browser), not something we can or want to use. Kingsif (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: The template has the following inaccuracies. The times in Mexico, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Spain are all wrong. Are you saying the template can be improved upon rather than deleting it? Interstellarity (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you could easily improve it. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It's hard to figure out the rationale for the countries chosen. It seems to be very heavily weighted to Latin America, with some time zones being represented by a number of different Latin American countries. Then for some reason Nigeria, Iran, Spain, and Russia (note that Russia actually covers 11 time zones). Maybe rename to "Latin America Sun Clock" and remove the outliers? --Trovatore (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Modify: instead of showing countries, do show important cities. For instance: New York, São Paulo, London, Paris, Moscow, etc. --Fadesga (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana character map

I don't think character maps like this should even exist. The reason of connecting the different remakes of the same film should be solved by a navbox. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete is reasonable here, but I'd like to see the navbox first I think. --Izno (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: This template has a table which connects the actors who played the same characters different remakes. This could be useful for a film researcher or enthusiast who wants to understand the casting pattern in different film industries. --Anoopkn (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    That can be gotten by the researcher researching as appropriate, and we certainly don't need this template for the sole purpose of convenience in a hypothetical use case. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Manichitrathazhu character map

If one intends to connect the various remakes of the same film, creating a character map is not the solution. Rather, one could consider creating a navbox. This film already has that. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A delete here is reasonable. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: This template has a table which connects the actors who played the same characters different remakes. This could be useful for a film researcher or enthusiast who wants to understand the casting pattern in different film industries.Anoopkn (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    That can also be gotten by a researcher researching as appropriate, and doesn't need a dedicated convenience template for a hypothetical use case. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:La Serena squad

unused navbox with numerous WP:REDLINKS Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and update to match Deportes La Serena#Current squad, and rename as {{Deportes La Serena squad}}. GiantSnowman 08:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if it were updated to match the article, we would be storing article content in an unused template. That doesn't make sense. The only reason to keep this is if it were going to be used in multiple articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: once it is updated we would then add it to the relevant articles, so it's no longer unused. Squad navboxes are common and established (see eg Category:Association football squad navigational boxes by country). GiantSnowman 15:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Liloa/Piilani/Moana Family Tree

Unused navbox with mostly plainlinks (WP:EXISTING) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep No plainlinks are used. These are explanatory notes/references. The family tree has sources so I have connected it to the intended page so that it is no longer orphaned. There are several other articles this is also intended for. Will fully reference the tree similar to the recently started Template:Kalaniʻōpuʻu, Kamehameha, Kānekapōlei and Peleuli family tree.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have a hard time understanding why this chart is inside a navbox and has a reference section (not a note section, as the head suggests). If this is to be kept, it should be changed to use normal tree chart syntax and not be a hybrid. Just to be clear - If this is the style that is to be kept, then I'm in the opinion that this should be deleted as it violates correct MoS sections, accessibility of font size and misuse of navbox that does not show up on mobile. --Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No longer unused
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Salem–Vriddhachalam–Cuddalore Port line

Unused rail route map. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Useddenim: Do you remember if this was used anywhere? Most of the diagram seems to be duplicated by {{Salem–Virudhachalam line}}, which is in use, but I don't think there's a route diagram for the rest of the line. It's not clear to me if the two apparently discontinuous segments are actually one line. Jc86035 (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@GoldenDragon2293Return and Chandan Guha: can you answer this question? Useddenim (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Balablitz: I was not associated with these templates. Balablitz may be able to say, if it was used or not. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim, Chandan Guha, and Jc86035: My apologies for the delay in reply. I just had a look at various pages of Southern Railway. It seems that part of the line i.e Salem-Vriddhachalam section is already covered under the Template:Salem–Virudhachalam line template used in Salem Junction railway station page and the part from Vriddhachalam-Cuddalore Port Jn is covered under Chennai Egmore–Thanjavur main line template. We can either create a new page and link this template to it and in pages where it exist, we remove the stations and just add a connecting arrow (What is the usual Wiki convention here ? Do we create separate pages for terminus to terminus connections ?) or we can discard the template. I prefer the first way here as it reduces the size of the template and makes it a bit neat. Also a point to note is that there is a new line planned in between the Salem-Vriddhachalam part. I am planning to work on the Southern Railways after I have finished work under the Eastern & NE Railways. Please let me know what is your decision in this regards. ---- GoldenDragon2293Return
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Basketball in Israel

Unused and overly-broad navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - No idea why it would not be utilized but it seems to be a useful nav tool to me. I suggest keeping and populating the pages with it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge- Seems to be doing the same or very similar function as {{Israeli Basketball Super League}} does. No point in having both on the same set of articles. --Gonnym (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 00:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see articles here that are not included in and would not belong with the Super League template. Rlendog (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I've taken the liberty to fill in the missing links, so you'll see that {{Basketball in Israel}} already has all the sections for the links of {{Israeli Basketball Super League}}. It already had "teams", "seasons", "final four/finals" and "awards", so currently it already has the entire scope of the other template. What it didn't have, was a full set of links (some seasons missing, some awards missing), updated article names and a better order so sub-sections are actually placed near the parent topic. --Gonnym (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still has no transclusions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

April 17

Template:Viking Invasion of England

Propose merging Template:Viking Invasion of England with Template:Scandinavian England.
Seems like much overlapping scope. Might as well merge? PPEMES (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment There is a bit of a cultural difference at the high level here, with one template suggesting That parts of England were once called "Scandinavian England" and is, or was, a place. "Viking Invasion" is "limited", in name, anyway, to an event (series of events). If I had to go with one name it would be the latter. I like the "Viking Invasion" structure a little better. I wonder if "Scandinavian England" might be split, with most merged into "Viking Invasion," the other maybe more cultural to "Danelaw England." Student7 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Template:Scandinavian England has been renamed to Template:Norse activity in the British Isles. PPEMES (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

April 16

Module:Join

Propose merging Module:Join with Module:String.
Consolidate string-related Lua functions under Module:String. * Pppery * has returned 20:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge: Module:Join has a single author who is an admin, so merging into the cascade-protected Module:String shouldn't cause any problems for maintenance. Note that the module has 497 transclusions, possibly all through Template:College color list, but all of them will need to be checked and the relevant template(s) updated to use the new Module:String functions before Module:Join can be retired. --RexxS (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Module:Kill markers

Propose merging Module:Kill markers with Module:Unstrip.
Given that all three of these functions are located in the same mw.text library in the backend, they should be in the same module instead of split out into two. * Pppery * has returned 20:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • merge, seems reasonable. if I recall, the unstrip module was created to solve a problem with references no being parsed correctly in templates like {{wide image}}, {{panorama}}, etc. but, I seem to remember that the problem was "fixed" in the mediawiki software. so, it's possible we could just remove/delete the unstrip module. some testing would be helpful to determine if that module is still needed. Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. Also merge Module:Plain text? New more generic name Module:Strip? -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: overview of related modules etc.:
Module:Kill markers: does mw.text.killMarkers; ({{KillMarkers}})
Module:Unstrip: does mw.text.unstrip, mw.text.unstripNoWiki; Template:Unstrip(edit talk links history), Template:UnstripNoWiki(edit talk links history)
Module:Plain text: does mw.text.killMarkers and Lua patterns on wikitext; Template:Plain text(edit talk links history)
I propose we merge all these into one module, similar to Module:String. That is: all strip-related functions together. For the editor (=module & template user) the difference between straight "mw.text" function and "wikitext patttern handling" is not that relevant. To consider: move all into new module name Module:Strip (name nicely covers functions not techniques), use same parameter names throughout (not |text=, |s=, |1= apart); of course old parameter names should be kept. That is: one parameter set is available in all.
Maybe more strip-functions could be added, like mw.text.trim, mw.text.truncate, {{Delink}}, (more).
P.S. How to get this in the proposal formally? -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I like this proposal. --Gonnym (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Module:Cycling race

Deprecated templates without mainspace transclusions. * Pppery * has returned 18:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This en:Module:Cycling race is a pass-through of d:Module:Cycling race, a Wikidata (Lua-)module. Deletion proposal is for enwiki only, I understand. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You are correct that I am only planning to delete the module on enwiki. If this passes I will make an edit request to remove the customizations for enwiki from the central module, but will not attempt to delete the central module. * Pppery * has returned 20:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
planning to delete the module please: proposing to delete is language.
Then, pleasde explain which what you want to "remove". Already your proposal was incomplete (since I had to clarify), and now you again confuse us editors. (At least you could clarify which "customisations" are involved; or better reveal your whole hidden plan. That would help the discusison. I am not the only one mistified, clearly. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
By remove the customization ... I mean carrying out this edit to Module:Cycling race on Wikidata (which will then get copied to various wikis as they update their local copies). There is no plan beyond that. I said "make an edit request to ..." because I has erroneously assumed that the module on Wikidata was protected. * Pppery * has returned 21:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Aside from the fact that it is marked as deprecated, the way that the module is coded is atrocious to me: lots of dead code, global variables, a wiki variable that always returns the same thing, duplicate code everywhere, and i18n for other languages. I'm glad that the Cycling community decided to deprecate its use. * Pppery * has returned 19:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    ... and templates with names that technically meet G8. * Pppery * has returned 03:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    "technically meet G8" is bordering wikilawyering. Once the subtemplates are/were useful, G8 does not apply and so G8 does not add an argument here. -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    And it's not the core of my argument anyway. My argument is "deprecated stuff shouldn't be kept around", and then I take an opportunity to complain about the way the module is structured, and one of those complaints is "relies on templates that are subpages of a non-existent page". * Pppery * has returned 20:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Code and modules created by Molarius has been successfully used in ES-Wiki, FR-Wikis and others. Last year "Cycling race" has been improved a lot for some Danish (User:Dipsacus_fullonum) and French (User:Psemdel) programmers and today in my opinion their performance is good. For example, I data filled "list of winners" for all UWT, WWT, x.HC, and x.1 races due before the improvement if you wanted show those, they caused errors and now they are implemented in ES-Wiki, FR-Wiki, DA-Wiki and some at RU-wiki, AST-wiki and PT-wiki. Also you can see all races and its classifications are build using module "Cycling race" in wikies like ES or FR. About EN-wiki, it uses a different format for Winners (just winner and their team) but this format can be implemented in the main module (even with same color used at EN-Wiki). Some time ago I tried to update some lines for improve experience in EN-Wiki (creating a conversion from Km to Miles), may be it could be "atrocious" but if you program LUA-code you can join to the project ([:d:Module:Cycling race]) and collaborate to improve code (after that you have to copy the latest code and replace it at Module:Cycling race) and make it more attractive for EN-wiki because they have lot of benefits like gives uniformity to wikipedia and once one person update one database all wikis are updated.Repf72 (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I see again some users prefer to work in their own side instead working with everybody... keep and work to share datas. At least Repf72 and others take initiatives. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
        • We use it on WP:fr, if WP:en is happy with that (compared to that), it is fine. Psemdel (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @EP111: You added a note that this is deprecated, could you please explain to me what it is replaced with as I'm not quite sure I understand. --Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Gonnym: The templates are mostly deprecated in favour of the original format of wikitables, as mentioned in the links from the deprecation edit summary. As wikitables aren't templated, I saw no need to provide any replacement details in the deprecation notices. A wikidata template, which has a preferred existing template, is the one for the infobox; {{Infobox cycling race report}} provides the necessary functionality for WikiProject Cycling. Please note that the three links, in the deprecation edit summaries, should highlight sufficient reasons to delete the wikidata templates from en.wiki, as the wikidata templates are now not used in the mainspace. EP111 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    There are a few other standard templates, which are used: I've pointed the deprecation notice at Template:Cycling race/teamroster to {{Cycling squad start}}, the notice at Template:Cycling race/listofwinners to {{Cycling past winner start}}, and the notice at Template:Cycling race/listofteams to {{Cyclingteamlist}}, as those templates are commonly used, also. EP111 (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Overview. So this is the situation:
d:Module:Cycling race is a module on Wikidata, with language switch. It had several functions, each for a different table (Cycling race/infobox, Cycling race/listofwinners). Once given a QID for a race etc., it pulls all its data from Wikidata. Local wikis have a local template linking to that Wikidata module: fr:Modèle:Cycling race/infobox; the language is set automatically (using site lang). Examples: fr:Tour de France 2015, es:Tour_de_Francia_2015.
This enwiki uses local templates like Template:Infobox cycling race report(edit talk links history) (list).
This enwiki does not use this module nor its functions (umbrella en:Module:Cycling race & subtables), so it is TfD'ed here. A discussion was here.
Apparently, WP:CYCLING has chosen not to use these Wikidata module tables. -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the previous WikiProject Cycling discussions. The MOS output isn't acceptable. BaldBoris 20:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

April 14

Template:Image hoax

If an image is being used to support a hoax, the article in question should be tagged. I don't see why we need a separate template for files alone. funplussmart (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. You can have an image without an article, negating your sole reason for deletion. MarkZusab (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Primeval creature

Propose merging Template:Infobox Primeval creature with Template:Infobox fictional race.
This template is used for semi-real life (groups of) creatures that appeared in Primeval (TV series) and is only used at List of creatures in Primeval. |number=, |humans_killed= and |returned= should not be kept as they are too in-universe specific. Gonnym (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep both as-is The two infoboxes are considerably different and serve different purposes. Infobox Primeval creature was created specifically as an in-universe infobox for use in only one article where it is used 80 times instead of using 80 hard-coded tables in the article which is impractical. As it stands now the article is 132kB. Replacing the infobox with tables would result in the article needing to be split. The instructions quite clearly explain the purpose and intent saying the infobox is "to create an infobox for any fictional creature from the series' :Primeval and Primeval: New World. It is only intended for use in List of creatures in Primeval where it is used 80 times." It should not be expanded outside the of Primeval universe because of its deliberate in-universe design. It shares no commonality with Infobox fictional race. Almost every field is irrelevant to Primeval. --AussieLegend () 07:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Some of your statements are just false so I need to correct them. The two infoboxes are considerably different and serve different purposes - both infoboxes are for races/species from a fictional setting. where it is used 80 times instead of using 80 hard-coded tables in the article which is impractical no idea where you read that the proposal said to have 80 hard-coded tables, as the proposal was to replace one infobox with another, or are you stretching that argument to say that including |franchise=Primeval is impractical? If that is the case that is completely silly. Replacing the infobox with tables would result in the article needing to be split - see previous point why this is false. It shares no commonality with Infobox fictional race - really? |name=, |image=, |first_x=, |last_x=, |species= (used as |type=). The only parameters not shared, are the 3 this proposal specifically said not to merge as they are rather pointless and very much fancruft, and even in that, it caters to a very limited group, as how many dinosaurs of a specific type appeared in the series or how many people they killed is very trivial and unimportant to the series as a whole. Also, do those figures have any sources? Could there possibly even be one? Obvious answer here. As a side note I'll say that I see no value in having infoboxes set up like this for a list of characters article, where the infoboxes take up more vertical space than the sections themselves and is a hallmark of a badly written list article. --Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
      • You didn't correct anything, just made some incorrect assumptions about a series you probably haven't even seen. One infobox is for fictional races while the other is for creatures. Creatures, more specifically dinosaurs, are not a race. We actually used to have {{Infobox fictional creature}}, this infobox was proposed to be merged with it back in 2014, but that infobox was deleted. Allowing expansion of Infobox fictional race to include creatures would be allowing recreation of a pseudo Infobox fictional creature and it would certainly get used for that. Infobox fictional race doesn't have fields that easily lend themselves to replacing the fields in Infobox Primeval creature so it would be far better to use individual tables. The fields that you mentioned lend themselves to a heap of problems. |name= has already been mentioned. We don't want to turn Infobox fictional race back into infobox fictional creature. The |first_x= and |last_x= fields are too unweildy to use for the two series and multiple books that form Primeval. That's why Infobox Primeval creature has specific fields for the two series and one to mention the related books. It doesn't use separate fields for major and minor works. While part of the same 2-TV series, multi-book franchise, each series and book is a separate, individual work. As it stands now we don't list only when it first appeared in one work and last appeared in another work, we list when it first and last appeared in each TV series and which book that it appeared in because there is little overlap between the individual works. To use Infobox fictional race you would need multiple first_major fields or the entire purpose of the infobox would be changed. The three fields that you are attempting to discard are very much part of the story in Primeval, which is primarily about incursion of dinosaurs into modern times and the effect that their appearances cause. For that reason the number of dinosaurs and how many humans were killed is significant. Also, do those figures have any sources? As you are well aware from having participated in the TV project, episodes are classed as reliable primary sources and like every other TV article on Wikipedia, the information is sourced from the aired episodes, which is why they are mentioned in the infobox. You know that the TV project supports this. Now lets look at the parameters that aren't common: |affiliation=, |alignment=, |base_of_operations=, |based_on=, |capital=, |caption=, |creator=, |currency=, |distinctions=, |franchise=, |home_world=, |iu_creator=, |iu_created_date=, |language=, |leader=, |leaders=, |members=, |name=, |other_names=, |quadrant=, |religion=, |series= and |sub_races=. I haven't included the redundant para_x fields but that's 23 fields. Compare that to Infobox Primeval creature which has 12 in total. The two infoboxes are like chalk and cheese.
      • Going back to an earlier attempt to make a point when you said no idea where you read that the proposal said to have 80 hard-coded tables, as the proposal was to replace one infobox with another (etc), if you actually read what I wrote instead of chopping apart what I said you will see that I said that creating an infobox for the 80 uses in that article was preferable to using individual tables in each section: Infobox Primeval creature was created specifically as an in-universe infobox for use in only one article where it is used 80 times instead of using 80 hard-coded tables in the article which is impractical. I wasn't specifically talking about your proposal as should have been obvious from "Infobox Primeval creature was created". This just happens to be why we make infoboxes in the first place. --AussieLegend () 11:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Wow. So much text. Just to comment quickly - I've seen the show and still think the parameters I discarded are pointless and as you've pointed out, as a member of the TV WP, I know what the discussions are about trivia information and how the community feels about them. Also, I indeed corrected your misdirection. When you comment and say that a table will cause the article to need to be split, it makes it seem as if that was a proposal on the table, which it wasn't. Not everyone reads your mind or knows of previous discussions. Regarding the parameters you think are pointless in the current template, some of them I totally agree with you, however they are all part of former mergers, which you could have voiced your opinion on. Also, stop with the "we" as it can be used both ways. "We" have {{Infobox fictional race}}. "We" have |type= that deals with species of a race. "We" are not against combining "race" and "species" in the same infobox. "We" didn't decide that {{Infobox fictional creature}} is not needed, "we" decided to merge it with {{Infobox character}} which is the correct thing to do when the infobox is about a specific creature and not a group of creatures. --Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
          • If the existing infobox was to be replaced with Infobox fictional race without significant changes meant to cater for a single article, it would be far better to replace the infobox with tables that actually meant something to the series. That would certainly result in a size blowout that I tested back in 2014. If Infobox fictional race were changed so that it catered for creatures it would need to be renamed and then it would be appropriate to either recreate infobox fictional creature as separate from infobox character, or more likely, infobox fictional race/creature for a merge with infobox character. Given that infobox fictional creature could be merged with into infobox character, why not infobox fictional creature/race? Much of what is in that infobox could be regarded as fancruft. --AussieLegend () 12:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Clear merge per proposal in the OP. --Izno (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per Izno. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Merge per someone else" is rarely a convincing argument, especially when there are arguments to keep the infobox that haven't been addressed. At best it demonstrates acomplete lack of understanding as to how and why this infobox is being used as it is. --AussieLegend () 17:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
    • All of your arguments have been addressed. I choose to stop responding as it was leading nowhere as you were just rehashing the same things. --Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
      • No, you haven't addressed all of the concerns, and there are more that haven't been mentioned because you failed to address all of the concerns that had been stated. You just said Wow. So much text and then seemed to give up. --AussieLegend () 19:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
        • ...--Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
          • That's not at all helpful. I'm more than willing to explain all of the problems in detail but if that's going to be your response... You've clearly decided that you are right and are not willing to participate in any discussion. That's not the way to defend your stance, which most definitely demonstrates a total misunderstanding of how Infobox Primeval creature is used and why merging it into an unrelated template is wrong. --AussieLegend () 17:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
            • As I've posted several times now, I perfectly understand how it is used, why it is used as such, and why I don't agree that replacing it with the general infobox is wrong. The reason I've tried to stop this discussion with you, as that I know where this is going, as you've used the same tactic in each of our previous discussions about other issues. It's just pointless. I've presented my points, you've presented yours, let other editors comment and stop trying to derail this by false accusations. --Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
              • No, you clearly don't understand how it's being used in the article. Unfortunately I haven't got time to elaborate now as I've received from devastating news and I have to cut time here short. I'll add something tomorrow. --AussieLegend () 12:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
                • I haven't had the opportunity to put it all together yet and, at this time it seems pointless elaborating at length unless somebody else is going to join the discussion. --AussieLegend () 16:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as-is - While on the surface the two templates seem similar, the use case for the Primeval template is completely different, being used in a list to provide information specifically in the Primeval universe. As for the generic template, that is provides very generic information that would not fit in the use-case provided. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contrib) 18:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

April 13

Template:Non-free architectural work

Propose renaming

Ever since I repurposed this template in 2012, people are still constantly misusing it for architectural works that exist (which should be deleted as invalid fair use) or that used to exist (which may be kept under {{non-free historic image}} if appropriate). The new name would further emphasize the intent of the template. King of ♠ 05:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: I am choosing this venue per WP:IAR. These two need to be bundled together, but there is no way to do it in keeping with standard procedure, which would require the template to go on RM and the category to go on CfD. Since this is the typical place to bring bundled template/category noms, I am bringing it here. -- King of ♠ 16:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: WP:RM could have been used as it is used for template renames and the category would just be a speedy request WP:C2D. --Gonnym (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

April 10

Template:Cr-PSL

As per the ongoing discussions for IPL and BBL templates, clear consensus to delete these meaningless templates Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep unlike IPL and BBL ones these include flags. Human (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Astonishing as no noticed this despite the first BPL tournament being held back in 2012, and all the other followed. Human (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see anything in WP:FLAG that forbids us to use team colors. Many PSL related pages are relied on this template, see 2019 Pakistan Super League#Fixtures as an example. Though, this may go against WP:TOOMANY. This can be solved by reformatting the template, so that we can use lesser flag on the page, where needed. Thanks! M. Billoo 13:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly. It overall makes a mess where the templates are used now that the deletion tag is attached. Even if the template is deleted, reformatting the page will be a very difficult and time consuming job. Human (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
There was a TfD discussion in 2011 which removed the Flags from the IPL version of this template. There wasn't a huge amount of policy discussion, but editors said they were synthesis of new material. I don't see the need to show the team colours in match results and once they are gone, the templates just become an obfuscation of a simple link. Something taking time to fix is not a valid reason not to do it in my mind (though I think it would be better to do the changes before the template is deleted) Spike 'em (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Though the PSL one can be fixed, the BPL and CPL are the ones that are not given importance. There is a WikiProject about BPL but most of the members are inactive. It will be hard for just one editor to fix articles relating to two different cricket leagues. Human (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It just needs a BOTREQ or someone with AWB to do it. There are 36 pages transcluding {{Cr-BPL}} and 10 {{Cr-CPL}}. It will take longer to do the Search / replace terms than to actually run through these. Spike 'em (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, AWB allows a substitute template option and seems to substitute better than doing a {{subst}} via the browser editor, so this is even less of an issue. Only things stopping me doing this now is that it does subst in the TfD warning! Spike 'em (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete These are used as a transport for some WP:OR images which breach MOS:FLAG / MOS:ICON as they are for decorative purposes only. Spike 'em (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
And for the CPL ones, they use a national flag rather than team colours or emblem. These are not teams that represent those countries, they are multi-national teams that happen to be based there. Spike 'em (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - not needed, better served by standard links, the addition of graphics without suitable alt text to a page should always be avoided, the addition of multiple (in some cases, quite possibly, tens or hundreds) of additional templates to a page should be avoided in terms of page load times, particularly when using mobile networks. So many reasons for deleting them as opposed to the reasons for keeping them which seem to be "it's too much work to replace them". As Spike has already suggested, this is a really straightforward bot request to do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The Template:Cr-PSL has been fixed on my request by User:Frietjes, so now no need to delete. Similar to Template:Cr-IPL. Thanks! M. Billoo 16:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that we're using templates when it would be more effective to use plain text links. For example, on the 2019 PSL page the template is used over 100 times. Add that to other templates on the page (flagicon, cite etc...) there appear to be getting on to 400 templates used just on that page - there are tables and so on which cause issues with counting the brackets, but I reckon it's at least 350. From the point of view of load-time overheads, especially when on a mobile network, that's actually quite an issue that could be reduced by simply using regular links. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The result of the TfD for {{Cr-IPL}} was to delete, so saying PSL is more like does not encourage keeping it. Spike 'em (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cast list break

The template was deprecated unilaterally last year, and is used on about 100 articles. Functionally, the template currently just adds <br> to the start of the input, and could easily be replaced through substitution in a few minutes. I would support keeping the template and possibly improving it with TemplateStyles so that it can use <p>...</p> without causing a large gap between lines, but (as suggested by SMcCandlish) I am procedurally nominating it for deletion to assess whether there would be consensus for improving the template instead of replacing the template through substitution. (If the template is kept in its current state then I would support deletion.) Jc86035 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm leaning delete, absent a showing that we need to keep and refine it. I'm not opposed to it being kept if the need can be established and the coding for this gets done. I'm not sure what the use case(s) is/are for such a version, or I might just go do it myself.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: If it's perfectly acceptable to use the plain br tag for the specific purpose then I would probably lean towards deleting as well. On the other hand, in other situations (especially discussions) it would be nice to have a line break which inserts a <p> with less paragraph spacing. Jc86035 (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm, well, this doesn't really seem to be a discussion-page-oriented template, but intended for mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Template:Template for discussion is effecting its usage in articles. Is there a way we solve this while this discussion is taking place?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    Already resolved (someone <noinclude>'ed the TfD tag.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: The template is useful in organizing cast lists and was working fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    @TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, and Brojam: While on a functional level the template make the wikitext slightly more readable by allowing for line breaks in the code, it is also possible to use a generic template like {{break}}, and it's even possible to insert a line break character within a <br> tag (although using the former would probably be better since AWB genfixes and similar tools may perform <br> tag autofixes). Alternatively, a hidden comment could be used. Since the vast majority of film articles don't use this template, there's not much point in keeping it just because the template has this easily replicable functionality. Jc86035 (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    This template is not the same as <br>, that is my whole point. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Adamstom.97: On a functional level, the only thing the template actually adds is the <br> tag, so the only purpose the template really serves is to make wikitext more readable. A replacement will not make the wikitext any less readable, because line breaks can be inserted with other templates which are more widely used. Jc86035 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete if kept in this original form per the discussion at Template talk:Cast list break#Deprecation as using the br tag is better in this situation than this template. --Gonnym (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - this template was introduced after significant discussion because it was the best option for making detailed cast lists more readable. None of the opposition here appears to have addressed this. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: per TriiipleThreat and adamstom97. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, just use <br />. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

April 9

Template:Antique Kings of Italy

Propose merging Template:Antique Kings of Italy with Template:Heads of State of Italy.
Per below. PPEMES (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Basically, oversimplification. See below. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Kings of Italy (1861–1946)

Propose merging Template:Kings of Italy (1861–1946) with Template:Heads of State of Italy.
Not sure. But following the precedent of the merged Template:Heads of state of France as well as Template:Former monarchies Italian peninsula, ought the same thing happen to the 'heads of state' of 'Italy'? PPEMES (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I think this oversimplifies the notion of "Italy". The name is applied—and misapplied—to different states of varying boundaries, societies, languages, etc. The economy of one single template may seem appealing, but I think it's misleading to casual readers. The encyclopedia should help people to see factual nuances more clearly. For the same reason, I don't think the bloated mega-merge of Template:Heads of state of France was decided correctly, and I don't think it's a viable precedent for anything. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism

Propose merging Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism with Template:Germanic pagan practices.
As below. PPEMES (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Death in Germanic mythology

Propose merging Template:Death in Germanic mythology with Template:Germanic pagan practices.
Do you think this one could be merge, for convenience? PPEMES (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Like above, this template functions as a collection of items for a specialized topic. Merging it would contribute to template bloat. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Anglo-Saxon metrical charms

Propose merging Template:Anglo-Saxon metrical charms with Template:Anglo-Saxon paganism.
Might as well keep it collected together? PPEMES (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Many of these poems are explicitly Christian with pagan elements. Merging the template to a template called "Anglo-Saxon paganism" is inappropriate. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I some of these poems are truly Christian, then merging them with the template that is about Anglo-Saxon paganism would not make any sense. Unless someone is able to bring a solid reason and argue that these poems are not Christian, which seems unlikely. Keivan.fTalk 06:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles tree

WP:FANCRUFT. Misuse of navbox. Should probably be reformatted and included once at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters if at all. --woodensuperman 14:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Strong Keep, (??) no reason to get rid of an interesting and informative template like this. I can see putting some templates up for deletion, but not good ones. Thanks. (p.s. WP:FANCRUFT is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy) Randy Kryn (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a proper WP:NAVBOX. There is already a navbox at {{The Vampire Chronicles}} which contains all the characters. This one does not need to be transcluded on every article. If this information is kept it should appear once only (at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters) in a different format. --woodensuperman 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Although {{The Vampire Chronicles}} template lists the 13 individual character articles this one shows many more, as well as giving readers the interesting familial relationships and timeline. Readers (at least me) find it interesting and informative. It improves the encyclopedia, improves the pages it is (and can be) placed on, and is a fine addition to Wikipedia's Vampire Chronicles collection. There is nothing wrong with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is everything wrong with it. It's content masquerading as a navbox. It certainly does not belong along the bottom of multiple pages. If this was a single use template sitting at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters, I'd probably have left it alone, but what the hell is it doing sitting at the bottom of Anne Rice? This needs at the very least converted to a different format, and used sparingly on extremely relevant articles. Something like Aztec emperors family tree, or Noldor#House of Finwë. This is NOT a WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 12:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Anne Rice is linked in the title. The family tree helps the understanding of the linked pages, and provides the readers with a valuable visual aide concept map to the topic. And it improves rather than harms the encyclopedia (which is what all of these discussions are about). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
She may be linked in the title, but this isn't a navbox and the content is tangential to her biography. And cluttering up pages with family trees disguised as navboxes on irrelevant pages does harm the encyclopedia and certainly does not improve the experience for anyone. --woodensuperman 13:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
"for anyone" is incorrect, when I first saw the template it was interesting and informative to my mental-map of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You may find it "interesting", but that doesn't stop it from being in the wrong place. --woodensuperman 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Your link is to another opinion essay. Interesting is a good descriptor of one of the many attributes a good template can have. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The template should not be used as a navbox at the bottom of the page, but there are other family tree templates. There are appropriate uses for them. This is more a question of where it should be used and how the template should be formatted. The template should not be deleted just because of those things. If there are no other uses for it, it could be included just at the page mentioned in the nom, but it could be neater to keep the code as a separate template page. M.Clay1 (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason it is using the navbox markup? If this is changed, then editors might not mistake it for a navbox and use it as such. --woodensuperman 07:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
For whatever reason, family tree templates use navbox markup. I don't think many people would confuse it for a navbox. I've never seen one used as a navbox before. Its use as such seems like a unilateral decision by User:Randy Kryn. I think most editors will agree that it shouldn't be there. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems {{Downton Abbey family tree}} and {{Half-elven family tree}} manage to not use the navbox markup. I would suggest that this method be employed by all family tree templates. --woodensuperman 14:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

April 8

Template:New Testament prophets

Propose merging Template:New Testament prophets with Template:New Testament people.
Might as well keep it all together, could we? PPEMES (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge per WP:TG (Templates that [...] substantially duplicate [...] the same functionality of established templates) - seems the only link missing is Prophets of Christianity, all other links are already in {{New Testament people}}. --Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both. This kind of thing is much better left for categories. --woodensuperman 12:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:History of Assyrian people

Propose merging Template:History of Assyrian people with Template:Assyrian people footer.
I'm afraid this concerns a rather contentious topic, which would be clear to any outsider taking a look into it. Possibly so in multiple dimensions: from ingroups perspectives as well outgroups, scientificially, geo-politically, religiously, and what not. Contents of both templates may be prone to be up for discussions, even recurringly. Keeping it all in one template, could that be a start? PPEMES (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge and use navbox (and later change the name of it) - Sidebar is intrusive and very under used (only 12 out of around 40 links have it). Seeing as how a lot of these articles overlap, it makes sense to merge what links aren't in the navbox. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

April 7

Template:Christian fraternity

Propose merging Template:Christian fraternity with Template:Fraternities and sororities.
Already largely included in destination templates, thus redundant. What is not include better ought to be, so it can all be dealt with in one and the same template Besides "Christian fraternity" for this specific scope is a verbiage that quite arguably fails WP:GLOBAL. PPEMES (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 23:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep but merge the two Christian templates. Why? The purpose of navigation templates is to aid navigation. A person reading about a Christian fraternity or sorority is highly likely to want to read about more Christian fraternities and sororities. The general template for fraternities and sororities is too inspecific and will likely "get in the way" more than aid navigation. What I would like to see is {{Christian fraternity}} merged with {{Christian sorority}} to have {{Christian fraternities and sororities}}. They are both short enough and related enough that they don't need to be separated. This would double the probability that information on them is up-to-date because roughly twice as many eyeballs would view them. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep but merge the two Christian templates. per Jason Quinn. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Christian sorority

Propose merging Template:Christian sorority with Template:Fraternities and sororities.
See above. PPEMES (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 23:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep but merge the two Christian templates. per above. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Copyright-EU

Propose merging Template:Copyright-EU with Template:Intellectual property laws of the European Union.
Overlapping templates. {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}} was just recently merged with {{Trademark-EU}} per this TfD for the same reasons. Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  Comment: Make it so, the navbox with red links clobbers Special:WantedPages with inflated numbers. –84.46.52.219 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

April 5

Template:Hinduism in Africa

Navbox is redundant to just doing {{Africa in topic|Hinduism in}}. Was previously unused and all current transclusions used the above code. I attempted to CSD under T3, but a user replace the code above with this template. No reason for this template to be used at all. In my opinion this still is a WP:T3. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: mistake? Christian75 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(The TfD said template:example (or similar) in the original tfd Christian75 (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC))
  • Zackmann08, I think you might find it that people will be a bit less exasperated if you listened to what they'd said to you before bombarding them with the next deletion notice. Now, as I've explained on my talk page, {{Africa in topic}} is a quick and dirty way to create a variety of navboxes that might be suitable for some circumstances, but it doesn't really wor here. See for example how this template appears on Hinduism in Sierra Leone: you see quite a few redlinks (most of them permanently so: they were formerly blue but got deleted at AfD or RfD), and most of the blue links are actually redirects, usually to broad articles where Hinduism (or the country) are only mentioned in passing. If you want a navbox consisting mostly of redirects and redlinks, then yes, {{Africa in topic}} will do just fine. But if you want a navbox that does what navboxes are expected to do – navigate between articles, then you can't easily avoid having a dedicated template like {{Hinduism in Africa}}. The situation, however, gets complicated by the existence of {{Hinduism by country}}, which I've just noticed now. In a way, this makes {{Hinduism in Africa}} (+ {{Hinduism in Oceania}} and the like) redundant. Its downside is that it is a sidebar. So the question is, do we prefer a sidebar or navboxes at the bottom of the article. Personally, I'd opt for the less intrusive navboxes, but I'd rather leave the issue to others to decide. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Uanfala, way to Wp:AGF... I listened to what you said and I disagreed. Rather than leaving the WP:T3 template on the page, which I could have done as it is a hard-coded instance, I chose to move this to a TFD so that we could discuss the issue. Rather than doing so, you chose to accuse me of ignoring you and bombarding you with notices... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, the replacement gives a lot of red links and a lot of redirect to articles which barely mention the topic if at all. The red links will probably be (re)created. Christian75 (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Mosques in Lebanon

Unused navbox with only 4 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It can be expanded with the dozen or so articles in Category:Mosques in Lebanon. – Uanfala (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Use - I've added the links to the template, which Uanfala refereed to, This seems like a decent scope template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now has more links, but is still unused
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

April 4

Template:List of world's fairs in Nordic countries

Propose merging Template:List of world's fairs in Nordic countries with Template:List of world exhibitions.
Some duplicate entries. Seems like this could be merged? PPEMES (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

How would you merge them? Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
But adding the material that doesn't preexist in the destination. PPEMES (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused (not super used to commenting on discussions) - but why does this exist twice? (I commented in the other entry) Icarusgeek (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
That's the implied question of this request. PPEMES (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: This TFD was listed twice and the template was never properly tagged for discussion. Perhaps this should be fixed and relisted? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:ŠKF Sereď squad

Propose merging Template:ŠKF Sereď squad with Template:ŠKF iClinic Sereď squad.
Duplicate templates. The "ŠKF iClinic Sereď squad" template uses the teams current name. DannyS712 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

April 1

Module:Listify

Only used on several unused templates, redundant to Module:String {{#invoke:Listify|input|x|yyxyxyy}} -> <ul>{{#invoke:String|replace|yyxxyy|x|<li>%1</li>|plain=false}}</ul>. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Not sure Module:String is the correct location. This is not a simple string, but rather a list, so maybe Module:List can work with this better. --Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not suggesting a merge, I'm suggesting a deletion because the functionality in this module can already be implemented using Module:String. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not sure I agree. If instead of using the module directly, an editor now needs to surround it with a ul tag and then also add the logic for replace, that isn't helpful at all. If this is used, then the better solution would be to add this option to Module:List. --Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't remember why I created this module. I tend to agree with Gonnym that the "string" module isn't really the most obvious name. Shrug. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • replace and delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

March 30

Template:GNF Protein box

Propose merging Template:GNF Protein box with Template:Infobox gene.
This template has been marked as deprecated and replaced by {{Infobox gene}} (which is used for proteins also) since august 2018 and has only 11 article transclusions left (and around 70 non-article ones). Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:TFD#REASONS. Few transclusions != no transclusions. VQuakr (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • So you're just saying "I cant be bothered to find a reason so read that section and pick something"? Because if that is the case, then #2 The template is redundant to a better-designed template is exactly my point. --Gonnym (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The template should be kept for historical reasons (it is transcluded in several talk page discussions). Boghog (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst & delete No reason at all to keep this template. Its use on talk pages should have been substituted from the beginning. There is no reason to have a centralized template to update all these. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst & delete Per Zackmann08. Article ones should be replaced with Wikidata entries. --Artoria2e5 🌉 04:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and redirect/merge per be all above rationales for deleting. The only reason I am saying redirect over delete is that the page history must be preserved for attribution if the template is merged. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 02:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete the protein box. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge, orphan, and redirect. I agree that forcible end-of-use is good here, but I don't quite get the point of deleting old templates, since deletion breaks old revisions. Just convert it into a redirect after orphaning; there won't be any maintenance needed unless someone recreates it, and the only maintenance needed then will be reversion and perhaps protection. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • That argument could used for 100% of the articles being deleted, yet it isn't used and they all get deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Morphar per User talk:Nyttend, and because it salts the namespace in a user friendly way. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:59, 13 May 2019 (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.

Closing discussionsEdit

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

To reviewEdit

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

To mergeEdit

Templates to be merged into another template.

ArtsEdit

Geography, politics and governanceEdit

ReligionEdit

SportsEdit

TransportEdit

  • None currently

OtherEdit

I made the changes to Template:Infobox software in its sandbox and submitted an edit request here. --Abgnac (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

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 (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

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. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently

Archive and IndicesEdit