Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Closing instructions

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_January_21#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at Tfd. Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

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

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

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

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

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

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

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

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editorsEdit

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that an template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets, such as "T3" for hardcoded instances.

Notifying related 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. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also 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

January 21Edit


January 20Edit

Template:Olivia HoltEdit

Unnecessary navigation box as there are not enough notable works by its subject, Olivia Holt. Typically, a navbox should link 5 or more related subjects together. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete – I can't remember the specific guideline, but navboxes that have less than 4 entries are generally considered appropriate for deletion, and this one has just two. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television Amazing RaceEdit

Propose merging Template:Infobox television Amazing Race with Template:Infobox reality competition season.
Definitely has the similar issues with the TFD deletion entry of Survivor's template was nominated for merging. I would get a suggestion to move to {{Infobox reality competiton season}} as getting a status of proposal merger at {{Infobox television season}}. ApprenticeFan work 15:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • The thing is the custom templates that were used on Big Brother, Survivor, I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, etc. all had common characteristics that could be merged into {{Infobox reality competition season}} without the need to create show specific parameters. The most customization deals with the |num_contestants= being switched to show specific terms for Big Brother and Survivor and the addition of |location= for Survivor articles. The thing with {{Infobox television Amazing Race}} is it has 12 show specific parameters. Currently {{Infobox reality competition season}} does not include any parameters like |all_stars= which would either be left out in the merge or be included. If included then editors of other shows like Big Brother and Survivor could request for similar parameters to be added since The Amazing Race has them. As of right now in my opinion it might be better to either keep {{Infobox television Amazing Race}} as its own infobox or convert it into a separate child of {{Infobox television season}} as it would add too many fields to {{Infobox reality competition season}} that are not used by other shows. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 16:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: For me, the real question, and one that needs to be discussed in my opinion is, are all the parameters in the "Season statistics" section important or WP:TRIVIA. To me personally, most of those seem trivia and I would probably leave only |countries_visited=. I'd also be opposed to the 3 all star links which have no meaning and relevance in the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Runefacts For ListEdit

Unused and seems to be replaced with Template:Infobox rune. Gonnym (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Dates back to 2006. Unused. Nigej (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:ClickAEdit

Obsolete and only 46 transclusions. A very similar discussion (for Template:Click) took place in 2011 and was closed with no consensus; there were 3 deletion debates prior to that. However, many arguments hinged on there being ~9000 pages using Click; ClickA would be trivial to remove by comparison. Removing would simplify those 46 pages and avoid the risk of it being added to any more. User:GKFXtalk 01:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - 7.5 years of deprecation is enough. --Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

January 19Edit

Template:VBQ2020OGEdit

Unused. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reason:

Template:KOGL-type3Edit

Inappropriate license tag which appears to permit "free" files with an ND restriction FASTILY 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:KOGL-type2Edit

Inappropriate license tag which appears to permit "free" files with an NC restriction FASTILY 20:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox former subdivisionEdit

Propose merging Template:Infobox former subdivision with Template:Infobox settlement.
I'm curious as the whether it makes sense to simply merge this to Infobox Settlement. it seems like the majority of parameters overlap. The few that don't can quite easily be added. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The "former subdivision" obviously pertains to a country, not a settlement. Merging into {{Infobox country}} could be considered (but is not proposed so cannot be concluded). -DePiep (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @DePiep: interesting. I actually didn't think that this did obviously pertain to a country until you mentioned it. Just curious how two people can read the same thing and see things differently. Your note about merging to {{Infobox country}} is a great point. Personally I don't see any reason that can't be discussed here? No that wasn't what I initially proposed, but if that is a more appropriate solution I think it absolutely warrants discussion. I'm curious whether others in this thread would support that solution. I'm happy to discuss it here, or just let this TFD play out and then submit a new one. Either way. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above user's reasoning. This shouldn't be done. - R9tgokunks 09:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose while convincing, this is just not enough justification to get rid of this infobox. I am seeing great potential for this infobox. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose IB former subdivision has a clear scope of application, where using settlement would not be appropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge The original objection, and those following it, are based on bogus reasoning; subdivisions are not countries (we have {{Infobox former country}} for those) and Infobox settlement is for "settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Note that {{Infobox subdivision}} redirects to Infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how they could be merged without making significant changes to IB settlement, as they have many different fields that are necessary in one template (such as all the year_start, event_star fields on IB former subdivision) but completely missing from the other. It would require a major rework just to absorb the ~2000 transclusions of former subdivision.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
|year_start= is called |established_date=, |year_end= is called |extinct_date=. --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I see six event fields, and all the 'preceding and succeeding entities' fields take up at least a paragraph. Has anyone made a sandbox version of IB settlement that shows how they would be added without major changes? If not, what are we !voting on?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing please clarify how the first argument is "wikt:bogus reasoning". So far, it is only unqualified drive-by judging, not adding an argument.
re your partial quote from documentation. For starters, by template names, "settlement" pertains to "settlements", and "country" pertains to "countries". Probably this documenation detail is substandard, and not a normative point anyway just descriptive especially not re other templates. In this guideline (i.e., a much tougher policy), it says "country subdivisions (states or provinces), such as States of Austria, ...", the link redirecting to Administrative division, which to me very clearly and flawlessly says it is about country organisation, not settlement features. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
No, it was merged 13 August 2018‎. But the TfD was in December 2016. It took two years before it was merged because it was two completely different templates, and now infobox country is a two-in-one template. Christian75 (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Fine, but I don't see how that detracts from the point I was making.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 10:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For all the excellent "Oppose" reasons already presented above. Mercy11 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge - since {{Infobox subdivision}} already redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} and has most of the parameters, including ones for an end date of the settlement, it seems that if there are missing parameters there are very few and could be easily added. The main difference is in the names of the parameters themselves - that makes this merge even more important as having articles about the same topic differ in the naming style makes editing harder for no reason. The merge would also ensure that all articles on the same topic would have a consistent look and any updates would be gained for all articles. --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Hotel1Edit

Propose merging Template:Hotel1 with Template:Infobox reality competition season.
I created this template as a fork from {{Big Brother housemates}} when I was a young Wikipedian. I forgot about this template until I stumbled upon it tonight. As with recent discussions like these here, here and here this template needs to be merged with {{Infobox reality competition season}}. No use having this template be used on just a single article. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete and replace with table and/or {{Infobox reality competition season}} if needed (though since the season articles are on the same article, there really isn't a point for the infoboxes, so a table would be enough) like other reality TV season articles. Should be noted that author is requesting the deletion and is also basically the only contributor to that template and it is used on only one article. --Gonnym (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete after substitution This is a single-use template, used to create a table - not an infobox - on an artle which already has a separte infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

January 18Edit

Template:OneusEdit

Not enough to justify a navbox. Only blue links are "related articles" cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 18:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Let them establish a career first. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:OneweEdit

Not enough to justify a navbox. Only blue links are "related articles" cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 18:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Kings of the Two SiciliesEdit

The purpose of a navigation template is to link related articles, but all the articles except the list of monarchs are already linked through Template:Princes of the Two Sicilies, and it is not difficult to add the other link to that template. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I can see that the 4 kings appear in the princes template (although it is not immediately obvious - since the kings are not highlighted in any way), but if we delete the kings template doesn't the princes template have a confusing name? Is the plan to rename Template:Princes of the Two Sicilies to Template:Kings and Princes of the Two Sicilies (or whatever)? Nigej (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge both to a template with a better name as per Nigej. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Quack PackEdit

Template for a short-lived show that only had one season. Only the article for the show itself is particularly relevant and not template creep. No separate articles exist for anything independently notable from this show in particular. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

January 17Edit

Template:Ven Conmigo track listingEdit

Links to only 3 articles, transcluded in only 1 article, and redundant navigation with existence of {{Selena songs}}. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete – Appears in the infobox of Enamorada de Ti (song) and nowhere else. The style for other Selena song infoboxes is different, so this seems out of line. Rather strangely in {{Selena songs}} the song does not appear in the song list next to Ven Conmigo (album) but under "other songs" (but that's different issue). Nigej (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:LastFM groupEdit

Last.fm groups will no longer be accessible. Guilherme Burn (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ajf773 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Steve KingEdit

The subject is no longer a candidate. The template serves no purpose that can't be met through routine editing and talk page discussion. It is distracting and takes up space on the edit interface, with no benefit. - MrX 🖋 12:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Hover titleEdit

Propose merging Template:Hover title, Template:H:swl and Template:Span title.
They are all redundant to each other and provide the same functionality. {{Span title}} is basic and has not additional parameters. {{H:swl}} and {{Hover title}} have the same parameters (|dotted= and |highlighted= are the same). We should keep {{Hover title}} due to the higher usage count. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 02:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 05:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Merge Given the fact that the latter two are so little used, seems sensible to merge them. Nigej (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 16Edit

Template:S-famEdit

Propose merging Template:S-fam with Template:Ahnentafel.
Template:Ahnentafel is a result of a merge of previous similar templates for different numbers of ancestors to include. Then there is the old Template:S-fam, used as seen in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Genealogy#Templates. However, one could argue that one, standardised ancestry chart is sufficient for convenience. Possibily - but I hesitate - Template:Ahnentafel could include style elements of the Template:S-fam solution (in fact Template:S-anc, more properly speaking). Either way, though, it seems to me that the Template:S-fam could and should be dropped altogether. Shouldn't one solution suffice, with a standardised look agreed upon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPEMES (talkcontribs) 00:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete – I designed this little template to be a supplement to succession boxes, but it never took off and the standard Ahnentafel template has generally taken over everywhere. I do agree that aspects of the Ahnentafel chart are less than appealing, but there's no reason for there to be multiple types of chartes. Mine was an attempt before standardisation but has fallen to the wayside. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 03:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
delete, we don't need it since everyone is using ahnentafel instead. Frietjes (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:South Georgia Tormenta FC squadEdit

duplicate of Template:Tormenta FC squad Joeykai (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Another case where someone creates something, decides it's the wrong title and creates another one immediately afterwards. Unused. Nigej (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Nigej.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect I would support creating a redirect to Template:Tormenta FC squad to prevent confusion and re-creation instead. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ping PoliceSheep99Edit

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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:TFD#REASONS

  1. - The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines:
    1. Not clearly documented as to its usage and scope.
    2. Substantially duplicates or hardcodes the same functionality of established templates.
    3. Has poorly-defined function, are redundant, become orphaned or used on only one page.
  2. - The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
  3. - The template is not used and has no likelihood of being used. -- Flooded with them hundreds 09:38, 16 January 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 television season/fullnameEdit

Replaced functionality with Module:Infobox television season name. If deleted should also include talk and doc pages. Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as template creator; a better solution has been implemented. -- /Alex/21 10:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Waterloo RoadEdit

Recent redirected articles make template near-redundant. All pages easy to access from main Waterloo Road (TV series) page and List of Waterloo Road episodes. U-Mos (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Superficially it does seem potentially useful for navigation, say to get from the series 9 page to the series 3.page. Nigej (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nigej. This template potentially is useful for navigation--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Certainly meets the "rule of five" of WP:NENAN. -- /Alex/21 03:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nigej's comments. The template is useful. Soaper1234 - talk 19:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

January 15Edit

Template:Infobox CFL DraftEdit

Propose merging Template:Infobox CFL Draft with Template:Infobox sports draft.
Per the other successful merge discussions for similar draft infoboxes (NFL and multi-sport). This one in particular has fewer than 20 transclusions and only 2 parameters without equivalents that are actually used: CIAU/CIS/U Sports (could be combined, number of Canadian university players drafted) and NCAA (number of NCAA players drafted). BLAIXX 23:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete per above rationale. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Uw-catimproveEdit

Just no. We already have {{uncategorized}}, or you could, you know, just add a category yourself. I can't see a good reason to nag people creating what is probably their first article over something so minor it can be fixed faster than you can send this notice to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with the above and repeating what I wrote at WT:UTM: I don't think this is something editors need to be warned about. Some authors are more concerned about the articles they write not the categories in which they are or should be placed. Plus it's very easy to add a category for any drive by editor who notices it. If not sure, better to tag the article with {{uncategorized}} or {{category improve}}. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an overly specific template. If this is a repeat problem with an editor's article creation, leave them a personalized message. Typing one or two sentences to someone isn't that hard. Natureium (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with the above. A "warning" is too much surely for such a crime. Personally, one of the things that drives me mad is people who add hatnotes indiscriminately. Just laziness. As noted above, add a category instead. Nigej (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Similar to {{uw-refimprove}}, and articles should have categories. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The key difference being that articles with inadequate sourcing are subject to being deleted, so it's more important to notify the user in order that the content not be lost if it can indeed be properly sourced. You are of course correct that articles should be categorized, but it is not one of our core policies, just a small maintainence detail that anyone can easily fix. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Survivor seasonEdit

This template seems like a very bad idea. Reality TV programs need less automated editing and more actual caring for notability, references, actual prose content. This yells wrong from every direction. Gonnym (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Overly complex. Surely easier to simply cut and paste from an earlier series. Nigej (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:USACHLEdit

The template was used on the three teams linked in template. I boldly merged those teams into the league page as the league lasted about 6 weeks before folding and all sourcing and historical info were virtually identical. The template is now just footer clutter on the three arena pages and not particularly useful. Yosemiter (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Coach Trip couplesEdit

Propose merging Template:Coach Trip couples with Template:Infobox reality competition season.
Template is almost an exact duplicate of previous template {{Big Brother housemates}} (See related discussions here, here and here). These need to be merged with {{Infobox reality competition season}} just like the Big Brother and Survivor articles are currently in the process of merging. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 20:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oh god you’ve already trashed the Big Brother articles. Starting on Coach Trip now too. It’s a shame that two wikipedia user decided to come to a decision to REMOVE the Big Brother templates which provided convenience and was quick way to see who entered and exited the house on which day. DonutsAndBakewells (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! and Coach Trip should not be using their own custom infoboxes when other reality shows like Survivor, Love Island, etc do not and use a standardized infobox. After {{Infobox reality show candidates}} which was used on The Apprentice UK articles was deleted (which was very similar to these templates) its only natural that the remaining templates brought up for discussion as well. Also templates like {{Big Brother housemates}} and {{Coach Trip couples}} were designed to be minute by minute update infoboxes similar to what would be found on a blog or fansite. Those two infoboxes alone fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and are eventually replaced by {{Big Brother endgame}} and {{Coach Trip endgame}} at the end of the season. These infoboxes shows the final results of their time on the show. The information from the two "endgame" templates can be moved into a contestant table which has their Day Entered, Day Exited and Results in the same table which is just as quick to look at versus having to click a "show" button. The fact that {{Big Brother endgame}} and {{Coach Trip endgame}} requires the reader to click a "show" button to see this very information fails MOS:DONTHIDE. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 20:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete template and replace with {{Infobox reality competition season}} as there is no merge involved here (and only 5 articles using this fork). The problem with most of the reality TV series/seasons articles is that the "fans" are interested in creating colorful (very colorful) tables, without actually caring to reference. If we look at Celebrity Coach Trip (series 3) as an example, the information of entered/exit in the colorful pseudo-infobox table is already duplicated Celebrity Coach Trip (series 3)#Contestants. We can't solve all the reality TV articles problems, but we could at least make sure that the template used gives our readers a consistent, friendly and more accessibility-compliant infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per above rationale. Much easier to have a single template, with a fairly accessible name, that can be maintained, than a huge diaspora of smaller templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Coach Trip endgameEdit

Propose merging Template:Coach Trip endgame with Template:Infobox reality competition season.
Template is almost an exact duplicate of {{Big Brother endgame}} (Also see related discussions here, here and here). These need to be merged with {{Infobox reality competition season}} just like the Big Brother and Survivor articles are currently in the process of merging. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 20:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete template and replace with {{Infobox reality competition season}} as there is no merge involved here (and only 23 articles using this fork). The problem with most of the reality TV series/seasons articles is that the "fans" are interested in creating colorful (very colorful) tables, without actually caring to reference. If we look at Coach Trip (series 3) as an example, the information of entered/exit in the colorful pseudo-infobox table is already duplicated Coach Trip (series 3)#Contestants. We can't solve all the reality TV articles problems, but we could at least make sure that the template used gives our readers a consistent, friendly and more accessibility-compliant infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per above rationale. Much easier to have a single template, with a fairly accessible name, that can be maintained, than a huge diaspora of smaller templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per above rationale. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:IACGMOOH contestantsEdit

Propose merging Template:IACGMOOH contestants with Template:Infobox reality competition season.
Template is almost an exact duplicate of previous deleted templates (See these discussions here, here and here). These need to be merged with {{Infobox reality competition season}} just like the Big Brother and Survivor articles are currently in the process of merging. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 20:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:AOSEdit

Unnecessary fork of deleted {{Big Brother housemates}} currently used by one article Ace Of Space 1. Three other such templates have been nominated and deleted. here, here and here. Subpages Template:AOS/doc should also be deleted with template. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete template and replace with {{Infobox reality competition season}} as there is no merge involved here (and only 1 article using this fork). --Gonnym (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per above rationale. Much easier to have a single template, with a fairly accessible name, that can be maintained, than a huge diaspora of smaller templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and Replace per nom. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox character/WikidataEdit

This template gets all of its information from Wikidata, which so far has not been the way en.wiki wants to receive information. It is only used on 10 pages and can replaced with {{Infobox character}}. Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I think I take issue with which so far has not been the way en.wiki wants to receive information given that there are multiple infoboxes (almost-)completely enabled with Wikidata. The reason a template like this exists is as a test bed for Wikidata-enabled infoboxes. Is it your suggestion that this should actually be merged into the template proper? --Izno (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • My comment is based on my observation of various discussion over the past years against the Wikidata. I do not think this should be merged. If keeping information on character articles is hard now with the lack of references a lot of editors seem to not care to add, then having that same information come from an outside source that doesn't show up on a watchlist, would be even worse. --Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      • A) It does show up on a watchlist (if you choose to enable it); b) existing issues with characters articles shouldn't affect how we decide whether to use Wikidata; and c) Wikidata is not forbidden for use (nor is it preferred for use). As it happens, we've been successful with at least one template reducing the number of changes directly in an article (that's {{video game reviews}}). I don't want to open cans of worms much more, but which so far has not been the way en.wiki wants to receive information is an incorrect statement. --Izno (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Media companies of the United StatesEdit

Unused, newly-created template. Poor substitute for Category:Media companies of the United States. Cabayi (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unused and no useful purpose. Ajf773 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep such a navbox is potentially useful, and if it has been newly created, may not have been deployed yet. Such a template would provide useful links between articles about US media companies --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Although potentially useful, the creator simply but 3 companies in and has done nothing to it for a week or so, and has not commented here. It is still unused. Given the small effort put into creating it and the small effort that would be required to recreate it, seems to me to be better to delete it rather than leave it, where it might remain unused and useless for years. Nigej (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Schools in JharkhandEdit

Indiscrimate selection of schools across an entire state of India, many redlinks. Not suitable for a navbox. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Jharkhand has a population of 33 million, so we can safely assume that the 18 schools listed are not a complete list of schools there. List of schools in India#Jharkhand also has a list but there is also nothing there to indicate the inclusion criteria. Nigej (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nigej. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Detroit Lions 1986 draft navboxEdit

duplicate of Template:Lions1986DraftPicks Joeykai (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete The creator seems to have realised it was the wrong style of name and created the other, leaving this one behind, unused. Nigej (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nigej. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

January 14Edit

Template:Uw-hijackingEdit

Already covered by "disruptive editing" so we don't need this poorly worded, almost entirely unused template. There is no "highjacking" policy so this isn't backed by anything really. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete agree with nom. Better templates can be used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete enough of these user warnings already. Surely we don't need one for every eventuality. Nigej (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Amazingly, for the first time ever I've come across this today: Rob Powell, see history. Such is life. Nigej (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Accusing someone of disruptive editing is often too vague, and if there's a specific warning template to tell them what exactly they did wrong, then that's good. You wouldn't think that people could be stupid or cheeky enough to hijack pages, but they do that all the time, so this isn't really some overly narrow niche either. The template was created three years ago and I can see four uses, all in the last two months, from two different editors (pinging one of them). – Uanfala (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks for the ping, Uanfala. I like this template, though I agree the wording could use a little work. It's specific to a surprisingly common issue, much more so than the generic "disruptive editing" warning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I find it so badly written that deleting and writing a new template fro the ground up for this issue seems preferable. Highjacking is a very loaded term that strongly implies extreme bad faith on the part of the warned user, as opposed to just poor/uninformed editing. So, I'm not saying this isn't a thing, but I don't think this template is at all the correct response and we probably shouldn't be using the term "highjacking" at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

NICTD templatesEdit

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/NICTD and Module:Adjacent stations/Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Russian federal subjectEdit

This infobox can be turned into an {{Infobox settlement}} wrapper; see the test cases. (Not a deletion proposal). eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:MliEdit

Propose merging Template:Mli, Template:Mlix, Template:Module link and Template:Mlx.
{{mlx}} and {{mlix}} have the same function, {{module link}}/{{ml}} and {{mlx}} should also have the same function ({{module link}} shouldn't have the code tags it currently has, as {{mlx}} is meant for that). We should keep the documentations pages of {{mlix}} and {{mli}} as they are more complete but we should keep {{module link}}/{{ml}} and {{mlx}} as the names are shorter and follow similar naming to the {{tl}} family of templates. I'm also proposing that {{mlx}} should be replaced with {{#invoke:Module link|link}} and {{module link}} should be replaced with {{#invoke:Module link|link|code=yes}} to take advantage of Module:Module link. The module provides several advantages including allowing for an unlimited number to parameters and removing Module: and module: from the input. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support merge but oppose module as module creep: Removing double namespace prefixes seems to me to be out of scope for this template (and besides, {{tl}} doesn't do it), and likewise a module isn't warranted for just unlimited parameters (that should use my recent enhancement to Module:For nowiki or Module:Separated entries). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Either way is fine with me but I prefer the module. I created a version that doesn't use the module at User:BrandonXLF/sandbox/3. For {{mlx}} We can just add <code>...</code>. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 04:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the templates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Animal Rights BarnstarEdit

This is unused and this is not a barnstar; it is a picture with a caption. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Some good animal rights articles on Wikipedia deserve commendation. Of course, NOTHING REQUIRES commendation and recognition, but good contributions are important. An additional concern on internal processes within Wikipedia may be what appears to widespread 'rogue attacks' against topical content of this sort. I oppose deletion of this Barnstar template. Perhaps artistic improvements for this barnstar could be ssuggested. MaynardClark (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@MaynardClark: This template is not used at all and I found this from Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates/1. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Good sleuthing. Perhaps some good sights deserve the template. I have never awarded a template. Should I? MaynardClark (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Barnstars and awards are often substed, hence have no transclusions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, you might find Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Animalrightssymbol.jpg useful for a substituted template like this one. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • delete per referenced image search; not being used. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Rugby union in GuamEdit

Little navigational use: of 6 entries, 2 are redlinks and 2 are off topic relating to the US rather than Guam. Jellyman (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Station header templatesEdit

Unused. Intended for use with {{Infobox station}}; they were all created on the same day by a user who has made no other edits. Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Old discussionsEdit

January 13Edit

Template:Country data SüdlandEdit

No such country exists. Bellezzasolo Discuss 22:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. The creator claims that "The Kingdom of Südland is a nation in the South Atlantic bordered by Arkland to the south a Antharr to the north and is on of only 2 constitutional monarchies in the entire archipelago." but it is presumably a hoax. Nigej (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Module:Related changesEdit

pre-alpha module unlikely to be finished. 148.197.248.53 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:United States Pacifist PartyEdit

Too little content to justify its existence--articles are all pretty well interlinked already. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Justices of the Federal Court of AustraliaEdit

This navbox should be deleted as it does not meet the requirements of WP:NAVBOX. The judges are only tangentially related and an article on a judge is unlikely to refer to more than a couple of other judges. The existing list and category seem to be more appropriate. It seems to me to be unlikely that a person reading about a particular judge of the Federal Court will want to jump to another judge. This is particularly so when it is a sea of red, of the 48 current judges, 27 are currently red links, 7 are stubs. The template was even worse when it listed all 160 judges. I have raised this on the talk page, however there has been no suggestion as to why the template should be kept. I will notify users who have edited the template or inserted it in an article. Find bruce (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. The navbox in its original form was ridiculously long and longer than half the articles it linked to, and I don't see it as serving any useful purpose to readers even trimmed down - as Find bruce noted, it is unlikely a reader wanting to read about a particular Federal Court judge will want to leap to another judge. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Seems to me that the link on the header to Justices of the Federal Court of Australia is more useful than the collapsed list itself, perhaps indicating that a "see also" might be a better way forward. Nigej (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The suggestion of adding see also: List of Judges of the Federal Court of Australia seems to me to be a good one. As the preson nominating this template for deletion I am happy to take on the work of improving things - is there an easy way to do this, or would I need to go through the list and add each individually ? Find bruce (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 9Edit

Template:NoPureVandalismBlatantHoaxEdit

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 T2 — JJMC89(T·C) 02:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Invalid template. There is no policy that outright allows for protection from deletion; even if a page isn't vandalism or a blatant hoax, it may still be eligible for deletion under other criteria. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 21:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete agree. Very weird to have a template that promises a page can't be deleted. Would be ignored in any discussion, which would occur on the merits of the article anyway. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with nom. Invalid template. GenuineArt (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete agree. Nigej (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete T2. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:56, 12 January 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:DoNotDeleteEdit

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 T2 — JJMC89(T·C) 03:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Not a valid template for use. There is no policy that allows protection of a page from deletion. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 21:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete agree, as above. Very weird to have a template that states a page can't be deleted. Would be ignored in any discussion, which would occur on the merits of the article anyway. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Makes no sense. GenuineArt (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Plainly ridiculous. Nigej (talk) 21:11, 12 January 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:Politics of DepartmentsEdit

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Not enough content to justify a navbox cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 21:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT. I'm unclear what this template does as it only links to a single article of election results. We are not a repository of election results. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User: Yaffles1981 it was my intention to develop the politics pages for each department. Happy to take guidance but pages on other countries especially UK and US much more detailed and i didn't want to clutter the main department pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaffles1981 (talkcontribs) 09:09, 10 January 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:European nobilityEdit

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 keep. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:European nobility with Template:Nobility by nation.
Redundancy. Overlap. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose nobility templates should be organized by nation because the variations in usage, titulature, spelling, rank, entitlement, legalities, associated styles and honorifics are enormous even within the same country (for example, contrast English vs. Scottish use of Lord in the UK; Flemish vs. French use of Jonkheer vs. Écuyer in Belgium; Austrian customs on use of Baron vs Freiherr, etc.), and are compounded by conflicting usages between nations in Europe (Prinz and Fürst have very different meanings in German, yet are both translated as "prince" in English; a "countess" may be the wife of a count or of an earl but the latter terms are not interchangeable, whereas the wife of a marquis may be a marquise or a marchioness but the latter terms are not interchangeable; the precedence accorded to those historically entitled to the style of Serene Highness is reversed in Germanic vs. Latin countries; the English language uses different terms, heir apparent vs. heir presumptive to distinguish different types of crown princes, but French makes no such distinction; etc.) Trying to use a single template to capture meaningful differences from one continent to another and across hundreds of cultures is an invitation to confusion and error. Let's not do it. FactStraight (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep In my mind, distinct functions. European monarchies are linked geographically, culturally, and by numerous historical interactions. The template in addition holds information about past monarchies. I think having a distinct template has navigational value and therefore should be kept. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This template is more useful to its topics for its focus. Other more concise templates would serve most articles better too. The full "Nobility by nation" template is a space hog that I think is only suited to articles of a general and worldwide scope. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:21, 10 January 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:Lists of monuments and memorials in Russia by federal subject (categories)Edit

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 no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

delete, the template just contains redlinks, moreover it does not contain any monuments and memorials as the name seems to suggest. Moreover a template is not a list. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Hello everyone and happy New Year! This template was created to simplify the management of the specified categories. As you can see the "Lists of monuments and memorials in Russia" topic isn’t developed for enwiki so far. You can delete this template now, but its keeping will help for the further development of the topic. Thank you. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Userify this recently created template serves a useful purpose for Leonid, so it might be useful for him to move it back to user space. In mainspace it seems to just duplicate categories and IMO should be deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Question. I found that this method of navigation is quite popular on Wikimedia Commons (an example). So why wouldn't we consider the method as a good practice for enwiki? Leonid Dobrov (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems useful for navigating among categories that contain lists. Why get confused by the template name? It's just intended to link Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Moscow, Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara Oblast, and several dozen that haven't yet been created. It works the same as the template atop Category:Cities in Pennsylvania, whose code is:

    {{United States topic|prefix=:Category:Cities in|navbar=plain|exclude-wdc=y|exclude-ter=y|exclude-isl=y|state=expanded}}

    The only reason to delete this template, as I see it, is if the existing categories end up being deleted on "we shouldn't have this" grounds; then we can G8 this template because it's totally dependent on deleted pages. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your instructions. In some cases I find that using of the “country topic” templates is a smarter solution than copying of full bulk of code into a binding template (e.g. Template:Environment of the United States by political division). I implemented the technique when creating Template:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in the United States by state (categories). Leonid Dobrov (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:02, 9 January 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).

Module:Common abbreviations (meta)/dataEdit

Only used 15 times and does not provide a lot of options. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 02:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Discussion that led to the creation of the template. – Uanfala (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or rename this template defeats its purpose by being extremely long to type, negating the point of having a template automatically insert a common abbreviation's full form. I don't think this is useful and it adds to clutter and complexity of the editing experience. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The name is not meant to be typed. {{A}} exists as a redirect for that purpose. As for "the editing experience", why would you be editing other people's comments? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. More options can be added, if desired. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Hover titleEdit

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 relisted on 2019 January 17. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:26, 17 January 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).

January 8Edit

Template:Elvis' Christmas Album tracksEdit

Transcluded in only two articles, this track list template does not serve its purpose if none of the other songs use it. Since most of the other songs are well-known and well-covered Christmas songs, there'd be no reason to add this template to them. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • delete per prior precedent; redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani album track list templatesEdit

Another set of track list templates that are simply redundant to the navigation within a single navbox, in this case {{Gwen Stefani songs}}. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars I understand your point, but the reason I created these templates was because on the mobile version of Wikipedia, the {{Gwen Stefani songs}} template is not visible to the viewer. When the parent album track list template is added to the article, the corresponding album and its list of songs is. If these templates get deleted, the mobile viewer loses access to these lists. Carbrera (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC).
So all Navboxes are useless on Mobile devices? Readers certainly don't need a track list for an album on every song article because you can already link to the album from the infobox without it. The one for the Christmas album is completely unnecessary though since it's only in two articles and you'd never include in Jingle Bells, Winter Wonderland, etc. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, why aren't the others fully utilized? They have 10, 6, and 5 links but only 3, 1, and 2 transclusions, respectively. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars – The singles on the albums you mentioned already included single chronology templates. These templates were included to benefit articles on songs that weren't released as singles. Not too long agao, a now-depreciated track listing/chronology template was used to document the chronology of the songs in a track listing, but like I said, this can no longer be the case. I'm not insinuating in the slightest that "all Navboxes are useless on Mobile devices" but they don't serve any purpose to the reader when they're not even visible, hence the creation of these templates. Per this edit, the You Make It Feel Like Christmas template is even more beneficial for the article as {{Gwen Stefani songs}} only lists a singer's covers if they are deemed notable. Carbrera (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
But such navigational templates should provide two-way navigation and they don't. If the track list/chronology is deprecated, this just seems to be a way around that. Anyway, I would think the best way to navigate through songs on an album is through the album article itself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars – I don't mean to sound rude, but if given the rationale that "the best way to navigate through songs on an album is through the album article itself", then why does this very template exist in the first place? Carbrera (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
You're not being rude at all, but I believe they started years ago when they were added to song articles from Beatles and Pink Floyd albums since all the songs would have articles and there'd be a navigational benefit to and from each song to every other song on the album. Eventually, though, they were all deleted because of their redundancy to existing navboxes (see WP:TfD/2015 Dec 16). So {{Revolver tracks}} and {{The Dark Side of the Moon tracks}} were deleted in favor of {{Revolver}} and {{The Dark Side of the Moon}}. This precedent was then applied to other track list templates when there was a "Foo songs" navigation box that broke down an artist's songs by album (templates for Chris Brown album track lists were deleted in WP:TfD 2016 Apr 18 because of {{Chris Brown songs}}); in addition, many of these track listing templates exist with only a few songs with actual articles making them insufficient for navigation (like the Westlife templates nominated below). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • delete per prior precedent; redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Westlife album track list templatesEdit

Initial nomination was for {{The Love Album tracks}}:

A track listing template to place into the infobox of song articles, but this one is transcluded in only one song because the album is an album of cover songs and these aren't notable Westlife songs to include even an infobox for each one nor needed to link to other songs that aren't theirs.

However, there has been precedent through the TfD process of deleting similar templates when there is a navbox which makes navigation through these track listing redundant, and that is the case here with the existence of {{Westlife songs}} which displays each of these songs by album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • delete per prior precedent; redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per nom. Albums can contain a list of songs on the articles.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Crane Co.Edit

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 keep. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template on a questionably WP:N company with limited content. Chetsford (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep company is notable. Note that this is running concurrently with AfD. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Template has seven links. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for now - template has enough links to justify a navbox. If the parent article is deleted, then let's talk. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 18:52, 10 January 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).

Module:Location map/data/Russia (equirectangular)Edit

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

unused and inferior to Module:Location map/data/Russia. Frietjes (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:02, 8 January 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).

December 27Edit

Template:RSNSOEdit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a template that displayed a string of text for a long-deprecated notice board, and one transclusion. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete per nom. Barely used, and won't be used in future. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2018 (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:Vulgar slangEdit

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 relisted on 2019 January 5. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:08, 5 January 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:CoimbraEdit

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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

With category WP:EGGs and links to sections of the same article removed, there is nothing left to navigate. --woodensuperman 13:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2018 (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:Association of Southeast and East Asian Catholic Colleges and UniversitiesEdit

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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No primary topic, unused template Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 27 December 2018 (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:League of Legends Challenger Series North AmericaEdit

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 relisted on 2019 January 5. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:08, 5 January 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:Team ApexEdit

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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Team Apex, an esports team, disbanded in 2016. The template has incorrect information and has not been updated since its creation. It serves no meaningful purpose as it only lists players, and because the team no longer exists, if it was updated it would be empty. CentreLeftRight 09:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No need for a navbox here, articles can link each other. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2018 (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:Monthly clean-up category/Messages/Redirects for discussionEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

could someone please explain why this is needed and/or add some documentation so others know what is for? FASTILY 06:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox themed areaEdit

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 no consensus. There's now no consensus on whether the two templates should be merged. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox themed area into Template:Infobox amusement park.

Very similar templates, with the "themed area" template appearing to be a subset of the 'amusement park' template, apart from |park=, which is labelled "Location" and is analogous to |location=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Better to have unified template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening per discussion at Special:PermaLink/875524600#Other
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • My main concern about this merger proposal is that while, yes, an attraction is a subset of a park, an infobox will look at completely different things. Take Tomorrowland for example - it's inside of six different parks - the entire "rides" section of {{infobox amusement park}} is useless (because it is a "ride") and the majority of the main parameters would need to be duplicated to have the functionality. I'm not saying it cannot or should not be done, but when I started working on this merge yesterday I was essentially looking at just copying the "themed area" code and pasting it directly into "amusement park" with almost no changes other than numbering - in my experience that's not a good merge candidate. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Could you give a different example? I've checked Tomorrowland which uses {{Infobox themed area}} and that template has a whole section for Attractions which is the same as the "Rides" section with an additional 2 other ride parameters not found in the park one. So if that was the only issue you found, it's currently already there. --Gonnym (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Since when did discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell mean TfD's get reopened? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Step 1 in the deletion review process is to discuss the close with the closing admin and see if they're willing to re-open. That happened, and they did. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I've looked this over again. In "themed area" there are options for putting in which park(s) the area is located, and how many "attractions" (i.e. coasters, rides, etc) there are inside that area. In "amusement park" there are options for all the standard location/owner/opened/closed/etc, as well as how many rides (i.e. coasters, rides, etc) are in the park itself.
I suppose one could argue that the "number of rides" section could be used for both, but otherwise it's just sticking two completely different templates together. I guess I don't necessarily disagree with doing this, but when two templates have about 5 params shared between them (out of about 30 for each) it doesn't make much sense (i.e. I'm not supporting or opposing, just doing the numbers). Primefac (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
If you merge you better make sure every article is proper. Otherwise. no. Valoem talk contrib 03:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
That is generally how template mergers work. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose – As mentioned in another recent TfD discussion involving templates introduced by WikiProject Amusement Parks, it would be best to begin a discussion there (or at least provide a link to one) to discuss the proposal of these mergers in more detail. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of reducing unnecessary duplication, but to those that are not as experienced in maintaining templates, it would be great to see examples of how a resulting merger would work with valid testing beforehand. The original editors who were heavily involved in their creation are no longer active to my knowledge. Ahecht has provided some recent assistance to the project, so I'd like hear his/her thoughts on some of this as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:03, 2 January 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).

Infobox settlement wrappersEdit

Unnecessary wrappers 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.

See also a recent batch of similar wrappers, which were all deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support in principle however it may be more logical taking into account editors who use these templates, to have these merge into something along the lines of "Infobox region" as to me settlement isn't a very logical term to describe these places.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    • {{Infobox region}} (rightly) redirects to {{Infobox settlement}}. Note that the latter's documentation explains that it is for "for human settlements... as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Commented here but have moved to Infobox settlement - support merge in general--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion of templates not included in this nomination
  • Oppose for {{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}}. There is no need for the overhead language formatting with {{nobold}} and {{lang}} (both required for a non-Latin/Cyrillic writing system such as Chinese) to be present within each of the over two dozen articles and thus vulnerable to vandalism. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think deleting the wrappers might well make it harder to maintain articles. If they are deleted, making a change to articles about German states for instance would require changing 16 pages instead of one.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    • None of the nominated templates is used on articles about German states. We have, though recently reached consensus to do away with a large number of similar 'Infobox settlement' wrappers; for example here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment in addendum to my oppose vote on {{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}}. {{Japanese episode list}} was nominated at TfD in June 2015, but that proposal failed to gain traction for similar reasons. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I guess you missed this. --Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Wrong, the template still wraps {{Episode list}} to allow for the formatting of Kanji, which was only added 4 or 5 days ago. This discussion is to do away with all wrapping. And there is nothing "inconsistent" about the parameter names here (simply complaining that they are, without providing examples, does not make that a fact), only crusading from those intending on pushing a rigid uniformity across the site. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── No; but neither does your saying that make it not a fact. Consider, for example, the PCC template's code:

| image_flag              = {{{Flag|}}}
| image_map               = {{{Map|}}}
| mapsize                 = {{{MapSize|}}}

| population_total        = {{{Pop|}}}
| population_as_of        = {{{PopYear|}}}

It is clear that such parameter names are inconsistent with those in the parent template, not to mention other wrappers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Flag can be removed outright, as, in the PRC, subnational flags are disallowed outside of the two SARs of Hong Kong and Macau. The others can be easily renamed with an AWB run, which I have done. Strutting around on a crusade and bringing this matter to TfD is not a productive tactic. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
"Strutting around on a crusade"? Mind your tone. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Tone policing does not alter the fact you still are lacking an argument for the unnecessary introduction of the language formatting as well as the links to the ranked provincial articles, such as List of Chinese administrative divisions by GDP, both which are taken care of with the wrapper. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I see you found the inconsistency in names I was referring to. I was sure that linking to the specific template with the problem would be obvious, as most of the parameter names are inconsistent both in using a different parameter name than the original template and also inconsistent with other parameters in the same template using Pascal case instead of Snake case. Also, if you look at the actual closing comment and not how Alex (the one who did the conversion) interrupted it, it said to merge the template, not to create a wrapper. I'm assuming Alex did it as a compromise. --Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Loose with the facts yet again, as it was the closer, who interpreted "merged" as a wrapping. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support all, including china - the current "wrapper" style is not a programatically correct way of doing these such of things. While it may seem to work, the cons outweigh the benefits it brings, such as the maintenance burden of making sure that every change, fix or addition to the parent template gets trickled down to the countless other templates and the lack of documentation and inconsistency of parameter names (looking at you {{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}}) which, as Andy says, are a cognitive burden for editors which need to learn a new template style for each country. --Gonnym (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Buenos AiresEdit

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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Buenos Aires City landmarks and Template:Neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires with Template:Buenos Aires.
Main {{Buenos Aires}} navbox is very sparsely populated, and there is some duplication of the neighborhoods. All would be better off under a single navbox. --woodensuperman 12:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep separate the templates proposed for merging are very big and I don't think putting them in a single super template will help assist navigation. There aren't space constraints here, and the current arrangement is fairly logical. So I think it is best to keep them separate.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
They're not big though, {{Buenos Aires}} is practically empty, and the majority of the links in {{Neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires}} are in {{Buenos Aires City landmarks}} anyway. --woodensuperman 08:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Tom (LT). --Bsherr (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2018 (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:Uncategorized stubEdit

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 relisted on 2019 January 5. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:06, 5 January 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).

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

Working on this (talk). Target template changes to be considered. Will be OK. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
This request has been lingering for a year. Neither template is protected. There's no technical issues, just aesthetic ones related to the subject matter. The discussion had only one contributor Chicbyaccident who would seem ideally placed to include the required bits of {{Politics of the Holy See}} into {{Politics of Vatican City}}. Cabayi (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of templates that have been sitting here for a while, it's just that no one has gotten to them. It'll get handled eventually. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

SportsEdit

TransportEdit

  • None currently

OtherEdit

MetaEdit

To convertEdit

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.

  • None currently

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.

  • None currently

To orphanEdit

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

  • None currently

Ready for deletionEdit

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. 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