Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 0 0 134 0 134
TfD 0 0 2 0 2
MfD 0 1 4 0 5
FfD 0 0 8 0 8
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

How to use this pageEdit

What not to propose for discussion hereEdit

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects
List at Redirects for discussion.

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:

Note:

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

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021_August_4#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 a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

Notifying related WikiProjectsEdit

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the templateEdit

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

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

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

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

TwinkleEdit

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

DiscussionEdit

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.

Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.

Closing discussionEdit

Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDCloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.

Current discussionsEdit

August 4Edit

Template:Mysore Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

Propose substituting where these two are used since it won't be updated regularly and has been created for one purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. These templates have multiple transclusions, and substituting is inefficient compared with the template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Madras Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

Propose substituting where these two are used since it won't be updated regularly and has been created for one purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. These templates have multiple transclusions, and substituting is inefficient compared with the template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Odisha Legislative Assembly election, 1957Edit

Propose substituting where these two are used since it won't be updated regularly with 1961, '67, '80, and '85 being single-use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Odisha Legislative Assembly election, 1957, which has multiple transclusions. Substitute and delete the rest, which have one transclusion each. --Bsherr (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus to substitute and delete the 1961, 1967, 1980, and 1985 templates, but relisting for more discussion about the 1957 template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Orissa Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

1952 should be substitued on both articles it is used on. 2009 is single-use and hasn't much usage being on it's own template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Orissa Legislative Assembly election, 1952; substitute and delete Orissa state assembly elections results, 2009. The former has multiple transclusions. The latter has only one transclusion. --Bsherr (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus to substitute and delete the 2009 template, but relisting for more discussion about the other one
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Patiala & East Punjab States Union Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

Propose substituting where these templates are used since these won't be updated as often or used beyond the current pages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. These templates all have multiple transclusions. Substituting is less efficient. --Bsherr (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:West Bengal elections, 2011 - Results (by constituency)Edit

2011 is single-use and should be substituted onto the mainspace election artilce it is used for. Same goes for the '52 and '57 since it won't be updated nor have changes made about the election results presented on it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Substitute and delete West Bengal elections, 2011 - Results (by constituency); keep the others. The former has only one transclusion. The others have multiple transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus to substitute and delete the 2011 template, but relisting for more discussion about the other two
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:RGA ChairEdit

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Unused, no information, and abandoned after creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Sabah state election results, 2013Edit

"Template:Sabah state election, 2013" exists which is this but with more info DemonStalker (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Madhya Bharat Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

All should be substituted where used with the very least 1962 being single-use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Substitute and delete the 1962 template, keep the rest. These latter templates have multiple transclusions, and substituting is inefficient compared with the template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus to delete the 1962 template, but continuing the discussion for the other three templates
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Kerala Legislative Assembly election, 1957Edit

All should be substituted where used with the very least 1965, 1967, and 2006 being single-use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep the 1957 and 1960 templates, substitute and delete the rest. The former templates have multiple transclusions, and substituting is inefficient compared with the template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus to delete the 1965, 1967 and 2006 templates, but continuing the discussion for the 1957 and 1960 templates
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Karnataka Legislative Assembly election, 2013Edit

All should be substituted where used with the 1994 and 2004 templates being single-use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep the 2013 template, substitute and delete the rest. The former template has multiple transclusions, and substituting is inefficient compared with the template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus to delete the 1994 and 2004 templates, but continuing the discussion for the 2013 template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Bombay Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

Propose substituting where these two are used since it won't be updated regularly. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. These templates have multiple transclusions, and substituting is inefficient compared with the template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Bihar Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

At the minimum 2010 is single-use and should be substituted as should the rest since it won't be updated regularly. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Substitute and delete the 2010 template, keep the rest. These latter templates have multiple transclusions, and substituting is inefficient compared with the template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election article and section transclude to "elections in India" article. Gonnym (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus to delete the 2010 template, but continuing the discussion for the other three
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

Both should be substituted where used since they won't be updated regularly. The 1952 template on the Elections in Himachal Pradesh article is the only table that is a separate template. The 2012 template on the Assembly election results of Himachal Pradesh article is also the only table that is a separate template. There shouldn't be a separate template for the results given the standard on these two articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. These templates have multiple transclusions, and substituting is inefficient compared with the template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - subst to specific election article and section transclude to "elections in India" article. Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

At the very least 1993 is unused as the article for the election uses a different table for the results. 1952, 2013, and 2015 should be substituted where used since they won't be updated constantly and truly has one purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete the 1993 template, keep the rest. These latter templates have multiple transclusions, and substituting is inefficient compared with the template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election article and section transclude to "elections in India" article. Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus to delete the 1993, but continuing the discussion for the other three
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

The 1952 and 1957 templates are used on two articles and won't require constant updating. 2012 is single-use. All three should be substituted onto the respective article it is used on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Substitute and delete the 2012 template, keep the rest. These latter templates have multiple transclusions, and substituting is inefficient compared with the template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election article and section transclude to "elections in India" article. Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus to delete the 2012, but continuing the discussion for the other two
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Bangladesh squad 2016 South Asian GamesEdit

Long established consensus on WP:FOOTY and per the outcomes of previous TfD discussions, international squad navigational boxes should only exist for the men and women's: World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and each continent's top level competition. None of these templates are for such a competition, and therefore should be deleted. --BlameRuiner (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

August 3Edit

Vienna U-Bahn templatesEdit

{{s-line}} templates for the Vienna U-Bahn. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Wiener Linien. All transclusions replaced. There are 10 dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Tanzanian presidential election, 2005Edit

unused, duplicates tables in 2005 Tanzanian general election#Results and 2010 Tanzanian general election#Results Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tables not transcluded anywhere. Swimmer33 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Unused and unnecessary. Number 57 20:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:2021 ACC men's spring soccer standingsEdit

This should be merged with Template:2021 ACC men's soccer standings but I don't have the rights or know how to do that. The 2020 season had a spring season, but 2021 will not... so far... If a 2021 spring season is played, the template should be created then. Swimmer33 (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete on basis, per nom, that there is no spring season. GiantSnowman 11:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia Signpost BookEdit

Unused after all Signpost Books were deleted per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_181#Delete_all_books_within_the_book_namespace --Trialpears (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Book reportEdit

Book reports used to list the quality of all articles in a book on the talk page of community books. As community books are no more most of the uses have been deleted, but there are still a bit under 200 transclusions from books that have been moved to user space. The book report will never be updated again. --Trialpears (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. @Trialpears should Template:Book report start, Template:Book report end, Template:Book report time, and Template:Book report rating be included here also? Gonnym (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Ugh, yes I forgot about those. Thanks! These should be used on the same pages (or a subset of them) and the nomination rationale apply here as well. --Trialpears (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Book namespace is dead and these should be deleted, but is there a way to replicate the template's assessment functionality for a list of articles? It seems quite useful to be able to see a list of article status and cleanup tags in a clear table. For example, to assess say top-level articles within a Wikiproject. CMD (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Saurashtra Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

Substitute on the two articles it is used on since it won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, no reason for deletion has been provided. Will probably be updated once in a blue moon (formatting, images, software and template updates). Why do that in two places instead of one? —Kusma (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
    It has been provided. Technically it has one purpose. And templates I believe are supposed to be used on multiple pages, with a wide variety. This is used on two pages. The updating you're referring to will probably happen once in a blue moon, but it doesn't mean it should be kept just because of those blue moon chances. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Preferable to maintain one template instead of identical tables in more than one article. --Bsherr (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election page and section transclude to elections in India page. Gonnym (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Hyderabad Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

Substitute on the two articles it is used on since it won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Preferable to maintain one template instead of identical tables in more than one article. --Bsherr (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election page and section transclude to elections in India page. Gonnym (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly election, 2013Edit

Substitute on the two articles it is used on since it won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Preferable to maintain one template instead of identical tables in more than one article. --Bsherr (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election page and section transclude to elections in India page. Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Coorg Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

Substitute on the two articles it is used on since it won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Preferable to maintain one template instead of identical tables in more than one article. --Bsherr (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - subst to specific election page and section transclude to elections in India page. Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Goa legislative assembly election, 2012Edit

Used on two articles and should be substituted where used since it won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Preferable to maintain one template instead of identical tables in more than one article. --Bsherr (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election page and section transclude to elections in India page. Gonnym (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Travancore-Cochin Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

Both are used on two articles and should be substituted where used since it won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Preferable to maintain one template instead of identical tables in more than one article. --Bsherr (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election page and section transclude to elections in India page. Gonnym (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Vindhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

Used only on two articles and should be substituted where used since it won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Preferable to maintain one template instead of identical tables in more than one article. --Bsherr (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election page and section transclude to elections in India page. Gonnym (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Bhopal Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

Used only on two articles and should be substituted where used since it won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Preferable to maintain one template instead of identical tables in more than one article. --Bsherr (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election page and section transclude to elections in India page. Gonnym (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Assam Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

All three should be substituted where used. The 1967 template is single-use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Substitute and delete Assam Legislative Assembly election, 1967, keep the other two, which are used in more than one article. It is preferable to maintain one template instead of identical tables in more than one article. --Bsherr (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election page and section transclude to elections in India page. Gonnym (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, 1955Edit

All three should be substituted where used since it won't require constant updating. The 2009 template is single-use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Substitute and delete Andhra Pradesh state assembly elections results, 2009; keep the others. The former has only one transclusion, the rest have multiple transclusions and the use of a template is more efficient. --Bsherr (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to specific election page and section transclude to elections in India page. Gonnym (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Ajmer Legislative Assembly election, 1952Edit

A single election year template. Should be substituted where used as there was one Ajmer election year. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. This template is used in more than one article. It is preferable to maintain one template instead of identical tables in more than one article. --Bsherr (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Subst and delete - subst to 1952 Ajmer Legislative Assembly election and section transclude to 1951–52 elections in India. Gonnym (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election, 2016Edit

Used only on two articles. Should be substituted since this won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2Edit

2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election templatesEdit

Not used anywhere and redundant for the purpose of being classified as election templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why these aren't used at 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, but either subst to there (with some kind of headers explaining them) or delete if unwanted. Gonnym (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

1999 Nepalese legislative election templatesEdit

Not used anywhere and redundant for the purpose of being classified as election templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why these aren't used at 1999 Nepalese general election, but either subst to there (with some kind of headers explaining them) or delete if unwanted. Gonnym (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Nepal 1994 and 1999 election templatesEdit

Not used anywhere and redundant for the purpose of being classified as election templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as unused. Gonnym (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles featured on portals templatesEdit

These templates are all signifiers on if an article was or is "featured" on a portal. Talk pages are designated for discussing improvements to articles, things like this are complete cruft; what use does a reader or editor have in knowing that Frog is a selected article on the Amphibians Portal? Aza24 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't see the value of these templates either. I don't care if an article I edit is included on a portal, they just contribute to banner cruft. --Trialpears (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Talk pages are also our pages where we store all meta cruft (dozens of WikiProject templates etc.) While the majority of these are probably historical, they could be useful warnings that an article appears elsewhere via section transclusion, which is useful for editors to know so they know what they'll break if they change anything about the sectioning of the lede. —Kusma (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with the nom's nomination. There is no "standard" by what article gets chosen to be used in portals so statements used such as which means that it has been identified as a high quality article by Drink Portal standards. are just false and give no value as an indication. Gonnym (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:SanamahismEdit

The first template is filled with mainly red links and on top of it, it is unused. The second one is mainly transcluded on articles it doesn't link to. Only two articles use the navbox that are linked within it. The navigational purpose can't be fulfilled with these two. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge blue links to Template:Sanamahi1; add to articles; rename to Template:Sanamahism. Gonnym (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:1897 Philippine presidential election resultsEdit

The 1897 template is single-use and should be substituted on the election article it is used on. The rest should be substituted on the respective presidential articles and transcluded where else used using the #section-h function. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose increased use of section transclusion of articles in article space (should be portals only). Per what @Johnuniq said here, this is too likely to break. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Withdraw and hold a central discussion on how to handle the many situations where this arises. These nominations might not be the major problem I was referring to in the above link mentioning my username, but editors experience template transclusion all the time, so why complicate matters with tricky section transclusions? Have a look at Help:Labeled section transclusion including its "Dealing with stray whitespace"—why do that? Are we trying save server disk space? Section transclusion is bound to break or at least give undesirable side-effects when people edit the source section without knowing or caring about where the section is used. By contrast, editors know that editing a template is going to affect wherever the template is used. For anyone interested, my major concern is with {{excerpt}} and the attempts to rewrite the MediaWiki parser such as at Module:Transcluder. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Then we can just substitute if doing the section transclusion will cause trouble. Then for every template below the 1897 election, the section for the respective election can be a link to the section of the election article for the results on the Presidential elections in the Philippines. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    What's the problem with leaving as is? —Kusma (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Because they won't be used often outside their current use. Templates in table format should have multiple uses on pages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Why? One use is enough if you ask me, and two are plenty. Subst loses the author attribution and delete breaks old revisions. I'd like to see a stronger case for deletion to counter these downsides. —Kusma (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
In the past weeks, when a user subst the templates I nominated, the user credits the original author or authors in the edit summary. So attribution can still be given. As I've been going through these election templates, they were created for one purpose. Normally templates are supposed to have multiple uses. Navboxes are not created for say one article, but multiple articles. But with the information that's presented here should be part of the article as a standard table. Why would there need to be election information from two centuries ago on a separate template when it can be easily be included within the article it was created for. It's not like the results from 1897 are going to change 124 years later. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Results can still change, and their presentation might. For 1897's case, I don't think it's used in plenty of articles but for post- and including 1935, these results are transcluded in multiple places. If a better template is created, or we'd need to change something (like somebody dug up stats for blank ballots!) someone would only have to change just one page, and it is guaranteed to affect all transclusions. Let's say we section-transclude (is there a name for this process?), there's no guarantee all transclutions will be updated; some may have screwed up coding so it won't be affected. If we wholesale substitute, someone has to keep track where it was substituted, then change every substitution to what the new version is... this isn't the best use of time in Wikipedia.
For an example, see the 1953 election. This was the first revision in 2007. Edited in 2010 to include "Total" column. Edited in 2016 to include valid and invalid votes. Updated in 2021 to use Election results template. So, when I changed it in 2010, I thought, this would be the last time I'd edit this template... guess I was wrong lol. Who know someone else would be changing this in 2025? He'd have to change 5 articles? Such wasteful use of time! Howard the Duck (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
    • These templates were converted to use {{Election results}} just recently. If we'd transclude these and in the future, a better template is made, I don't want to edit the 2-4 articles the transclusions are saved at to make sure everything is the same. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The practice of using section transclusion with onlyinclude tags to transclude a table is inferior to using a template, because it prevents the use of VTE links and is confusing for less experienced editors. As a best practice, section transclusion should be used when the purpose is to transclude the section, not as a workaround to avoid a template. --Bsherr (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:1935 Philippine vice presidential election resultsEdit

All are used on the presidential election articles and should be substituted on there and usage outside the main election article should be transcluded using the #section-h function. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose increased use of section transclusion of articles in article space, too complicated for users, likely to break and too costly. —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Then we can just substitute if doing the section transclusion will cause trouble. The section for the respective election can be a link to the section of the election article for the results on the Presidential elections in the Philippines. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    • These templates were converted to use {{Election results}} just recently. If we'd transclude these and in the future, a better template is made I don't want to edit the 2-4 articles the transclusions are saved at to make sure everything is the same. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The practice of using section transclusion with onlyinclude tags to transclude a table is inferior to using a template, because it prevents the use of VTE links and is confusing for less experienced editors. As a best practice, section transclusion should be used when the purpose is to transclude the section, not as a workaround to avoid a template. --Bsherr (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:1941 Philippine Senate election resultsEdit

Used on two election articles. Should be substituted on the senate election articles and on the general election articles for these years should be transcluded using the #section-h function. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose increased use of section transclusion of articles in article space, too complicated for users, likely to break and too costly. —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Then we can just substitute if doing the section transclusion will cause trouble. The section for the respective election can be a link to the section of the election article for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm planning to convert these to a better template, something similar to {{Election results}}. I don't want to edit the 2-3 articles each template is used at just to make sure everything is the same. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The practice of using section transclusion with onlyinclude tags to transclude a table is inferior to using a template, because it prevents the use of VTE links and is confusing for less experienced editors. As a best practice, section transclusion should be used when the purpose is to transclude the section, not as a workaround to avoid a template. --Bsherr (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:1912 Philippine Assembly election resultsEdit

All should be substituted on the respective election articles. And usage outside the main election articles should be transcluded elsewhere using the #section-h function. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • These templates were converted to use {{Election results}} just recently. If we'd transclude these and in the future, a better template is made, I don't want to edit the 2-4 articles the transclusions are saved at to make sure everything is the same. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Substitute and delete 1912 Philippine Assembly election results, 1940 Philippine National Assembly special election results, 1984 Philippine parliamentary election results, 1987 Philippine House election results, keep the rest. The former have one transclusion and can be substituted therefore. The latter have multiple transclusions and, for the reasons above, section transclusion is inferior to the template pages. --Bsherr (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Sri Lanka Central Provincial Council election result, 2009Edit

The first two 2009 and the Sri Lanka North Western Provincial Council election result, 2009 templates should be substituted on the two election articles it is used on. The rest are single-use and should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Sri Lanka Central Provincial Council election result, 2009; Sri Lanka Eastern Provincial Council election result, 2009; and Sri Lanka North Western Provincial Council election result, 2009; substitute and delete the rest. The former have multiple transclusions and should not be substituted. The rest have one transclusion and should be substituted. --Bsherr (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Malayan general election, 1955Edit

The 1955 template is unused as the article uses a different table. The rest are single-use and should be substituted where used. The 2008 template is used on two other articles and should be transcluded elsewhere the #section-h function. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Malaysian general election, 2008; and Malaysian general election, 2018; delete Malayan general election, 1955; and substitute and delete the rest. The templates I propose to keep have multiple transclusions. I agree with the nominator concerning the others. --Bsherr (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Johor state election, 2013Edit

All single-use Malaysian State elections and should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Taiwan presidential election, 2000Edit

Not used on the presidential election articles, instead, it's used on the articles of the candidates who ran for the respective elections. The templates should either be deleted outright or substituted on the politicians' articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't think results tables should be on the respective politicians' articles. If there is consensus is that they should, the results tables from the election articles can be transcluded there using #section-h and these still deleted. Number 57 22:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. These templates have multiple transclusions. Section transclusion is an inferior alternative because the intent is to transclude the table, not an entire section of an article. --Bsherr (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Responding to the comment above the line, there is a valid question over whether these uses are actually appropriate, and I do not think they are. However, if we do want to keep the tables, election result templates are prone to vandalism or unsourced changes, hence I'd say they are an inferior option to transclusion, which will be from an article watched by multiple editors. Number 57 14:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove from articles and delete. There is no reason to have these tables on individual articles. If needed to note what result they achieved in a specific election, that should be a one liner in prose, not a table with irrelevant data. A link to the election from the prose or hatnote is the proper way to handle this. Gonnym (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Iranian presidential election, 1980Edit

All should be substituted where used. No need for the information to be on separate templates since these are created for one purpose and won't be updated regularly. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Remove, subst and delete. Remove templates and tables completely from the "Election history of ..." articles (Electoral history of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani ). Those articles are just abusing the template space to inflate articles with minimal prose and offer no value. Those articles (if at all needed) should have the relevant data and not tables with 10 irrelevant entries each. Subst to the most specific election article and if used on a secondary, more general election article, transclude to it. Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Kang the ConquerorEdit

Most of these articles are not bound together my Kang. ★Trekker (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@*Treker: Oppose: They are bound by Nathaniel Richards and his variants, which are Rama-Tut, Kang the Conqueror, Immortus, and Iron Lad, which is why I created it as Template:Nathaniel Richards. Rise of Apocalypse is a Rama-Tut storyline, Avengers Forever and Kang Dynasty are Kang storylines, Young Avengers and Exiles are Iron Lad storylines. All are Nathaniel Richards storylines. I have removed Grandmaster and Blackagar Boltagon; they were more single storyline characters in terms of association, but the rest are notable. 21AndSon (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@21AndSon: This is simply not what navboxes are for, they aren't supposed to be used for a bunch of articles that are mildly connected to each other in convoluted ways.★Trekker (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@*Treker: Comic books are convoluted, but all of these storylines follow all follow the same character, Nathaniel Richards, at different points in time, and only some off them follow him as "Kang". Ravonna and Cassie Lang are love interests of Kang and Iron Lad, Immortus is a member of the Time Variance Authority, Iron Lad is a member of the Young Avengers and the Exiles. I would propose moving to Template:Nathaniel Richards again, as it is the more neutral title. 21AndSon (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@21AndSon: As far as I see it this template is simply not helpful for navigation, the articles that have relations to each other are most likely simply going to be linked to each other in the text already.★Trekker (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@*Treker: It can be improved upon, but I do believe is helpful for navigation, to link together the related articles about the character, and help someone find out information about the character and their storylines without needing to read the entire article. 21AndSon (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment: @*Treker to be honest, almost all comic related navbox are just bad. Look at a page like X-Men and see how many navboxes it has, now try and find the actual unique links. Or even worse, look at Captain America and see the amount of other character navbox he is included in. It would seem that comic editors are using navbox to replace list articles instead of using one comic-publication character navbox and one media navbox (comic titles, films, etc). So yes, while this navbox is just not needed and should be deleted, it's not worse than all the others. Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@*Treker: By this, the majority of comic-publication character navboxes that there are should be deleted. There should be a separate type of navbox for comic book series and characters just as there are for comic-publication character infoboxes. 21AndSon (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gonnym and 21AndSon:The majority do not need to be deleted, they just need to be majorly trimmed. There is no reason that Captain Americ would need to be linked as "antagonist" or "supporting character" on a bunch of random navboxes.★Trekker (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep for the alter-egos alone. Given the nature of who Kang is in the comics, having a quick navigation between all of his alter egos is helpful to the reader. I would not be opposed to reduction of links if others feel there is that need, but as stated, simply because of who the character is and all the alter egos they've had over the years, this is useful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Favre. This links to several useful articles and helps navigate readers through all of his variants. "Nathaniel Richards" isn't likely as known as Kang is, but at least that should be a redirect here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons listed by Favre1fan93 above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Palestine legislative election, 1996Edit

The 1996 template is unused. The 2006 and 2005 templates are redundant as these election articles use a different table for the results and are used on the PNA mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Now all unused as I transcluded the results tables from the election articles to where the (less detailed) 2005/2006 templates were being used. Number 57 22:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The practice of using section transclusion with onlyinclude tags to transclude a table is inferior to using a template, because it prevents the use of VTE links and is confusing for less experienced editors. As a best practice, section transclusion should be used when the purpose is to transclude the section, not as a workaround to avoid a template. The 2005 and 2006 tables that are used in the articles should be split from the articles to the respective template pages. --Bsherr (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Responding to the comment above the line, IMO using template space for results tables is the inferior option here because templates are prone to unspotted vandalism and unsourced changes as so few people watch them. Number 57 14:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete as now used, but even if it were used, I'd support subst and delete. To respond to Bsherr, the actual solution to these data tables is using a place that is designed to store data, such as Wikidata, and then design a template that handles the visual side of things and is used for all articles, such as {{Election results}}. However, since we aren't using that structure and are still using outdated and bad design principles, the better solution of the two (transclusion or templates) would be to keep the data in a much more highly viewed and watched page, where editors can make sure vandalism and bad edits are reverted. The templates themselves, usually have very few watchers and I wouldn't be surprised that most only have the template creator. Additionally, the usage of election result templates on more than one page is usually incorrect. Some pages have just been turned into a repository of results without any actual prose or added value over the yearly election articles. Gonnym (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of ZambiaEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to it. —— Eric LiuTalk 09:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of UgandaEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to it. —— Eric LiuTalk 09:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of SomaliaEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to it. —— Eric LiuTalk 08:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of RwandaEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to. —— Eric LiuTalk 08:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of North MacedoniaEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to. —— Eric LiuTalk 08:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of LuxembourgEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to. —— Eric LiuTalk 05:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of LiechtensteinEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to. —— Eric LiuTalk 05:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of KosovoEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to. —— Eric LiuTalk 05:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of KenyaEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to. —— Eric LiuTalk 05:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of GabonEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to. —— Eric LiuTalk 05:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of EritreaEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to. —— Eric LiuTalk 05:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of Equatorial GuineaEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to. —— Eric LiuTalk 05:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of DjiboutiEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to. —— Eric LiuTalk 04:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Borders of BurundiEdit

A navbox with no actual article linked to. —— Eric LiuTalk 04:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Red-linked and can't help with navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

August 1Edit

Template:Portuguese nameEdit

Propose merging Template:Portuguese name with Template:Family name hatnote.
Merge into an existing single one hatnote template for a future use. ApprenticeWiki work 23:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

What has changed since this September 2020 discussion to make this possible? (ETA: This comment was in reference to {{Philippine name}} specifically.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@ApprenticeFan:, while I think functionally speaking, it would be nice to have all the "family hatnote" templates merged, so at that level I don't disagree with your proposal, but at the same time, it may not be as easy to merge practically speaking as some of the others, or it would have been done already. I wonder if you've looked at the {{Portuguese name}} template code in detail (or at the doc page) as there may be some technical difficulties in merging it. Which isn't to say it shouldn't be done, only that it's easy for us to say, "let's merge this", but in the end, if that's the consensus, some template writer has to actually perform the merge, otherwise it won't happen. So to a certain extent, the technical feasibility of a move plays into the question of whether it ought to be considered for merging. There are some unique aspects of {{Portuguese name}} regarding the use of generational titles like filho or neto which would require some additional design work and coding; that's probably the sticking point that prevented it from being merged earlier. Which isn't to say it shouldn't be attempted, but it's something to take into consideration. If you wanted to take a shot at merging it, I doubt anyone would be opposed. This discussion may give you some of the backstory for why it hasn't been done prior to this, in case you decide to take it on. Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
That someone would be me (probably), and the last time I looked into these it was not a trivial thing owing to the patronymics and general not-sameness in the language. It can probably be done, just not easily. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Would be interested in hearing User:Primefac's opinion on these as they are the one who merged the previous batches and maintains the template. Looking at the code for these, Indonesian, Malay and Singaporean seem to be simple hatnotes and ideal for merge, but as I said, I'd like to hear Primefac's take on these first. As a side note, both Template:Spanish colonial name and Template:Spanish married name which are not nominated here, seem to be ideal for merge as Spanish is already supported by the template (and the EfN templates should really be merged into a single one like the hatnotes). Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm neither for or against at this point in time. While I do agree with some of the above sentiment that all of these hatnote templates should be a single entity, the discussion linked by Jonesey above (where the Philippine template was originally struck from the TFD) indicated that we would need proof of concept before being converted, and I haven't done that yet because this is a non-trivial update. It is very possible that adding in the patronymics will require a full rewrite of the existing {{fnh}} structure, and most people in the previous two discussions were quite concerned about the potential complexity of the code.
In other words: can it be done? Sure. Will it be easy? No. Should that stop us from trying anyway? I guess not? Primefac (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Opposed, while awaiting larger volunteer pool – that's an unusual !vote, so allow me to explain. (Tl;dr: it's unfair pressure on volunteer editors if there's really only one or two people who can do it.) I went back and forth on this one. On the one hand, if one evaluates this purely on the basis of the result after it's completed, allocating zero cost to actually doing it, then I would !vote "yes (merge)". But we already know it's a difficult merge, and it won't come at zero cost.
One part of the cost is related to the issue of *who* is going to do it. As Primefac already mentioned, they are a prime candidate for it, but this is a volunteer project, and we can't just expect to "assign" tasks to individuals because they're the only one, or even the most logical one, to do it. The flip side of Primefac working on this (difficult) merge, is that they won't be available to work on other templates which may actually introduce new functionality or simpler functionality, or otherwise improve the encyclopedia. Given their utility on a wide range of tasks here, I judge that it would be a net negative to the encyclopedia for them to work on this for the moment (unless they wish to because it pleases them to do so; as this is a volunteer project, their choice is paramount and trumps anything else mentioned here).
Another possible choice for "who", is me. I could probably manage it, and my time is likely less valuable, but I'm a volunteer, too, and I already feel oversubscribed. Plus, I just don't see the utility of it right now; insufficient gain for significant pain. The main reason I might choose to do it at some point, is precisely because it is difficult; it might boost my template skills, and that's appealing to me. But that reason doesn't supersede my doubts about how useful it would be in the end.
The flip side of "cost" is "benefit"; namely, once the difficult work is done, how much functionality do we gain for that expenditure? Zero. There won't be anything editors can do after the merge, that they cannot do now. There is one minor benefit to users: they will save two or three seconds locating the correct template for Portuguese family names after the merge, because currently it might cost them one extra click from the Template:Family name hatnote#See also section, if they happen to land there first. (Then again, maybe not; an advanced search for 'Portuguese names' in Template space nails the correct template in result #1.) One could perhaps add an additional benefit of merging, based on reduced cost for an editor familiar with the main template, to not have to learn the different parameter set for the unmerged one; but that seems pretty sketchy.
So, while ideally a merge would be a nice-to-have, there's not a lot of payoff to actually doing it right now, and I feel it's unfair pressure on volunteer editors if the available implementer pool is shallow. So I vote Opposed for now, until we have a strong consensus to merge, *and* five template writers all of whom are available to do it, so nobody feels too pressured that it falls on them. I'll throw my hat in the ring, as one of the five possibles, so we need consensus plus four more; once we have that, I'll change my vote to "Support", but not yet. There are more important things to do around here right now. Mathglot (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:ArchivelineEdit

This template is completely redundant to {{Archive list}}, where that template can automatically detect archives. This template has to be manually added for each line of 10 archives. Almost all uses of this template have been replaced with {{Archive list}}. Since this template has no advantages over the other, this template should be deleted. Terasail[✉️] 21:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Anderson FamilyEdit

This is a completly made up family, there is no real use in this template. ★Trekker (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Fake news. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least in some form: Of course it's made up – it's professional wrestling. Should we delete {{Star Trek}} because it is also made up? The Anderson family seems to be sourced reasonably, and I checked a few articles linking the people in the template to the "family" and found sources for the connections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Problem is that it's not actually helpful for navigation, having been included in this made up family isn't actually defining or too noteworthy for many of the people linked.★Trekker (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep This isn't a made up family tree. All these people exist and are related to each other in the way the template presents them. This is a historic wrestling family and their importance is of note. Not only will this not be deleted it will be expanded upon as its missing people from the list. --BokeATong (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/EuproopidaeEdit

The clade Euproopidae is a synonym of Belinuridae (refs: [1] [2]). We already have Template:Taxonomy/Belinuridae, so this template is useless and will no longer be used. Super Ψ Dro 10:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

July 31Edit

SNCRR templatesEdit

{{s-line}} templates for the now-defunct Saratoga and North Creek Railway. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Saratoga and North Creek Railway. The four dependent s-line data modules should be deleted as well. Mackensen (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Now Commons Also LocalEdit

unused fork of {{Now Commons}} which needlessly integrates elements of {{Keep local}}. This is also visually similar to {{Now Commons}}, which is confusing to reviewing admins. Suggest either delete or redirect to {{Keep local}}. FASTILY 22:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't think this is a good candidate for a redirect because this template combines the name and functionality of two existing templates (and at a glance it isn't obvious which one it should be redirected to) and it has 0 transclusions, so it doesn't seem to have been in active use. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Morristown and Erie Railroad templatesEdit

Incomplete and unused {{s-line}} implementation for the Morristown and Erie Railroad. Implemented in Module:Adjacent stations/Morristown and Erie Railroad. The single s-line data module should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Star Wars Jedi Prince seriesEdit

Pointless Navbox. All the separate articles on this book series were merged into the series article so this no longer navigates anywhere. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:New Jedi Order seriesEdit

Pointless Navbox. All the separate articles on this book series were merged into the series article so this no longer navigates anywhere. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Jedi Quest seriesEdit

Pointless Navbox. All the separate articles on this book series were merged into the series article 6 months ago so this no longer navigates anywhere. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

VRR templatesEdit

{{s-line}} templates for services operated under the umbrella of the Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Rhine-Ruhr Stadtbahn, Module:Adjacent stations/Trams in Bochum, Module:Adjacent stations/Trams in Duisburg, and Module:Adjacent stations/Trams in Essen. All transclusions replaced. There are 66 dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Star Wars draftsEdit

Navigation box solely designed to contain links to drafts means this will never be used in mainspace, the purpose of drafts is not to create an alternate collection of articles for the reader that aren't official articles, they should solely exist to work towards being published BOVINEBOY2008 02:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Drafts should never be on a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with a navigation template to aid readers in moving between drafts of a similar topic, especially since there are many in this instance, and readers may not be aware of categories. Additionally, the template is solely for the draft articles (so there will not be a cross-pollination of other namespaces) and is coded in such a way that it will produce an error should it be used in the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Readers should not be casually reading and navigating through drafts. They are drafts because, for one reason or another, are not ready to be articles. This is essentially encouraging a secondary Wikipedia that does not need to meet WP:N. For editors who wish to work on Star Wars related drafts, they can find such links in categories or possibly the task force could create a page with a running list. BOVINEBOY2008 22:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
      • WP:NAVBOX clearly states: Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. This most certainly fits that bill, and nothing else at NAVBOX nor WP:NAV saying anything about restricting the type of namespaces used in such, especially considering there are many navboxes that are to navigate between template space and the Wikipedia namespace. The draft space is no different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
        • WP:NAVBOX also states that it should generally follow particular guidelines including "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." and "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." Neither of these apply in this case. BOVINEBOY2008 16:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
          • Template and project space aren't articles either, and again, there are a multitude of navboxes to aid editors in moving around to relevant templates or project space info, so once again, no different for this instance. I don't know how the part you mentioned about "See also" is relevant at all in this matter, as that would never be the case in its use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't make any sense as a navbox.
    • Readers should not be in draft space - it is not indexed, does not show up in search results, and is not linked from the main encyclopaedia. The entire point of draft space is to give articles a place to grow before they are ready for public view. There is therefore no point in making templates to aid reader navigation through draft articles.
    • From WP:Navigation template - "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles". None of these articles are related in any kind of meaningful way that would make a natural reading list. They aren't all part of some connected series - there's everything from characters to video games to TV series to fictional planets listed here spanning 30+ years and multiple movies, time periods and spin-offs.
    • From WP:Navigation template - "Navigation templates provide navigation among existing articles". None of the things in this navbox are existing articles, They're all drafts in varying levels of completeness and presentability.
    • By design stuff moves into and out of draft space on a regular basis - keeping this up to date is going to be a lot of maintenance for little benefit.
    • The template servers as a Wikipedia self-reference. This template is grouping pages by their progress through an internal Wikipedia process rather than by their content.
    • The functionality of the template is redundant to Category:Star Wars drafts.
192.76.8.91 (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. These navbox serve a navigational purpose for editors working in draftspace on a particular subject. Regarding the above assumption that navboxes are navigational tools between articles only, it should be noted that there are navboxes for projectspace and templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Having a navbox like his prevents draft categories like Category:Star Wars drafts from being edited out by draft bots.★Trekker (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

July 30Edit

All Z-number templatesEdit

. . .

Multiple deletion nomination for all Z-number templates from Z1 through Z208 (or beyond): these templates should all be deleted. "The entire premise for the existence of this template family is false." See Template talk:Z number documentation. Note that contrary to the documentation in Step 1 at WP:Tfd#Listing a template under 'Multiple templates' which says, 'Tag every template', I am tagging only Template:Z1. If someone wants to tag the other 200-odd templates or write a bot, be my guest. Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Notifications: attempting to follow the notification step III, I've notified creators of Z1, Z208, and Primefac, who has been active in this topic. See Template talk:Z number documentation. I scanned Z2 through around Z8, and the code doesn't even seem to be there anymore, so I don't want to send hundreds of pointless notifications out. I'm willing to send a dozen or two, if someone can point me to the ones that are actually in use. I'll notify the Templates WikiProject also. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • If they are replaced with a comment that can easily be searched for if one isn't already present I would be fine with this. I really don't have a strong opinion here though as long as it's still easily trackable. --Trialpears (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Trialpears:, I'm no authority, so quoting Primefac here:

    ...the fact that commented out text is not searchable is incorrect; an incode: search finds any piece of text in the source. As an example, {{Z15}} is associated with {{uw-softerblock}}.

    It would be up to the substable templates who wished to be trackable, to use a hidden comment like almost all substed templates already do, to ensure that they were trackable. Probably most already have it, and the rest could add one. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    (insource:.) Izno (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I stared at that for a while, until the light bulb came on. Very handy. Here's an illustration; compare the "what links here" search, with the advanced search with the insource keyword:
    ▻ What Links Here: Template:Z15
    ▻ Advanced search: insource:"<!-- Template:Uw-softerblock -->"
    (Note: to actually verify the results, you'd have to list all of them and sort, but they should be the same set.) Thanks, Primefac for the tip, and Izno for the keyword correction. Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, apologies for the typo on the template talk. I've updated it there but noting here for the record that the quote above did correctly include my typo. Primefac (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    As long as an effort is made to make sure there is an associated comment present, I'm happy. --Trialpears (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, with abstention: If it is decided to delete all of them, then I will not object, but we must first understand why they are there. I only discovered Template:Z number documentation recently. It's purpose is thus... the User Warnings listed at WP:WARN are all substituted. When one of these substitution templates is applied to a user's talk page, it is not always easy to later determine from the source code which template was applied to the user's talk page. The Z templates are meant to be a way to determine which template was substituted on the page. It does seem a little redundant if the original template is named in a hidden comment, but that's what I've come to understand the purpose of the Z templates. Note, there are two templates I could not add their Z number to because they were protected; if the Z templates are deleted, please make a notation of this when closing my edit requests 29 July 2021 and 29 July 2021 (2). Thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. To attempt to answer the question of why these exist, the oldest one (Template:Z1) dates to 2009, whereas the current search system has only existed since 2014. It's entirely possible that searching for commented-out text wasn't possible back in 2009 when these templates were created. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I think this was a valuable set of templates when they were first created, but the search tools have sufficiently advanced since their creation and they are now unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    As a general note, since such things often get brought up (and I'm honestly surprised they haven't yet), if this does close as delete I can put my bot on the task, and will make sure that if the related templates do not contain a commented-out piece of text (for example, {{helpmessage}} does not contain <!--Template:Helpmessage-->), the removal of the Z template (for example {{Z163}}) will be a replacement with said text (and the template will be updated accordingly). Primefac (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
(Z-number) Sidebar issue about tagging and notificationEdit
Sorted

As mentioned earlier, I tagged two templates, and notified two creators, one involved user, and two WikiProjects. That leaves another two hundred untagged templates, and an unknown number of unnotified creator-users. Does anyone see a problem with this, or have a suggestion how to ameliorate the lack of tagging/notification? The first eight templates I checked that were at one time associated with Z-number templates (Z1–Z8), no longer use them, and I quit after that, jumped to Z208, and tagged that one. Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Just checked templates connected with {{Z9}} – {{Z20}} in the doc page, and the only one that still contains a Z-template is {{Help me-nq}} (Z20), and there's no point notifying its creator, because their last edit was in 2011. Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • FYI: I have tagged the base template {{Z number documentation}} as being nominated for deletion, linking to this discussion here. This tagged all of the Z-number templates transcluding the base template. As for individual user notification, that I'm uncertain about in this case. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    @CJDOS: Oh, that's great, thanks! I've also tagged the creators of the templates transcluding the 30 most recent (highest-numbered) Z-number templates. See table below. Mathglot (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Notifications: I started with the most recent, as they're probably the more relevant, with more chance the creator is still active.

Notification summary for Z208 – Z180

Notifications go to creator (in col. 3) of column two template.

Z# template user notified remarks
{{Z208}} {{Uw-subtle4}} MJL 07-30
{{Z207}} {{Uw-subtle3}} Tornado chaser 07-30
{{Z206}} {{Uw-subtle2}} no no z-transclusion
{{Z205}} {{Uw-subtle1}} no no z-transclusion
{{Z204}} {{coimove}} Sdrqaz no userfied
{{Z203}} {{autocn}} Cortex128 07-30
{{Z202}} {{WP_search_protocol}} Fuhghettaboutit 07-30 also Z1
{{Z201}} {{uw-talkinarticle3}} Opalzukor 07-30
{{Z200}} {{uw-talkinarticle2}} Opalzukor 07-30
{{Z199}} {{uw-talkinarticle1}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z198}} deprecated
{{Z197}} deprecated
{{Z196}} deprecated
{{Z195}} deprecated
{{Z194}} deprecated
{{Z193}} {{Uw-test3}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z192}} {{Uw-test2}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z191}} {{Uw-test1}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z190}} {{Uw-vandalism4im}} Luk 07-30
{{Z189}} {{uw-vandalism4}} IRP no inactive 2011
{{Z188}} {{uw-vandalism3}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z187}} {{uw-vandalism2}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z186}} {{uw-vandalism1}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z185}} {{AfC-warn-NPF}} DannyS712 07-30
{{Z184}} {{Under review}} Winged Blades of Godric 07-30
{{Z183}} {{Uw-tilde}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z182}} {{UAA-no edits}} Beeblebrox 07-30
{{Z181}} {{Please ping}} Kephir no inactive 1 yr
{{Z180}} {{Uw-ecgaming}} Primefac 07-30

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Only two seasons ran for the show. Linked to only three articles but falls short of its navigational purpose. Similar to the Dutch version template that was deleted on July 21. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:2004 Major League Soccer Overall tableEdit

The overall table is used on one page while the Eastern and Western templates are used only on two pages. Propose substituting the information where the templates are used since these templates won't be updated regularly. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Creator not notified, relisting to extend the comment period
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:1952 Summer Olympics men's water polo classification group standingsEdit

Single-use templates that should be substituted where used on the Water polo at the 1952 Summer Olympics article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Creator not notified, relisting to extend comment period
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:1952 Summer Olympics men's basketball group A standingsEdit

Single-use templates that should be substituted where used on the Basketball at the 1952 Summer Olympics article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Creator not notified, relisting to extend comment period
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Should be on the various nation pages as well, but substituting and deleting the templates should be fine. (I think we tend to use section transclusion now for things like that.) -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:UserTalkArchiveBoxEdit

Propose merging Template:UserTalkArchiveBox with Template:Archives.
{{UserTalkArchiveBox}} is an archive box with less features than {{Archives}} with little advantages apart from the image being to the left of the Archives title rather than above which can look better since this template is automatically collapsed. All the features of {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} can easily be added to {{Archives}} and some of the features of {{Archives}} would be able to be used in this format aswell (Image change, stop collapsing...) which they currently are not. Terasail[✉️] 12:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • How exactly do you intend on implementing this? I'm not a big fan of having two collapse options in {{Archives}} if that's your plan. --Trialpears (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Trialpears: I did a rough attempt in the sandbox with a new parameter: |utab= (should probably be renamed to something else). If the templates are not mergerd, {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} should probably be deleted in favour of {{Archives}}. Terasail[✉️] 15:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    I'm more inclined to just delete and replace, but given that this is in user space I know that is controversial. After looking at all 123 uses of the template only a small minority should actually have a collapsible box as it now serves to hide one or two links in which case just a normal non-collapsed {{Archives}} seems like the best replacement. The only users who have boxes that benefit from collapsing and have edited in the past few years are @Pi, Jbmurray, Kurykh, Nthep, A930913, Nick, Sturmgewehr88, and Adirlanz:. In these cases a replacement is just a change in style without being a significant improvement. If you guys are fine with a replace and delete I feel that would be by far the best solution from a maintenance and ease of use standpoint. If you have any questions about archiving I'm happy to assist and can ensure it will continue working after a potential conversion but with visual differences. I will shortly make an actual !vote shortly outlining the significant positive impacts of consolidation. --Trialpears (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked into the functionality details enough yet to be comfortable making a formal !vote, but on a high level, these seem like templates doing the same thing that we ought to be able to find a way to merge. That could either be done here, or as part of a larger talk archiving overhaul of the sort I know Trialpears is working on. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I would like to echo the same point: I don't know all the details about the two templates, but if they are similar and can be merged without a downside, then it would be desirable for good house keeping. Thanks. Al83tito (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete Undecided on merger. This template is a rarely used archive box similar to the ones we have previously consolidated to streamline the process of setting up an archive over the past few years. The vision is that it should be as simple as putting {{Archives}} on a page to get a good archiving solution with lots of easily accessible and well documented configuration options instead of the previous method of choosing another box if you wanted some variation, usually with differing syntax and little overview of what other options are available. In the quite near future there are also plans on integrate auto archiving support by bot into {{Archives}} which wouldn't be available to {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} users. While replacement of this template isn't essential for any of these plans it would simplify the choice of archive box streamlining that process and make it easier for {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} users who want to change anything in the future. --Trialpears (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    More information about planned archiving reform can be found at User:Trialpears/Archiving manifesto. Nothing there is set in stone, but it is a rough roadmap. --Trialpears (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I am generally in favor of consolidating redundant code/templates/functionality. If the {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} functionality can be incorporated into {{Archives}}, I request that the talk template have the same width and default color (yellowish) as other templates on talk pages, using a style parameter. Somerandomuser (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    Somerandomuser It will do both those. It only appears white on non-talk pages (such as WP:RFPP) as that is the color scheme usually used there (you can read a bit more at {{mbox}} I believe). --Trialpears (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Replace and remove: I am in favor of consolidating redundant code/templates/functionality. Thank you Trialpears for addressing my concerns. Somerandomuser (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per above. ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggestions: Template:UserTalkArchive is tied with Template:UserTalkArchiveBox, and as such has more information in its template doc, so I would recommend examining it first before any action is decided. If the {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} is made redundant by merging its functionality into {{Archives}}, then I would recommend similar to {{UserTalkArchive}}, merging its functionality into Template:Automatic archive navigator. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    I agreed that should also be consolidated, but it doesn't really have any impact on the present discussion. They can be used completely independently of each other and there are probably differences in how they should be handled. --Trialpears (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't care As a long-time user of this template, I've got to say that I'm not fussed about this at all. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't care so long as the process of changing is invisible to me as a long time user, that I don't have to do anything significant. I don't even mind if my talk page gets changed in the process. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete. Not every flavor should be supported and having an easier code to maintain while also having a more standard user experience is a much better ideal. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose no compelling reason or evidence of a real problem has been provided that it needs to be merged, deleted or replaced. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Conditional merge assuming a satisfying implementation and smooth migration is proposed. MarioGom (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Don’t care, it seems the nom just switched me across [3] and I cannot tell the difference from the old version [4]. Cavalryman (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC).
    No I just changed a parameter of {{Archives}}, there should be no actual change to your template and you were not using {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} Terasail II[✉️] 02:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This sounds like an idea without a concrete solution so far, minimum disruptions needs to happen if there is going to be a merge or deletion of this template. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sturmgewehr88 I wouldn't agree with that characterization. While there are two proposals for what to do, merging and replace and delete, both are themself thought thru. For merging the appearance and such would be preserved and all that would need to be done is changing {{UserTalkArchiveBox|Archive list}} to {{Archives|Archive list}}. For replace and delete the replacement would be similar but instead of implementing a new appearence for a collapsed archive box the one already supported by {{Archives}} would be used. This would be a change like {{UserTalkArchiveBox|Archive list}} to {{Archives|Archive list}}. In this case I also suggested uncollapsing unnecessarily collapsed boxes, it really isn't necessary for just one or two links and the apparence of the box would change anyway.
    For a template with as few uses as this one, just a bit over 100, the process would also be mostly manual and all edits would be individually reviewed. If you have any other questions feel free to ask! --Trialpears (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Indifferent - I have been using the Archives template for my talk page for years. I just hope you don't make a mess of the one I use, as it is perfectly satisfactory. LynwoodF (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There really is no solid discussion from the nominator on why this should even be done. – The Grid (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete. No need for two templates with similar functionality when one can support all necessary features. czar 04:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per Trialpears' rationale above. —Bruce1eetalk 06:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete. These are two archive templates are in the header above, not three. --Diegopeter2013 (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per Trialpears' rationale -- DaxServer (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Conditional replace and delete As long as a plan can be put in place to either change the template to eliminate any disruption for any of us using the old template, or (preferable IMO, if it can be done seamlessly), using a bot to wholesale change every use to the new template, with parameters that exactly replicate the old ones. The latter would be trickier, and would mean modifying people's user/user talk pages (controversial, at best), but would mean not having to deal with backwards compatibility in the future. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: Pardon my ignorace. I bet you will have the answer to this. If one template gets merged into another one, what happens to the pages with the old template? Does a bot go a replace the deprecated template with the new template? Or is the expectation that all articles will have some active editor that will manually update them? Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
    Al83tito Templates are put into the holding cell whenever a discussion closes with consensus for change where they remain until the consensus is implemented. How implementation is done can vary a lot depending on context, but for this template it would probably be me or Terasail go through all pages using the template and perform the suitable replacement. If I were to do it I would use AWB which does it semi-automatic with manual checking of each edit. There is no expectation that users with the template on their talk page do anything. --Trialpears (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No evidence of a real problem has been provided and no compelling reason for deletion has been presented. Furthermore, no concrete solution has been presented. Keep these as they are -- no need to fix what isn't broken. - tucoxn\talk 00:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I don't want any of these changes fudging up the format and layout of my talk page. It was very clever and tricky template placement that was exactly what got my talk page looking the way I wanted it to. Huggums537 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Switch to Replace and delete per subsequent discussion with Trialpears. Huggums537 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    Your user page uses {{Archives}} and not {{UserTalkArchiveBox}}. Regardless of outcome the appearance of it will not be changed in anyway, that is only on the table for the ~100 pages using the latter template. --Trialpears (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
    Trialpears, I know exactly which template I'm using. I've just never been convinced when anyone tells me their fiddling around won't affect me in any way at all, but they haven't fully put it to the test to see if it actually will or not. If it could be proven it wouldn't affect me, then I would happily and gladly support your suggested replace and delete. Huggums537 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
    Huggums537 Completley reasonable. Most editors don't know or care about implementation details since they have better things to do.
    If the replace and delete option gains consensus it would not involve any edit to the {{Archives}} template and could thus impossibly affect any of those transclusions. If the merge option gains consensus the extra parameter would be implemented in the test version of the template, presumably by Terasail, and then the output be compared to almost 50 testcases at Template:Archives/testcases if the code generated by the test version is the exact same as the live version with a specific set of inputs the test will collapse and display in green. If not it will show a side by side comparison. By confirming that all current test cases green it can be ensured that only new uses with the parameter are affected. If you want, I could ping you when the new version is finished so you can confirm for yourself that it's the exact same. --Trialpears (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    Trialpears, sounds to me like the no edit to the Archives template would affect me personally, and most other people the least. It also sounds like the least trouble to implement. You've convinced me to support your proposal. Huggums537 (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete, otherwise merge. No need for multiple alternatives, which are just confusing for the reader, and novice editor. With just 122 vs. 41947 transclusions, the community has already made clear its preference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to comment I don't understand the relisting. There's plenty of activity. There is obviously substantial opposition. What is left to discuss? Compare how a merge decision was bulldozed through in the recent case of Auto Archiving Notice, despite serious concerns by several unrelated editors, using weak spurious arguments such there were three times as many supporters as opponents (as if quantity trumped quality of argument?) If this RfC ends up pretending a merge decision was the consensus here too, it's time to re-evaluate the overall wipeout of archive-related templates and the very few editors responsible. I thought the point of having these discussions was to address concerns, and if they aren't resolved, then at least openly acknowledge them as ultimately not-crucial. As opposed to acting as they were not even made. CapnZapp (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    CapnZapp I would agree that there is some opposition to this proposal, but I'm unsure what you believe are the unaddressed high quality opposition arguments here. I see editors opposing the proposal are mostly in one of two camps, either they don't find the reasons to merge uncompelling or they have concerns about implementation difficulties. For the latter I've tried to address them, it is after all an important part in making the outcome as good as possible, but If I've missed anything feel free to let me know. The former argument I feel should be weighed just as highly as most support !votes since neither cites policy or are otherwise especially strong.
    If you have gripes with how the Auto Archiving Notice merger is being handled I would suggest commenting at Template talk:Talk header#Sandbox version where most post-TfD discussion about it has occured and I plan to implement the new template version and start combining templates in a few days. You are also welcome to my talkpage. I presume I am in the group of editors you are talking about and would like to know if there's anything you feel I should do differently. --Trialpears (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete; replace UserTalkArchiveBox by Archives, per nominator and Pigsonthewing's rationales. Veverve (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Complex and seemingly unnecessary. Adding the features of a template with under 200 transclusions to one with over 40,000 might cause many more potential issues and snags than the net benefits. Well enough left alone. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Godsy What are your thoughts on the replace and delete proposal which wouldn't involve changes to {{archives}}? I share your concerns about a merger though, hence why I'm still undecided about that option. --Trialpears (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Trialpears: I would oppose that as well, because those using {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} may lose functionality. Nothing is gained besides having one less template around, which is not much of a benefit (besides perhaps a minuscule lesser maintenance burden over time). The trend of consolidation and supposed streamlining school of thought as of late may be growing a bit too strong. Simple templates are often more convenient than complex amalgamized ones; easy use for the average user does not include a plethora of parameters etc. Also, I do not use auto-archiving (however, e.g. anyone who wishes to use it can simply switch to a different system if it is not built into both templates).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stubEdit

Not a stub template; unused; appropriately replaced by the VAV Project talk page Stub-Class article template. Her Pegship (?) 18:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep meets none of the four WP:TFD#REASONS as there is potential for this template being used. I'm a bit confused by the first part of the nom since this template does seem to be a stub template: This template is used to identify a veganism and vegetarianism-related stub. It uses {{asbox}}, which is a meta-template designed to ease the process of creating and maintaining stub templates (Template:Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub). I'm not sure how many pages currently use it, since it has no category of its own. It adds to the VAV-Stub category Category:Stub-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles (population 147). But a stub template is better than the mere talk page Stub class. It is more visible and inviting to users who might expand the respective article. I'll add it to some of the 147 pages ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 23:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Update: added it to 10ish articles ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 23:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, it meets TfD #2: The template is redundant to a better-designed template. Until you added the template to those 10 articles, the template was not used on any articles, unproposed at WPSS, and redundant to {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}, which accomplishes the WPVAV purpose appropriately. (N.B. The wording of the template is simply a copy/paste from a correctly formed, correctly used stub template.) If you want to propose {{veganism-stub}} and/or {{vegetarianism-stub}}, please do so at WPSS - but please read the proposal guidelines on that page first. Thanks. Her Pegship (?) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Your interpretation of redundancy would mean we can't have stub templates for topics covered by Wikiprojects, since you could always use only the project talk page template. This interpretation is not consensus, or can you shown otherwise? It would entail eliminating Template:Agri-stub and many others, too, since WP:AGRICULTURE can categorise stubs via its talk page Template:WikiProject Agriculture.
Your other issue seems to be that under WP:NEWSTUB, stub templates should go through the Wikiproject Stub Sorting discussion process. But having skipped the process is no deletion reason for templates at WP:TFD#REASONS. WP:NEWSTUB is part of WP:STUB. That's just a guideline, not Wikipedia policy. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply, says WP:GUIDES. In the present case, common sense tells us that if there are 147 stubs categorised by the VAV talk page template, then there is obvious scope for a stub template to be displayed on some of those articles itself. We can skip deletion and submission to WPSS, since it is obvious it would pass at WPSS. let's not be WP:BURO when instead we can use the existing stub to entice more people to add material to stubs, thereby improving Wikipedia (WP:IGNORE).
As to not being in use: I'll use it, and I'll make sure to recommend it to the other VAV wikiproject members.
As to your proposal for separate vegan and vegetarian stub types, I think their scope would be too small. Anyhow, most articles could use both stub templates since they usually discuss both vegetarianism and veganism. Perhaps you could convince me on this point, but not on deletion of the only stub template we have. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 22:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
My interpretation, since {{Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub}} was unused and {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}} existed for the use of the VAV project, was that the {{Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub}} had been created in error and replaced by {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}. My original explanation was not clear, I think. (Also, it looks like the majority of the "Stub-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles" are about people who are vegans or vegetarians but are not notable for that fact. Just saying.) I don't feel strongly enough to pursue this further, so I will step back and allow others to form a consensus. Her Pegship (?) 04:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Question. Shouldn't this be at CFD? I'm not sure how this isn't a valid stub and why it can't be assessed there. –MJLTalk 04:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • MJL, possibly, but it doesn't add the traditional "stub" category but instead adds pages redundantly to Category:Stub-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles (both the talk and article are in the same category if they are both tagged as stubs) and I don't think we are proposing the category for deletion here. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Flintstones family treeEdit

The Flinstone's family tree is not as confusing as a family tree like the Skywalker family tree. Also all of the characters are neatly listed at Template:The Flintstones, so this really is not necessary. Finally, the entire template relies on two sources, one of which takes up a grand majority of the citations, and is strangly a site for lawyers. Overall, it is kind of pointless. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:MayaHorizontalEdit

redundant navigation to Template:Maya Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:European Parliament constituencies 1979–1984Edit

These navboxes are placed on constituency articles but are a massive bloat on some articles (see Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency)) as they try and be both a navbox and content. I'm proposing the following:

Support I think the template you've created would do a better job for all the former constituencies and it should have sections for the year range for each constituency listed above in the templates. It will be bloated to have it by country as there is a lot right now for the UK. I don't think the last option would make a ton of sense since the navbox option would in my view do a better job of linking the information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
A navboxere is a tool only for navigation so adding the year range for each constituency is both unnecessary and will also make it bloated (and of course, that information would be hidden from half of our readers using mobile). That is why I said that if the ranges are needed, it should be replaced with a table in the European Parliament constituency article. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:World laws pertaining to animal sentienceEdit

Continuing from a May 28 Tfd where LaundryPizza03 brought light to these templates. The template that was deleted from the discussion was the concern of Original Research. These templates fall under this as there are no sources to support the claims of the animal rights and laws these templates are supposed to bring to light what is legal or illegal in which part of the world. If deletion is granted to these 23 templates, I would recommend keeping the maps these templates use and keep them on the articles with a legend style infobox used for them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The first thing I note is that most of these maps lack any sources or list sources only on the file page, and are often missing most countries outside of Europe. Here's a rundown on all the nominated templates by sourcing:
LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Err, same as LaundryPizza03, if I may be allowed to skip relisting the templates. I was going to additionally remark that I think World dolphinarium bans should be tweaked to provide the refs in the template, not in the image file, the way Foie gras and Circus bans do, but there are rather a lot (5) of sources on that one and, worse, Stunning requirements for ritual slaughter has even more of them. I can see it'd be messy. LP's analysis seems good, though, and we should toss the templates with inadequate sourcing (groups 1 and 2). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 04:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment As I already indicated in May 28 Tfd (on 4 June 2021): "I've created many of those templates but provided ample resources for everything, including literature, laws and reliable news sources. If there is any unsourced material or original research in anything I have created, please let me know and I'll try to fix it. There are indeed too many maps on Commons which don't cite their sources, or rely solely on unreliable sources, or too much on primary sources. That's why I'm an advocate for evidence-based mapping, and am trying to set the right example, as you can read on my user page: c:User:Nederlandse Leeuw#Mapping issues (essay). I hope that eventually we can establish a guideline on this, because numerous maps on Commons are crap, but unsuspecting Wikipedians keep using them in articles, and unsuspecting readers keep thinking these maps are accurate." But nobody has answered that comment. I'd like to know how these maps and templates are supposed to work if these are bad examples, then I'm quite willing to try and fix everything to comply to the rules. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Question What is 'SYNTH' about the sourcing in Group 2? Since when is it not permitted to provide multiple sources to prove the same thing? If anything, Wikipedia encourages that, and frowns upon Template:One source. Moreover, since when is allegedly having 'oddly specific categories in the legend' a reason to delete an entire template? Let's talk about how we can best present information instead of simply deleting information when we don't understand why it is presented in manner X. Also, since when is it necessary to mention sources in the template rather than the image file, and if so, wouldn't that make it needlessly messy (as JohnFromPinckney notes)? Finally, all countries in "Stunning requirements for ritual slaughter" are sourced; I challenge LP to find a single country that isn't sourced, because I source everything I map. In short, I want references to clear rules - be it on English Wikipedia or on Commons - on both maps and templates so that everyone knows what to do in order to make maps and templates that comply to the rules, and there aren't just arbitrary deletions of what may well be very valuable work that is insightful for readers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggestion (unsourced templates) To be clear, I did not create any of the unsourced templates in Group 1; they merely served as my inspiration for creating the sourced templates in Groups 2 and 3 (except for World circus bans and cosmetic animal testing, created by @RockingGeo:). But on what basis do we simply delete templates on English Wikipedia merely because the image file on Commons is unsourced? Seems to me that (A) we at least add a Template:Citation needed inside the template on English Wikipedia and/or a "Datasource missing" template in the image file description on Commons in order to give the template/map creator an opportunity to provide sources for a period of time before we resort to deletion. Alternatively (B) we can simply remove the template from articles until it is properly sourced instead of deleting the template right away; no reader will see it when it is not used anywhere. We could even do both A and B instead of simply deleting unsourced templates. Deleting a template simply because no sources are provided seems to me an overreaction and not to solve the problem, and it's not how we usually address the same problem in texts when it seems that the information is probably legitimate, but we just need a reliable source to verify it and thus we use a "Citation needed" template to ask the author (or any other user who happens to amble along and would like to solve the issue) to provide RS. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    Even unsourced text can be removed from the article, see WP:UNSOURCED. Regarding the deletion of the template. If the template is removed from the article and is unused, there is no real value in keeping it around. It also clogs reports and search results. If someone here wants to work on it, they can request for it to be moved to their user page or just fork it. Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Of course it can, my question was whether it always should, the answer to which is clearly 'no', otherwise we would not have templates like "citation needed" and "refimprove section" that allow users to provide sources for seemingly legitimate information in due time. So why wouldn't we do the same thing with unsourced templates that seem useful and legit, but just lack sources? I stand by option A of adding "citation needed" templates to the unsourced templates and "datasource missing" templates to unsourced maps (whichever option we choose to list the sources, if not both). Your criticism for my option B makes more sense; yes, if a template is actually not ready for use in the mainspace yet, we might as well move it to someone's user page instead until it is (if we agree it's not ready yet and someone offers to fix it inside their userspace). I agree with you about that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion @WikiCleanerMan: Why are you in favour of 'keeping the maps these templates use and keep[ing] them on the articles with a legend style infobox used for them' on the one hand, but deleting the templates on the other? This does not follow from your argument that the templates constitute original research and should thus be deleted; you're merely arguing for presenting the same information from the same maps in a different way, namely 'legend-style infobox' rather than template. Therefore, the nomination as currently formulated lacks justification. We can talk about what is a good way to present information (and perhaps establish new rules if helpful), and whether the sources should be mentioned in the template/'legend-style infobox' or in the image file, but those discussions are separate from the question whether original research has been committed in these specific cases. I therefore need to oppose the nomination as a whole. But I'm very willing to talk about how to best present this information, and to establish new rules to help users how to do this best, because it seems that these rules do not exist yet when it comes to sourcing maps (as I noted previously under 'Comment' and on the 28 May Tfd). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I said recommend. The reason for this is because I don't see why the maps have to be on a template. My main argument is that the templates don't add anything to it. Because again, the templates don't have any information that can be gained nor verified as stated above. But if the maps should be nominated it will be on Commons, not here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Aha, so you just don't like the template format of presenting these maps. You don't actually accuse them of committing original research (you don't even necessarily accuse the maps on Commons of original research). I think this fundamentally undermines your case for deleting these templates, and I think you should withdraw your nomination. As said, beyond this nomination, we can have a very interesting and good discussion about 1) if these templates are a valid way of presenting information (especially in articles such as Animal rights by country or territory, where all of these templates are currently used, while some are also used elsewhere in the mainspace); I have not yet seen you or anyone else here invoke an actual policy rule why this would be invalid; and 2) whether the sources should be mentioned as references in the template/'legend-style infobox', or in the image file on Commons (and I've also not seen any invocation of any rule that it should be one or the other yet). I'm interested in hearing your and other users' opinions about that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Never said that and has nothing to do with liking or not liking. I'm not withdrawing because there is no reason to. Again, no information can be gained from these templates because these fall under OR. The templates are the issue, not the maps. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay, if these templates "fall under OR", can you cite the relevant part of WP:OR for me then, please? Secondly, why would your recommended 'legend-style infoboxes' comply to WP:OR, but these templates would not? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • English Wikipedia rules for citing sources of maps As I noted/argued above, there seem to be no clear rules on either English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons about the need to cite your sources for maps, let alone where and how.
  • WP:MAPS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions, MOS:IMAGES, WP:IMGDD, Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research etc. say nothing about citing sources for maps; they are chiefly concerned with not violating copyright, which extensions to use, and appropriate file titles.
  • The best I've been able to find so far is Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps#Citing sources, which says: "As maps can be politically charged, it is important to cite your sources and/or your methodology when editing or creating any map. This is particularly true for historical maps." That's it. It does say 'it is important to cite your sources' (we could interpret that as 'you need to cite your sources', which I'm all for), but it doesn't say where or how, e.g. whether these sources must be listed inside the "[[File:....]]" parameters within an article, or a template or 'legend-style infobox' (either in the form of references or footnotes), or on Commons within the image file description (as I have been doing).
  • Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop merely provides an 'Advice to requesters': "Sourced requests: If possible, please try to provide a reliable source to create a map. This includes a map already on Wikipedia with a reliable source or an external link." So they don't consider citing reliable sources necessary, just advisory, let alone that they instruct users where and how to cite sources (imo this policy is way too lax).
  • Even the essay Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles (WP:MAPCITE) says very little about maps used as illustration, and the only thing it says about using reliable sources for self-created maps is this: "Editor-created maps should be careful to only depict details supported by reliable sources in the article and common information that would appear on any published map relating to the subject. For user-created maps based on GIS or satellite images, it is acceptable to use details already present in the database used to create the map. Before adding details to third-party created maps, ensure that the addition both meets the above criteria, and that the derivative work will not create issues with copyright laws." It only recommends 'depict[ing] details supported by reliable sources in the article', it does not say anything about how or where the map should mention or refer to those reliable sources (inside "[[File:....]]", the template/'legend-style infobox' or the Commons image file description).
Therefore, I conclude that no such rules exist on English Wikipedia yet, and so they cannot be invoked to argue for the deletion of any of the above templates, as no existing rule has been violated. Secondly, I think we should use this opportunity to develop and establish such rules for these and future cases. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
PS: The analogy with the 28 May Tfd fails, because in that case there were issues with the reliability of the sources, and the way these were used, and that's why that article and template were deleted (which I supported btw). That's not the issue here. This nomination lacks justification. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

July 29Edit

Vermont Railway templatesEdit

Made obsolete by Module:Adjacent stations/Vermont Railway; all transclusions are replaced. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Grand Theft Auto V Update HistoryEdit

User created Draft:Grand Theft Auto V Update History and moved it to mainspace. After I reverted it's addition to the parent article and pushed it back to Draft due to WP:NOTCHANGELOG and a complete lack of secondary sourcing, they recreated the entire thing as a template and transcluded that instead. There's really not much to say, even if appropriate, this content would not be done as a template. -- ferret (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Turkish general election, 2018Edit

Used only on one article and should be substituted on the mainspace it was created for. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Neither the template nor the article are bulky enough to justify splitting off what is in fact its infobox for ease of editing, nor is that usually done with an infobox anyway, and there's no use for this as a template in this format. On a related but possibly irrelevant note, Turkish elections don't seem to attract the level of coverage on-wiki that would warrant creating a navbox for them, ex. Template:2020 United States elections - blame WP:BIAS or whatever, but that also seems like a good sign to me that there would be no need for any kind of template related to this topic anyway (the only other page where that could possibly go is Opinion polling for the 2018 Turkish general election, but that's already a split from the main article anyways). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Substitute and delete. One transclusion. --Bsherr (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete after substituting. Seems unusable anywhere else. — CVValue (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:DragRaceProgressTableEdit

This template's sub-pages hold table content which is used in one article (for each sub-template). Article content shouldn't be held in templates but in the article itself as it makes editing harder and eventually these templates have less watchers than the actual articles. If vandalism is an issue, then it should be handled by the current systems that are in place. Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5 was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5. Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: The content of these templates was present, for many years, in the Wiki code of the affected articles. Many of those tables (especially in recent seasons) were vandalized so frequently that maintaining them was effectively impossible. After several discussions—such as here and here—the templates were put in place and swiftly ended the vandalism. As an example of the extent of the problem, take a look at the edit history of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) in the eight months prior to the template's introduction on April 16. The vast majority of the article's edits from August 2020 to April 2021 (well over 1,000 edits) were to the progress table, and nearly all were disruptive edits (or reversions thereof). And that's just one article; the same is true of other recent season pages.
For the record, I don't care whether the solution to this vandalism is to use these templates specifically, but indefinite semiprotection of all the articles seems worse: we shouldn't prevent new editors from making manageable (and often helpful) edits to other parts of these articles. And, as one can see from edit histories, the vandalism is not coming from a few easily blockable IPs/accounts. It's more or less a new editor every time, so individual blocks would not be effective at all. Armadillopteryx 18:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Same as the last Drag Race template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and overturn deletion of Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5. Per Armadillopteryx. We shouldn't let a vague "that's not what template space is for" idea get in the way of a very effective solution that has local consensus. Sounds like this solution helped solve a big problem, and costs us nothing to keep implemented. I do not see how deleting these templates improves the encyclopedia, it just creates more work for the few WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
    TfD cannot overturn the deletion of Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5. Only DRV can do that. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Armadillopteryx and Wugapodes:. Thanks for your participation. If you feel comfortable with it, please consider giving a bolded vote, for maximum clarity. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The nomination gives no policy based reason for why we should voluntarily open up articles to more vandalism or prevent good-faith editors from improving parts of articles that normally do not experience disruption. WP:TMPG says "Templates should not normally be used to store article text", but notice this is not an absolute prohibition; when there are extenuating circumstances it may be the best course of action (see WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO). Storing tables in templates is not uncommon, suggesting the nomination's position that article content must be held in the article is not well supported by actual practice. For example {{2004 Summer Olympics Calendar}} is used on a single page to make editing the page easier, and this is common across articles in that set given the size of Category:Olympics calendar templates. FIFA World Cup articles use a system of templates to store tables, for example {{2014 FIFA World Cup Group A table}} and further examples at{{FIFA World Cup group table sidebar}}. Mass-protecting pages when disruption is specific to one part is a net negative; our responses to disruption should be as specific as possible without creating collateral damage, and keeping the encyclopedia open is a good reason to go against the typical use of templates at WP:TMPG. Moving frequently disrupted content to other pages and then transcluding is fine and even advisable given policy because it prevents the bulk of disruption while minimizing collateral damage to good faith editors, resulting a net improvement of the encyclopedia. Wug·a·po·des 23:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
    Moving frequently disrupted content to other pages and then transcluding is fine and even advisable given policy - what policy is that? Also, if you'll look at the history of TfD over the past few years you'll see that single-used templates are almost on a daily basis subst and deleted. Additionally, showing examples of bad practice does not make it good. Most unknowledgeable editors just copy what they see without even giving it half a thought. Using your Template:2004 Summer Olympics Calendar example, see how the table doesn't even use correct column and row headers or offer non-sighted readers a way to "see" what each cell is colored. Fails both in accessibility and in basic HTML 5 semantics. Bad examples, are still bad examples. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    If you read what I wrote you would see the clear and prominent policy links justifying your out-of-context quotation. Specific formatting is a surmountable problem that can be fixed without deletion, and your proposed solution, substituting and deleting, wouldn't actually fix the problems you point out. Wug·a·po·des 19:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep seems like a reasonable IAR situation. This stops the disruption while allowing editing. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Gonnym. Just to be clear, are you proposing we also delete all the sub-pages of this template? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, a sub-page cannot stand on its own. See WP:G8. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging participants from the previous discussion who haven't already commented: @CCamp2013, Isaidnoway, Bsherr, and Frietjes: * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tables must be accessible for visually impaired readers - do not use colors in background to communicate important information, screen readers can not read colors, and do not use abbreviations to communicate important information, screen readers do not know what BTM2 and ELIM stand for, and there is no text (important information) accompanying the numbers in the top row to indicate what they stand for. Visually impaired readers and editors should not be ignored on Wikipedia. We should be striving to be more inclusive. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    These sound like good reasons to reformat the table, not to delete the template. These arguments would apply also if the template contents were substituted into the article. I agree that the tables should meet accessibility guidelines. Armadillopteryx 16:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    See WP:TFD#REASONS which contradicts your rationale: Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Deletion is not cleanup, and substituting the template will not fix any of the issues you described. Wug·a·po·des 19:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    To demonstrate how flawed the original rationale is, I made this edit where I added {{abbr}} to the abbreviations which completely resolved their issue about abbreviations not being accessible (see WCAG H28). Clearly if someone spent a day on this all the above concerns could be resolved without deletion. Wug·a·po·des 20:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Your edit did not fix the abbreviation issue for screen readers, so it is not completely resolved as you claim. I have been arguing for months that various sorts of tables in a wide assortment of articles with ill-advised table formatting are not accessibility compliant, some issues I've fixed myself when there has been no major pushback from other editors, and I've tagged a few, but more often than not (based on my experieces), there are arguments similar to the ones being made here, it can be fixed, it can be reformatted, etc. but nobody ever follows through and the tables remain inaccessible.
A recent RfC at MOS:TV about this genre of TV elimination-style reality programs, ended with a consensus that these sort of tables should comply with accessibility guidelines. But like I said above, no one followed through and implemented the consensus, and the tables are still inaccessible. I suggested this table in the RfC as being compliant with a few minor tweaks, but my suggestion didn't receive any tractin. Editors have opined that it is ugly (God forbid we have an ugly table that is accessibility compliant). So in light of the fact that no one ever bothers to actually fix or reformat these tables for accessibility, I stand by my delete !vote. When an editor gets the time to tackle this longstanding issue, they can easily be restored to the articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Not only is your solution better for accessibility (which should take precedence over any and all aesthetic concerns), it has the added bonus of actually being verifiable, unlike this 'high' 'low' nonsense. Daundelin 17:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I just also wanted to note that I did not nominate this template for deletion, as you appear to acknowledge above. But, having said that, if the result is keep, then I would expect that the accessibility issues will be fixed by normal editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
You can stand by your delete vote, but suggesting something be deleted out of spite is not very compelling. Even if this wasn't kept, the accessibility problems would still not be resolved, so your position doesn't lead to the outcome you want because it will still be present in the article just not as a template. I don't know how all screen readers parse HTML, but both the Web Consortium and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text state that use of the <abbr>...</abbr> (implemented by {{abbr}