Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Project page Talk
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!


XFD backlog
V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 3 111 114
TfD 0 0 0 0 0
MfD 0 0 1 0 1
FfD 0 0 0 8 8
RfD 0 0 0 43 43
AfD 0 0 0 1 1
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed.

How to use this page Edit

What not to propose for discussion here Edit

Shortcut

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

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

Reasons to delete a template Edit

Shortcut
  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 template Edit

Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

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

Note:

  • 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/2023_September_24#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.

Add this text to the top of the list:

  • 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 in the |text= field of 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 editors Edit

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

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

Notifying related WikiProjects Edit

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template Edit

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

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

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

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

Twinkle Edit

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

Discussion Edit

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

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

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

Closing discussion Edit

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

Current discussions Edit

September 24 Edit

September 23 Edit

Template:Featured article tools Edit

All but two of the links are Dispenser links. Dispenser's site is no longer functional, and the user has effectively retired. For replacements of the functioning links, Citationbot can be invoked with the Wikipedia:Citation expander gadget, and the XTools link can be found in either the meta:MoreMenu or the XTools gadgets. SWinxy (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Google Books URL Edit

Replacing actual URLs with this template inside citations' |url= parameters is not even slightly helpful. All that does is greatly impede the ability of editors to fact-check our articles, by "hiding" the URLs, while at the time time increasing the template/transclusion count and parser load on the page. I could see this maybe being kept, if it were redocumented as not for use inside citations, but I really don't see any general use for it. It is much simpler to just paste the URL in than to carefully extract an exact string from it, so as a "utility" template it doesn't actually offer any utility. As far as its use inside citation templates goes, this is quite counter-productive. Update: See also GreenC's comment below about maintenance and correction problems introduced by templates like this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 07:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • KEEP. The use of the template on over 4,300 pages is evidence that other editors do find it useful. For me, a large part of the template's value is that once the editor has identified the Google Books ID, it's plug-and-play; unlike you, I don't start with an URL to "just paste," I start with the template and go to the URL to confirm that the desired page is available. I acknowledge that you have a well-informed opinion and considerable experience, and I submit that this is a case of different strokes. No doubt, your choices are simpler for you and offer greater utility to you. Others find enough value in this template to keep it as it is. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is not such evidence at all. 4,300 pages on a site with millions is nothing. Surely at least hundreds of thousands with GBooks links, and something like 400 more of them are added per day (without this template). And various editors go around robotically applying templates anywhere they think they can without much regard to whether they're making an improvement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    English wiki has 1,974,794 Google Books links ie. the template is used in 0.00217 or two-tenths of 1 percent. -- GreenC 18:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Couldn't the main Google books template serve in its place? Because on the main template, there is the ability to link to the page number when citing a book using the Google Book option. From both template pages using examples of linking or citing a page, Google books: Brackenridge, H. M. History of the Western Insurrection, p. 42, at Google Books; Google Books URL: Brackenridge, H.M. History of the Western Insurrection. p. 42. Both links go the same page and have the same URL. The same link location is also there for the options for the front cover, keyword search, text search, and title page complete with inscriptions. We have two templates that can do the same job. Template:Google books is used on about 14,000 pages. Perhaps this should be merged instead of going for an outright delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It should at least be merged, since it's redundant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This template produces a URL, while the main template produces an entire formatted reference. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Nothing useful is accomplished here - the URL itself describes the book's parameters in a key-value format. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's an opaque and sometimes redundant format, though. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's true of lots of URLs, but they are for clicking on, not for manually examining element-by-element within them by a human.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: The URL isn't "hidden", it's just represented in a way that's easier to understand and edit (e.g. url-encoding q/dq values). That's the priority for article sources! It's rendered articles that are optimized for browsing.
    Also, Google Books tends to push its new UI on users, which produces worse and longer links. {{GBurl}} lets one avoid this, as long as they can find the book ID. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By the way, the TFD tag for this discussion is noincluded, meaning it doesn't show up in transclusions like normal. I'm concerned that this might limit its visibility, but I also understand that this template's deletion is more relevant to editors than to readers. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was necessary, to keep from breaking an F-load of citations in live articles. If you want to increase visibility you could drop a notice about this TfD at, e.g., WT:CITE and WT:CS1.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I feel like I vaguely recall User:GreenC once mentioning something about how google books links are extra susceptible to link rot due to how the service will reformat its URLs from time to time. I might be misremembering this, but I wonder if GreenC might have some input here as a link rot expert. It seems like if my hazy recollection is accurate, this template (which I personally don't use) might be a single point of update in case of a google books URL change, which could save a bot run of length equal to this template's mainspace transclusion count. The comment I'm kinda remembering may have been referring to google books altering its primary keys, rather than URL format, in which case this template seems not helpful.
    Separately, I think I would oppose redocumenting this template to suggest use solely outside of citation templates. I was once cleaning up some article that used this template in "author, page" inline citation style, with the page numbers piped into a URL created from this template. The URLs did not work, so all I had to go on was the surname of an author to try to determine what book they were supposed to reference. After about 45 minutes of searching, I found a work that seemed very plausible, only later to discover that the work was indeed cited in full in the article, in the References subheading, with no citation template. Apart from my own error of not scrolling all the way to the bottom section of the article before attempting citation cleanup, the point is that not documenting the bibliographic information before using this template to return a direct page URL at the top of the article was not a good practice, although the scenario I created for myself through inattention was probably borderline worst-case in terms of failure mode. Folly Mox (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A more common problem is if one of the URLs goes dead. This happens. None of our tools are going to detect it because they don't support the template. This is a general problem with all URL templates, there are thousands. It's cleaner and better to use plain URLs standard tools can parse, not hide them inside special templates no one is checking for link rot. -- GreenC 18:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In my experience, auto-archived Google Books links are almost never functional. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate this makes it look cleaner in the wikitext without all those weird key/values that get copy pasted in. And it has a nice uniform Wikitext standard feel to it. Citation bot cleans up these URLs so that's not really a problem. The 1.9m Google Books figure I gave above does not include the 4,300 that use this template. Because the tool that counts links assumes they are plain URLs and not a special template. This underscores the problem with URL templates, of which Enwiki has many thousands. Tools don't support them because there are too many and hard to program for. They create all sorts of unintentional problems. It's a growing problem. Another example: InternetArchiveBot, Citation bot, WaybackMedic, etc.. they don't support this template, link rot will go undetected and and unfixed. So whatever minor convenience and aesthetic factor this template is used for, it creates real problems longer term with maintenance and whatever else people use Wikitext for. -- GreenC 18:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment If those closes delete, I can write a tool to convert them to plain URLs. -- GreenC 18:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment SMcCandlish raises a good point. And I think that rather than use Google Books URLs at all, we should be using ISBNs and linking Special:BookSources via Template:Cite book. SWinxy (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that it's better if GB links can be avoided entirely, but {{GBurl}} seems like the "lesser evil". jlwoodwa (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After reading this discussion, I support deletion, as per SMcCandlish and GreenC. Kpratter (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Authors often paste Google Books URLs that have extra parameters they don't understand and didn't intend to go in the URL. Using this template is cleaner and helps people understand what they're doing. Additionally, using a template allows changes to be made globally, for instance if Google Books modifies their URL scheme. In fact, Google Books has already done that several times. As an example, if I go to Google Books, search "Encyclopedia Britannica", and click the link for "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" from 2008, I end up with this in my address bar: "https://www.google.com/books/edition/Britannica_Concise_Encyclopedia/ea-bAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=encyclopedia+britannica&printsec=frontcover&bshm=rimc/1". Google Books URLs did not used to have this format. andkore 00:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Replace with {{google books|plainurl=yes}}. I have long been a proponent of URL-formatting templates that actually help stave off link-rot by allowing the maintenance of many links at once, but we don't need this duplication. We have a long history of folks decrying the use of templates in favour of doing everything by hand but eventually we saw sense. —Phil | Talk 14:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:ROW Rybnik sections Edit

Split from 2023 September 18 per request. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Racing Club de Avellaneda sections Edit

None link to any club department or section. Links that direct to sports articles do not count as "team links". Per this discussion. Fma12 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Gimnasia y Esgrima de Rosario sections Edit

None link to any club department or section. Links that direct to sports articles do not count as "team links". Per this discussion. Fma12 (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 22 Edit

Template:Chinese Taipei squad 2003 AFC Women's Championship Edit

Unused. Only four links. Also a non-winning team. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Guam squad 2003 AFC Women's Championship Edit

Unused. No links. Non-winning team. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:U.S. Near Eastern Affairs Diplomats Edit

Random and ever-incomplete, hodgepodge of US diplomats who have touched the Middle East. This sidebar could theoretically be double or triple the size based on existing WP articles, and there's no reason rhyme or reason for what qualifies for inclusion here. Better as a category, rather than a sidebar. Longhornsg (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:BSrow Edit

unused in articles/templates after this TfD. Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Lx Edit

Propose merging Template:Lx with Template:Pagelinks.
Duplicate functions, but Pagelinks (Module:PageLinks) has more features. Lx is meant to support a broad category of shortcut templates, but they can also be served by PageLinks. (See also the no-consensus of merging a bunch of link templates.) SWinxy (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Merge. Duplicative. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question - will Template:Lx still redirect to Template:Pagelinks? - jc37 22:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Probably? What I'd do is to change its uses (e.g. Template:Lc) to use {{#invoke:PageLinks}} before redirecting. SWinxy (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: SWinxy, the TfM tag seems to be messing up XFDcloser. See Special:Diff/1174719924. I know it's against convention, but perhaps put the TfM tag at the end of the template to prevent this? CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 07:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Should be sorted. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Primefac, the same is happening with {{lx}} at CfD. Could you fix that too, please? CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, fixed. Primefac (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Concern: I tested using Pagelinks instead of Lc at a CFD and it omits the "Category:" prefix from the page name. This is not acceptable in that context. Can Lc be changed in such a way as to retain the category namespace in the page name? – Fayenatic London 08:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How did you test it? According to the testcases, the "Category:" prefix should be shown. Lc will add that prefix when it invokes Module:PageLinks. SWinxy (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: This was previously discussed here. The shortcut templates such as Lc don't need the full namespace to be written out, whilst Pagelinks does, which is why the template doesn't work when they're swapped out unless the page linked is from the article namespace. Happily888 (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment since this merge is occurring... some additional work on it could be done at the same time. Has thought been given on making a separate transclusions link for templates? ({{tl}}) and a separate redirects links for all of them, and a separate non-transclusion--non-redirect links; as these are used on deletion discussions, those would seem to be relevant. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Like, individual templates for (Page+WhatLinksHere) and (Page+Transclusions)? SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) would become Template (edit | talk | history | links [redirects] | transclusions | watch | logs | subpages ) or Talk (edit | subjectpage | history | links [redirects] | watch | logs | subpages ) or Page (edit | talk | history | links [redirects] | watch | logs) or something like that. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know if I get what you're saying. But if you wanted to create multiple templates with slightly varying results, with Module:PageLinks, it's as easy as creating a template with {{#invoke:PageLinks|main|page=Example|separator=pipe|edit|t|h|wlh|w|tl}}. SWinxy (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, almost no discussion on the actual merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Summarize section Edit

Propose merging Template:Summarize section with Template:Overly detailed.
Semi-procedural re-nomination following a previous discussion; an emerging trend was to merge these two templates, but there was not enough discussion and input for a solid consensus. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Merge - I updated the text to be more inclusive of both templates. - jc37 15:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge: This is effectively duplicative of the overly detailed template. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge per previous support. Izno (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Summary style section Edit

Propose merging Template:Summary style section with Template:Split section.
Semi-procedural re-nomination following a previous discussion; an emerging trend was to merge these two templates, but there was not enough discussion and input for a solid consensus. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Source in source Edit

No transclusions. Created in 2014, this template has always been an indigent relation of the much more popular {{sfn}} and its fancy friends. It appears that someone has finally put the last few transclusions out of their misery, presumably replacing them with templates that are better-maintained, more functional, or both. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 21 Edit

Template:WikiProject Bible welcome Edit

Created in 2009 and never used. It has had a note on it, and the project page that links to it, that it needs to be edited before it can be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Kassidy Edit

The two album articles and the main article already sufficiently link to and from each other without the need of this navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:JMG Academies Edit

Unused navbox. No main article. None of the links in the navbox lead to articles that are primarily about something called a "JMG Academy". – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 20 Edit

Template:F1 constructors legend 1 Edit

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to show how it might be useful. Created in March 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Elo rating/source Edit

No transclusions. This page was apparently being updated by a bot until 2015, but it appears to have been superseded or abandoned between then and now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Election box referendums begin Edit

No transclusions or documentation. Created in 2016, but apparently not adopted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Election box double winning candidate with party link no change Edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 14:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to show how it might be useful. Created in mid-2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Direction Edit

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Article uses IPA (Greek) Edit

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in March 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Sør-Gudbrandsdal Deanery Edit

This template is unused as Sør-Gudbrandsdal Deanery was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Southern Artery Edit

This template is unused as Southern Artery was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Slater Street Edit

This template is unused as Slater Street was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Sgt. Joyce Kilmer Triangle Edit

This template is unused as Sgt. Joyce Kilmer Triangle redirects to Joyce Kilmer. Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Seattle Streetcar 2 Edit

This template is unused as Seattle Streetcar uses a different template. Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Schoenherr Road Edit

This template is unused as Schoenherr Road was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Saskatchewan Highway 57 Edit

This template is unused as Saskatchewan Highway 57 was merged into Highway 57 (Saskatchewan–Manitoba) which uses a different template. Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Bluebook meta and similar Edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was moved to user space. Izno (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No transclusions. Created in March 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Closeme Edit

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. We have Wikipedia:Closure requests for the apparent use of this template. Some version of this template could notify or categorize a page, which might be useful, but this is not it. The creation of such a template could be proposed at the talk page for closure requests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep: Ironically, I was about to use this template but couldn't remember the discussion. Anyways, I've seen this template substed before. This template is for listings at RfCr. Concur it needs a massive revamp though. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 19:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete There's no point in a fancy template for this. Pure text or {{initiated}} suffices. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Participation Wikiproject Attica Edit

One transclusion in a talk page from 2008. Wikiproject is inactive. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:MLBBoxscore Edit

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created in 2018. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 19 Edit

Template:Uzbekistani parliamentary election, 2014–2015 Edit

Single-article table with no template parameters. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:IOS hardware support for the iPhone Edit

Unused table. Could be used in either History of the iPhone or iPhone but isn't. Even if will be used in one of those, it should be subst into the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for forgetting about this one. Goal was to use it in iOS version history as a replacement for the 'green checkbox' template which unsustainably expands both vertically and horizontally every year (bad for mobile readers). But I'll clean it up and put it directly in the article; I have it saved, this can be deleted. DFlhb (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Newspaper end print Edit

The template implies that a print edition ending automatically makes the article in need of copy-editing and referencing work, which makes no sense. The template also does not have a condition for when it should be removed, and the purpose of the template—to mark articles with an article-facing banner for the purposes of informing readers of the state of the subject—is an inappropriate use of {{ambox}}. Altogether, there doesn't seem to be a justifiable reason to retain this specific template: if the article needs copyediting, there's {{copyedit}}; if it needs references, there's a whole suite for that; if it is out of date, there's {{update}}.

This is also not related to deletion rationale, but just to illustrate the situation more broadly, there has also been a concern brought up by User:Novellasyes (at User talk:Ktkvtsh#Newspapers ending print production) that it's being added to articles that a) aren't even newspapers, b) have no references within the article supporting that they have ended print editions, c) don't seem to have even ended print. So, this template is also creating a content issue by merely being placed on some articles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. I am also going to remove the template from a dozen or so pages on which it was installed, since when the template was installed on those pages, a justification was not included for adding it to them. Justification would equal "reliable sources establishing that the newspaper had stopped print production". The fact that the template as conceived neither requires nor conveniently allows for doing that is one of the reasons I think the template should be deleted. Novellasyes (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I had to delete this template from The Tennessean, the Detroit Free Press, the Columbus Dispatch, the The Daily News Journal, the The Daily Advertiser (Lafayette, Louisiana), the Guelph Mercury Tribune, the Cambridge Times, the Metroland Media Group, The News-Press, The Indianapolis Star, The Des Moines Register, The Mississauga News, The Florida Times-Union, The Arizona Republic and The Cincinnati Enquirer. Novellasyes (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment There are also related categories Category:Newspapers transitioned fully online and Category:Newspapers not listed as fully online (currently empty) that I think are not in line with how we categorize publications. I realize that they are categories, not templates but they were created by the same editor and this template is in one category and joined by the other category so I thought I'd mention them here. Liz Read! Talk! 17:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izno (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. A newspaper that goes exclusively online obviously might need some minor changes in the introduction, but that isn't a massive enough issue that it would require its own special dedicated maintenance template or queue. Its history, for example, will still be as a print publication, so the article doesn't require a comprehensive overhaul to pretend that it was already a website in 1879. So any needed updates can be easily handled by templates that we already have, like "update" and "copyedit", and there's no special need for this. Bearcat (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:List of cabinets of the Netherlands Edit

Single-article text and table with no template parameters. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose I made this into a template because it shows not only the election results but also the cabinets, so it might be appropriate for different articles. Ironically, I named it after the cabinets, because that was my main focus (I think), but placed it in Elections in the Netherlands. There is, however, also an article List of cabinets of the Netherlands, which lists only the cabinets, but with a different presentation - and more complete, because it also lists pre-WWII cabinets. I don't know why I omitted those.
If there is a disadvantage to having this as a template, feel free to merge it into the article and delete it. DirkvdM (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Link if in category Edit

No transclusions. Created in May 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Areaprogress Edit

Two uses, neither of which are producing meaningful progress bars. Remove entirely and delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WAMY Edit

Two uses, trivial syntax. Subst and delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WAMP Edit

Two uses, trivial syntax. Subst and delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WAG Edit

Three uses, trivial syntax. Subst and delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Boolandnot Edit

Meta-template only used by one template, and only used to produce a pointless CSS class. Remove the call entirely and delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Olderthan Edit

Single-use, trivial syntax. Subst and delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep Subst is simply not a legible solution. Granted, the template needs more uses (plus better documentation and categorization). Thanks for reminding me I made that page. --Iketsi (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Comparison Arabic alphabet Edit

Single-article table with no template parameters. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The reason I haven't nominated this one previously is because it uses TemplateStyles in a way that would be much grosser but still doable in inline styles. I don't think that should stop a merge into the article proper, but (for the closing admin) it is not a trivial subst and delete. Izno (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak delete. It being yuk to make into inline styles is giving me pause. Make it an SVG instead maybe? SWinxy (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Meh. Sounds like it will be more work to convert and subst than just leaving it. If someone really feels like tackling that, sure. Otherwise keep as harmless. Folly Mox (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The work is trivial, it's just non-0. Izno (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 18 Edit

Template:Short discription Edit

Seems to be content created in the wrong namespace. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Liverpool Departments Edit

three or fewer team links, per prior discussion (not counting links to an article about the sport, which doesn't count as a team link). Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom and recent TFDs. GiantSnowman 17:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom – I also added two templates of Argentine clubs with no links to other clubs' departments. Fma12 (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Links in prose or the 'See also' section would be a suitable replacement. SWinxy (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment @Frietjes and Fma12: you cannot add more to this nomination after discussion/!voting has happened, as you have done here and here (you also changed the section name???). Please self-revert and re-nominate for a fresh discussion. GiantSnowman 07:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok, I'll revert my addition. BTW, I did not modify any name. Fma12 (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all as long as they do indeed have 3 or fewer links. I checked a handful and they all met this criteria, but not going to go through every one. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Characters in One Piece Edit

Unused and redundant to Template:One Piece as all blue (non redirect) links are listed there and used on those articles. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 17 Edit

Template:Largest cities in Koshi Edit

Single-use template. Should be substituted into the article and deleted. ✗plicit 11:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Debreceni VSC (women's handball) seasons Edit

Redundant due to the lack of article about this section of the club and the recently created main navbox should just list these articles. --Rakeck 06:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rakeck: Please don't delete it, it's not redundant! There is a football club with this name and a women's handball club with this name. The article mentioned above belongs to women's handball, please do not delete it! Thanks! Cakesam (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old discussions Edit

Completed discussions Edit

A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".

For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1169640245"