Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
  Mar Apr May Jun TOTAL
CfD 5 12 79 54 150
TfD 0 0 0 19 19
MfD 0 4 1 11 16
FfD 0 0 2 4 6
AfD 0 0 0 2 2

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

How to use this pageEdit

What not to propose for discussion hereEdit

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

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. If it is an unused, hardcoded instance or duplication of another template, tag it with {{Db-t3|~~~~~|name of other template}}.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects
List at Redirects for discussion.

Reasons to delete a templateEdit

  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a templateEdit

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

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • For deletion: {{subst:tfd}}
  • For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:tfd|type=sidebar}}
  • For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:tfd|type=inline}}
  • For deletion of a module: {{subst:tfd|type=module|page=name of module}} at the top of the module's /doc subpage.
  • For merging: {{subst:tfm|name of other template}}
  • For merging an inline template: {{subst:tfm|type=inline|name of other template}}
  • If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the Tfd notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019_June_20#Template:template_name.css */

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

II: List the template at Tfd. Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editorsEdit

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

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

Notifying related WikiProjects

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

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

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

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

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

TwinkleEdit

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

DiscussionEdit

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussionsEdit

June 20Edit

Template:2018–19 Sudan Premier League tablesEdit

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedway in Poland navboxesEdit

Propose merging Template:Team Speedway Polish Championship seasons, Template:Polish speedway teams, Template:Speedway Ekstraliga and Template:Speedway Ekstraliga seasons with Template:Speedway in Poland.
Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Abcmaxx who posted this at WP:PM with the following rationale: "It is essentially the same template and would be more beneficial to have just the one." Trialpears (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:African UnionEdit

Propose merging Template:African Union with Template:Life in the African Union.
The contents in Life in African Union can to fit in African Union Template and more to it.Manabimasu (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • merge, the navbox has a better layout. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Australian tropical cyclone intensity smallEdit

Unused templates with the same accessibility problems as {{Saffir-Simpson small}} (see below). Some of these scales are not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what to think about the so called accessibility problems as its not my area of expertise, but would comment that the 3 scales are the same (abr the weaker intensities) and are mentioned on Wikipedia.Jason Rees (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Are the scales the same across regions? --Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nominator NoahTalk 16:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - although I have urged keeping the more-used Saffir-Simpson version below while the identified problems are addressed, it is less useful to keep these three. With no transclusions, a good path of action is probably to fix and improve the Saffir-Simpson version, and then (re)create other legends based on it (or possibly extend a single "color legend" template using an option for different scales). —AySz88\^-^ 05:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Saffir-Simpson smallEdit

Inaccessible and similar in function to {{Saffir-Simpson scale}}. See also archived discussions (especially the last comment), below. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No codeEdit

I removed the HTML code, and replaced it with proper wiki code. I also removed the "mouse over for more details" text, since mousing over the links just gave the link target (which is the same for all links of course). Finally I right-aligned it, which is needed for all its current users (see Category:Tropical_cyclones_by_strength and children). Jdorje 05:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Mousing over the cell was supposed to give things like "Tropical Storm, 39–73 mph (63–117 kph)" which makes the template pretty much a complete replacement for {{Saffir-Simpson-US}}, though a little less obvious about how to use. If there's some sort of conflict between the tooltips, perhaps the links should be removed instead because Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale is already linked to above the cells. --AySz88^-^ 00:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree the links should be removed. I've never seen any useful tooltips, either on this table or on the season button bar. Jdorje 00:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Does that mean the tooltips didn't work for you, or you don't think it would be useful? --AySz88^-^ 00:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I just changed the width so it's consistent across all parent widths, and with a seperate edit re-added the mouseovers (though not the text indicating their existance). The mouseovers can be removed if they're felt to be a problem. --AySz88^-^ 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The tooltips do not work so long as the text is a link. Jdorje 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yikes, I wasn't aware of that, that's a big problem for the button bar. Thanks for telling me. I'm using a Wikipedia plugin-thing that previews a page, so I never noticed. --AySz88^-^ 01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Tooltips are inaccessible Web designEdit

As mentioned in above discussion from 2005, content in tooltips is not accessible to everyone. Non-sighted users, keyboard users, and — especially important in 2018 — touchscreen users cannot perceive tooltips. Setting the template to nomobile should help, since it's of little use to them, but non-sighted users will still hear meaningless letters and numbers. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Im not sure that this template is really needed at all. We link to the SSHWS at various points in the articles while the timeline image contains all the windspeeds and colours that this template does. I also note that its sister templates are all Template:Australian tropical cyclone intensity small, Template:BOM Scale small and Template:FMS Scale small are not transcluded anywhere, which makes me wonder even more about it being needed.Jason Rees (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with {{Saffir-Simpson scale}} where used. Tooltips / Hover text are indeed not supported by the MOS (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text). --Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This template was mainly intended as a color legend for maps and tables (such as in 2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Season_effects) where a key for the meanings of the colors is desired, but not so much the information about the scale itself. The tooltips inside the template were "nice to have" but not the template's main purpose; if the template is kept, the tooltips and accessibility issues can be addressed separately.
For context, at the time the template was made, the use of colors to convey category and strength information was widespread in WikiProject Tropical cyclones, and screen space was scarce: a 800x600 CRT monitor was a plausible use case. With that in mind, {{Saffir-Simpson scale}} may not be a drop-in replacement. Some refactoring could create a solution, such as in the aforementioned table, which has a column that explicitly lists the categorization for each storm, obviating the legend.
WPTC might still have need of a miniature legend like this, though - for example, I would have expected some transclusions to provide a key for track maps (Wikimedia:Category:Atlantic hurricane tracks). The discussions on tooltips and addition of "nomobile" seems to have muddled the applicability and usage of the template - moving the template (after replacing to zero transclusions) could be an option to allow the project to repair it, or modify it to work better with modern UI. —AySz88\^-^ 08:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

* Delete with no replacement I would suggest simply deleting this template and not replacing it. None of the other season articles have their scales at the top of the effects table, so it isn't needed here. The TC scales page is already linked. One could also view the timeline on the page to see the scale. NoahTalk 14:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

    • I'm not sure the consistency argument works - one might as well say that the other basins *should be using* their templates more (plus, there are other contexts where this template is used than the effects tables). And Tropical cyclone scales, in the word "category" in the column headers, is a mix of all the basins' scales, not the specific one being used. More broadly, almost by definition this is a brief on-hand alternative to the main place for this information. Usability-wise, removing the ability to have a legend at all seems to be a step backwards and prone to confuse (unless there's a decision to remove color entirely instead). —AySz88\^-^ 05:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - after some more research, I'm getting more convinced that the issues being identified are more shortcomings and lack of maintenance than reasons to delete. The transclusions of this template are indeed at places where the articles have want of a labelling of the colors. I'd suggest that the need here is to address the issues - perhaps a redesign based on or merged with the other instances where a color legend is used, such as in the timelines and track maps, or a merge with some smaller option of {{Saffir-Simpson scale}}, in a design without the wind speed columns. (I can't guarantee how quickly the project would address this comprehensively, but seems improper to go to deletion for lack of this work.) —AySz88\^-^ 05:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – This template provides another function for using a scaled-down version of the table, just like how the Template:Hurricane infobox small has its own specific purpose separate from that of the larger Hurricane infobox template. This template is also used in a large number of articles with hurricanes/storms that are warned on by the U.S., probably every single hurricane season article with a Season effects table. Any issues with the smaller template as it is can be resolved with maintenance and syntax adjustment (if needed). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:This user talkEdit

rarely used. Viztor (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep since it is used/transcluded. Unless a target to redirect or merge this is found, there's no reason to delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
It is used by three people, should not it be in User space in this case? Viztor (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel. Userspace templates don't really need the maintenance and watching that mainspace templates do; there's no harm in having this template with a few transclusions if nothing else does the same job. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Question @Steel1943 and Nyttend: Since when do we need to disambiguate user talk page? If not, should it be marked as humorous material to avoid confusion? Viztor (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • See discussion near the bottom of User talk:Asterion/Archive 11. The point is basically to be a user-talk version of {{User page}}, but simpler and oriented toward helping a reader find the article of the same BASEPAGENAME. Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Also it seems it could use {{about}} for similar things. Viztor (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Viztor: Relisting a discussion in which you've been involved is discouraged. Wait for an uninvolved editor. Retro (talk | contribs) 11:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cs1 functionEdit

In Citation Style 1 templates, the parameters subscription= and registration= are deprecated. Since the nominated template is only used on documentation for templates that transclude {{Subscription required}} or {{Registration required}}, this purpose of template is deprecated and following the directions in this template are now inaccurate since using the subscription= or registration= parameters in Citation Style 1 templates now returns a red warning message stating that the aforementioned parameters are now deprecated. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

York Region Transit s-line templatesEdit

{{s-line}} templates for York Region Transit and Viva Rapid Transit. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/YRT. All transclusions have been replaced. BLAIXX 12:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:AnamanaguchiEdit

The band's navigational template consists of four links: the band's article, one album article and two album redirects back to their band's articles. So there are only two valid links that already link between themselves making this template unnecessary and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Amoebic EnsembleEdit

The band's navigational template consists of ten links: the band's article, one of the band member's article, six red links to other band members and two album redirects back to the band's article. So there are only two valid links that already link between themselves making this template unnecessary and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

June 19Edit

Template:PagandomEdit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 01:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Completely empty, and likely to remain completely empty, as articles for the band and their only album were deleted at AfD a month ago – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagandom (Band). Even if the articles were to be restored, a navbox is unnecessary for just one album. Richard3120 (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Has now been speedily deleted under A7. Richard3120 (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2020 AFC U-16 Championship qualification Group AEdit

merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete and Merge with the parent article, though only for the age group tournaments.--Anbans 585 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:2014–15 CONCACAF Champions League Group 1Edit

merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

June 18Edit

Template:AFC President's Cup 2005Edit

single-use navbox, redundant to information already presented in the article Frietjes (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:NickelsEdit

Per the comment made a few days ago at Template talk:Nickels, the articles that use this template also seem to include the template Template:Coinage (United States), and the content of this template just duplicates one of the rows of that template. Thus this template seems essentially redundant and therefore useless. Until a few minutes ago, the template was used in Nickel (United States coin), Liberty Head nickel, Shield nickel, Buffalo nickel, 1792 half disme, Jefferson nickel, and 1913 Liberty Head nickel. I just removed those uses, since they were redundant. While doing that, I found that one of those articles, 1913 Liberty Head nickel, did not already include Template:Coinage (United States), so I added that template and removed this one. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I wouldn't bet a plug nickel for the survival of this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. @BarrelProof: according to this there are a lot more articles that either have the template but aren't listed on it, or are listed on it, but don't transclude the template. --Gonnym (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, that report is about Template:Coinage (United States), not Template:Nickels. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Gerald R. MolenEdit

Not primary creator per WP:FILMNAV. See recent similar discussions regarding film producers: Scott Rudin, David Heyman, Tobey Maguire, Antony I. Ginnane, etc, etc. --woodensuperman 16:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Michael De LucaEdit

Not primary creator per WP:FILMNAV. See recent similar discussions regarding film producers: Scott Rudin, David Heyman, Tobey Maguire, Antony I. Ginnane, etc, etc. --woodensuperman 15:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:2015 UEFA European Under-21 Championship qualification Group 1Edit

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:History splitEdit

Does this template actually get any use? This template was created 3 years ago, but we also have {{History merge}}, which has its own respective Wikipedia namespace page (Wikipedia:Requests for history merge), as well as a category that is utilized frequently. If there is no evidence that this template is being used, then it may be better to delete it or redirect and/or merge it to Template:History merge so that pages that are tagged with the nominated template don't just sit in some administrative backlog for all eternity. Steel1943 (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I used this template a few months ago, and my request was acted upon within a day, so it does get some use. * Pppery * it has begun... 11:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: * Pppery * it has begun... 16:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:LKFFCTEdit

Unnecessary navbox for two albums that already link to and from each other without it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete no parent article and only links two articles. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

June 17Edit

Rocky Mountaineer s-line templatesEdit

s-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for Rocky Mountaineer. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Rocky Mountaineer. All transclusions replaced. There are also 12 dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and past consensus to migrate away from s-line. BLAIXX 13:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:2005–06 Pakistan Premier League tableEdit

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Uw-violenceEdit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as T3 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 20:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for this warning template. Instructions for dealing with threats of violence are provided at WP:VIOLENCE. Interstellarity T 🌟 01:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • comment (delete?) having a warning template seems like the opposite of the discretion advised at wp:Violence, so deleting seems to make sense, but... I wish there was more input, maybe we should relist and warn at... where...? - Nabla (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

June 16Edit

Template:PoetEdit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Article in template space found via filter 994 Abote2 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Template:Sealdah-Muzaffarpur Fast PassengerEdit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Article in template space Abote2 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved. This hardly needed a TfD discussion; just WP:BEBOLD. Useddenim (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:SlidersEdit

Too little content. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete I think this used to contain more links, but it's not very useful now. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, no longer useful now that the character articles have been redirected. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Exo s-line templatesEdit

s-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for various commuter rail and bus transit services which fall under the umbrella of Exo (public transit) (previously known as AMT and RTM, hence the unusually large number of redirects). Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Exo, except for Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu public transit, which I split off to {{Canada transit color}}. There are also 12 dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and past consensus to migrate away from s-line. BLAIXX 13:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Marriage Sheikha Nancy Bernadette bin Mohammed al Maktoum 22 May 2019Edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Does not meet template namespace guidelines WP:NS10. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Template:AMT StationEdit

Between the two rebrandings of Agence métropolitaine de transport and the adoption of WP:CANSTATION no articles use this naming convention, and the template was already almost wholly deprecated in favor of {{Exos}}, which does the same thing. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

No objections, as long as there is a WP:HISTMERGE from {{AMT Station}}, {{RTMs}} and {{Exo stations}} into {{Exos}}. (There was a lot of cut 'n' paste editing in the creation of this series of templates.) Useddenim (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim: That's an interesting question. For the stations, Module:Adjacent stations/Exo amounts to a "clean room" reimplementation based on the "what links here" for {{Exo stations}}. That's not quite the case for lines and line colors, although the chaos caused by the AMT/RTM/Exo rebranding means that there's a lot of inconsistent information regarding transit agency names. Inasmuch as we're talking about public data and not prose, I'm not sure how important a history merge is; and for line and color information there's no target. I may be misunderstanding which history you're looking to preserve. Mackensen (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, if it's not actually necessary… But now, if one looks at the history of {{Exos}} it appears to have sprung fully-fledged into existence just nine months ago, while in actual fact it's lineage can be traced back almost five years to {{AMT Station}}. But yes, there's no need to keep the original template itself anymore. Useddenim (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The presence of a former code that did a process similar to the current one, does not make a newer code based on the former. If that were the case, you'd see even more copyright claims for every piece of code used by Microsoft, Apple, Google and the rest. Code is different in this sense than an article text. Looking at the code of all the links linked above, I see no resemblance of any connection between the new and the old, other than the fact that they both deal with the same subject. --Gonnym (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Navbox United StatesEdit

unnecessary fork of Template:Navbox Canada Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep I created this because I wanted to give it a colorful look and also because I want to give these templates a new look. Same goes for every country in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talkcontribs)
    • Could you or Frietjes please explain to me why there is even a need for a module (which includes the Canada one also) that duplicates Module:Navbox? --Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
      • the Canadian one has existed since 2013 to reduce the complexity of inline styling introduced in October 2008 (see the complexity of the inline styling version vs the current style sheet version). the Canadian module does not duplicate any functionality in Module:Navbox if you check the code. the module does the calculations necessary to add the thin red borders in the correct places. there is consensus for the Canadian styling at WT:Canada. there is no consensus for the styling introduced by the navbox being discussed here. Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "I want to make the navbox colorful" isn't a strong reason to duplicate the existing template. While foolish consistency may be the "hobgoblin of little minds", in this case changing the colors from the standard set doesn't seem worth the extra complexity in maintaining a new navbox and module. Railfan23 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If she wants to delete the A,erican one, why can't she just delete the Canadian one. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:ReasonatorEdit

A template displaying a link to a third-party tool displaying Wikidata content. There are several problems with this. First, the tool seems to be somewhat slow and buggy; it outputs text such as "population 123867 (NaN–NaN)" and "official name Cambridge <small>[en]</small>". Second, it has so far seen very little use, except that people are now using it in body text, putting ugly and unituitive gear icons into articles. Sandstein 09:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, Reasonator is not perfect, and it's been a few years since User:Magnus Manske last updated it or gave it much love, but it can be a very useful tool, in particular because (a) it shows the information on a Wikidata entry much more succinctly than the Wikidata page itself, and (b) it includes a survey of the statements that have the particular Wikidata entry as a value rather than a subject (the "From related items" section), which can be immensely useful and is not directly available from the raw Wikidata item. As a result it's quite a useful thing to be able to link to in maintenance tables such as ones like this set for painters covered by the Art UK site, many of whom are only redlinks here, where in all this template had about 10,000 transclusions (now broken by this TfD nomination). On Wikidata a link to Reasonator is a standard sidebar gadget that I would encourage anybody regularly working with the platform to install, because of this usefulness.
  • Keep, Not everything in this world deserves a wikipedia page but by turning raw wikidata in something readable reasonator provides a bridge. Reasonator also enables a new way to create articals in that it encourage articals to be build "from the facts, up" allowing something useful to exist whilst enough facts are gathered to start building an artical. Reasonator can also help with multilingual support as it could be made to generate pages in all the languages wikidata support. In short, if there are bugs and speed improvements to be made, lets concentrate on that, not on "cutting it adrift" Back ache (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

June 15Edit

Template:TOC US states 2Edit

Unused ToC template, but even if it were, the extra parameter option could have been added to Template:TOC US states, like all other the template parameters, as there is no need for a separate template to do that. Gonnym (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

delete, the extra parameter was added here back in 2015. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Road marker PK NHEdit

Unused template Imzadi 1979  02:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Pride of Performance for ArtsEdit

Mostly original research, see WP:OR. There is no WP:RS which could verify these entries, no official site either. Template is too long for comfortable navigation and is better navigable using its complementary category. Störm (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose complete deletion - Pride of Performance has an article and in it the lead says that it is one of the awards conferred by the Government of Pakistan on Pakistani civilians in recognition of distinguished meritorious work in the fields of literature, arts, sports, medicine, and science. I've looked to see if the United States has a comparable award, which it does: National Medal of Arts. This award also has navigation templates such as {{National Medal of Arts recipients 1980s}}. Since this is clearly an accepted practice, then maybe splitting this template into 2 smaller ones and removing the duplicate links to the years will make it more easier to read. --Gonnym (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Gonnym Not my problem. I was saying that there is no source or accompanying article to support the template. It is purely based on original research per WP:OR.Störm (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion I have been editing Wikipedia for more than 6 years now and I mostly edit Pakistan-related articles. I personally try my best to first back up with WP:RS each listed award every time I list a Pride of Performance Award for a person in the main body of the article. I mostly use newspaper references considered 'reliable' by Wikipedia. Only then, I later install the above subject template at the article. In light of my 6 years editing experience on Wikipedia, I can say that most listed Pride of Performance awards are already backed up with references. In case they are missing on occasional articles, they can be tagged as 'Citation needed', thus giving people a chance to provide a reference and improve the articles. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Personally, I don't have any NAVIGATIONAL problems on the above template. Wikipedia software automatically makes the award-winner's name BOLDED among the list of other winners' names. Anybody can SPOT it instantly because it's BOLDED. As we all know, back-up references are given in the main body of the award-winner's Wikipedia article and NOT within this above template. For example, see one award-winner Tina Sani's article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Ngrewal1 They should be in this article, Pride of Performance Awards (1958–1959) and so on. Störm (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A template is not supposed to have references. That's for the article. Templates are for navigational purpose only. Mar4d (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

June 14Edit

Template:Scott Morrison sidebarEdit

Unnecessary. We don't need these sidebars for every politician, only the most significant ones who actually do have a *series* of articles *about* them, not just vaguely related ones. Doesn't help the reader as the all articles linked are already linked prominently in the Scott Morrison article. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep As creator, I obviously thought there was a purpose, despite not finding many relevant articles yet besides ministries and elections. Six of the previous seven prime ministers of Australia have similar sidebars in Category:Australia political leader sidebars. --Scott Davis Talk 10:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, only used in two articles which are already well-connected in the prose. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
It had been removed from the second ministry page as the royal commission titles forced the box too wide. I've shortened them and put it back on that page and the Morrison Government page. That's four pages in total at present. Should it be on any of the other pages it links to (election, royal commissions, electorate) or other pages I haven't thought to link? Or is it wasted effort to try to improve it now there are two delete !votes? --Scott Davis Talk 05:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
better to use a navbox, since navboxes don't crowd the contents at the top of the article. but, the navigation between ministry articles is already covered by Template:First Morrison Ministry, ... Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep As creator said. Techie3 (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep serves purpose well. Also, in future it will only grow. So better keep it now. Störm (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclonesEdit

Seems unnecessary. Almost every year we have C4 Severe Tropical Cyclones, and there is nothing special to have a template for them, compared with C5 Severe TC. Also, we don't have similar templates for South Pacific cyclones B dash (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@B dash: The reasoning in the deletion nomination is faulty and I oppose the deletion nomination. These are templates, not articles. The template is not an article titled List:Category 4 Australian region tropical cyclones, and no extraordinary notability is claimed (besides, such an article could be warranted anyway). Furthermore, your comment regarding there not being similar templates for the South Pacific is missing the point. The reason such templates do not exist is because no editor has yet decided spend the hours of tedious, repetitive editing that it takes to make these templates, choosing to rather edit and improve articles instead. Additionally, the fact that no such similar template exists for another topic is irrelevant, and does not preclude there being such a template made for the Australian region. These templates serve as a useful navigation tool for readers and editors to find similar cyclones, and provide a complete, compact list of all these systems. Nominating these for deletion is simply causing unnecessary trouble, and no one would benefit from the deletion. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @B dash and ChocolateTrain: We have a template for Category 4 Pacific hurricanes. Why should we delete templates that will be collapsed at the bottom and eventually direct users to a list of storms at that intensity? It seems counterproductive to the project to move forward with this deletion. The excuse that we don't have similar templates in another basin is a poor one at that. If that's the case, why try anything new? Why create yearly tropical cyclone articles? Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Yeah Cat 5s are rare, but that doesn't mean we should immediately discount storms of a lower intensity. Look at Idai, it is one of the most destructive cyclones in the South-west Indian Ocean and it wasn't a very intense tropical cyclone. I am therefore inclined to oppose all three nominations. Good day. NoahTalk 14:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge with {{Category 2 Australian region tropical cyclones}}, {{Category 3 Australian region severe tropical cyclones}} and {{Category 5 Australian region severe tropical cyclones}} to Template:Australian region severe tropical cyclones. These templates are created without care to guidelines and proper nav template useage. Looking at WP:NAVBOX, these templates fail point #4 as there isn't an article about Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones, but more importantly, they also fail the basic principle which is repeated over and over in the guideline, to link to articles, as almost all of the links are redirects to "year Australian region cyclone season" (example: 1979–80 Australian region cyclone season). This means that the templates is just WP:OVERLINKING to the same article multiple times per usage. This would have been a bigger issue if per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL these templates were actually used on the pages they were linking to, as the links would then be meaningless to the reader, which wouldn't understand why some links points to new places, while others lead them to the same page they were viewing. --Gonnym (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Category 3 Australian region severe tropical cyclonesEdit

Seems unnecessary. Almost every year we have C3 Severe Tropical Cyclones, and there is nothing special to have a template for them, compared with C5 Severe TC. Also, we don't have similar templates for South Pacific cyclones B dash (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Basically, you are saying to merge until such articles exist (ie List of Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones)? NoahTalk 15:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
There are two main points to my argument - 1) there is no main article, which sometimes isn't an issue if links exists to actual articles, but then the question arises, why isn't there an article if this group is notable? and 2) most of the links are not to unique articles, but to the same article, over and over. Redirects don't have a place in navigation templates, as they don't navigate between articles. You could edit out the redirect links and leave only the yearly link, but then the 5 templates will duplicate 50~ links, which is why I proposed to merge them. --Gonnym (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: There are no redirect links being used here. Tropical cyclones are given their own sections within tropical cyclone season articles, which is why there are section hashes (#) used in the links to the season articles from the navbox. Regarding the point made above on bidirectionality, the tropical cyclones which do have individual articles all have these templates transcluded onto them, so the condition is satisfied in that regard. It would be unnecessary to have all of these templates on a season article. Also, I don't think the notability thing is really relevant here. The purpose of the template is a navigational aid for readers if they wish to find cyclones of similar strength. ChocolateTrain (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have been working on creating lists for Cat 1 - 5 SPAC and Aus in userspace and can move these into the mainspace at the drop of a hat.Jason Rees (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for using the wrong term, the issue is usually templates with redirects which was why I wrote that, but section links are the same exact issue (and if to stray a bit off-topic here, redirects should be used instead of pipped links, see WP:R). If you create the lists, the section links or redirects still have no place in a navigation template, as again, they offer no navigation at all between articles. You can, and should, link to the relevant list article and to any cyclone that has its own article. --Gonnym (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
While they may not link to full blown articles about the system, I personally feel that its useful to link to the seasonal article section since they are mini-articles about the storms. But maybe @ChocolateTrain: its a case of us having to think about these templates and redesign them.Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I should also make the point that if these templates are deleted, it will be an example of fruit of the poisonous tree. According to the evidence provided by B dash, there was no justification to nominate these templates for deletion originally. All deliberation since then would not have occurred if the templates had not been improperly nominated without cause in the first place, so any potential deletion is tainted by misconduct. ChocolateTrain (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Category 2 Australian region tropical cyclonesEdit

Seems unnecessary. Almost every year we have C2 Tropical Cyclones, and there is nothing special to have a template for them, compared with C5 Severe TC. Also, we don't have similar templates for South Pacific cyclones B dash (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

June 13Edit

Template:BLP-revdelEdit

WP:REVDELREQUEST says To avoid the Streisand effect, there is no dedicated on-wiki forum for requesting revision deletion under [circumstances other than copyright violations]. This template is a clearly against that policy and its restoration from a correct T2 deletion was incorrect. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I understand now. You may delete it again. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The purpose of this template is to avoid the Streisand effect. It is needed because there is no dedicated forum. It places the article in question into the hidden category requested RD2 redactions and with any luck an admin will see it and action the request soon. Pppery, if a non-admin sees an offending edit, please explain how they are to draw it to the attention of an admin to get it hidden. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Everything else WP:REVDELREQUEST says that Pppery didn't already quote above is You can send a message to any administrator in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests either at their talk page or by email, especially if privacy is a concern. You can also request revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your request (if you don't have an IRC client, click the green connect button to launch web-based IRC; for more information, see WP:IRC). Keep in mind that if the revision you're reporting could be subject to oversight, follow the procedures at WP:Requests for oversight or email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org.Cryptic 04:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
      • If in doubt, email an oversighter or the oversight list is the short of it. There are some RD2 that don't qualify for suppression, but like I said below, people tend to be really bad at realizing what is "potentially libelous"... TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If used, then keep but make it invisible on the articles i.e. remove the big box but keep the category. Christian75 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Doesn't solve anything. The problem isn't so much that someone might notice this template stuck to the top of a biography they're already reading anyway; it's that they can look at the category and get an automatic, ready-made list of articles that haven't been actioned yet. Even removing the category too doesn't help, since they can just look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:BLP-revdel and get it from that. Delete. —Cryptic 04:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete are you kidding me? I'm not sure if it would be wheel warring to reverse an admin reversing himself, which is the only reason I haven't done it yet. This template defeats the entire purpose of RD2, which is to hide things that harm real people. Having a category for them is beyond a terrible idea. Additionally, speaking from personal experience, this category will be populated with things that are eligible for suppression, because people frequently don't understand what qualifies as potentially libelous, and often aren't sure if it should even be revdel'd. I'm not sure if this qualifies for RD2, but I thought I'd check and it's equivalent are said so frequently in regards to oversightable material, it isn't even funny. This really needs to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Follow the instructions in the policy to report content that needs to be hidden. Publicizing BLP violations by using this template is reckless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per T2 --DannyS712 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Kill it with fire per Tony and NRP. Jeez, is there a bigger neon sign? (Don't answer that.) Katietalk 21:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete A template or category that draws attention to a BLP violation needing revision deletion is the opposite of what should occur, and the opposite of WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actively harmful method of making this particular request. BLAIXX 14:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this is a clear T2 candidate and shouldn't be deleted on that basis, but requesting this type of action through a publicly available template isn't a good idea. We don't seem to have a good way of making requests for these actions though. The only ones suggested in the policy are emailing a random admin to ask or asking on IRC, which most people don't use. Hut 8.5 21:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:2016-17 I-League U18 ROI Group A tableEdit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

unused after being merged (with attribution) with the parent article per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Miami-Dade Transit s-line templatesEdit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

S-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for various Miami-Dade Transit services. Consolidated in Module:Adjacent stations/Miami-Dade Transit. There are also 12 dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:XBIZ AwardsEdit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Navigation template with no useful navigation left. All of the remaining targets have been redirected to the parent article at XBIZ Award. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).


Old discussionsEdit

June 10

Template:Warsaw Tramways Line 1

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. These are not unused as they are linked from Trams in Warsaw#Route list. Having these as templates will allow them to be transcluded into articles about the individual tram lines should they be written and/or about stops/stations on the route, without needing to have lots of complicated and easily broken code in an article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - templates are not articles and should not be linked to from article mainspace. This does that and a very poorly fashion. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete templates that are linked rather than transcluded do not fulfill the stated purpose of the template namespace, to contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 11:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • So where else should it go? Including the diagrams inline in the article is clearly undue, a standalone article would have insufficient prose, yet the line diagrams are very clearly encyclopaedic information. If these were images there would be no question they should be included as they currently are, and yet equally an image would be uneditable and so inferior to the template. The encyclopaedia is therefore clearly best served by ignoring the "rule" that templates must be transcluded. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure this information is encyclopedic. We don't have articles on the individual tram lines, nor on the tram stops. The former could be written; the latter would probably fail to meet notability guidelines. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete these amateurish diagrams really need to go. They were just about OK in 2004 generally, they're not OK now. They're OK I guess for a short North-South line, but they fail for anything more complex. They look cheap, tacky and unprofessional. And they breed. People see one and they make others. They need replacing with proper maps. Tony May (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Interesting opinion, but completely irrelevant to this discussion. You would need to get consensus at somewhere like WT:RDT before deleting them for being "amateurish". Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that these should be kept as they provide useful information, but ideally a better way could be found to include these in the article as the current method is unsatisfactory. Could they be made collapsible perhaps? G-13114 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf & G-13114. Tony May's criticisms may be discounted, as he has a long history of hyper-criticism of others' images. (Nor do I see him offering to create geographically-accurate maps.) Gonnym seems to be arguing both sides of the issue, claiming simultaneously that they can't be kept because they're not transcluded, and that they can't be transcluded (uncollapsed) either.
    Please see this discussion from just six months ago as to precisely why stand-alone Route Diagram Templates exist. Another relevant discussion is here (where Gonnym also argued against the consensus). This one explains why RDTs should be kept separate from articles. Need I go on? Useddenim (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
But I will. Here is the same thing from three years ago. WP:DROPTHESTICK already. Useddenim (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. My argument was very clear. Templates should be transcluded, not linked to. If you want to transclude it, then transclude it. If you need to hide it, then that violates another MOS guideline. Seeing as how you need to go against the MoS twice to keep these, should make you question why. --Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Your opinion that templates must always be transcluded is clear. Unfortunately for you consensus has repeatedly found (Useddenim lists only some of the relevant discussions) that there are at least some cases when linking to templates that are not transcluded is perfectly acceptable. We do what is best for the encyclopaedia even if that means that not everything is rigidly black and white. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Getting a "no consensus" in a discussion or two, is not the same as having consensus on your side. Regarding the 3 examples given above: The first resulted in the template turning into an article (East Coast Main Line diagram); the second discussion resulted in no consensus, not one that said consensus is that this is an accepted practice (which is a pretty much flawed option as creating a template requires no consensus, so the default will always be that), but the end result of that discussion is that Trillium Line now transcludes that template; the last discussion resulted in the template being transcluded to Bakerloo line extension. So I fail to see how giving 3 discussion as examples, which contradict your points are backing up your claims. --Gonnym (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the diagrams are important, you should create Warsaw Tramways line diagrams per the discussion linked above. However, if these are minor bus routes, then WP:NOTTRAVEL. But, using template space to house content that isn't transcluded anywhere is not the answer. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Firstly these are not bus routes (the clue is in the name). Secondly, that article, if created, would simply transclude these templates (for the reasons repeatedly explained, separating the very tricky and easy to break template code (which is exactly what a route diagram template is, again the clue is in the name) from natural language content is a Good Thing) and so, completely unnecessarily, make it harder for readers to access. Pease explain how this benefits the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:CondellZabecki2001

It appears that Paradoctor was anticipating that this citation template would be widely used, but it's only in two articles. I believe it should be subst'ed and deleted. howcheng {chat} 22:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment IMO, the current situation would justify it on its own. I wasn't aware at the time how irrational consensus can be, and what a mess resulted from that. After some resistance, I gave up the attempt at refactoring. Delete it if you must, this is for a time when the structural issues have been addressed. I would like to hear how this improves Wikipedia, though. Paradoctor (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment Cf. {{BarrowTipler1986}} Paradoctor (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
After further investigation, I've discovered there are a number of these specific-source templates that are used on only a handful of articles. As a software developer myself, I'm all about code reuse (and I've even made my own), but I feel like there should be some sort of threshold at which point having a specific-source template outweighs the negative aspects of it, those being:
  1. Clutter: imagine if we had templates for every source that's used in multiple articles... I can foresee a whole ton of duplicates as people just decide to create their own (because we follow no standard naming convention), so we end up with CondellZabecki2001, cite Truppenführung, Beck1933, and German Art of War and now someone has to convert those into redirects... and the worst-case scenario would be that there are multiple versions of the same template and each one is only used in one article.
  2. The principle of least astonishment: I've been here for almost 14 years and I was still thrown for a loop when I saw this in the wikitext.
Anyway, for this specific instance, I suppose if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and I have neither the time nor energy to go on a crusade against sparsely used citation templates, but I would humbly suggest that if you intend to create specific templates that won't be widely used, that you do it in userspace and subst them when actually citing those sources in articles. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"duplicates": As a software developer with long Wikipedia experience, you should be able to "imagine" a simple, efficient approach for duplicate management, both incoming and legacy. It took me about a minute or so. ;)
"thrown for a loop": That's owed to the "structural issues" I mentioned.
"if you intend to create": As I said, "I gave up the attempt".
"subst them" You mean, refactoring by hardcoding every instance of a constant?  
Anyway, I've taken Machiavelli's advice on reform and reprioritized long since, so whatever you do, happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Management of duplicates of course can be done with redirects but you have to know that those dupes exist in the first place; the problem is making sure that editors know what tools are available to them and if there's one thing my experience in software has taught me, it's that you cannot predict/control how users are going to behave (for anything that you try to idiotproof, there will always be a newer class of idiot). As for subst'ing citation templates from your user space, it's not like sources change very often. The most common might be that a web link rots and needs to be replaced by the Wayback Machine version. In all cases there has to be a balance between ease of use and ease of understanding. There are, after all, legitimate use cases for denormalizing a database table. That's why I was thinking that at certain threshold, using a custom template really starts to make sense. I don't know what that level is, but it's certainly not a handful of transclusions. Regardless, unless someone else feels really strongly about this, consider this request withdrawn. howcheng {chat} 18:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, better to use the standard method for adding citations to articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:CITEVAR Paradoctor (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep—nothing wrong with this template warranting deletion. Imzadi 1979  18:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

June 8

Module:Testcase table

Superseded by Module:Template test case, as evidenced by Special:Diff/636399687 . * Pppery * it has begun... 18:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • history merge since it was essentially forked without attribution. Frietjes (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Frietjes: History merges are used for cut-and-paste moves, which this was not. Rather, I added functionality to display test cases in columns to an already-established module. A history merge would not accurately reflect the history of the module - it would look like I just deleted all your code and replaced it with something completely unrelated. Also, attribution is required under CC BY-SA when copying copyrighted content, but I didn't copy your actual code. What I copied was your idea, and the testcase table API. Ideas aren't copyrightable, and APIs probably aren't either. I did add a header to attribute your contributions after we talked about this previously, but I don't think there is anything else that can reasonably be done. If you think of anything - other than a history merge - then let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    in my experience, the history would still indicate that it was a new creation. but, since that is unacceptable, replace with return require('Module:Template test case') which is the lua equivalent of a redirect, and redirects are usually what we do to preserve history when pages are forked without attribution. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:WPCD-Portal

Delete 10-year out-of-date talkpage template having an external link that is completely busted; no alternative external target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Module:Section transclude

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. (Wikitext version: {{#section:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{{1}}}}} * Pppery * it has begun... 00:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

June 7

Module:Gutenberg

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. Wikitext versions of the three templates that use this module written in Template:Gutenberg author/sandbox, Template:Gutenberg Australia/sandbox and Template:FadedPage/sandbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 16#Module:Books_and_Writers, a discussion that closed with consensus to convert a template with roughly the same degree of code complexity to Wikitext. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep because it can be done doesn't mean it is the best solution. We went from a single Module file to three template source files to maintain and track. Also it was my plan at some point to tie this into Wikidata which tracks Gutenberg IDs. -- GreenC 00:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Vgy

The video games WikiProject does not link years to the "YYYY in video gaming" articles anymore. This is one of those archaic Wikipedia things that used to be done back in the mid-2000s, but overtime the practice has been abandoned. The template should be deleted to settle it permanently. TarkusABtalk 12:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Lordtobi () 13:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion, but would support deprecation / docs warning against casual use. Maybe even mass subst'ing. It's still used in a lot of articles and deleting will break old revisions of articles, so would prefer a softer approach. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This is a philosophical question completely not germane to this discussion, but... do we/should we operate as if we care about old revisions? I wasn't aware that old revision readability was something that we were meant to preserve. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I've never seen it come up as an argument to keep something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Axem Titanium: I say no. If I may quote something I wrote for another TfD discussion:
        This concern seems misplaced. If we thought red-linked template transclusions in article history were problematic, we would never delete any templates ever.

        However, since this nomination suggests the deletion of widely-transcluded templates, one could argue the number of potential red links to be encountered in article history is larger than the standard TfD discussion. But here's the thing: as long as T36244 remain unimplemented, article history will always be fundamentally misleading about how templates worked because it does not show the state of the template at the time it was transcluded; it shows a transclusion of the current version of the template. It should not be our responsibility to create the illusion that page histories display prior template transclusions reliably.

        And the purpose of this template won't be some huge mystery: this discussion will be linked in the deletion log shown on all deleted pages. The red-links actually do the job of conveying the message that the template no longer serves the original purpose.

      • Retro (talk | contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template, and templates are not generally kept solely for the sake of preserving old revisions. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does it really hurt to keep it? Sports articles have their own season/year template, so it's not like this is something that was only done for video games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per MOS:YEARLINK. The main usages I see are in infoboxes and lead/prose and in neither case these have strong relation to the subject. The few articles that actually talk about gaming years are better off linking directly rather than using an obscure template. And there already are navboxes for years for relevant articles. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment @Hellknowz: MOS:YEARLINK does not apply here as far as I know because this links to a related article concerning the year. Or are you trying to say that it goes overkill? --Duonaut (talk | contribs) 02:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Why wouldn't YEARLINK apply? It's literally for linking to year articles with no significant relation. Yes, it's based on WP:OVERLINK. There are very few valid cases for year links, and it's mostly the year and decade articles. And these templates aren't even used there. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete (and not deprecate) - While I see a point in such a template, its use in the infobox does indeed violate MOS:YEARLINK, so keeping a template which users don't know when to use correctly, only provides a tool for easier misuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talkcontribs) 10:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with @Dissident93:; I don't see why the vgy template can't be keep. I do get it for gy but delete the two templates is kind of overkill. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose agreed @Dissident93, if deleted, it's not going to be a nice one. Don't to do that. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete It should be noted that the various MOSDATE scripts remove this template manual links like the one this template would produce whenever it is found in an article being processed. Per nom, per Hellknowz. -- ferret (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that at the very least this template should be substituted or phased out before deletion. At that, it is possible that this could still be used situationally in articles more relevant to video gaming history. --Duonaut (talk | contribs) 02:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Duonaut: You misunderstand how TfD works; if the consensus of this discussion is determined to be delete, the template will be put into Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell until all of the transclusions are resolved. Retro (talk | contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It’s a simplistic template which could easily be typed longhand through a direct Wikify or a parenthetical addendum. KirkCliff2 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - The template serves only to encourage the addition and retention of non-relevant wikilinks. The "Keep" votes all seem to rely on the non-argument "It's not hurting anyone."--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or deprecate - there may be a point in using this template, but if it is being misused most of the time, it needs to go. Besides, simplistic templates such as this stack up template usage, and pages take longer to parse than they should. Gamingforfun365 05:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The only reason given in the nomination for deletion is that the template is "archaic", which is not a reason for deletion according to WP:DEL-REASON. The template has a specific purpose not filled by any other template, so there is no reason to delete. Phediuk (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
LOL, the page you link to actually says that it is a reason for deletion. Right at the top: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following".--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per the oppose voters above. This template has a specific purpose that no other template has. Hansen Sebastian's 2nd account (Leave me a message here) 04:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think part of the question should be whether or not that specific purpose is necessary. If 'YYYY In Gaming' articles aren't being supported by the Gaming WikiProject, then why do we need to keep it? It can just as easily be replaced by a link to the year the game was released, i.e., 2019, if a year link is necessary. I rather agree with Hellknowz about that. --Praefect94 (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Serves no purpose anymore and violates policy. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate in articles, but not delete: While most of the previous delete votes note that this template's use in mainspace is in violation of MOS:YEARLINK, this template actually has more uses in the user talk namespace than it has in articles; it's used on 1,571 user talk pages it's directly used on 372 user talk pages. I don't see any point in breaking all the links or replacing . Conditional template code can be added to the template so it will not display a link when use in articles, and all occurrences can be replaced as appropriate (not necessarily in that order: the template could be removed in mainspace before applying the conditional template code).

    I will also note that MOS:YEARLINK is not straightforwardly applied here, because the links are to year articles specific to video games. MOS:YEARLINK says:

    Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) and year articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless the linked date or year has a significant connection to the subject of the linking article, beyond that of the date itself, so that the linking enhances the reader's understanding of the subject.
  • It goes on to give this example of appropriate use:
    [[1787 in science|1787]] might be linked from a passage discussing a particular development in the metric system which occurred in that year.
  • I don't know if linking the date a video game was released to that year in video games is an acceptable example of appropriate use (I suspect not, hence my deprecate !vote), but it might be better to discuss year links separately, rather than pseudo-discussing it in the context of this template and talking past one another. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "has more uses in the user talk namespace" That's because it's used in VG newletters. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      @Hellknowz: I know, but I don't see any reason to intentionally break all those links by deleting, or to edit 1000+ 100+ user talk pages and give people the false impression they have new messages. The argument for deleting appears to be primarily based on WP:OVERLINK, but that only applies to article usage; if we make the template conditional so it only display plaintext in articles, then the overlinking problem is solved. (I am not arguing the template should remain in articles afterwards. It should be replaced, but plaintext will prevent future misuse.) Retro (talk | contribs) 18:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      The newsletter is transcluded, not substituted. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      @Hellknowz: It is transcluded in many cases, but that still leaves 372 user talk pages where it was substituted. I'll strike my previous statements to use that more accurate number. I did sample occurrences of it in userspace before commenting (apparently I chose a bad sample since all the ones I saw were substituted), but I should have been more precise with my numbers. I still think 100+ is a significant number of user talk pages to disturb when cleaner solutions are possible. Retro (talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

June 6

Template:Infobox Palestine municipality

Replace and delete

Municipality-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

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

Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Geography_and_place#Place:

  1. The only Arab-country having a specific place infobox
  2. The only non-UN-member having a specific place infobox

77.183.60.95 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

{{main other|{{#invoke:Settlement short description|main|{{{settlement_type|{{{type|}}}}}}|{{{short_description|}}}|{{{subdivision_name|}}}|{{{subdivision_name1|}}}|{{{subdivision_name2|}}}}}|}}
Are you aware of any other set of administrative territorial entities that has specific code to generate a short description. In {{Infobox Palestine municipality}} which will be displayed, the selfmade or the one from {{Infobox settlement}}? 77.183.46.198 (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not aware of any other specific infoboxes that specifically automatically generate short description code. It would be possible (I think) to implement this with {{Infobox settlement}} by setting the governate value to the subdivision_name parameter and type to the type parameter. However I am still undecided. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Solved. Code has been changed to use the short description code in {{Infobox settlement}}. TerraCyprus (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed there is a blank parameter, however, I am unsure whether the meaning of a name can be summed up in a short enough way for an infobox. I will support substitution if the |meaning= parameter is removed from the infobox before substitution. I will oppose substitution if this parameter is kept. My reasoning against blank parameters in infoboxes can be found in The TfD for Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Place infoboxes in Arab League member states and the State of Palestine
Infobox settlement (whole country) Infobox settlement (part of country) Infobox Palestine municipality (part of country)
  1.   Algeria: Provinces of Algeria, Districts of Algeria, Municipalities of Algeria
  2.   Comoros: Autonomous islands of Comoros
  3.   Libya: Governorates of Libya, Districts of Libya
  4.   Morocco: Regions of Morocco, Provinces of Morocco
  5.   Mauritania: Regions of Mauritania, Departments of Mauritania
  6.   Sudan: States of Sudan
  7.   Somalia: Regions of Somalia, Districts of Somalia
  8.   Tunisia: Governorates of Tunisia
  9.   Egypt: Governorates of Egypt, Regional units of Egypt
  10.   United Arab Emirates: Emirates of the United Arab Emirates
  11.   Bahrain: Governorates of Bahrain, Former regions of Bahrain
  12.   Iraq: Governorates of Iraq, Districts of Iraq
  13.   Jordan: Governorates of Jordan, Districts of Jordan
  14.   Kuwait: Governorates of Kuwait
  15.   Lebanon: Governorates of Lebanon, Districts of Lebanon
  16.   Oman: Governorates of Oman, Provinces of Oman
  17.   Saudi Arabia: Regions of Saudi Arabia, Governorates of Saudi Arabia
  18.   Syria: Governorates of Syria, Districts of Syria
  19.   Yemen: Governorates of Yemen, Districts of Yemen
  1.   Palestine: Governorates of Palestine
  1.   Palestine: Non-governorates of Palestine

77.191.61.64 (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. JelgavaLV (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89 could you close this? 1x Keep, 3x Replace and delete. Also the template code has been changed, concerns of the 1x Neutral vote addressed. 89.14.130.139 (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89 why is this not closed? Discussions started June 10 are closed [1], but this one started June 6 is not. 77.11.125.202 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
See WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. It is his choice whether he wants to close this TfD and if he does, at what time he wants to close this. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Dreamy Jazz, what was the question? Ooops, yes, it was why the choice by JJMC89 was taken to not close this one. 89.14.159.64 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
My statement also covered the why. It is his choice whether he wants to say why he has closed other discussions and not this one. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete - per above. There is nothing special about this wrapper and anything it does the base template can do. --Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Substitution of Template:BOTREQ

Canned-response templates are generally substituted, with the exception of templates for venues that don't have a permanent archive (RfPP, AIV). WP:BOTREQ is archived, so its template should be substituted for consistency reasons. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Make subst-only per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I've advertised this at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Bot requests. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't typically make templates with files in them subst-only. --Izno (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Izno: Yes we do: Template:HD's subtemplates, and Template:ESp and its ilk are all subst-only despite containing files. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
<moved from TfD> {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there a specific problem that would be fixed by making this subst only? It seems like a net-negative IMO. Legoktm (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Seems in line with all the other reply and message templates to keep archive history consistent. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography

Propose merging Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography with Template:Infobox religious biography.
Similar infobox and WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 07:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: How does the proposer envision dealing with the parameters listed under "Specialized information for Latter Day Saint Leadership", "For Political office holders", and "Military Service" in {{Infobox Latter Day Saint biography}}? This would not be a straightforward merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative Oppose Changing to Comment: Per Jonesey, there are a number of parameters in the Latter Day Saint biography which would need to be addressed. Several are unique enough to warrant a unique template. If the parameters are dealt with, I support the merge. Rollidan (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • create a module with the LDS specific information and refactor {{Infobox Latter Day Saint biography}} to use that module. by the way, this actually looks closer to {{infobox officeholder}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace with a module per Frietjes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

June 5

Template:Super Over

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

  • Added the module, which should clearly suffer the same fate as the template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an overly esoteric way of essentially saying X team won in extra time. As the nom says, it fails WP:V. All the cricket scorecards will show that a team beat another team in the super over, and that's all we need to add to matches on WP when that applies. Adding the whole template for a single over for one match is a hugh distraction to the rest of the fixture. If someone wants a more detailed breakdown of what happened, ball by ball, they can find it elsewhere. There's no need to replicate it on WP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this is just WP:FANCRUFT, no need for such a detailed template on an over of cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see some very slight value in keeping it, but only for matches where there is detailed coverage of the match on the article page (including a full scorecard), which would typically only be tournament finals. Using alongside a standard {{Single-innings cricket match}} is completely disproportionate: the Super Over template is 10 lines long, a basic usage of the match template is 5 lines long. Spike 'em (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This is similar to penalties in football. However, I agree that it need not be that detailed. 117.198.112.144 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep , it's shows a special innings (Super Over) in T20 cricket. For a whole match we update the singl innings template, just like that super over is also should be shown. Nivas88 (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Keep, How can you are not getting source about Super over for the inngings. Super over Scorecard is available in the original link of that match. It's so funny Lol...
If super over template will delete then add another single innings template to show super over details... 2405:204:610F:AC6A:97F9:E182:439A:E12F (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is way too much detail and would be better served by a sentence of prose added as a note, if necessary, to the template dealing with the match scorecard. Even that is essentially a MIRROR of something that would be even better served by an external link to one of the many places that cricket scorecards are kept online. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessarily long and verbose. Also, what's the point of having a bowler column and putting the same name 6 times? sudhanva (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, overly detailed and rarely properly sourced. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - To address comments that this is too detailed, I propose that the "Bowler" column be dropped, since the entire is bowled by a single nominated bowler. Also, the "Batsman" column should be called "Batter" so that it can also be used for women's matches. MadScientist (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified WP:CRICKET.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Lugnuts summed it up perfectly. It's not needed. StickyWicket (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are situations where a template like this could be useful, e.g. in the article about the final of a knockout T20 tournament. It's not perfect, but I think it's on its way to being a very good way of representing this info. – PeeJay 15:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a mirror of every single scorecard, or part-scorecard, of every cricket match ever played. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep We do keep a lot of match scores, which is perfectly normal. As long as noone is argueing to delete most scores, looks like this template helps keeping thing tidy, so keep it. Although it looks like it needs cleanup that is no reason to delete. - Nabla (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Viking Invasion of England

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

  • Comment There is a bit of a cultural difference at the high level here, with one template suggesting That parts of England were once called "Scandinavian England" and is, or was, a place. "Viking Invasion" is "limited", in name, anyway, to an event (series of events). If I had to go with one name it would be the latter. I like the "Viking Invasion" structure a little better. I wonder if "Scandinavian England" might be split, with most merged into "Viking Invasion," the other maybe more cultural to "Danelaw England." Student7 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Template:Scandinavian England has been renamed to Template:Norse activity in the British Isles. PPEMES (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles tree

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

  • Strong Keep, (??) no reason to get rid of an interesting and informative template like this. I can see putting some templates up for deletion, but not good ones. Thanks. (p.s. WP:FANCRUFT is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy) Randy Kryn (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a proper WP:NAVBOX. There is already a navbox at {{The Vampire Chronicles}} which contains all the characters. This one does not need to be transcluded on every article. If this information is kept it should appear once only (at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters) in a different format. --woodensuperman 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Although {{The Vampire Chronicles}} template lists the 13 individual character articles this one shows many more, as well as giving readers the interesting familial relationships and timeline. Readers (at least me) find it interesting and informative. It improves the encyclopedia, improves the pages it is (and can be) placed on, and is a fine addition to Wikipedia's Vampire Chronicles collection. There is nothing wrong with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is everything wrong with it. It's content masquerading as a navbox. It certainly does not belong along the bottom of multiple pages. If this was a single use template sitting at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters, I'd probably have left it alone, but what the hell is it doing sitting at the bottom of Anne Rice? This needs at the very least converted to a different format, and used sparingly on extremely relevant articles. Something like Aztec emperors family tree, or Noldor#House of Finwë. This is NOT a WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 12:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Anne Rice is linked in the title. The family tree helps the understanding of the linked pages, and provides the readers with a valuable visual aide concept map to the topic. And it improves rather than harms the encyclopedia (which is what all of these discussions are about). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
She may be linked in the title, but this isn't a navbox and the content is tangential to her biography. And cluttering up pages with family trees disguised as navboxes on irrelevant pages does harm the encyclopedia and certainly does not improve the experience for anyone. --woodensuperman 13:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
"for anyone" is incorrect, when I first saw the template it was interesting and informative to my mental-map of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You may find it "interesting", but that doesn't stop it from being in the wrong place. --woodensuperman 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Your link is to another opinion essay. Interesting is a good descriptor of one of the many attributes a good template can have. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The template should not be used as a navbox at the bottom of the page, but there are other family tree templates. There are appropriate uses for them. This is more a question of where it should be used and how the template should be formatted. The template should not be deleted just because of those things. If there are no other uses for it, it could be included just at the page mentioned in the nom, but it could be neater to keep the code as a separate template page. M.Clay1 (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason it is using the navbox markup? If this is changed, then editors might not mistake it for a navbox and use it as such. --woodensuperman 07:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
For whatever reason, family tree templates use navbox markup. I don't think many people would confuse it for a navbox. I've never seen one used as a navbox before. Its use as such seems like a unilateral decision by User:Randy Kryn. I think most editors will agree that it shouldn't be there. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems {{Downton Abbey family tree}} and {{Half-elven family tree}} manage to not use the navbox markup. I would suggest that this method be employed by all family tree templates. --woodensuperman 14:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • delete or reformat per Template:Downton Abbey family tree. navboxes are hidden in mobile view, so if this is really important we should show it to all viewers, but if it's simply for navigation, then we don't need to present the links in tree form. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Iran Men's squad 2015 WT Taekwondo World Championship

I can't remember if we ever had such templates for individual sports. that looks unnecessary for me, we have World Championships in amateur individual sports almost each year imagine if someone creates such templates for each country for each sports each year for Taekwondo, Wrestling, Judo, Weightlifting etc. that will be too much. to me not notable enough to exists. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • delete per nom, navbox overkill. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • keep these templates are new innovation and Without conflict with politics.thease are nessacery for sports like Taekwondo, Wrestling,Weightlifting that having separate team cup in addition to individual medal.in the article of these sports we can see ranking of table for teams and they are important.no template showed it before.i'll create them for other countries (we had squad in football,volleyball and others sport and they are existed because of needed)..i researched many articles and some people asked me to create something like this and i Observe the all rules for this subject..it shows medallists and the people who don't get medal in one team in competion and the place of team at the end of tournement. it is featured template and will be better and more recognized in future.thanks.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    we have many templates like this : Template:England squad – 1975 World Cup .. are them unnessacery too? these are needed for many reasons for many people that eager to know about the teams squads participate in world cup or world championships competitions in every sports,maybe historical for future..--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between professional and amateur sports. the coverage for team sports like football is much more than amateur sports. Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mohsen1248: Only the first template has been tagged. Please remember to tag all templates you nominate for deletion. * Pppery * survives 21:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Pppery: Not my fault. actually I tagged all of them you should warn who removed the tags. Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Oops, looks like I misread the history. @Mojtaba2361: Please do not remove TfD tags from templates while they are still listed at TfD. * Pppery * survives 21:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've restored the TfD tags. * Pppery * survives 22:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Northern Arizona Elite

Propose merging Template:Northern Arizona Elite with Template:Footer Northern Arizona Elite.
{{Northern Arizona Elite}} is an older, unused duplicate of {{Footer Northern Arizona Elite}}. It has no transclusions and all of the information and functionality in the former (which is now outdated anyways) is available in the latter. Habst (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Are either of those even valid templates? Northern Arizona Elite is not an article. I can't see how if the group itself isn't notable there needs to be a navigation template for its members. --Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    • They definitely are, NAZ Elite has received a lot of mainsteam media coverage and has been deserving of an article for a while now in my opinion (like at [2] [3]). Wikipedia just takes time to catch up sometimes as there aren't many active athletics editors. --Habst (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • delete both as there is no parent article (cart goes after horse). Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • hi Frietjes, thank you for your vote but i really don't think it would be a good outcome at all to delete the template, i proposed the merge here to improve them and i think that would be a step backwards. i created the style of template originally for Template:Footer Nike Oregon Project and Template:Footer Bowerman Track Club, two clubs that rival NAZ Elite in the US, and i was actually really excited to see that GoOKC adapted it for NAZ Elite, and i wanted to do him a favor in return by doing some housekeeping on the templates -- not intending at all to trigger a delete of his work. if you think having an NAZ article would help, i think i am capable of writing one, but it will have to take a few days because i am in the middle of a move. in retrospect, i probably should have merged the two articles myself as an entirely non-controversial merge. can i delay the vote as the nominator until after my NAZ Elite article is completed then? thanks, --Habst (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Habst, you can request to have it moved to draft- or user-space until the article is completed. Frietjes (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
        • hi Frietjes, the problem with that is then the articles will have to be downgraded and have the transclusions removed while the template is deleted -- athletics coverage (especially in the US) is super limited on wikipedia and NAZ Elite is definitely notable. if possible i'd like to delay the vote as the nominator instead, or even withdraw it with no action for now which would be better than deleting. thanks, --Habst (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
hi Woodensuperman, thank you for merging the templates. that was the original goal of this tfd, but i fear that putting it up here was a huge mistake that i hope you can help me fix. for the reasons above i really do think NAZ is notable enough to have an article and template. do you know if it is possible for me to postpone or close the vote that i started, because i did not start it with the intention of deleting the template? i hope you understand that in my opinion, the vote has gone out of hand because the english wikipedia has a severe shortage of athletics articles when compared to topics in published RSes, so in my opinion deleting templates for a notable track club in the U.S. would be a step backwards.
also, i see that you have nominated Template:Brooks Beast Track Club, Template:New Jersey New York Track Club, Template:Reebok Boston Track Club, Template:Saucony Freedom Track Club, and Template:Tinman Elite all for deletion. you only noticed those templates because i posted about Template:Footer Northern Arizona Elite here, right? i am being honest with you, this was my greatest fear. i know that i can save them all, but i need time to draft my rationale. i do think we should have standards for inclusion and of course we shouldn't include random teams that aren't notable, but all the templates you inserted are from notable teams that should all have athlete articles. i still need to think about my best course of action, but i am worried that we will not reach the most fair outcome so i think we should really be careful about taking our time with these nominations. thank you, --Habst (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Db-f8

The preferred way to flag F8-eligible files is via {{subst:ncd}}, which allows files to be sorted by the date they were tagged, so as to not overwhelm the main CSD category and allow adequate time to research/review each transferred file. In my experience, editors that use this tag are unfamiliar with our local file policies and file policies on Commons, and end up tagging files which were either inappropriately transferred or require many fixes in order to be acceptable for Commons. I think the best solution is to redirect this tag to Template:Now commons dated, so that there will be more opportunity for experienced editors to review tagged files and verify their eligibility for Commons. FASTILY 23:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • If I will still be able to delete using F8 in Twinkle's CSD menu without tagging the file, then I can support a redirect to Template:Now Commons. Otherwise, I oppose. @Amorymeltzer: Could you confirm what Twinkle's behavior would be if this were redirected. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @JJMC89: It will work as {{Now Commons}} has a delete-reason span, although that's a bit tautological (per below) as this was specifically added because such a redirect previously broke Twinkle. ~ Amory (utc) 10:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Some history/context, Twinkle used {{Now Commons}} up until March/April, when I changed Twinkle to use {{db-f8}}; what is now Template:Db-f8 was created in 2007 about six months after {{db-nowcommons}} was first added to Twinkle, and Twinkle had never been updated. More accurately, Twinkle was using {{db-nowcommons}}, which from 2007 to 2010 pointed to (what is now) {{db-f8}}, but was redirected in 2010 by Geni to [deal] with CSD flood, and as far as I can tell that just stuck. Doing so broke F8 deletion via Twinkle for 6.5 years until MusikAnimal added the delete-reason. ~ Amory (utc) 10:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not particularly well-versed or interested in filespace stuff, so take all of this with a grain of salt, but if all of the above is true, then sure, that makes sense. Twinkle provides a thorough description of the criteria for F8 tagging/deletion, but if people are ignoring that and those working in filespace areas want a different workflow, then we should do so. F8 is a weird beast, so perhaps the thing to do is turn it into a Di-style tag, like with {{Di-no fair use rationale}} or {{Di-no license}}? That seems appropriate to me (again, salt) and would take it out of CAT:SD (as desired). If that's done I think the thing to do would be remove F8 tagging from Twinkle's CSD module and move it to the DI module to be alongside tagging for F4, F11, etc. Deletion via CSD would still remain. If this is redirected per above, I'd probably do the same move from CSD to DI, although I don't love the idea of having {{Now Commons}} in both the CSD and DI modules. ~ Amory (utc) 10:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on whether to keep this template, but it makes a plausible redirect so I am against deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not asking for deletion, just a redirect :) -FASTILY 00:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Salem–Vriddhachalam–Cuddalore Port line

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

  • @Useddenim: Do you remember if this was used anywhere? Most of the diagram seems to be duplicated by {{Salem–Virudhachalam line}}, which is in use, but I don't think there's a route diagram for the rest of the line. It's not clear to me if the two apparently discontinuous segments are actually one line. Jc86035 (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@GoldenDragon2293Return and Chandan Guha: can you answer this question? Useddenim (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Balablitz: I was not associated with these templates. Balablitz may be able to say, if it was used or not. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim, Chandan Guha, and Jc86035: My apologies for the delay in reply. I just had a look at various pages of Southern Railway. It seems that part of the line i.e Salem-Vriddhachalam section is already covered under the Template:Salem–Virudhachalam line template used in Salem Junction railway station page and the part from Vriddhachalam-Cuddalore Port Jn is covered under Chennai Egmore–Thanjavur main line template. We can either create a new page and link this template to it and in pages where it exist, we remove the stations and just add a connecting arrow (What is the usual Wiki convention here ? Do we create separate pages for terminus to terminus connections ?) or we can discard the template. I prefer the first way here as it reduces the size of the template and makes it a bit neat. Also a point to note is that there is a new line planned in between the Salem-Vriddhachalam part. I am planning to work on the Southern Railways after I have finished work under the Eastern & NE Railways. Please let me know what is your decision in this regards. ---- GoldenDragon2293Return (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest making the overlapped sections collapsible, and then adding the template to all relevant pages to provide context for the others. Does this sound like a reasonable solution? Useddenim (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - still unused after all this time. --Gonnym (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Capitals of provinces of Thailand

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

  • Keep (I've copied and pasted this from the List of Capitals in Thailand AfD) for now, at least procedurally. For instance, searching "Phetchaburi" "capital" brings up a number of sources which cite it as a provincial capital. For instance, [4] lists several regional cities as capitals. The infobox for each province lists a capital as well. If we take the nom at face value, there's going to be a fair bit of cleanup required, but considering there's evidence of provincial "capital"s existing in English, I think this list is valid until otherwise shown. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I haven't researched this yet but just a comment on your last statement. There is no such thing as evidence of provincial "capital"s existing in English - either Thailand has provincial capitals or doesn't. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The AfD has been closed as redirect to Provinces of Thailand (which I've adjusted to use "Namesake town/city" instead of "capital" to avoid confusion). User:SportingFlyer, does this affect your !vote? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan

Replace and delete

Prefecture-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

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

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

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

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

  • The template was kept in this TfD from 2011. – Uanfala (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • My argument in that discussion - at which point the wrapper was unused - was "Keep or redirect to Infobox Settlement; to discourage creation of a new, redundant template." That does preclude replacement and deletion now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, it makes maintenance of the articles a lot harder. After a merge, and a year from now: E.g. how do you check that all Japanese articles still links to Prefectures of Japan, Municipalities of Japan and so on? With a template or wrapper its done automatic. How do you check it for all the articles about Egyptian settlements? Christian75 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    FUD. The template proposed for replacement and transcluded on 49 articles does not ensure "that all Japanese articles still links to Prefectures of Japan, Municipalities of Japan and so on" nor does it check that "for all the articles about Egyptian settlements". 77.191.146.215 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    How do you ensure that the 49 (47) prefectures links correct after a year? But you are right, after a merge the Japanese prefectures will be "fully undetectable", and it will be nearly impossible to ensure consistency between the articles infoboxes. You are saying it "Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, [...]": And I ask how? E.g. how do you change a label links for all prefectures (settlements) for a given country (with reduced maintenance?) Christian75 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    FUD. But you are right, after a merge the Japanese prefectures will be "fully undetectable" - I did not claim that and they are "detectable", e.g. via Category:Prefectures of Japan. it will be nearly impossible to ensure consistency between the articles infoboxes - Direct inclusion of Infobox settlement as is done with ~420000 other articles will ensure some consistencies, the rest will be done by the same procedures as for those 420000. Behaviorial note: Don't claim things I didn't say. 78.55.20.251 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    One of the meanings of "FUD" is "Fully undetectable"... But please explain how the maintenance burden is lowered. About the 420000 other articles - it should be rolled back, to at least wrapper "level". Christian75 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete - only 49 transclusions. Japan already has one country-specific box, two is one too much. TerraCyprus (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Christian75: the infobox uses a fair number of specific fields that will be cumbersome to edit and difficult to maintain if it were replaced with the generic template. – Uanfala (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    FUD. Only included 49 times. And which of the specific fields had its value changed in the past 10 years? None? 89.12.15.31 (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Note : per Christian75: the infobox uses a fair number of specific fields - that user didn't bring up that claim. Are you stating the untrue on purpose? 89.12.203.15 (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    You know, the TfDs you participate in would be a lot better if you didn't pretend you didn't understand the English language and if you stopped throwing derogatory labels at everyone who disagreed with you. As for your more substantial point: I don't know how many values of specific fields have been changed in the past 10 years (the template as a whole has been substantially rewritten [5] so I'd assume there might be at least a few), but that's not part of what I was arguing. – Uanfala (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    No evidence, no substance. You know, the TfDs you participate in would be a lot better if you didn't pretend you didn't understand the English language No, I don't know. Where did I pretend anything or is it you just putting "derogatory labels" on other users personality? throwing derogatory labels at everyone who disagreed with you - any proof that happened? Re As for your more substantial point: I don't know how many values of specific fields have been changed - i.e. your "Keep"-reasons are not based on facts at all and come down to pure voting, something you complained about [6] - hypocrite? 89.12.203.15 (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note possible canvassing by nominator on meta (1, 2, 3). * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    No, these users have been involved before: [7], [8]. WP:AGF 77.191.247.206 (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    That doesn't make it not canvassing. You notified me, Pigsonthewing, and Darwinek on our meta talk pages. Pigsonthewing and Darwinek and I all supported at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_7#Infobox_settlement_wrappers, so you have therefore notified only users who expressed a preference against {{infobox settlement}} wrappers earlier, an example of votestacking. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    Defamation.: No user was against substitution of "Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan" within the TFD time of 7 days. Cape Verde, Peru, Russia are currently outside Japan. 77.13.95.37 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    Meta as defence against stalking: It was done on meta, because there is stalking, see Uanfala, when s/he voted here - just after an admin was asked to close. 77.13.95.37 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    If you notify some editors involved in a previous TfD, you must notify all editors who've commented, see WP:APPNOTE. – Uanfala (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Allow me to negate the canvassing by doing that, then. Pinging all participants in the two TfDs the IP linked to above, except for users who already participated in this one: @Tom (LT), Gonnym, Tisquesusa, Underlying lk, Markussep, RexxS, Ymblanter, Agathoclea, Nyttend, Hhkohh, Kusma, Matthiasb, Zackmann08, Scope creep, and Calliopejen1:. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. The set of articles is very stable, no addition of new articles to be expected. It is also very small. JelgavaLV (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. Stable set of articles. Replacement with our standard infobox will not make the maintenance harder, on the contrary, this standardization will reduce the maintenance and overall burden.--Darwinek (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, replacing templates with wrappers is an unfortunate tendency and must be stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • "replacing templates with wrappers is an unfortunate tendency and must be stopped." Indeed. This is, though, a proposal to replace a wrapper with a template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Calliopejen1 in the previous discussion — this has several dedicated fields for transliteration from Japanese, which is a useful component that wouldn't be useful in the main Infobox settlement. We shouldn't put Japan-specific components into a general template, and getting rid of these components' use in current articles by deleting the current template wouldn't be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: An extra Infobox for 49 articles, because of "several dedicated fields for transliteration from Japanese"? Either Nyttend is not aware of Template:Infobox settlement#Name and transliteration or something else is going on. How is it done for articles about places outside Japan, e.g. in China or to begin with, about places in Japan that use IB settlement directly, e.g. Kansai region? 77.13.247.168 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I said it before, an certainly will says it until end of days: It was big nonsense to start combining all those templates into Infobox settlement. Whoever started this infobox settlement never relly edited settlement articles. Did you guys never wonder about that no other big language version did ever follow the English wikipedia on this erratic path? Did you ever compare the source text of, say, Stow, Ohio an de:Stow (Ohio). If so, this discussion won't exist. Which infobox is more easy to use? Editing articles with Templage:settlement is terrible. For us translators it's unusable. The translation tool does not handle it, cannot handle it. It's time to turn around and re-instate individual infoboxes for each country and type of settlement. (BTW: A prefecture isn't a settlement at all – it's an administrative unit like a county.) The nmination is nonsense, any further nomination of this kind is big nonsense. --Matthiasb (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • As the nomination clearly says: "Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is 'used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country'". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete - after looking at the parameters, the most specialized ones (Flower, Tree, Bird, etc.) seem to be of dubious relevance.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (with a caveat) substitution would lead to "blank" parameters being present in articles. This will just confuse new editors, who lets say are changing what is currently |Municipalities=, would then have to change |blank1_info_sec1=. If the intended wrapper template {{Infobox settlement}} can handle these parameters which currently need the "blank" parameters, I would support substitution. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Dreamy Jazz: |Municipalities= as well as |Districts= belong to |parts=, this has been fixed [9]. The other blank fields belong to flower, tree, bird, fish; the code has been changed, so that editors will see the "name" of a field even if it is empty [10], the code is as follows:
<!-- blank fields (section 1) -->
| blank_name_sec1         = Flower
| blank_info_sec1         = {{{Flower|}}}
| blank1_name_sec1        = Tree
| blank1_info_sec1        = {{{Tree|}}}
| blank2_name_sec1        = Bird
| blank2_info_sec1        = {{{Bird|}}}
| blank3_name_sec1        = Fish
| blank3_info_sec1        = {{{Fish|}}}
77.183.46.198 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem still is that the blank parameters are still there. I would want to see the parameters |Flower=, |Tree=, |Bird= and |Fish= in {{Infobox settlement}} before substitution. If these parameters are not added, my vote is keep. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: What in your opinion is the "problem" with blank parameters being there? The {{Infobox settlement}} has been coded with blank parameters, do you want to deny users to use them as coded? And if you think these biota symbols are that relevant to get their own parameters, why don't you propose them? For U.S. states biota symbols are not included in {{Infobox settlement}}, but managed by an extra box - are you aware of any other set of administrative territorial entities that have biota symbols within {{Infobox settlement}}? @Pigsonthewing and Underlying lk: what do you think? 77.183.46.198 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
It is that in 49 articles unclear blank parameters will be placed. For new users it may be confusing how to change a parameter which uses a blank parameter. In visual editor, this is only more confusing as where you would expect a simplified name (e.g. the parameter |coordinates= in visual editor is presented with a header of Coordinates), the blank parameters have two input boxes which are named by their parameter names (i.e. "blank2_info_sec1" and "Blank name section 1"). These, I can only imagine are confusing to new editors, who expect to see an input boxes named "Tree" and "Fish", not "Blank name section 1" and "blank3_name_sec1" (their current names). This could be alleviated slightly by giving these blank parameters nicer names for visual editor (i.e. nice names in templatedata) which could specify these are custom parameters in a clear way, but this is difficult as this name would have to fit all cases (i.e. not just this template), and this does not still get past the issue of new users using source editor, who won't have the visual editor to help them understand what parameter is the right one to change. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 08:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz, if you move those to {{Infobox region symbols}} there shouldn't be a problem. Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Frietjes thanks for this hint, done [11]. 77.11.252.115 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
try the version in the sandbox to eliminate the spurious horizontal line, and suppress the symbols heading when the symbols are not specified. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom and above comments. The extra state symbols are not something that should be added through the backdoor. This template has only 3, but as Frietjes linked somewhere above, there are dozens of options for US states. --Gonnym (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Completed discussionsEdit

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

Closing discussionsEdit

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

To reviewEdit

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

To mergeEdit

Templates to be merged into another template.

ArtsEdit

Geography, politics and governanceEdit