Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 10 April 12 >

April 11 edit

Template:Cite tweet edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite tweet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are very few cases where something on Twitter should be used as a citation. We should not be encouraging people to use Twitter as a source by having a specific citation template for it. What it does is encourage additions like XXX celebrity said this on Twitter, if a statement is notable enough to be included in an article it must be covered in a secondary source. In the rare instance where twitter would be required as a primary source, the standard Cite Web is sufficient. kelapstick(bainuu) 23:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Per WP:UGC, tweets are generally not acceptable as a reliable source. This template would encourage using Twitter as a citation. Nakon 23:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are any cases (and there are), then the nomination rationale is invalid.
As to encouragement, then this is like {{YouTube}} - it's better to control it than to let it run free.
Use of this to cite a primary source (and probably a tweet by a BLP subject themselves) is of itself sufficient to justify this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the point that the existence of cases where Twitter can be used as a source warrants a specific template for it. While I understand your point about being able to track Twitter usage better with the specific template, I don't believe it to be necessary. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—while {{cite web}} can do what this does, that doesn't negate the benefits of this template. If the APA has issued guidance on how to cite social media, and they have, then it's valid to standardize the output of citations to this source. The existence of the template does not encourage using Twitter any more than the existence of cite web encourages the use of web sources over paper ones. Imzadi 1979 → 00:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:TFD#REASONS: "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." And not having this template isn't going to stop people from citing tweets inappropriately, I would have thought that most of those would be from less experienced editors not using templates or using cite web from the Ref Toolbar menu. - Evad37 [talk] 02:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying the documentation won't prevent this template from being abused. There are bots that prevent additions of tweets to articles with regular links. This template bypasses the bots and enables further abuse. Nakon 02:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Which bot(s)? In any case, it doesn't seem to be working, a search for url=https://twitter.com/ (i.e, in templates) within the text of articles shows 5,857 matches – mostly individual tweets cited with {{cite web}}, judging by the first few pages of the results. Searching for external links beginning with https://twitter.com/ gives 6,498 results, and again, many seem to be for individual tweets. - Evad37 [talk] 03:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Nakon is correct, then we really have a problem. As it is, delete as a useless template for a typically useless source. Let's all try and pretend we're working on an encyclopedia, not a tool to track famous people as a social experiment. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my reply below. This is not a social experiment, this is a discussion about a relatively new, yet already widely recognized media platform. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you claim that, Twitter can never be cited? If so, putting forth the policy that states that would be helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tweets often become notable, because of reliable secondary sources drawing attention to them. Thus, Wikipedia should have a standard method of citing them, which this template provides. To repeat what others have said, I really don't see how having such a template encourages editors to cite Tweets. If this template is deleted, if an editor thinks a Tweet is worth citing, he or she will just use the "cite web" template. Thus, the proposal for deletion is utterly without merit. Secondary sources which mention Tweets often do not provide a link to them, so Wikipedia has to provide the links itself for the sake of completeness. – Herzen (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the valid sources should reference them, not use tweets as a primary source. If an editor cites a tweet, a bot will revert it. This is why the template is dangerous. The template overrides the bot that prevents non-reliable sources from being added. If this continues, the bot will need to be updated to block the template in general. Nakon 03:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that documentation for it (and perhaps the underlying design, too) should be improved, though. MureninC (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How can the documentation be improved? Since the template is very easy to include, anyone will use it regardless of whatever large red box tells them not to. Nakon 04:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The current documentation doesn't appear to require (or even suggest) for a real name to be included, for example. Also, to counter your argument (about a large red box), the template doesn't work unless you use the specific non-obvious params (just using `url` doesn't fly), so, it's not like anyone is just going to use it without ever going to read the docs. MureninC (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Social media is rapidly expanding, and even prominent figures, like the President of the United States and Pope Francis, use it to issue statements. This template should definitely stay and possibly expand to include other platforms, such as Facebook. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 10:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since initiating this discussion I have removed {{cite twitter}} from Vitiligo - where it was used within a "notable cases" section in reference to a living person, someone's whining about passport renewal times as at Russian passport as a source related to delayed renewal times, and I quote the tweet "papa rome's back ! Who missed me??" as a source related to Rome Fortune being released from prison. The fact that we actually have a citation template for twitter legitimizes its use as a reliable source, when in greater than 99.9% of all cases it is not a reliable source. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment Care to prove your "statistic"? If the twitter accounts belong to Bryan Danielson and Papa Rome then the citation is legitimate. In the passport case, it would have been legitimate to use the twitter account of the embassy, for example; using someone's anecdotal evidence is just silly, regardless of whether it is on Twitter or not. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on--silly question. What you really need to ask yourself is, if the pope has a newspaper, besides a website, and is always followed by an echelon from the press corps, why on earth (as it is in heaven) you'd have to resort to citing a Twitter feed. And even if you're reporting on a Tweet by His Holiness, you'd have to cite secondary sources that discuss (and probably cite) the Tweet in order to establish that it's relevant and that it's discussed properly and neutrally: so I have yet to see a reason to cite His Tweets directly, via this template or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, not silly at all. No one is "resorting" to Twitter, the whole point is that Twitter has grown large enough to gain reputation in official circles as well. The CIA has an account. The White House has an account. Senators have accounts. All that in the US alone. Presidents, Kings, Prime Ministers - many have accounts as well. It's not "resorting", but rather expanding our sourcing options. This is me, "getting with the times". I suggest you do the same. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact, citing a tweet from an official account is exactly like citing a televised appearance. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're totally missing the point: Tweets are primary. We cite secondary sources. At least, we should. I understand that's not the most important requirement for those thinking of WP as TMZ, bu it's still policy. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since I already told you that the "social experiment" is an irrelevant commentary and you followed it with the TMZ remark, I'll tell you right now: I consider this a personal attack. Twitter has nothing to do with gossip and low social standard. See my replies above. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • By the way, we still need primary sources, as the secondary sources serve to reinforce them, not to replace them. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—some of the comments relating to usage relate to the first-party/primary source nature of tweets, yet we allow official press releases. We have {{cite press release}} to handle those, and a tweet from an official account to make an announcement is like a press release with a 140-character limitation. Deleting {{cite press release}} won't stop people from citing those; in fact many people have used {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} for press releases. At least by encouraging people to use these specialized templates, we will clearly mark the citation as using a "(Tweet)" or a "(Press release)" so that readers and other editors can better judge the reliability and potential bias of the sources. Imzadi 1979 → 13:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The presumption that this template will cause more tweets to be cited; and conversely that deleting it will stop (or reduce) tweets from being cited, is made without evidence. However, this template allows us to easily track such citations, and check them for appropriteness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A valid reason Andy, however it seems like my removal of inappropriate Twitter sourced content is seen as a pushing a personal agenda (note two usages of this template on two articles is being discussed at WP:BLPN). --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{cite web}} and add notation in the template documentation that Twitter can be designated as the source by either using the website parameter (e.g. website=Twitter) or the type parameter (type=tweet). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the arguments provided by Andy Dingley and Andy Mabbett above. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The criteria for deleting the template (WP:TFD#REASONS) are not met. Further, even though tweets are not generally acceptable as a reliable source per WP:UGC, they are sometimes appropriate under WP:SELFSOURCE. I agree that tweets are cited far too often in Wikipedia. But I don't believe that tweets should NEVER be cited. The existence of the template doesn't encourage people to use more tweets in citations, and removing it will not stop them. The editors who do this are simply not paying attention to the content guidelines. The deletion of the template may result in users poorly documenting their citation or not documenting it at all. That would be to the detriment of the Encyclopedia. I recently stumbled upon this template when I saw a tweet cited as a reference in an college basketball article to which I was contributing. The editor who cited it had documented it poorly as a simple external link. My initial reaction was to find a better source and remove it. After digging further, I concluded that for the first time after roughly 10,000 edits, it was appropriate to cite this particular tweet.[1] It so happens that the tweeter, Jason Quick, is a journalist for The Oregonian who covers the Portland Pilots. He posted this tweet a day before he wrote an article for the newspaper confirming it. Jason Quick is clearly a reliable source for this topic. The existence of the template made it easy to document the source and produced a clear reference. What is wrong with that? Taxman1913 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jason Quick [@JWQuick] (March 10, 2015). "Portland AD Scott Leykam says Pilots have agreed to play in CIT. "We know we are going to play, it's just a matter if we play home or away."" (Tweet). Retrieved March 22, 2015 – via Twitter.
  • Seems like you should cite the article that he posted the next day, which is way more valuable to both readers and editors, since it will have much more detail. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I find the keep arguments unpersuasive:
    • For citing tweets which themselves reference an underlying opinion/news piece, we should cite that opinion/news piece directly.
    • For citing tweets that became something noted in reliable sources, we should cite that reliable source directly. This has the additional value of providing the context necessary to satisfy WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV as well as our general encyclopedic purpose in that we are a tertiary source (i.e. we should always attempt to target a secondary source).
    • All other tweets are unlikely to be worth citing per WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV/WP:NOR (noting the exception at WP:SPS, which itself calls out tweets as generally unreliable).
    • Uses of this template can be replaced wholesale by {{cite web}}. This essentially means the template duplicates already-existing functionality.
  • Tracking the usage of Twitter directly can be performed using a standard search using insource: looking for website = or even type = or |url=https://www.twitter.com (or similar). --Izno (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: WP:TWITTER gives specific examples of where Twitter is a useful and acceptable source. As an example of where Twitter is a useful source, this is a reliable secondary source that mentions a tweet by a notable subject (Anthony Watson), but doesn't quote it or link to it. It's useful for the reader to see the additional context of the original tweet, so citing that in addition to this secondary source seems entirely appropriate. —me_and 15:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the well thought-out questions and answers by Drmies and Izno above. Bottom line: Twitter is rarely a reliable, independent source. Twitter exercises no editorial control, and precious few tweeters are professional journalists, authors, historians, etc.; all of the characteristics that make a blog questionable as a reliable source also apply to tweets several times over. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These are old and chewed arguments that have been proven wrong earlier. Twitter should be used with caution, and only in cases when the account owner is notable. Since more and more notable people use Twitter to issue statements directly, we should use it more AS A PRIMARY SOURCE, while keeping in mind the utmost importance of secondary sources - again, with the same amount of caution. These are not mutually exclusive. I would rather cite a @WhiteHouse tweet than the New York Times, for example. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Except they aren't proven wrong, and your assertion otherwise is incorrect or at least untruthful. No one disagrees that Twitter is a primary source nor that it should be used with caution; what is disagreed on is the need for this template, and specifically this template. See my previous response for specific reasoning for a particular set of cases; can you think of one I missed which might make this template necessary (keeping in mind that {{cite web}} makes this template a duplicate). --Izno (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming that "{{Cite tweet}} is superfluous because {{Cite web}} exists" makes no more sense than claiming that {{Cite web}} is superfluous because anything which that can do, could equally well be written in bare wikitext. The purpose of these templates, even the nested or subclassed ones, is abstraction. Citing specifically as a tweet, rather than as a generic web link, allows its processing to be made more specific. It is easier to use, as its parameters can be simplified. It is more specific, thus its output can be tailored more to suit tweets alone. It can even categorise articles as those citing tweets. This sort of nested abstraction is second nature to anyone with even simple programming experience – and MediaWiki is after all still an IT system. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The slippery slope doesn't hold water. (That's an amusing sentence that appears to be true out of context.) That we have templates to permit us to automatically format simple strings of data is an accepted part of citations on Wikipedia (and that we have templates at all is accepted as good reuse), so that line of argument simply doesn't take you anywhere.

    These are true statements, but they don't take into account the practices at Wikipedia. Even just below this discussion is one where we are removing templates for duplicating similar or the same functionality. In this regard, {{cite tweet}} neither provides extending functionality, nor does it need to as the entirety of functionality which could be provided by the template is already captured by existing functionality in other forms. --Izno (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Citation templates, however, are by their very nature an exception: just about every citation template on Wikipedia is in fact a hardcoded instance or substantial duplicate of another template. CS1 meta-templates and CS1 specific-source templates are all just built on top of the main Citation Style 1 templates, which are in turn redundant to using {{citation}} with |mode=cs1. The advantage of having a separate template for tweets (or anything else) is standardising the output of citations, having more sensible parameter names, and having specific documentation for the specific source or type of source. Cite twitter provides parameters for both real names and usernames, where there isn't obvious way to include both in cite web; shows in its documentation that the title should be the whole of the tweet (per APA and other style guides), which isn't obvious in cite web; sets "Tweet" as the type rather than placing Twitter in the publisher position (which it isn't as tweets are self published), which isn't obvious in cite web (which has an attractive |website= parameter to misuse – as it is merely the content provider, Twitter should only really be in the |via= parameter, if at all present in the citation). Cite tweet also implements its own error checking (e.g. requiring the date, as all tweets are dated) – this could be expanded to require a real name, as suggested above. As also noted above, the documentation could be improved, e.g. to warn/inform of when citing tweets is and isn't appropriate, with links to policy – this would be too much specific information for one type of source for cite web, which already has very lengthy documentation. - Evad37 [talk] 01:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Used as primary source WP:SELFPUB in many cases, including articles covering an event because of someone's tweet. It's a cleaner wrapper for formatting the tweets than cite web which causes confusion as to whether to put work=Twitter or type=Tweet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary 10 keeps, 3 deletes, and 1 redirect. Looks like a keep. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The outcome is not based on the number of votes. It is based on a review of the arguments made for the various outcomes discussed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is also what I think (make that 11 EZCHI). I find this a very useful template which helps to cut down on the amount of text needed to input on a page. More importantly it also standardizes the listing of tweets, and standarization of references is a valuable thing to do. It costs little space to have this template up, there are enough uses of tweets as references to warrant it. See WP:SELFSOURCE we are allowed to cite Twitter and Facebook and Tumblr, otherwise why would we be told that requirements apply to these sites? Ranze (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found this template wanting to cite a tweet which had been reported in secondary sources but where I thought it would be useful for readers to see the original tweet being referenced as well as the secondary source (which had no direct link or verbatim quote). I think it's absolutely correct for the documentation to warn that tweets are rarely good sources, but people will cite Twitter with or without this template, and looking for its transclusions (or even having the template automatically categorize articles using it) may be a useful way to find improper use of Twitter as a source. —me_and 15:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: WP:TWITTER makes it very clear that Twitter can be an acceptable source. —me_and 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be pretty circumstantial though. I got an edit redaction and a 12 month topic ban currently under dispute over using a tweet on a BLP from an account already verified belong to the person when we already use tweets from the same account to support other information on the article. Ranze (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are often times where twitter is the only verifiable source of information, especially concerning details for biographical articles. For example, the only verifiable source I could find (IE other than blog entries) for the funeral details of a recently deceased academic, was his college's twitter account. As per WP:SELFPUB, it was an acceptable source. The template standardises references to Twitter and allows for many details to be included that would be left out by simply using Cite web. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue edit

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

The result of the discussion was merge

Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (0 transclusions - Excluding the transclusion on the documentation page)
Template:Infobox fire department (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (374 transclusions)
Template:Infobox county fire service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (0 transclusions - Excluding the transclusion on the documentation page)

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue and Template:Infobox county fire service with Template:Infobox fire department.

"Infobox fire department" is US-centric. Meanwhile pages like Tokyo Fire Department use {{Infobox Organization}}. We should merge the three nominated templates into one template suitable for international use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: {{Infobox fire department}} has 305 transclusions and is heavily used. Perhaps renaming it Infobox US fire department but it has been heavily customized with information that is needed for fire department pages. --Zackmann08 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "305 transclusions and heavily used" a reason to oppose this suggestion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mine was a poorly framed argument. After looking over the two templates, I feel that they are distinct enough that it would not be beneficial to merge them. This is my opinion, if there are others besides Andy Mabbett who have an opinion on this matter, please chime in! Also, just to be clear, Mr. Mabbett, not saying I only care about the opinion of those besides yourself. Just saying you've made your argument, I've made mine. Now I'd like to hear from others. :-) If there are others that support merging the templates, then I will not only bow to WP:Consensus but will help merge the two. --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Fire Service has been notified of this TfD: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that we should list all equipment, or all administrative divisions separately. The former should be placed in a table in the body of the article. The latter should be trimmed; a complete breakdown can be found in settlement articles. If we're gonna merge these, I'd prefer to selectively incorporate some fields in {{Infobox UK Fire and Rescue}}, which is the tidiest of the three. Officer titles will differ from country to country, so the labels should be customisable; cf. {{Infobox government agency}}, for example. Alakzi (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alakzi I think you make a good point about the location. My rationale for that is that (at least in the United States) fire service is largely based on mutual aid that runs up the chain of locations. So for example, Santa Barbara City, responds with Santa Barbara County which in turn responds with the State of California. I would also argue that the breakdown of equipment is vital to understanding the department. A department on the east coast of the US, in a major city is going to have a vastly different fleet of vehicles than that of one on the west coast in wildfire territory. Just like a department in the heart of London would be vastly different than one out in the countryside. I use this all the time. This information helps those interested in the subject to understand it. Otherwise I think your argument could be applied to almost every Infobox on here. For example {{Infobox automobile}}: no need to include the wheelbase, height, weight, etc. in the infobox, it will be listed in the article. You see my point? To be clear (I know tone is so hard to read from plain text) I do not mean to personally attack you in any way! I am simply trying to point out the flip side of your argument. Looking forward to continuing the discussion. --Zackmann08 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete county fire service. I removed one transclusion because it was only being used to provide the service's phone number, and that means that there's only one remaining transclusion: we shouldn't have single-use infoboxes. No vote on the other suggestion. I do agree with Alakzi that we shouldn't go listing all the types of apparatus separately, and for anything except a very local department, listing the various administrative jurisdictions is also a bad idea. Let's just give the place where it's based (for example, my parents live down the village street from the fire station, so give the name of the village, but omit the surrounding townships that the department serves) and a single number for the total number of vehicles of every type of apparatus. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any other thoughts on this? Would like to reach a consensus... --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment As the {{Infobox county fire service}} is no longer in use and is being replaced by one of these two templates, I have nominated it for deletion HERE. --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the {{Infobox county fire service}} template has been deleted, please continue discussing the merger of the other two. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - {{Infobox fire department}} has been changed dramatically since this was first listed. The template can now be used for any department in the world. That being said, {{Infobox UK Fire and Rescue}} has been customized to work specifically for fire & rescue departments in the UK. I see no reason why those cannot co-exist. --Zackmann08 (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC) (Changed my mind, see below)[reply]
    • You have just explained why: "Infobox fire department... can now be used for any department in the world"}}. We don't need country-specific templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge—if {{infobox fire department}} can now be used for any department in the world, then there is no reason not to merge in the UK template's uses. Imzadi 1979 → 15:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - @Plastikspork and Imzadi1979: my previous comments made a lot more sense in my head... and late at night... Rereading that I would have to agree with you. No point in having multiple templates when one template can be used. I support merging the these two templates. That being said, I don't think that any modifications need to be made to {{Infobox fire department}}. Do either of you (or anyone else for that matter)? Seems like the instances of {{Infobox UK Fire and Rescue}} can simply be replaced at this point. Thoughts? --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • How so? It's missing nearly all of {{Infobox UK Fire and Rescue}}'s parameters. Alakzi (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment map, area, size & population don't belong in this Infobox anyway. The infobox is about the department, not the community. These are all features of the community that the department is responsible for. This is why they are not in {{Infobox fire department}}. --Zackmann08 (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • UK fire service boundaries often do not correspond to any other authority's; see, for example Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service and Special:Diff/631875126 (no, Humberside is not an extant county). Alakzi (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Alakzi: that is a fair point and one that is not unique to the UK. For example, see Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue which is in Oregon. Definitely something that should be addressed. What would you propose? I feel that the multiple subdivision options allow you to specify the communities (be it counties, cities, towns, etc.) that the department is responsible for. Do you feel that is not sufficient? Personally I don't see the need to state the population or the area the department is responsible for in the Infobox, but that is of course just my opinion. Let me know what your thoughts are. I want to be sure this template works for all departments regardless of country. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Shall we go ahead and call this resolved? The templates have been merged. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an admin to resolve this? --Zackmann08 (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MuscleLoyola edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MuscleLoyola (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A poor quality source that fills external link sections. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Plus the link seems to be a dead link! Scolaire (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Periodisation of Indian History edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodisation of Indian History (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Periodisation of Hinduism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

should really be used in only one article, and not collapsed per MOS:COLLAPSE. far too many details for a sidebar. also partially duplicates other sidebars like Template:Part of History of India and others. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment regarding notice - @Frietjes: F, please notify the template creator of this pending TfD. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Notice to template creator provided by nominator: [2]. (Thanks, Frietjes.) Notice subsequently deleted by creator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The table is currently transcluded in only two articles, and the effort saved by creating a template simply does not justify the cost paid in terms of accessibility; difficulty in editing; and the reader being confronted with a completely parallel (and duplicative) set of references. The table itself also has issue of due-weight, neologism (ACMM), and problems with mixing and matching of sources (creating, in effect, a novel periodization of Indian history on wikipedia, that you will not find in any source), and over-simplification of information (see also my comment below). Because of the latter issues, I would argue that the table should be deleted from both articles even if the discussion of this TFD is to keep the template; the article talk-page is appropriate place for that discussion, although I'd wait for this discussion to be decided first. Abecedare (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Spread of IE-languages edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spread of IE-languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Indo-Aryan migration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Spread of Vedic culture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template must not include any maps but only links to other articles. Hajme 17:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment regarding notice - @Hajme: Please notify the creator of these templates of this pending TfD. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as nominator suggests. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Useful oversight of Indo-European and Indo-Aryan migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly support deletion I think the four maps do a good job of succinctly presenting the spread of IE languages. However, templates are navigation aids, not mechanisms for content delivery and perhaps there are more appropriate ways of conveying the same information. --regentspark (comment) 15:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see any policy or guideline that says "templates must not include any maps". So, this is a spurious TfD as far as I am concerned. These templates are eminently valuable for transcluding a standardized collection of content across several pages. It might be that nobody ever used templates to transclude images but, if so, JJ deserves an award for innovation, not a TfD! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kautilya3, JJ has done a splendid job with the maps and I quite like the succinct way in which the information is presented. It is definitely very clear.. But, it is not a good idea to use templates for content purposes because they are indirectly adding content rather than directly doing so. Where, for example, would we debate the accuracy of the content of the template? In the less traveled template talk page or on some content page? If on a content page, then which one? If it gets debated and removed from, say, History of India then what about the (presumably) less traveled Hinduism in Iran page? Content should always be included clearly so that it is open to debate and consensus formation and this - just looking at the long list of pages where it is transcluded - doesn't meet that requirement. The view presented by JJ on IE migration is the generally accepted one and I agree with that part of the content, what I disagree with is the method by which the view is being disseminated. It is not appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 19:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You certainly have a point that the template's talk page would be less well-travelled. But the counterpoint is that the template makes it possible to keep all the pages consistent. If the material is duplicated on several pages, then it would be harder to maintain. You can fix it in one place, but you have no idea where else the same problematic content has been duplicated. A template is a better way to maintain consistency. Moreover, important templates get a lot of traffic too. See for example the revision history of Template:Sangh Parivar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. R3venans (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also {{Indo-European migration}}. Alakzi (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a good use of {{sidebar}}, and content should be collapsed only sparingly, if ever. If there's not enough space to float these images, they should be placed in a WP:GALLERY. Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read pretty much all the pages where these templates appear. I can vouch for the fact that they work brilliantly, brining to life the various geographic regions mentioned on the pages. I haven't found any problem with the templates being collapsed or expanded. (There was a problem initially when it wasn't clear that it was a template, but JJ fixed it.) Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what happens to sidebars on mobile. Also, collapsed content is bad usability. Alakzi (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this template is undue on that page, not to mention the whole topic of Indo-Aryan migrations. However, the template seems to have broken some formatting code. After I checked the history and reloaded the page, the problem went away. I don't know if that is what you meant by "this is what happens." Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sidebars are hidden on mobile; mobile users can see none of these images. Alakzi (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the most frequently used map of these templates has a number of mistakes, it should be used in lower resolution. Till November 2013, it used to be the main map of the alternative {{Indo-European topics}}. Last one, concerning the so called "spread of Vedic culture", is extreme and superfluous, it refers to a book whose first line starts with the doubt and offers no support to the template. Templates are not for illustrating a point. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion I don't see any problem with templates with maps in them. Is there a policy against them? If it doesn't work on a page, remove it or reformat it to not be a sidebar, but I see no reason to delete it.  Liam987(talk) 16:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These templates in their uncollapsed state are far too big and obtrusive, getting in the way of the content of articles to which they are only marginally relevant. And as pointed out above, it's normally bad form to collapse article content like this. These templates should be reframed as regular content in one article to which they are highly relevant, and other articles should simply link to that article. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main reason to keep these non-navigational templates IMO would be that (a) we should be open to innovation in presentation, and (b) they solve the problem of keeping common information synchronized across articles. However, I eventually come down on the side of deletion because:
    • This information really belongs in a central article, where it can be properly sourced, and presented in context, rather than as a sort of sidebar commonly found in magazine articles. Instead of duplicating information in that article, a simple link or a short summary should suffice.
    • Many of the included maps also have unclear sourcing, potential synthesis issues, as has been mentioned above; and the source cited in the image page often differs from the ones cited in the captions. We do allow some degree of WP:OR in images, to balance our sourcing and WP:NFCC policies, but we should be especially carful when dealing with an academic subject (as opposed to popular culture topics) so that the reader can easily verify the content of the maps shown.
    • Main issue In presenting the information through bare images with some added notes thrown in, the templates flatten the subject, and leave the mistaken impression that the geographical boundaries shown and the quoted dates are somehow universally accepted facts, ignoring the varying schools of thought on the subject. And no, I am not talking about fringe ideas such as Indigenous Aryans. Rather I am referring to, to pick an example, the differences between Christopher I. Beckwith and J. P. Mallory/Douglas Q. Adams; looking the information in the template one would not even realize that these eminent scholars have substantially differences views on when and how PIE started breaking-up (see The Indo-European Diaspora section and Appendix A of Beckwith's book). And this simplification, bordering on misinformation, is not really the fault of the template/image creators (many of whom I have collaborate with and respect), but an unavoidable feature of trying to present complex information predominantly through graphics (Cf, the usual jokes about shallowness of Powerpoint presentations).
    • The templates, especially in the default collapsed form, also raise accessibility issues, and are in my experience almost unreadable on mobile platforms. The problem is several orders of magnitude worse for an editor to edit the information in these templates.
Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kurds infobox edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus, as it looks as though the structure and transclusion count has changed during this discussion. Please feel free to renominate it if you still would like to see it deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kurds infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is only used on two pages (Kurds and Kurdish population), and thus could easily be returned to those pages as sections rather than a template call. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • the fact that it is used on two pages alone is sufficient to keep it (as opposed to maintaining the complex references situation in two separate instances). Even if it was only used on a single page, you would not "delete" it, because you want to preserve the edit history (you would instead "merge" it, leaving behind a redirect). --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Kurds, and use a significantly reduced version (without the detailed population information) in Kurdish population. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is being used on two pages which is enough reason to keep it. Maybe make the list of countries collapsible? ~ Zirguezi 20:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the detailed population information in the infobox duplicates the more informative Kurdish population#Statistics by country and there is nothing keeping the two in sync. what would be better would be have a simple anchor link at the bottom of the infobox in Kurdish population to point to Kurdish population#Statistics by country for the detailed statistics. then, I could see, making the image array a separate template, but otherwise, there would be little duplication left. Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, has two transclusions. Could be changed to just the image array being the template (and the population information removed) though. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care, but please be careful to make sure that all of the images therein are free content, and not ones used under a claim of fair use as per WP:NFCC#9. (In reference to [3]) --B (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Included to multiple pages. Hajme 16:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Borneo-Philippine languages edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. It appears the format has changed during the discussion. Please feel free to renominate it if you still like to see it deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Borneo-Philippine languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See WP:NENAN. A navbox is far too cumbersome a tool to demonstrate the structure of a language family. The list in the "classification" section of Borneo–Philippine languages is sufficient, and much clearer. NSH002 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I condensed some branches and merged them under a larger subfamily. Is this sufficient for the navbox to be retained? Nuclear Malayo-Polynesian has its own navbox, so I think the other Malayo-Polynesian subfamily deserves its own as well. If not possible, can I create two separate navboxes for Philippine and Bornean instead? Pansitkanton (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better. Will wait to see what others think. --NSH002 (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problems with the navigation box were resolved. Dimadick (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Citation needed by edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation needed by (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template lends itself to abuse. By setting a date in the past it could very well be deleted immediately. Unless a bot is somehow able to discern how long a tag has existed anything like this can always be abused. Jerodlycett (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:
Keep Absurd WP:BATHWATER nomination that does not indicate any valid WP:DEL-REASON. Nominator has failed to provide evidence of actual abuse. Nominator admits to one WP:ATD, namely that a WP:BOT could detect and counteract any attempts to pre-date this template. Even if such abuse were to occur, vandals can be reverted and blocked as required (again, WP:ATD). Any template is open to abuse, do we therefore delete the entire template namespace? Vandals would probably consider {{citation needed by}} to be an inefficient and pointless way to remove text; they would probably just delete the text directly. Dl2000 (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about using a template incorrectly here, I'm talking about using it maliciously. There are actually several alternatives, we could just perma-lock the wiki and only allow Jimbo's friends to edit it for example. The three options we have are, hope someone creates a bot to fix the template, by putting it unknown months into the future (unless there is a consensus on how long to leave an uncited statement before deleting, in which case, that should be the only option for this template); we create more work for everyone by having to make sure this template has a future date or reverting a mangling by a bot every time someone adds it to an article; or we delete this to prevent work that would be better spent improving Wikipedia. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nor was I talking about using a template incorrectly. Again, [citation needed] as to when there has ever been actual malicious use of the template - substantiated risk rather than the straw man; proof rather than paranoia. Dl2000 (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I know, Wikipedia has no deadline. The Banner talk 02:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would be WP:DEADLINE, an essay which provides several conflicting assertions; not a basis for a WP:DEL-REASON. Dl2000 (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Banner. I can't think of a reason why you would need to have a citation by a certain date. Tavix |  Talk  16:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some reasons were indicated in the previous TfD discussion. Dl2000 (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who gets to decide how long a statement is allowed to go unsourced? --BDD (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too am against automatic removal/hiding of text. Also, the point of adding a Fact template is to draw attention to the fact that the statement needs a source; hiding the statement means losing that option. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every statement needs a source but it is better to retain that information until someone finds one (or have a fixed amount of time before hiding), rather than having a completely arbitrary time at which the statement will disappear. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who gets to set these arbitrary time limits? There is no mandate for such a template, even the documentation admits that "there is no specific deadline for providing citations". And hiding text prior to removal is of no help to anyone. PC78 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Article style edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's contrary to WP:MOS to require administrator action to change article style, and the template takes up too much valuable screen space. Screen space is at a premium while editing articles because of the need to refer to facts and bibliographic information in other windows. The screen space point could be made about other edit notices, but the apparent intent of this template is to add it as an edit notice to every article, rather than articles that require exceptional care in editing. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—it is not only administrators who can create or edit the edit notices. Those with the template editor right can as well. As for the rest of the nomination statement, I find it all false or not convincing as a reason for deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 22:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need to list stylistic choices inside edit notices. People get too stuck up on technicalities as it is. Alakzi (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete, though not entirely for the nominator's reasons. I feel like this template is redundant to simply taking a look at the wikitext itself and seeing what conventions are used there. APerson (talk!) 02:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleted Since only admins can set article style. Category:Varieties of English templates needs to go as well. -- Gadget850 talk 07:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Following the abovementioned review discussion, this discussion is relisted.  Sandstein  20:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to several points above:
    • "only admins can set article style" is false. The article styles are initially set by the first editor who creates a page. They can be changed through consensus in a discussion on the article's talk page, or based on strong national ties (using American-style dates on an article geographically related to the United States, for example). It is true that one needs to be an admin or hold the template editor user right to create or change an edit notice for an article, but this is not the same as setting the style in use in the article.
    • Article styles aren't changed that frequently, so I can't imagine that it's that much of a burden that should a talk page discussion warrant a change to an edit notice that someone can't be pinged to make the edit. {{Edit template-protected}} would handle that nicely.
    • Use of this template is optional, but it can serve as a good reminder for editors. Featured Articles/Lists are reviewed for internal formatting consistency, and yet editors don't always take the time to look to see which styles of dates/citations/etc are in use. I've had to mop up after well-meaning editors who have added content to FAs because they haven't taken the time to match the dates they've added to the format already in use. If this template gives that that little reminder and saves others from clean-up duty, then it's served its purpose.
    • No one has demonstrated a policy-based reason against including this information within an edit notice. There is no policy of which I'm aware that would prevent me from hand-writing an edit notice without using this template to note what style dates are in use in an article. Imzadi 1979 → 21:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it can only be added by template editors or admins, having an edit notice is better than having a hard-to-notice {{Use dmy dates}} which doesn't even show up in sections. This could be particularly useful for high-traffic articles. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now. if there is some policy against this type of edit notice, I would like to see a broader discussion before deleting this. as a template, it seems fine. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Chicago style edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicago style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This needs to be changed to an edit notice, not a section notice. Used in one article.  Gadget850 talk 21:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generalise, perhaps? Per WP:CITEVAR, changing an article's citation style is discouraged. If it's to be kept, it should be made an edit notice. Frankly, I don't think that it's needed; notices ought to be reserved for more grievous offences. Therefore, I'd also support deletion. Alakzi (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though certainly permitted, and I would certainly argue that it should continue to be permitted, the use of this style is relatively uncommon here for most types of articles, and the template is needed to prevent people from incorrectly trying to change it. This is sipper and clearer than any generalized template could be. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the notice permanently in the article itself? That's not a sacrifice I'd be willing to make. Alakzi (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. this sort of thing should be a comment in the wikitext, or in the edit notice, not a large banner in the article. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Created {{article style}} as an editnotice. -- Gadget850 talk 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about having an edit notice for what I'm about to suggest, but one could probably merge the {{use dmy}} family to it also. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Izno: Added some more styles; expand or discuss on the template page. -- Gadget850 talk 12:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit notices are nearly useless because most editors are not administrators or template editors, so it will be too cumbersome to get them added to a significant number of articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator. -- Gadget850 talk 01:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—the nomination was previously withdrawn by the nominator, so a relist should not have been necessary. However, I agree that the formatting of this should be changed, or the documentation made clear, that this template should be used in edit notices and not in the article itself. Imzadi 1979 → 15:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Canadian school district edit

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

The result of the discussion was merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Canadian school district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox school district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Canadian school district with Template:Infobox school district.
Many duplicate, though differently named, parameters. We don't need a separate template for each country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right, so, out of nineteen parameters, ten have no equivalent; see my sandbox. {{Infobox school district}} has the following twenty additional parameters: motto; type; grades; region; country; location; coordinates; president; vice-president; asst_superintendent; accreditations; us_nces_district_id; faculty; teachers; staff; ratio; conference; mascot; colors; and schedule. First, I'd like to hear from people who know a thing or two about school districts if all of the parameters of these two templates are worth keeping. Alakzi (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm prepared to assume that Canadian school districts - not to mention those in the rest of the world - have coordinates, grades, a location, a region, a country, teachers, faculty, staff, and a staff/student ratio, at a minimum. |us_nces_district_id= can be re-purposed as a generic identifier parameter, matching the Canadian template's |boardidentifier=, and this made more globally useful. I've yet to find an instance of the template using conference, mascot, colors, or schedule. The example in the documentation suggests that the latter is for values like "M-F except state holidays", which fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge—details can be worked out on the appropriate talk page, but each template is accomplishing the same purpose with a lot of redundancy between the two. Imzadi 1979 → 15:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox British Columbia school district edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete after replacing with either {{Infobox Canadian school district}} or {{Infobox school district}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox British Columbia school district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox Canadian school district}}. I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not really needed as a navigation aid, just a collection of links that are already in the article and links to proposed sub-systems which is just an aircraft design project. MilborneOne (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template would be more useful if those red links were actual articles. The template seems useless without those links to actual articles. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  15:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not the way aircraft nav boxes are supposed to work, the blue links are not to key program articles or to other aircraft types. Given this is only a design proposal the redlinks are unlikely to be written. The use of the poster in the box makes it far to big and detracts greatly. If this were cleaned up properly it would have only two links. - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has a long image and few red links. Hajme 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care but it cannot have an image used under a claim of fair use if it is retained. --B (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_11&oldid=1087817977"