Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 3

October 3Edit

Template:Amnesia seriesEdit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. NPASR due to limited discussion. Primefac (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Only navigates two games which are interlinked anyway and the two developing companies which are heavily linked anyway. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. There is a third game in the series, Amnesia: Rebirth. The game releases in 12 days and should be getting its own separate article. It should also be added to the template. Even if there weren't a third game, two entries is absolutely enough to be considered a series or franchise. The point of having a template is for consistent and convenient navigation UI. Deleting this template would be a mistake. 174.28.115.149 (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2020 (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:HWEdit

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. Izno (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

These templates were created by Rikker04 back in 2008 and were only used in a handful of articles. As a fork of the (since deprecated old implementation of the) railway route diagram template scheme, the format isn't really suited for highways (it tends to collect overly detailed information and clutter the page due to its large footprint). Other schemes for presenting major highway crossings are in wider use (e.g. Template:Infobox road), and supersede this one as far as the most relevant information is concerned. Paul_012 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    • (Edit conflict) Thanks Pppery for adding the other templates (I was having some trouble locating the relevant instructions). I've added another template and the tracking category to the nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2020 (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:CurrentWPKornAoFEdit

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. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Single use, on Talk:Life Is Peachy, where it has ben announcing "This article is currently the WikiProject Korn's article of focus!" since January 2010 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 3 October 2020 (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:ChosenArticleEdit

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. Reasonable arguments, no opposition. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Unused. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Collaboration has had no substantive edits since 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 3 October 2020 (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:Bolivian Collaboration NoticeEdit

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. Reasonable arguments, no opposition. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Unused. Wikipedia:WikiProject Bolivia/Collaboration has not been edited since 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 3 October 2020 (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:BC CurrentEdit

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. Primefac (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Unused. Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil/Collaboration has had no substantive edits since 2009. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 3 October 2020 (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:ElvisCotWEdit

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. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Unused. Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley/Collaboration of the Week has not been edited since 2011. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 3 October 2020 (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:Current hip hop collaborationEdit

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. Primefac (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Single use, on Talk:Rapping, where it has been announcing it as the "current" collaboration for over fourteen years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 3 October 2020 (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:AL-GREdit

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. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Single use, on talk page where it has been since December 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 3 October 2020 (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:HyperEdit

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Template:Hyper was requested for deletion by its creator. wbm1058 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Hyper with Template:Intentional hyperbole.
Template:Hyper is a clear duplicate of Template:Intentional hyperbole that was just created. Template:Hyperbole currently redirects to Template:Peacock term, but with a clear hatnote to intentional hyperbole, and intentional hyperbole is well-linked from elsewhere, so I'm not sure why it wasn't noticed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • No, please do not merge. They have two different purposes/uses, and this one has nothing to do with peacock terms or copy editing; rather, it is more along the line of [FBDB] relative to Poe's law. I was inspired to create it because it just happened to me in a discussion. Example:Editor #1 - You said John Doe had small hands and that's a lie. Editor #2 - I wasn't lying, it was {hyper}. Next time I will add the template to my comment. The joker graphic also indicates that it was said jokingly. Peacock terms relates to article content - no similarity at all, and I don't see any way an editor will conflate one with the other based on the wording of the templates. Atsme Talk 📧 19:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Adding - the confusion caused by the other 2 templates are the issue - my template is simple, and it indicates humor which is an important message on a TP. Leave the hyperbole template for use in copy editing. We actually use inline text when reviewing articles, so it is important. Intentional hyperbole doesn't make sense, the text is too long for inline text, nobody would think to use it as a template, and I see no humor indicated in it at all. 20:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Atsme: I created {{Intentional hyperbole}} specifically for use on talk pages, not copy editing, and its documentation makes that clear. That's exactly the purpose you're describing for {{Hyper}}. Apologies that my mention of the redirect at {{Hyperbole}} above created confusion, but these templates are clearly the same, and I urge you to be a little more cautious about checking for duplicates when creating new templates in the future. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't need to be merged. We have (talk page watcher) and (talk page stalker) so there's no reason we can't {hyper} and {Intentional hyperbole} I'll modify my template and link to something other than Hyperbole. Go ahead and close this. Should not have been opened in the first place. A simple discussion on my TP would have a lot easier. Atsme Talk 📧 23:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge These clearly do the same thing. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete {{Hyper}}. While it may be intended as humour, it's not likely to be received that way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. This strikes me as a deletion that would do very little to make Wikipedia any better in any meaningful way. But, whatever. If however the consensus is to delete it, then I'd like to make the following suggestion. The main issue seems to me to be Poe's law. One way to address that (albeit a little inefficiently) is to use: [hyperbole][FBDB]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2020 (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:AfDhEdit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 October 11. Primefac (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2020 (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:New release editnoticeEdit

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. Primefac (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate of {{Notice Anti-vandalism}}. Zero usages. Proposing deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2020 (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:Catalan nameEdit

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 merge to Template:Family name hatnote. This discussion has been a controversial one with a lot of participants. Numerically the opposers have a majority, but many of the oppose !votes either misunderstood the proposal or raised abstract concerns about implementation and did not respond to explanations or requests for specific issues with the testcases. These !votes were disregarded or given significantly less weight when determining the consensus. Most of the other opposers argued that the combined template would be harder to use or maintain, was a bad coding practice, or could lead to confusion. These arguments and variations upon them were considered strong but were fewer in number than !votes supporting consolidation. As this is essentially a question of design philosophy both arguments were considered equally strong resulting in a rough consensus for the merger. It is also worth noting that there is a precedent for merging name hatnotes from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 4#Template:Arabic name where the vast majority of participants (many of which didn't participate here) supported consolidation. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Catalan name with Template:Family name hatnote.
This is a continuation (or Part 2) of this discussion, which is continuing to merge and standardize the family name hatnotes. All templates have been pre-merged into the sandbox and tested (using the examples from each hatnote's documentation). Yes, I know the wording/displays are sometimes slightly different, but again this is about standardization and getting pretty close to the same message regardless of language; all of the original/relevant information is included in the merged version. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per part 1 of this discussion. Quahog (talkcontribs) 20:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: This area is in a lot of flux right now, with the use of hatnotes for surname clarification being reconsidered (see Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Planning for the future of surname clarification). I don't object to the consolidation, which I trust Primefac has coded well, but in terms of ordering, I think we'd do better to first try to figure out how we want to clarify surnames, and only then move on to the more technical question of figuring out how best to use templates to implement. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    As I said in the original ("Part 1") nomination, this issue of "should we use these" is irrelevant; the question is, "should we have 10 incredibly similar templates or 1?" This discussion will clearly end well before that one. Primefac (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Template:Korean name and Template:Chinese name per "oppose" reason from Pldx1 in part 1 of this discussion. St3095 (?) 04:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    based on their comment/support below, I have struck their oppose !vote. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support the merge, but keeping in mind the outcomes of the future RfC about its placing. —Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed, and any changes to the design or expected output will be made as appropriate. And hey, if this goes through, there will only be one template to update instead of 11! Primefac (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It has been less than a month we had discussion on this issue. Regarding Korean names, no changes has been made to this template. Although I appreciate your enthusiasm for this template, for the exact reason highlighted in the previous discussion, Korean surname template should not be merged.Ss17585 (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose all for now per Pldx1 in part 1 of this discussion (who says "I am quite sure this [problem with Korean and Chinese names] is the general case, not an exception." There is no harm in keeping templates with specific structure, wording and wikilinks separate. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Korean template, Issues raised in previous discussion for this template not adequately explained/resolved in my opinion. I'm not active with Chinese names but it seems they have the same problem. These require further discussion. Support for the "non asian" templates. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Hong Kong name have more weird orders in English (eg. Jasper Tsang) especially for married women (See Carrie Lam), I don't know how the proposer is gonna deal with that. MNXANL (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    Given that there is no {{Hong Kong name}}, it's not being considered here? Primefac (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keep it simple. Template people are surely good people, but they have difficulties to understand that "perhaps simplifying their lives" about a template that is barely modified each two years, has not an equal weight with putting an additional burden over people who are writing/maintaining articles each and every day. This was discussed at large less than one month ago. Restarting this discussion now, looks as an attempt to bet over exhaustion. Moreover, this restart occurs in a context where some other "surely good people" are trying to remove each and every mention of the fact that so many people on this Earth are putting in the first place what a minority is calling a "last name". Having diverse templates for dealing the diversity seems a good idea. Having a monster with a huge quantity of switches looks only as bad programming. Pldx1 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per part 1 of this discussion. Gandalfett (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to different naming customs. Corachow (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    Corachow, have you looked at the test cases? This template takes into account those different customs, and yet still manages to output the same results. Primefac (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    Primefac My problem is mainly with Hong Kong name, which is explained by MNXANL. This is not showcased in the test case. Corachow (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    As near as I can tell, there is no template {{Hong Kong name}}, and every article that links to Hong Kong name uses {{hatnote}} directly, so that's kind of a moot point. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    It seems like it should have a template, instead of directly coding {{hatnote}}. -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    It probably should, but it doesn't, and I'm more than happy to add it into {{family name hatnote}} if you can give me the desired structure (but do so on the template's talk page to avoid cluttering this discussion). Primefac (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for East Asian names, agreeing with the point raised by Pldx1. The particularities of East Asian surnames require specific links to List of Korean surnames and Chinese name and the family name itself. Let’s not get started with the unconventional name order used in Hong Kong. Sooner or later the merged megatemplate would have to deal with exceptions after exceptions for different cultures. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 00:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    For the record, the new template does link to those specific pages. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Question to those who have opposed, @St3095, Ss17585, Finnusertop, Redalert2fan, and Northern Moonlight: have you even looked at the testcases? The Korean results are identical between the original template and the proposed merge target. Same thing for the Chinese template. I took all of your concerns and complaints at the last discussion to heart and made sure of it. If you're opposed purely to oppose, you are not helping the discussion. Primefac (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Primefac: I just saw testcases. So, I (may) support it. St3095 (?) 05:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Primefac: There is still no benefit and there is harm from the more complicated syntax. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 08:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    I think I've already stated the benefits, including centralization of code, standardization/simplification of language (heck, even knowing which languages are supported by templates). As someome says above, these templates aren't edited all that regularly, but I think that makes a better case for merging, because when something does need changing the related languages will all be automatically changed as well (i.e. standardisation). I know I'm quite heavily involved in the template side of Wikipedia, but if the only major argument for "harm" here is "it's more complex", keep in mind most of these templates are TE-protected anyway, so requests for change need to be made on the talk page (i.e. someone unfamiliar with the coding doesn't necessarily need to know how to do what they want). Primefac (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Procedural rejection for {{Chinese name}}, {{Korean name}}, {{Philippine name}} as it was just discussed, and should wait an appropriate amount of time for a new discussion. Since it was exhumed right now, the next discussion should not occur until sometime in 2021 at the earliest. -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    I withdrew those templates from the original discussion specifically so that they could be discussed at a later time. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Not quite sure what all the fuss is about. Seems a sensible way forward to me. Nigej (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Proposition makes sense for Catalan, East Slavic, Ni-Vanuatu, Ottoman Turkish, Spanish, and Toponymic. For others no opinion. Girrit (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per David Eppstein. Having read the other comments (and most notably David Eppstein's), and recently modified a template, it now seems clear to me that merging these templates will be more problematic than not. Girrit (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Surely, there are people who are not quite sure what all the fuss is about. But they should better abstain than using ignorantia as an argumentum. Pldx1 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    True, but I think (i.e. my interpretation of their statements) they're saying that they don't understand why the opposition is opposing; they feel it's not a big deal and thus support the proposal. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    Take Korean: Template:Family name hatnote/testcases#Template:Korean name. I'm struggling to find any problem here. Nigej (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment If the mega template can handle all exceptions but how do we know that? Easy test cases don't prove it would be able to handle all exceptions, especially for Asian naming conventions. It might work for Latin names, but even then, I am not sure. Would you take responsibility to manually check each and every translcusion whether the template works right for each article? Teemeah 편지 (letter) 21:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    Teemeah, you are more than welcome to look at each of the individual templates; their code is actually quite straight-forward, and the new template takes every switch and if statement into account. You don't have to check "every transclusion" to make sure it works; all that is necessary is to look at the possible inputs for the nominated templates, and then test those against the sandbox, to see that they give the same outputs; if not, the family name template can be easily amended (which is, after all, the entire point of sandboxing). In almost every case, the examples given in each template's /doc cover all of the possible permutations of output, which is why I tested them. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for nearly all the templates, why do you want to delete them completely? They are enough especially when languages are not using surname or using surname as the first name. For example, some languages are adding father's name or mother's name, or using more different structures like temple names of emperors in Ancient China. Ahmetlii (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    To answer your first question, read my nomination. As for the rest of your concerns, I'm not sure how that's relevant - this template is designed to accommodate many different forms of input based on the language being used. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Primefac: I understand your point, but I think that's hard to implement to only a template because of different rules of different languages. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough, though I would argue that the fact that I have implemented it despite the different languages should alleviate your concerns. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reason given by Ahmetlii, plus we need to distinguish between the different languages. Firestar464 (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just creating more problems than what it attempts to solve. Many of the templates that were included in either TfD have more complicated structures, so merging them into a one-size-fits-all template will not always work. It does not matter if the new template will produce an identical result compared to what are being used now because there are other things pointed out by others that have not been considered. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    No, they don't; as I've said repeatedly, all functionality of the proposed templates has been successfully merged. If something is missing, point it out rather than giving a hand-wavey "it's wrong" oppose. Pldx1 made an observation that some supporters were supporting using ignorantia as an argumentum, and to be quite honest I'm not sure if some of the opposition isn't using that same rationale... at the very least, IDONTLIKEIT. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons given above by Ahmetlii, Northern Moonlight, et al. Doesn’t make sense for Asian naming systems. It would be unnecessary oversimplification in my opinion. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 08:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    "Doesn't make sense" - what does that even mean? Primefac (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I realize that I'm responding to every oppose voter, which is sometimes seen as bludgeoning the process, but I'm genuinely trying to figure out why everyone is saying "it can't be done" or "it's not the same" or "it's not necessary" when I have shown that it can be done, and they are the same, and that it is necessary. In my opinion those concerns are invalidated because I've shown them to be false. If there were legitimate (i.e. non-IDLI arguments) I would be willing to reconsider the nomination (as I did by striking the Chinese and Korean templates in the first TFD for this template group), but I'm not seeing anything actually "solvable" here. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    I think it must be a matter of "ownership". Users feel like they'll lose some control if the template becomes part of something more generic, even if the functionality is basically identical. Nigej (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I usually wait with voicing an opinion in heated discussions like this to see if there are any valid opposing arguments. So far I've yet to see any valid ones. Two were even "per Ahmetlii" which said why do you want to delete them completely? when the templates aren't being deleted but merged, and then said I think that's hard to implement to only a template because of different rules of different languages when the nom has already done so. None of the opposing arguments tried to specifically address what language from the above list fails to work and I have a feeling most didn't even look at the testcases. Having a standard style in one place makes it easier to ensure any change to the template is consistent across all languages so the proposed changes are very positive. --Gonnym (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Christ...
    Question for Primefac: I have took a look at the testcases, along with the current source of some of the named templates (particularly {{Chinese name}}, {{Korean name}}, towards which there is vocal opposition, about what who knows). Testcases look fine to me, as does the logic in the target template of handling such cases. The only technical difference I can see is that {{Chinese name}} and {{Korean name}} handle blank usages of the template (and, Chinese one at least, categorises into Category:Pages using Template:Chinese name with no first parameter), eg see Li Mengling. It's not very commonly used functionality. Just curious, does/will the target template support this niche functionality, or would these usages be converted to explicitly state what needs to be stated? On this note, I'm surprised the opposers aren't concerned by any 'mistakes' that can happen in the current set of templates with this 'functionality'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    I was the one that created that category and added it to the template, because I wanted to see if I needed to add that logic in to the merge target. Given that there are only ~60 uses out of ~16k transclusions, it is clearly not a well-advertised (or even well-used) hack. If and when the template gets converted into a wrapper, the {{PAGENAME}} functionality will be passed to the new template as just a normal parameter; on your example page, {{Chinese name}} would become {{family name hatnote|Li|lang=Chinese}} after substing. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    Makes sense. Support merge as proposed. The opposes, many of which seem like knee-jerk pile-ons, fit into three categories: procedural (due to a recent nomination), 'technical concerns' without specifying any in particular, and "not an improvement". As far as procedural concerns go, the TfD is entirely proper; the couple were withdrawn from previous and the implementation modified, as one would expect a responsible nominator to do. As far as technical concerns go, none have been specified, and as far as I can see none seem to exist -- the source templates are only doing basic text output... The proposed templates (that I've checked) aren't doing any text manipulation, so I don't know where these "Asian templates fundamentally different" fears come from. They're literally outputting strings with given parameters. Parameter flipping seems to be the only notable difference from an editor POV, and a trivial one at that. The testcases say all there is to see here. Some seem to oppose on the basis of old testcases, and have evidenced that they haven't even looked at the current ones. I think this is an improvement over the status quo. If WP:!VOTE still exists, this seems like a clear merge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose the merge.
  1. Considering the surname first, given name last order in these cases is fairly common. A LOT of East Asian and names are flipped that way because that is how it is in their language and it is very important.
  2. Spanish names should also be kept as well, for example, Pablo Picasso and Shakira, merging for the family name hatnote would NOT be sensical because the place of where the Spanish naming customs are mentioned would not be conventional, nor would it help the reader at all if they just want to take a look at those articles only, read the name template and leave.Beetricks 18:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Beetricks, please take a look at Special:PermaLink/983200196 and Special:PermaLink/983200398, and tell me what the issue is; what is "nonsensical" about this new template? To me it looks like the proposed merge target does exactly the same thing as the old template. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Slight support: On second thoughts, I can get down with this. Spanish names should be included in the template after all. I called it nonsensical while I did not look at the template properly, I am very sorry. —Beetricks 21:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I suggest breaking down the templates and focus on the ones that are clearly supported for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Knowledgekid87, I did this in the "round 1" nomination, and I'm willing to do it for this nomination - which template do you feel is not adequately supported by the {{family name hatnote}} integration as demonstrated in the sandbox and testcases? If you can show me that I am wildly unprepared to replace one of the nominated templates, I will be happy to pull it and continue working on it. Primefac (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Primefac is responding to [almost] every oppose voter. Yes. But I don't see that as a problem. Better be responded by someone (=User Primefac) who is not using ignorantia as an argumentum rather than by (...don't make it personal...). The argument you are more than welcome to look at each of the individual templates; their code is actually quite straight-forward is really a great one (= I wholeheartedly agree with it !!!). I will add: look at the code of what is proposed as a replacement. And you will obtain: Users feel like they'll lose some control if the template becomes part of something more generic. Users, you know, are flesh and blood people, and they feel that each time you add a level of complexity in a template, you reject a lot of people from being a part the proverbial anyone in the motto "that anyone can edit". And they feel that way, not because they are stupid, but simply because this is reality.
This discussion is about the diversity and how to deal with it, in the simplest way. Seeing someone coming with her Christ appears as a bad omen: you can pray each and every icon you want, but not perceiving the discrepancy... is a problem. Moreover, advertising the replacement of {{Chinese name|Li}} by {{family name hatnote|Li|lang=Chinese}} as a good move for the end user seems to be blind to a well established fact, namely  . Remember: KISS is one of the most celebrated proverbs for programming. Pldx1 (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Re second paragraph, if desired that is, could always be solved by making {{Chinese name}} a wrapper around the hatnote template. So I don't think it's a reason to oppose the merge altogether. I'm not sure wrappers are an improvement though. All in all, I think it's easier to only have to remember one template name and be aware that it has a lang parameter with values, neater in VE and just one doc to refer to, as well, so I'm not sure that there's really added complexity here.
Re editing it (first para), the big ones are all HRTs (& TE protected) with lots of transclusions. No unilateral changes should be made to any. If consensus wants a change, and the editor isn't sure how to edit it (fwiw, I think the code is quite clean and readable even for less technical folks) it can always be requested on talk and implemented. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One size fits all is a very bad philosophy of dealing with human names. The proposed merge target template is already a patched-together monstrosity of different cases for different types of names for different cultures, and despite that appears to have no obvious way to deal with Russian patronymic+surname, varying gender markers on surnames from various Slavic languages (instead being coded under the false pretense that all Slavic people use a single naming convention), Icelandic patronymic-instead-of-surname, Indian patronymic-looking-like-first-initial, etc. Taken to the extreme of including all name formats for all cultures would make an unmanageable mess. That's why we have a template namespace with the ability to make different templates with different names: so we don't have to try to make one template that will be all things to all people. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    Keep in mind we're only on step 2 of likely 3 or 4; I left out the patronymic names because they didn't fit into the scheme, and honestly I think I'm going to have to build a separate patronymic template (something like {{patronymic name hatnote}}) to cover all of the other hatnote templates that deal with patronymics. This is not the finished product, and I am always willing to tweak the wording or structure to make it easier to understand. Hell, I just removed a dozen lines of redundant code from both the template and its sandbox to make things easier to read/proof.
    Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done; by having all of the languages in the same place, we can see what the differences are and maybe even eliminate some of them; right now my main focus is just demonstrating that we don't need a dozen different templates; the polish comes later (though, incidentally, not the Polish, as they have no template). Primefac (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • See WP:BLUDGEON. And you're missing my main points: one site fits all is the wrong way to think about people's names, and the wrong way to take advantage of the ability to use multiple templates with multiple names instead of building one big {{template}} that does the work of every template. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I have tried using the template in some articles with Slavic and Turkish names, and it seems that the result was not what was intended because some parameters do not even show up in the result. It could be applicable for many Western naming conventions, but otherwise if not. And, as others have pointed out here, there are just too many exceptions and special cases that have not been replicated by this template, and careless code alterations could break transclusions on tens of thousands of pages. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    LSGH, could you tell me which articles please? I'm curious to see what I missed (keep in mind that only the /sandbox has the post-merge/updated code). Primefac (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    Is this the reason why I am not seeing the intended result? I followed the syntax on that subpage, and I tried to transclude the template itself (not the sandbox subpage) on the articles about Vladimir Putin, Abdulmejid II, and Martín Vizcarra.
    {{Family name hatnote|lang=Eastern Slavic|Vladimirovich|Putin}} and {{Family name hatnote|Vladimirovich|Putin|lang=Eastern Slavic}} will show that Vladimirovich is the family name. There seems to be no parameter for the patronymic.
    {{Family name hatnote|lang=Ottoman Turkish|Abdulmejid}} and {{Family name hatnote|Abdulmejid|lang=Ottoman Turkish}} will show that Abdulmejid is the family name. The rest of the hatnote is not even displayed.
    {{Family name hatnote|lang=Spanish|Vizcarra|Cornejo}} and {{Family name hatnote|Vizcarra|Cornejo|lang=Spanish}} will show that Vizcarra is the family name. The maternal family name is not even displayed.
    I expected that the template had already been able to support those languages. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    I only changed the sandbox to show that it could be done. If consensus is to merge them, it's just a case of copying the /sandbox into the main template. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I may slightly oppose to {{{template:Mongolian name}}} and {{{template:Manchu name}}} as I think that it would be better to merge it with a {{{template:Given name hatnote}}}. Gandalfett (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment all these name hatnote templates are a violation of WP:LEGITHAT. The information belongs inside the article, probably as a footnote after the MOS:FULLNAME (or in the "name" section if there is one). Having it as a hatnote is often confusing for a reader (see e.g. Cristiano Ronaldo) and usually gives undue prominence to what is typically a minor piece of information. If merging them all into a single template will help speed the transition away from their being a hatnote at all, then I am in favour; otherwise, I don't care and will continue to oppose the use of any of them. jnestorius(talk) 10:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • If indeed a later discussion decides to turn all name hatnote templates into footnotes, then having consolidating them all now will indeed make it also faster then as it's the same logic just a different presentation. --Gonnym (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Describing the current proposal as a bad faith move, along the "sound in the East, strike in the West" pattern, will not help the proposer. Looks like acting along 假痴不癲/假痴不癫. Pldx1 (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per David Eppstein.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I applaud Primefac for opening this discussion because I agree that a TfD tag is the best way to a grab the attention of everyone using these templates for a centralized discussion. I think many of the opposers are confused about the outcome - this isn't proposing to delete the templates altogether or remove the functionality of existing templates, but rather put them all into a container template. This also liberates editors to think about other ways of hatnoting names e.g. Hong Kong and Malaysia names without worrying about which existing template to use. Deryck C. 14:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong comment. Aren't 'support' and 'oppose' supposed to be strong by the quality of their arguments (as evaluated by the closing admin), while self anointed strongness will probably be evaluated as a weakness. Moreover, arguing that opposers are confused about the outcome, [since] this will rather put all [these templates] into a container template, while opposers are arguing that such container-ing wouldn't help anything, since a diverse handling of the diversity is the best method... appears as a confuse argument, not so far from being a very weak one. Pldx1 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    WP:STRONG ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per David Eppstein. Yes, I did look at the test cases, but I'm still not convinced. For what it's worth (perhaps it's worth nothing), I would also have opposed part 1 if I had been made aware of the discussion last month. Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Curious, so after you looked at the testcasts, you are not convinced of what? What was it you needed convincing. It either failed to produce the desired message, which if so, please share what you tried and how it failed, or it worked. Not really an issue of needing to be convinced. --Gonnym (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per David Eppstein and others. On one level the idea for a single solution is appealing, but in looking at Part 1 (which I would also would have opposed) and the test cases, this doesn't seem simple, elegant, or straightforward. The current system is more logical and easier to use. Carter (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not everything has to be merged and if there's this much opposition then just let it go. As David Eppstein explained, this merge seem to just be a merge for the sake of one, many of the names work completely differently then others; the supposed uniformity is in contrast with the lack of for these names in the first place. And I'm getting really sick of the "template for discussion" template appearing over so many biographies I'm working on Aza24 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support as Catalonia is just a region of Spain, if it gains independence we can change. We don't do this for Extremadura so why would we for Catalonia? This is a POV template because some have strong views about Catalan being independent but Wikipedia is NOT the place for these views. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    Strong doubt about this one. We should merge China with Spain, because Catalonia is at the same level than Extremadura. Citation needed ? Pldx1 (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for any names that are surnames. It works perfectly fine for the ones already merged in, even those with complication such as Dutch names with van in them. So I don't think functionality will be lost by merging any other surname templates into the main one. For non surnames e.g. patronymics, I think we should use a similar for separate template. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, standardisation is good. It would be nice if all countries had the same naming convention, that would be so much easier but unfortunately it doesn’t Steven (Editor) (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - as long as all of the original functionality is available in the merged template. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support As above, conditionally assuming all original functionality is preserved. There are several claims above that functionality is missing but no actual evidence or concrete examples thus far. If it is later demonstrated that some functionality is lost the closer may consider this an oppose as I may not be around to update this in person. 𝒬𝔔 21:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional support providing that no functionality is lost. Oppose otherwise. -- The Anome (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per David Eppstein et consortes. The day one ready and functional hatnote is really simpler than the present category, then perhaps. – I have also noticed that there is no redirect from Template:Arabic name or Template:Slavic name to the new several-in-one Family name hatnote (the "documentation" of which is also so complicated that concrete examples are badly needed for every language). I suppose that means there is no redirect from any of the other languages merged into that hatnote either. Of course, if there is one hatnote even for a few languages more than one but less than all, there has to be a redirect for every language. 151.177.57.31 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox asanaEdit

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. No prejudice against userfication if the user is still active and planning on using this in their sandboxes. Primefac (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Template is not used on any asana page. Its proposed classifications seem unnecessary and sometimes even inappropriate, the focus on Iyengar and Ashtanga Vinyasa not really justifiable today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2020 (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:Find a GraveEdit

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Substantial unanimous consensus per WP:SNOW. Ergo Sum 15:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This template was discussed for deletion back in May 2016. After the latest RSN discussion in October 2016, WP:RSP lists Find a Grave as something that should almost never be used in EL, and practically never as a source. That said, I think this template is no longer needed. When people see this template while editing other pages, it creates an impression that the use is encouraged. Graywalls (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Can you please link to the discussion which resulted in consensus that it shouldn't be used in EL? That's quite relevant to this discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    reply October 2016 discussion . Description from WP:RSP "The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable. Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Take care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations." It doesn't say deprecated; however, you don't need a template to cite it and for something that is highly discouraged, I think not having it is best. Graywalls (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. External links are not sources, so there's no need to discourage their use like we have depreciated the Daily Mail, etc. We can and should decide links and this template on a case by case basis. Gamaliel (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gamaliel. Relatability, in the sense used above, is a matter for citations, not external links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with discussion above - it should never be used as a source, since that site is user-edited with minimal editorial control. But having the template as a convenience to creating external links is pretty useful to editors. It makes it trivial to add grave information to historical biographies, which is useful as some readers may want to go visit to pay their respects. Also, Find-a-grave ID numbers are cross referenced on more than one geneological site (example: FamilySearch/Ancestry.com). That creates the opportunity for our articles to be connected into research being done in other venues.
ETA: I would also point out that Wikidata has a property Find A Grave memorial ID that has existed since 2013 and I see no discussion over there about deletion or its worthiness. Also, there no less than 22 different projects that reference that property in their templates. This indicates to me there is broad consensus across the projects that, notwithstanding the caveats above, that links to Find-a-grave are useful. --Krelnik (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. This and many similar templates lead to sites that contain significant amounts of accurate (or mostly accurate) user-generated data, like IMDB, Wikipedia in other languages, Wikipedia sister sites, and much more. These templates are appropriately used in the External links or Further reading sections. The prohibition on using this template as a reference, just as we prohibit using Wikipedia as a reference, should remain. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep A useful way of standardizing links. I agree it is overused, but that is not a good deletion rationale. William Avery (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is to provide the readers with information and external links like Find A Grave will be useful to the reader. Thank You-RFD (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Find A Grave is useful for its (roughly) hundred million gravestone photographs. Carving a decedent's information on a piece of granite and installing it permanently in a known public place is akin to publishing it. An image of the stone is of always of some interest with a biography, even if the actual inscription is incorrect. Kestenbaum (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Provides useful information as an external link. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The very fact that the date of death is displayed in the photo of the grave makes the information and thus citation reliable.Mill 1 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. As others have said, at a minimum, the images are useful. Though the content is user generated, and some of the text may be questionable, the photos of gravestones and scans of newspaper articles are unlikely to be fabricated. Nick Number (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - The British have a saying, "Don't make stormy weather". This nomination is stormy weather. As long as Wikipedia allows an External links section at the bottom of articles, it would be highly prejudicial and discriminatory to pick and choose which could be used, and which could not. You'd have to create a whole sublist category of forbidden external links, which would lead to battles over "anybody can edit" listing whichever one they don't like. And then a bunch of opposed voters piling on to keep the prohibition from happening. Sheesh! This is a very useful external link, and there is no reason why it should be deleted. Don't make things more difficult for editors. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep and Close I think the consensus on this is pretty clear. Capt. Milokan (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Other editors have already said what I would like to. I'll just add that it would be to the detriment in so many ways. The site is invaluable for sourcing information which, even visually, can be erroneous upon other reputable sources. The site seems to be well maintained, and is valuable for info. such as dates, surname spellings, and birth places. As oft. as I seek info. online or in books, I can detect authors and journalists regularly copy each others' info. so one piece of misinformation is transposed as if truthful. As a site, findagrave has helped me probably scores of times since 2008.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep and even use as a reference if there is a fame rating. By Wikipedia's own rules:- Find a Grave entries with a fame rating are edit curated and not able to be changed without this curation, therefore they must be acceptable as a reference! Find a Grave entries with fame rating should be reclassified as a reliable source. Richard Bruce Bradford (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. First, the template itself is useful for editors. Accordingly, questionable content in a FindaGrave page has nothing to do with how editors add the link to an External links section. Second, as User:Nick Number correctly notes, FindaGrave webpages often have information that is noteworthy for interested WP readers. (See, for example, Dolly Sinatra – the page serves to WP:V where Dolly Sinatra is buried. Also see National Medal of Honor Memorial.) Third, many FindaGrave pages were generated from data provided by the Veterans Administration and War Graves Commission; and many FindaGrave pages are now "maintained" by the editors at/of FindaGrave. In sum, WP editor use of FindaGrave pages as WP:RS is properly governed by existing guidelines and there is no need to eliminate this useful template. – S. Rich (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per everything above. Doremo (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is quite useful, especially for non-recent demises. Wikipedia is user generated. Find a grave, like Wikipedia, is collaborative and the memorials get better all the time, and the fact that the graves often have "citations" in the forms of photos and obituaries is quite helpful to those reading Wikipedia articles who may not have access to newspaper archives. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any concerns are ameliorated by the fact that the template instructs its use in the External links section. Ergo Sum 04:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per all the above (!) It's a jumping-off point, not a WP:RS. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:04, 4 October 2020 (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:High-use/numEdit

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. No objections to the substance of the deletion nomination. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Not used anymore as {{High-use}} now uses Module:High-use. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

How are you going to heed the notice on the talk page prohibiting the deletion of the template's history? --RichardW57 (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • When a template has lost it's usefulness it gets deleted. This a common occurrence here in TfD. I'll also note that the above 3 templates where created and only edited (not including maintenance edits) by 2 editors, which already show up in the Template:High-use reversion history. The module code is completely different than the template code (it's a completely different language) and the code itself is fairly simple, so per Wikipedia standards of ownership, no attribution is needed. If it was needed, then I'd wonder where is the community outcry when navboxes and infoboxes get forked all the time without providing attribution. No reason to create new rules for these group of templates, which we don't do for any other template. --Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    So you seem to be suggesting that there are a lot of navboxes and infoboxes that should be summarily deleted for breach of copyright! Where are these "standards of ownership" documented?
    On what basis do you claim that there is a 'new rule' for templates? The mechanism has been here for a while, but the scope is all pages.
    As the history of this template is short, I have been able to prepare for probably adequate remedial action if the history is deleted; this was after becoming aware of the prospect of deletion. I've 'temporarily' recorded the history on the copy's talk page. (There's a lot of translation work to be done, but I don't trust my translations.) --RichardW57 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    No, I'm saying that the fact that you added that notice to the talk page and are now suggesting that an unused sub-template of a page, cannot be deleted, while this venues deletes dozens of pages on a weekly bases is nonsense. --Gonnym (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If this template is deleted, please check the following for licence violations: https://gd.wiktionary.org/wiki/Teamplaid:High-use/num

Some one needs to create an account and stick a copyright violation notice on sq {{High-use/num}} now.

And a general Wikimedia account will suffice to stick a notice now on Burmese {{High-use/num}}.

I'm not sure how to approach Chinese {{High-use/num}}, Indonesian {{High-use/num}} and Min Nan {{High-use/num}}. What's the appropriate mechanism for a protected template with a broken documentation link? --RichardW57 (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment: The edit summary should provide either a link to the original source or a list of all contributors. (Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Dummy edits should achieve the second method of attribution. Definitely no reason to keep these templates for that. They could also be redirected to the main template, if really desired, but it seems like some of those projects aren't attributing at all so that wouldn't solve the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2020 (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:Norwegian Summer Biathlon ChampionshipsEdit

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 G8 by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 01:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Navboxes are for pages that exist, but these have been deleted. (Only the pages for 2013 through 2016, the rest didn't exist in the first place). Geschichte (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Module:FixEdit

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. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Fix does not invoke the module. NO edits in the past 5 years. JsfasdF252 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Yay, someone else cares about cleaning up unused cruft in the module namespace. Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, disused. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2020 (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).