Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 17

September 17Edit

Template:StreatorlandEdit

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) 00:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The article on the region this navbox is based on was recently deleted as a neologism, making the navbox a lot less useful. Even if the region's article hadn't been deleted, it's not a very useful navbox: it covers a small region, most of the places listed are also listed in the LaSalle County, Illinois navbox, and the scope of the region isn't well-defined. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:47, 17 September 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).

Moscow Railway templatesEdit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Above listed templates are now deprecated after transition to Module:Adjacent stations/RZD and Module:Adjacent stations/MCD. AJP426 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Support, the replacement is way more user-friendly, and the old templates are currently not in use.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 18 September 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:Use Harvard referencingEdit

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. There is literally no consensus here what to do with this template. The template itself - tracking pages that use Harvard-style referencing (I concur with those stating "Harvard references", when referred to on WIkipedia, can also mean Harvard-style references located inside ref tags) seems to have a use for tracking such pages. That being said, there has been created a secondary (and some argued duplicate) template to essentially provide the same function. Some said the template should be kept and stay at the same name, while others wanted it kept but moved to something more specific to what it was representing (following the RFC to remove in-line Harvard refs). Others feel the template transclusions should be replaced, the offending in-line refs dealt with, and the template deleted.

The main thing that should be done at this point is to check the pages transcluding this template and ensure that they have all been properly converted to <ref>...</ref> footnotes. There is also no prejudice against an RM to have this template renamed to something more specific to its "new" functionality (and that's outwith this venue anyway). If the above have been done, and people still think that this template should be deleted and/or it is no longer serving a useful purpose, then it can be renominated for deletion (and/or a merge with {{Use shortened footnotes}}). Primefac (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Harvard referencing citation style is deprecated, see RfC (concluded 5 September 2020) – no use to continue this template that says to use the deprecated style. Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Move to {{Uses Harvard referencing}} {{Uses parenthetical referencing}}: Since these articles have already been tagged with their reference style, let's not lose that information. We should transform it into a cleanup template that says something like "This template may use the deprecated in-line parenthetical referencing style (... instruction and links to how to convert it)". Someone will then need to review each article to confirm that it really uses in-line parenthetical references (some articles may have been tagged because they use linked sfn and harv templates). There are only 1,000 articles, so it's not a huge task. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey9: The directive to Use Harvard referencing is still valid. Please see my comment below.Peaceray (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Even after the move proposed by Jonesey95, the original {{Use Harvard referencing}} should be deleted, while inherently confusing wherever it is used in mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for fairly obvious reasons. To conclude that the Harvard referencing citation style itself has been deprecated is a misreading of the RFC. Only the inline use of Harvard referencing is deprecated.
From the first indent in the RfC discussion:
Note There has been some confusion about the wording, so let me clear that up. I am not proposing we ban ALL parenthetical references. I am merely proposing that we do not use inline, non software based, text parentheticals. This is NOT a proposal to ban Template:sfn, or Template:Harv (as long as it is properly nested in a ref tag).
At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Parenthetical citation closure, it reads:
This discussion supports the deprecation only of parenthetical style citations directly inlined into articles. It does not deprecate the use of the entire citation format when it is used within <ref></ref> tags, nor the use of the {{sfn}} and {{harv}} templates.
Again, the RfC does not deprecate the Harvard referencing citation style, only the inline use of it. Peaceray (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This is why the RFC was so confusing; people interpret "Harvard referencing" to mean two different things. If you go to this template and follow the link to "the Harvard referencing citation style", it links to a description of inline parenthetical referencing, which is now deprecated. That's why I recommended converting this template into a cleanup template so that people can check to see if inline referencing really is used in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
{{Use Harvard referencing}} is still valid & I plan to continue to use it on articles that exclusively use {{sfn}} & {{harv}}. However, I see your point in that we need a cleanup template, perhaps something like Template:Uses deprecated inline Harvard referencing. Peaceray (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
See Parenthetical referencing, which says Parenthetical referencing, also known as Harvard referencing, is a citation style in which partial citations—for example, "(Smith 2010, p. 1)"—are enclosed within parentheses and embedded in the text, either within or after a sentence. If you want to tag articles that use sfn and harv in the non-deprecated fashion, another "Use xxx" template will be needed, perhaps {{Use short citations}}. The cleanup template that I recommend here could instruct cleanup editors to replace it with the new template if (justifiably) confused editors have used "Harvard referencing" to mean "short citations". – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going into the confusion that speaks from Peaceray's explanation of their !vote above: as explained above, whatever template will be used in the future, {{Use Harvard referencing}} should not redirect to it, while inherently confusing (the confusion displayed above reinforces that point rather than diminishing it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep – Many of the articles that carry this template use {{sfn}} and siblings. These are unaffected by the RfC. If anything, the misguided REDIRECT at Template:Use parenthetical referencing should be the subject of some deliberation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Re. "Many of the articles that carry this template use {{sfn}} and siblings" – they shouldn't: "{{sfn}} and siblings" is not WP:HARVARD referencing. There is no part of WP:HARVARD referencing that isn't deprecated by the RfC. And... my point exactly is that when WP:HARVARD referencing, WP:Parenthetical referencing, template techniques, and whatnot is all too confusing (Michael Bednarek just illustrated that once more!), then we should not have a template like {{Use Harvard referencing}} that sends confusing messages to (mainly) editors... there's nothing difficult about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I read the above discussion and WP:HARVARD which was linked to. That page clearly states that Harvard referencing is inline. The {{sfn}} and {{harv}} templates, when used inside ref tags, do not produce Harvard referencing. I agree with Francis Schonken that this template should not be be kept or redirected as its name is clearly no longer valid per the RfC. Per the above suggestions, new templates such as what Jonesey95 proposed and a temporarily maintenance category for the current pages using this template can be created. --Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I have updated my proposed new template name. It is VERY clear that the phrase "Harvard referencing" is confusing to many editors and should not be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Your proposal is still to "move" the template, which is not the way to go: the "{{Use Harvard referencing}}" text should not appear anywhere in mainspace (i.e. in edit mode, which is the only place where that template is visible in mainspace), while it sends a confusing message to editors. Just "moving" the template (from one name to another in template namespace), leaving the old name of the template intact in mainspace, does not address that problem. The template needs to be either deleted, and removed from mainspace, or replaced by another, in mainspace, after which the unused template would best be deleted too (in order to avoid future confusion around a de facto deprecated template). The second option (i.e., replacement in mainspace) allows to use the new template, whatever useful name it is given, as a maintenance aid. Of course, a template with a wrong name should not be used as a maintenance aid, and {{Use Harvard referencing}} is, after the parenthetical referencing RfC conclusion, too misleading a name for such maintenance purposes. So either way, that is, whether replaced or not, {{Use Harvard referencing}} should be deleted, while it is no longer tenable after the parenthetical referencing RfC: it is inherently too confusing, and also too inviting for those who are unaware of the RfC's outcome, or disagree with it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Observations & suggesting a possible solution

I am noting that based upon the above discussion:

  • The RfC deprecates inline Harvard referencing, whether manually or using the {{harv}} independent of footnote tags (<ref></ref>).
  • The RfC supports Harvard referencing when it is part of or produces a footnote. For instance, {{sfn}}, or {{harv}} inside footnote tags (<ref></ref>).
  • {{Use Harvard referencing}} is confusing, because it could refer either to inline or footnote versions of Harvard referencing.

Therefore I propose:

  • A template, Template:Use Harvard referencing footnotes Template:Use shortened footnotes, mostly based on the existing template, with clear documentation that it (only) supports shortened footnotes
  • A cleanup template Template:Uses inline Harvard referencing, with documentation indicating that inline Harvard referencing is deprecated
  • Maintain {{Use Harvard referencing}} until pages can be tagged with one or both of the above templates, then remove this template from each page once this is done. This requires changing the documentation indicating that this is the course of action & summarizing the RfC concisely & clearly.

I count 982 pages currently in the month/year subcategories of Category:Use Harvard referencing. Going through less than a thousand pages seems achievable to me. Peaceray (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • ☝Do what Peaceray said.☝ --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Peaceray's proposal is still incompatible with terminology both as used in guidelines, and as used where the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template occurs in mainspace. {{Use Harvard referencing}} can not be used in a transition period, while confusing: it says that Harvard referencing needs to be used, which is incompatible with the outcome of the current RfC. Also, there is no such thing as "Harvard referencing footnotes" (Harvard referencing is always inline, or it isn't Harvard referencing), which makes the proposed {{Use Harvard referencing footnotes}} a confusing abomination. Also, Harvard referencing needs to be converted per the RfC outcome, but it should not be imposed as a one-solution-fits-all to *what* it should be converted (it is a page-by-page decision to what it should be converted). I could agree with replacing the {{Use Harvard referencing}} by a {{Convert Harvard referencing}}{{Convert parenthetical referencing}} template in around 982 mainspace pages, which is a solution that can be implemented without delay, after which {{Use Harvard referencing}} should be deleted, also without further delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC) updated name of proposed replacement template, per various comments by others: less confusing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree & disagree with Francis Schonken.
In the non-Wikipedia world, Harvard referencing AKA parenthetical referencing "is a citation style in which partial citations—for example, "(Smith 2010, p. 1)"—are enclosed within parentheses and embedded in the text".
However, in English Wikipedia, Template:Harvard citation documentation, & other documentation conflates (as in mixes up) Harvard citation style, parenthetical referencing, Harvard no brackets, and shortened footnotes. I think that we should work to emphasize that we support shortened footnotes, ({{sfn}} being the easiest form, & specify in documentation that {{harv}} & {{harvnb}} are only supported with <ref></ref> tags.
Any change should be deliberate in all senses of the word. Simply to delete the template would cause more harm than to deprecate & replace it. Let's do the thing properly & not rush it.
Doing it propely means changing a number of templates & WP documentation. Where to make the list?
Peaceray (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "in English Wikipedia, Template:Harvard citation documentation, & other documentation conflates (as in mixes up) Harvard citation style, parenthetical referencing, Harvard no brackets, and shortened footnotes." – confusing template documentation is a very weak excuse, see WP:CONLEVEL policy: if the template documentation is confusing it should be updated to current applicable guidance, and until these updates are performed template documentation should, of course, not be followed. The whole reasoning of "let's follow the confusing wording of the template documentation", which is at the root of much of the resistance against a clear-cut depreciation of the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template, should of course be rejected. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: The problem is not just the content of the documentation at Template:Harvard citation documentation, as you said above, but the name of the {{Harvard citation}} family of templates. Ideally they would be called the {{Short citation}} family. But the fact is that they have always been called, and are still called, Harvard citation templates, and it is reasonable to call their use "Harvard referencing" since citation = reference and citing = referencing. Even if you disagree, you have at least admitted that it is confusing. So it is very important, when referring to what has been deprecated by the RfC, to use the word "inline" to avoid confusion: e.g., "inline Harvard referencing" and "inline parenthetical referencing". Biogeographist (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "The problem is ... the name of the {{Harvard citation}} family of templates" – whether or not that is true: those names need to follow guidance too (duh), and not the other way around. If a template name is problematic, then it should be changed. That's what this TfD is about: "{{Use Harvard referencing}}" has become, since the RfC, a problematic template name, so it should be discontinued, without clinging to obsolete essay-level guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Above I already suggested a replacement name for the {{Harvard citation}} family of templates: {{Short citation}} templates. But until the name is changed, confusion will persist, because people will keep referring to the templates as {{Harvard citation}} or Harvard referencing (to use one of your favorite words: "duh"). Biogeographist (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: I agree that {{Use Harvard referencing}} should be deprecated. My concern is that we be methodical about it. Simply deleting the template will lead to template redlinks at the top of featured & good articles. Please see my comments below to Biogeographist. Peaceray (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "deleting the template will lead to template redlinks at the top of ... articles" – of course all instances of a deleted template should be removed from mainspace (duh!). That was understood in my OP proposal. If not, then now it is made explicit: delete, including eradication from mainspace, categories, etc. is my OP !vote. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
However, merely removing the template does not magically make the underlying problem go away. Ripping the top of a weed off does not address the roots. Such articles will continue to have inline citations, hence the need to do this methodically & address the problem, rather than simply remove a template & pretend that there are no longer any inline Harvard citations. Yep, the correct action is to replace with the proper template(s). If one simply removes the template, then we lose all track of the problem. Peaceray (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Biogeographist that we should use {{Uses inline Harvard referencing}} & {{Use shortened footnotes}} as the template names. Peaceray (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#CITEVAR update after parenthetical citations RfC, Nikkimaria wrote: "What we want to avoid is edit-warring in the case that Editor X wants to change an article to sfn and Editor Y thinks the existing cites should just be wrapped in ref tags, or prefers any of the myriad other acceptable replacement styles." (my emphasis) – It is not here the place to push one style, i.e. "shortened footnotes". Even if it seems logical that Harvard references would in many instances be replaced by shortened footnotes, this should not be imposed top-down, and certainly not as the result of a limited discussion about a single template. For that reason, I reject {{Use shortened footnotes}} as only one of two replacement options, it is too pushy in one direction. As proposed above, replacement of all mainspace instances of {{Use Harvard referencing}} by {{Convert parenthetical referencing}} is the way to go in the short run. The rest is already covered by WP:CITEVAR: if editors want to make specific templates for specific citation styles, let them do so, but this has no relation to the depreciation of {{Use Harvard referencing}}, which is the discussion here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Reading Francis Schonken's argumentation above, I don't think he's correct that differentiating inline Harvard referencing from shortened footnotes in pages that are currently tagged with {{Use Harvard referencing}} would push one style, since any page tagged with {{Use shortened footnotes}} could be changed by consensus. But now it is not clear to me that there is a need for {{Use shortened footnotes}}, so I struck my !vote above and added a new one below. However, there is still a need to clarify that what is deprecated is inline Harvard referencing, not Harvard referencing within <ref>...</ref> tags (see my comment about this above), so "inline" should be in the replacement template name. Biogeographist (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Biogeographist and Francis Schonken: There absolutely a need for Template:Use shortened footnotes! The simple deletion of Template:Use Harvard referencing without the addition & substitution of something like Template:Use shortened footnotes in places where shortened footnotes are appropriately used, including the sfn, harv, & harvnb templates, will affect featured articles such as Cleopatra, the Finnish Civil War, & the Winter war. There are good articles as well, like Basil II and Patsy Mink. Please do due diligence. This would not be a huge cleanup effort to switch to Template:Use shortened footnotes or Template:Uses inline Harvard referencing. In some cases in which both inline Harvard references & shortened footnotes are present we would need both, so that inline Harvard referencing can be converted to shortened footnotes. Peaceray (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peaceray: I am open to changing my !vote again, but I don't understand your argument that removing {{Use Harvard referencing}} from featured and good articles that use shortened footnotes would be a problem. Are there corresponding templates for "use standard footnotes" and "use footnotes with list-defined references"? If not, why would there need to be a template for "use shortened footnotes"? In other words: Generally speaking, "footnotes", "footnotes with list-defined references", and "shortened footnotes" are now the three accepted citation systems, so why would there need to be a template for only one of them (if indeed there are not templates for the other two—if there are, please correct me)? Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Biogeographist, deleting the {{Use Harvard referencing}} without doing anything else would produce the redlinks to which I alluded. Simply removing it, when it was really meant to designate that shortened footnotes should be used, would be a disservice, because future editors would not be aware of the prevailing citation style. Simply removing it in the case when there was inline Harvard referencing would be a disservice, because future editors might not be aware of the need for maintenance clean-up. Hence the need for either {{Use shortened footnotes}} or {{Uses inline Harvard referencing}}, & in some cases, both. BTW, I would make Template:Uses inline Harvard referencing a visible template, not a hidden one. Peaceray (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peaceray: OK, I now see that {{Use list-defined references}} is a thing, and that you created {{Use shortened footnotes}}, which makes sense as a counterpart to {{Use list-defined references}}. Good work! Biogeographist (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
For everyone's info, I also added Category:Use shortened footnotes, Category:Use shortened footnotes from May 2020, Category:Monthly clean-up category (Use shortened footnotes) counter, & Template:Shortened footnote editnotice, & modified Template:Parenthetical referencing editnotice & Template:Editnotice templates. There are a lot more moving pieces than I thought! Peaceray (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
... but all quite unrelated to *this* discussion. None of these newly created templates are suitable as a one-solution-fits-all replacement for the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template, which should be deleted, and which is the only topic of this TfD. As said, I'd agree with a replacement of {{Use Harvard referencing}}, but thus far it seems impossible to agree on a name (and, as said, replacement names that push towards a particular type of conversion are not a suitable replacement), so simplest seems to delete the template, and remove it wherever it is transcluded outside talk or project space. Also, this would be least upsetting to those who used parenthetical referencing in mainspace (and might be proponents of the system that has now been deprecated): replacing a template that is only visible in edit mode by one that, with an ugly banner, alerts that something is wrong (as in "... a visible template, not a hidden one ...") is also a one-solution-fits-all route I'd prefer not to go, as there is no time limit for the conversion. I don't oppose creating such banner template, that can be placed in mainspace by human editors, when, over a long period of time, a few articles are still not converted from the deprecated style, but such templates should only be placed by human editors as a deliberate choice (non as a one-solution-fits-all replacement of the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template by bot or whatever). Thus, as such, the creation of such banner template is *also* completely unrelated to this TfD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It is highly relevant to this discusion. The two proposed templates together will solve the problem. I am highly opposed to deleting {{Use Harvard referencing}} until we arrive at a solution that will methodically address the underlying problem two problems:
  1. Articles that contain inline Harvard or parenthetical citations
  2. Articles with shortened footnote style that were incorrectly identified with {{Use Harvard referencing}} & can now instead be marked with {{Use shortened footnotes}}
Francis Schonken, either you have failed to carefully read our comments or you are ignoring the {{Use shortened footnotes}} template. I have not seen anyone objecting to it. Do you have an objection to this naming convention, given Help:Shortened footnotes & what I have created to go with it, Category:Use shortened footnotes, Category:Use shortened footnotes from May 2020, Category:Monthly clean-up category (Use shortened footnotes) counter, & Template:Shortened footnote editnotice, & the modifications that I made to Template:Parenthetical referencing editnotice & Template:Editnotice templates?
Peaceray (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Other approach on "Use Harvard referencing" template

Proposing another approach:

  • Step 1: replace all instances of {{Use Harvard referencing}} by {{Use footnoted references}}
  • Step 2: delete {{Use Harvard referencing}}

Reasoning behind this approach: the only types of non-footnoted references I know of are:

  1. Harvard referencing, a.k.a. parenthetical referencing, a.k.a. author-date referencing not in footnotes: deprecated by the RfC;
  2. In-line external links, a.k.a. embedded links: not OK per the Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links guideline;
  3. General references, which, according to the relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Citing sources#General references, are mostly better converted to in-line references.

Current guidance does not exactly "forbid" general references, but as long as they are used the article does not adhere to a very high standard of referencing. The {{Use footnoted references}} tag can in such case be used to indicate that editors want that the article adheres to a higher standard for referencing.

Unless I'm missing some other form of acceptable non-footnoted referencing system (am I?), the replacement template proposed in this subsection is thus useful to get rid of the less desirable general references, and to keep an article in that more qualitative state of referencing once the conversion of all low-standard/undesirable/deprecated/inconsistent referencing types has been performed.

I'm not a big enthusiast for the system I'm proposing here (maybe all a bit too self-evident not needing clutter in edit-mode), but am proposing this as something which may be acceptable enough to move forward on getting rid of the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template, which has become untenable after the parenthetical referencing RfC. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I just rewrote the documentation for {{Format footnotes}} to reflect that inline parenthetical referencing is deprecated per WP:PARREF. Note that articles tagged with {{Format footnotes}} are added to Category:Articles needing footnote reformatting. Biogeographist (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I am at work right now; otherwise I would start changing the instances of {{Use Harvard referencing}} to either {{Format footnotes}} or {{Use shortened footnotes}} as appropriate. {{Format footnotes}} will be more used heavily. I have seen that the inline Harvard referencing tended to be used more in musical articles. Currently, those predominate the nearly 600 at Category:Use Harvard referencing from May 2019! Peaceray (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Biogeographist (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peaceray: If it's not too much work, it may be a good idea to create a page in your userspace titled "List of articles that used parenthetical referencing in September 2020" or something like that, and list in it the titles of relevant articles that you're tagging with {{Format footnotes}}. This could be worth the extra work because Category:Articles needing footnote reformatting holds other kinds of articles, and it could be useful to have a list of the articles formerly in Category:Use Harvard referencing that use inline parenthetical referencing. Biogeographist (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Peaceray's approach above. Once all of the articles are correctly tagged with {{Format footnotes}} (for articles using parenthetical referencing) or {{Use shortened footnotes}} (for articles using sfn and the harvnb family), we can delete the nominated template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist comment There has now been a lot of discussion here and we have not come to a consensus for the overall close yet. At this stage I feel like it may be useful to look at what I read as having a rough consensus and what still needs to be figured out. The following three statements are the things I believe have consensus:
  • There is significant confusion about what Harvard referencing mean and it may be possible to alleviate by changing/removing/replacing the name of the template.
  • There are two main types of articles that have {{Use Harvard referencing}}: Articles with inline citations deprecated by the RfC and articles with footnotes containing Harvard/shortened/parenthetical references.
  • The two types of articles should probably be treated in different ways or the same way for different reasons.

The two big remaining questions then are "What should we do with the articles with deprecated citations?" and "What should we do with the articles with acceptable, footnoted, citations?" If we can answer those two questions the remaining details can be ironed out at talk pages or in the holding cell if necessary. --Trialpears (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Trialpears (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Attempt at summary

Here's my understanding of the current best answers to the questions asked by the relister:

When those two actions are done and Category:Use Harvard referencing is empty, then both Template:Use Harvard referencing and Category:Use Harvard referencing can be deleted. Biogeographist (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Support this process, which I suppose would lead to a TFD close of something like "deprecate, replace with {{Format footnotes}}/{{Use shortened footnotes}} as appropriate, and then delete."
I note that at least one editor above has said something like "Keep this template, because articles tagged with it use sfn/harv templates." If the process above is accepted, those articles would be converted to contain {{Use shortened footnotes}} instead of the current, confusing template. No other changes would be required for those articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose using the (visible) {{Format footnotes}} in this case: that template is for cleanup which is needed when the referencing system is so confusing that a casual reader would be seriously challenged to make sense of a hotchpotch. A system that is coherent, but deprecated, does not need such alarming template. See also what I wrote above, "... least upsetting to those who used parenthetical referencing in mainspace (and might be proponents of the system that has now been deprecated): replacing a template that is only visible in edit mode by one that, with an ugly banner, alerts that something is wrong (as in "... a visible template, not a hidden one ...") is also a ... route I'd prefer not to go, as there is no time limit for the conversion." I'm not going to reiterate here the reasonable objections made, by more than one editor, against the {{Use shortened footnotes}} template, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15#Template:Use shortened footnotes. All in all, seriously thinking and rethinking all options proposed here, and even a few not having been proposed anywhere afaik, I suppose I come back to the original option of just deleting the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template (and obviously: removing it where it is transcluded). Per the RfC close: there is no time limit on converting parenthetical referencing systems to more appropriate ones. I'd give it at least a year before starting to tag the inconvertibles, or the ones that otherwise resist conversion. It is far more important to remove, without further delay, messages that, to this day, continue inviting to use the deprecated system. For the conversions I already did, I found it easy enough to spot parenthetical referencing by using the transclusion list of the original {{harv}} template, so please, don't use alarming cleanup templates for this issue at this point in time. At this stage I'd prefer to avoid, as much as possible, to upset proponents of the parenthetical referencing system, who maybe are already not in the best mood for having !lost the RfC, not upsetting them may mean they would be more easily amenable in helping with conversions. Give it some time, per the recommendation in the RfC close, for those who want to convert, including myself who will probably be doing quite some of the music-related articles, and re-assess whether tagging is necessary for the remaining ones in a year or so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Biogeographist: and all: I started with Category:Use Harvard referencing from August 2014, which is now empty & might be deleted at any time. I am tallying my results & actions at User:Peaceray/Conversions from Use Harvard referencing.
One of the three articles in that category was a featured article, Actuary. For that, I converted inline citations to shortened footnotes, swapped out {{Use Harvard referencing}} to {{Use shortened footnotes}} & used {{Shortened footnote editnotice}} in the edit notice. If you want to see the full-blown combination, this is it. The only thing sullying it is the "‹ The template below (Use shortened footnotes) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›" display.
I agree with Francis Schonken that {{Format footnotes}} is not ready for prime time. I altered the section at Template:Format footnotes/doc#Parenthetical reference. I wish we could just link to that documentation, but the current version of the template does not do that. Maybe we need to put the content in a help page.
I do think fixing, followed by tagging, is the best means of identifying those pages that need conversion. I just do not see any other way of keeping track of what needs correction if we eliminate the {{Use Harvard referencing}}. Francis Schonken, do you have any alternative means of tracking the pages that need fixing to that of {{Format footnotes}}?
A clarification on "objections made, by more than one editor, against the {{Use shortened footnotes}} template": that currently means exactly two, & it is currently running at 75% for keep. IMHO, I think we ought to just close it at the end of its week run & get on with the work. I'm sorry, that was just my opinion.
Peaceray (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "Francis Schonken, do you have any alternative means of tracking the pages that need fixing to that of {{Format footnotes}}?" – yes, I said so, in what I wrote just above your comment: "For the conversions I already did, I found it easy enough to spot parenthetical referencing by using the transclusion list of the original {{harv}} template,..." Here is the direct link to that transclusion list: [1] For clarity:
  1. Whereas Category:Use Harvard referencing, and subcategories, contain pages that were deliberately set to Harvard referencing, the "transclusion list of the original {{harv}} template" also contains pages with stray Harvard references, e.g. a few Harvard references erroneously inserted in a page that otherwise uses a consistent referencing style (in which case conversion is usually pretty easy), or, quite often, pages that have a throughout inconsistent referencing style, are not tagged for any style, and thus would best be converted to a consistent style, per WP:CITEVAR. Also pages that use Harvard referencing consistently but which were not tagged for doing so would be spotted by this method, and not by the "Category:Use Harvard referencing" approach (I have not encountered any of this type yet, but suppose that with continuing conversions it is likely some would turn up).
  2. An at least theoretical disadvantage is that this method would not catch Harvard referencing implemented without the usual Harv family templates (note that the examples elaborated at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing seemingly do so without templates, so, at least theoretically, it is possible to implement the referencing style without them). I say "theoretically" while I suppose this would not often be the case (but if you know any examples, I'd be happy to learn whether this might be a real problem).
In sum, I'm quite confident that this method is actually more accurate than the Category:Use Harvard referencing method for spotting articles that need conversion, and thus one more reason to just abandon the whole idea of converting the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template manually: a lot of work and the resulting categorisation would be incomplete for grouping problematic articles anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I am missing some information here: What is the alternative to removing the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template manually? Is there a bot that will remove the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template automatically if the template is deleted? If yes, then I guess Francis Schonken is right (I did not realize that such a bot exists). If no, then Francis Schonken is wrong: The template has to be removed manually anyway, and it would be best to keep track somehow of the pages from which the template is being manually removed but which have not yet been converted to footnotes, because that set of pages will already be known as candidates for conversion, which is valuable knowledge. In contrast, the pages in the {{harv}} template transclusion list are not already known as candidates for conversion: as I look through the {{harv}} template transclusion list now, I see pages that I know are not candidates for conversion because I have worked on the pages and I know they do not use inline parenthetical referencing. Not only is the {{harv}} template transclusion list not a list of already known candidates for conversion, but also as Francis Schonken said above, it is not even a complete list of potential candidates for conversion. So it is not a replacement for a set of pages that are already known as candidates for conversion. Biogeographist (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Re. "What is the alternative to removing the {{Use Harvard referencing}} template manually?" – Afaik there are two possibilities:
  1. when the template is deleted as a result of a TfD, afaik an admin-closer has the necessary tools to delete all transcluded instances (which, if I'm not erring, is plain standard procedure, that's why I didn't mention "and remove instances of the template" in my OP) – compare the bot that removes an image from English Wikipedia, when the image is deleted at commons.
  2. there is consensus on a more complex proceeding, involving other steps beside the plain deletion & removal of the template: if that multi-step procedure can be automated as a bot task, then a request for such task can be posted at WP:BOTREQ, in which case it is best to have a prior consensus on a task description (if the consensus still needs to be formed at the time of posting the request it would usually be turned down).
Hope this clarifies! --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. If the template can be automatically removed from all pages, then I would change my !vote to delete and everything I have said here has been a waste of time due to my lack of that information. Even though the harvard citation templates transclusion lists are imperfect for this purpose, they would be less work than the proposal at § Attempt at summary. Biogeographist (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
As an addition to my point #1 above, the "plain standard procedure" for a template deletion, involving removal of all instances of the template and categories exclusively used by the to-be-deleted template, is described at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions#Delete. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment My main concern at this point is that we have some means of listing all the articles that have used {{Use Harvard referencing}} so that we can track inline Harvard referencing / parenthetical referencing & convert the ones that have used shortened footnotes to {{Use shortened footnotes}}. That must be done via a bot or by another means before deleting {{Use Harvard referencing}}. Peaceray (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep and close. This discussion has clearly blown out of topic in regards to possible deletion. Template moves and proposals can be discussed at proper venues to gain more of a consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 10 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:Public Wi-Fi block hardEdit

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Unused fork of {{School block hard}} ; not linked to from any operational documentation or policy page. Is this needed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 17 September 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:Anonblock3notalkEdit

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Unused and not linked to, from any documentation or policy page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 17 September 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:AOLblockEdit

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Obsolete for over a decade. Perhaps we could donate it to a museum? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:50, 17 September 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:User page 1Edit

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 after converting existing usages to {{Userpage bar}}. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Fork of {{User page}}. Only five users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge: I created this; feel free to merge it into the other template, but there clearly needs to be a user page template that isn't so big and needlessly wordy. In my cases, I'm the only one viewing and editing, I just feel the need to clarify it's not a live article. ɱ (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright, the navbox listing them all was created later, in 2016, so I suppose I never found {{Userpage bar}}. A closer can delete this and use that template in its stead. ɱ (talk) 21:41, 17 September 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:User page banEdit

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Unused; redundant now that we have page-level ban capability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 13:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I doubt any admins are using this, but has this been posted to WT banning policy to make sure? I know some admins are opposed to pblocks - I doubt they're using this template in its place, but still. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:57, 23 September 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:Legend2Edit

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:Legend inline as discussed, redirecting when finished. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Both {{legend2}} and {{legend inline}} focus on the same task, producing an inline legend. I've made some recent updates to the latter, and, looking at others to decide whether they needed updating, realized that {{legend2}} is redundant. {{Legend2}} has more transclusions, but {{legend-inline}} has a preferable name (immediately explains its purpose) and is technically superior. We should "delete" {{legend2}} and redirect it to {{legend-inline}}. There are some trivial cosmetic differences between the two templates at the moment, but I'm ignoring them as a matter of triviality. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Minor addendum: {{legend2}}'s parameters allow it to be redirected to {{legend-inline}} without breaking any transclusions, but the reverse is not true. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Support seems logical to me. Kiwichris (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Seems like a logical, more streamlined approach. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect - however, apply some of the CSS of {{legend2}} (eg in font size) to {{legend-inline}}. The latter is technically superior, but visually less appealing in many cases in my eyes (probably why the former has more transclusions). Simple CSS changes to fix that, though, and not a barrier to merge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and redirect per nom. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support only if {{legend2}}'s font size is incorporated within {{legend-inline}}, as User:ProcrastinatingReader pointed out, then afterwards redirect {{legend2}} to {{legend-inline}}; the font size, strangely, does seem to make a difference. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:07, 27 September 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:Lod–Beersheba line and Template:Tel Aviv–Beersheba lineEdit

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 -FASTILY 01:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Unused; superseded by Template:Nahariya–Beersheba line. Crash48 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 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:MetricateEdit

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. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Redundant to {{Units attention}}. The latter can be modified to render like the former. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Duplicates. Redirect {{Units attention}} to {{Metricate}}, as the latter seems more succinctly / better worded (in terms of text). Perhaps also do a page-swap, because the latter has a clearer page title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have edited metricate to get more obviously at the point it is trying to make. I am not entirely sure that merging/redirecting is the best path forward. There are other issues you might have with units, such as inconsistent use in an article or by using units which do not take into account the discussion in MOS:UNITS. Soft keep for now. --Izno (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
    That said, "units attention" fits into the category of "almost as useless as generic {{cleanup}} templates". --Izno (talk) 14:41, 30 September 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).