Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 16
June 18 >

June 17 edit

Template:LACMTA Platform Layout L Line Surface Island edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused station platform layout templates. Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as creator. Templates are no longer in use after retirement of line. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Melges 32 World Championship medallists edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused medal table. Gonnym (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Melges 20 World Championship medallists edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused medal table. Gonnym (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Section header edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unclear what potential usage this has. Gonnym (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete multilingual internationalization template. This is English Wikipedia, these things must be written in English. It was imported from Commons, it looks just like commons:Template:Section header. I think this should also have some free-license explanations to meet source code licensing requirements. Further, Wikipedia is not a file repository, so the names of templates on Commons are *not*appropriate* on any Wikipedia. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:UAAP roster statistics start edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sports table template. Gonnym (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Women's Volleyball Serie A1 Seasons edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and it duplicates a section of Template:Italian women volleyball league. Gonnym (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Life in the United Arab Emirates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:United Arab Emirates topics. Izno (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Life in the United Arab Emirates with Template:United Arab Emirates topics.
The template is not helpful, most of the topics are already is (United Arab Emirates topics), I can add the articles not in the template if there's consensus to merge. Vyvagaba (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nomination. No need for this. I'll be nominating the rest of the ones in Asia templates that should be merged into the main nation template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made sure that all the articles linked in Template:Life in the United Arab Emirates are in Template:United Arab Emirates topics. Vyvagaba (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Matty Healy songs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large overlap with Template:The 1975, as Matty Healy's significant work has all been as lead singer of The 1975. A merge is possible, maybe including Healy songs as "Related articles" or a new group "Other Healy songs", but I can't really tell which songs aren't in the 1975 navbox already. — Bilorv (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Oslo major events timeline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a single-use template (on Oslo) that per WP:SUMMARY basically isn't needed as it does/should duplicate the text. Izno (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Battle of Greece timeline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Suggest subst and delete. Izno (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Non-free use rationale 2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Non-free use rationale. But merge carefully, making sure that all parameters are supported, and retain a redirect to avoid disruption. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Non-free use rationale 2 with Template:Non-free use rationale.
NFUR2 was originally introduced as an "alternative" to NFUR that was intended to be more compatible with the "experimental" WP:File upload wizard. Fast forward a decade to now — the file upload wizard is certainly no longer experimental, and having two separate templates with the same functionality creates unneeded redundancy and complexity. We should WP:CONSOLIDATE them into a single template that is both compatible with the wizard and embraces all the best practices for non-free use rationales. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Having two templates allows choice and caters to different user preferences, providing flexibility. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neveselbert, can you be more specific? What differing user preferences are the different templates catering to?
    Overall, I have to sigh on reading your comment, as I'd thought that WP:CONSOLIDATE was a baseline understanding among TfD editors, not something still open for debate. The core point is that the costs of forking, which is what has been done here, are massive. It basically doubles the amount of maintenance work, since it now has to be done in two different places. Given that we have limited editor resources, that's not what we want. It also means that template users have to examine and choose between the options, which is a cost for them. When there is disagreement over how a template should be set up, the best course of action is the same as when there is disagreement over how an article should be set up: talk it out and try to reach a consensus (which, in the case of templates, can include flexible functionality). It is not to create an entirely new template, any more than it would be to create a new article over a disagreement in mainspace. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate your perspective and understand the rationale behind WP:CONSOLIDATE, I believe the situation with NFUR and NFUR2 warrants a different approach. Your argument assumes that the maintenance costs and the burden of choice for users outweigh the benefits of having two templates, but I'd argue that the existence of two templates offers a certain degree of flexibility that caters to varying user preferences, something that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach might stifle. The differences between the templates, however slight, accommodate for diverse ways editors interact with the File Upload Wizard. Also, redundancy, though seemingly wasteful, serves as a contingency mechanism in technical systems, a safeguard in the event of failures or issues with one template. Finally, the historical significance of NFUR2, as a part of Wikipedia's growth and progress in enhancing the user interface, deserves preservation. Rather than merging the templates, I propose we strive to refine and optimise each while maintaining their distinctive functionalities, thus reducing maintenance burden without compromising user experience or operational safety. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That didn't really answer the question. And the redundancy argument does not make sense. If either one of these templates fails, we'd have a significant problem. It's not like we could easily say, "oh, NFUR2 isn't working today, so let's just temporarily switch all the transclusions to TFUR1." Two templates means two different potential points of failure, which is just another example of the additional maintenance burden created by an unneeded fork. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment below. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neve, serious question. What distinctive functionalities? There is zero documentation on this question. What's the difference? Why would I choose one over the other? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — I concur with the rationale by Neveselbert. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm surprised this isn't standardized. More flexibility is a minus when NFCC isn't optional. Chess (talk) (please   mention me on reply) 00:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose：The reason is the same as Neveselbert 78-YellowcatTalk 11:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize this isn't a vote and you actually need to state a valid reason right? Gonnym (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is "support per nom" invalid? It's the same principle, except based on a comment. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should really take a look at the history. Gonnym (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @78-Yellowcat: See WP:REDACT, considering that you violated it. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: {{Non-free use rationale 2}} is very amateur, and the upload wizard should allow only {{Non-free use rationale}}. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is NFUR2 “amateur”? It actually offers additional parameters. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't find any substance to Neveselbert's current argument. As Sdkb has asked, What differing user preferences are the different templates catering to? is the actual question here. From looking at both templates, I can't really say. Also, these aren't user page templates where we allow users to use whatever they want however they want. A standard templates makes it easier for more editors to use and also see when something is missing. It also requires less maintaince when fixing issues. See Neveselbert's March 2 edits on both templates. Gonnym (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding my March 2 edits, they were indeed corrections, but this doesn't necessarily support the argument for a merger; instead, it underscores the importance of each template having a dedicated maintenance focus. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits you did show what maintaince burden is - doing the same thing in indentical templates. And I'm sure I can find more, that was just very recent and also by you which is why I pointed them out. To anyone closing, I also support Izno's argument below about not supporting different styles if a merger goes through. The end result should be one consistent style. Gonnym (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DONTFIXIT. I'm yet to come across any valid reason not to carry on supporting both styles. For example, we have WP:CS1 and WP:CS2 as different citation styles, and that's not to mention the whole Vector saga, so there is precedent for having at least one alternative style based on user preference. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in some fashion: I am undecided on which formulation is better, but slightly leaning towards Template:Non-free use rationale 2, but I don't see the benefit of having more than one - having two templates does not automatically equal "flexibility" nor a reason to keep unless there were usecases for which only one template is suitable. That isn't in evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The benefit of two templates is not inherently about flexibility in form but rather in function, based on user preferences and habits in interacting with the File Upload Wizard. This flexibility is often difficult to quantify, as it hinges on individual user experience rather than objective measures. Yes, both templates essentially serve the same purpose, but the minor differences in their structure or usage could make one more suitable than the other for certain users. Furthermore, the redundancy of two templates offers an operational safety net in case of issues with one. Instead of a merge, a more beneficial approach might be to continue refining each template based on user feedback, catering to a broader range of user preferences while maintaining the integrity and resilience of our system. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can see, these templates have no distinction between the display text and NFUR2 having a few more parameters. Is there any hypothetical usecase that one template is suitable for but not the other? We can't customize for every possible user preference.

    With respect to B's comment, it seems like the only upload form that uses NFUR2 is MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js, with additional mentions at User:A930913/vada/plugin/commoncopy.js, User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum/modules/FileTemplates.js, User:Crimsonfox/Covery.js, User:Dylsss/Sandbox/MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js, User:The Earwig/FileUploadWizard.js and User:Sdkb/sandbox/FileUploadWizard.js and in most of 'em it doesn't seem like the template does anything special. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to merging the templates if the formatting could be retained in one template for different such uses. It took a lot of time and effort getting {{Non-free use rationale/styles.css}} up and running properly, and I wouldn't want to have to play with that page again. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very very very hesitant on this because of the risk of breaking something. If one template is being used by the automated upload form and the other is used manually by humans, that seems like a very good reason to have two of them - the one used manually by humans can be modified without breaking the upload wizard. There's some utility in enforcing a consistent UI, but that should be done by making one of the templates consume the other. --B (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The two templates are incredibly similar in form and function. Accommodations can be made in the resulting template to reflect the necessary flexibility, so I'm confused at Neveselbert's argument. Also, does the wizard need better maintaining? SWinxy (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a downsizing to one template. I prefer the template (NFUR2) that makes direct reference to the axes on which we consider hosting non-free content, but I am not sure if it melds well with the freer form earlier Template:NFUR. I do not see any particular need or reason to support different styles (CSS). Izno (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason not to support both styles, which are perfectly operational. In the event of a merge, both styles should be supported. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They gain us nothing, so they should go, and like others say above add to maintenance burden. The different styles should never have existed in the first place, never mind the existence of two templates. Izno (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't disagree more. The styles are perfectly fine, and there isn't a maintenance burden now with TemplateStyles having been introduced. It would be even more of a burden to have to rely on just one template. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per nom. I also do not understand @Neveselbert:'s argument about choice, and he has pointed out that both styles of templates can be supported after a merge. - nathanielcwm (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This isn't about "different user preferences", this is (quasi-)legal requirement. It should be as simple and as standardized as possible. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the templates are very similar so I fail to see this supposed flexibility being provided. My preference is NFUR2 as it is more explicit about the NFCC. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Should have happened over a decade ago. The "winner" should be {{Non-free use rationale 2}} since it is more user friendly by allowing auto-populated fields. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These two templates do the same job, with only minor differences in appearance. @Neveselbert says that having two templates accommodates user preferences, but I see that as insignificant here, because fair use templates are very boring, utilitarian parts of Wikipedia that anyone is unlikely to think twice about. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: My problem is that the two templates do not have the same parameters, by design. Merging at this point would thus cause a lot of breakage. The second template was specifically designed in tandem with the newer uploader. But you'll note the old methods of uploading are still provided, as they are often more convenient to use for power users like me who do a lot of uploads. Before any talk of merging should take place, you need to where template 2 can completely replace template 1, accepting all the same parameters, so that you will not have breakage. — trlkly 20:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, NFUR 2 has a few more parameters than NFUR (which is why I am inclined to merge NFUR into NFUR2) - but other than renaming one or two parameters, there wouldn't be anything else to do when merging NFUR into NFUR2. Or swapping NFUR2 into NFUR, rename transclusions and the one or two parameters that have different names, and then redirect NFUR2 to NFUR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per trlkly. If it ain't broke... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...The thing with that "It ain't broke" claim is that since there is a valid WP:CONSOLIDATE claim, it is broke by creating unnecessary redundancy and template maintenance. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see that. We have WP:CS1 and WP:CS2 as different citation styles, does that create "unnecessary redundancy and template maintenance"? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes actually, it does. That one is just a much harder question to fix. Izno (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge with no preference of which into which as long as the NFCC criteria are displayed — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose. The idea, I agree with. But this merge is plainly impossible. If we merge 1 into 2, the first template has low resolution and portion used, and the second has minimal use. It might be possible to concatenate the sentences or something, but it would look really ugly.
    Trying to go the other way around is totally impossible. There's literally no feasible way to split minimal use into low resolution and portion used. Author or copyright owner would just go into the abyss I guess, along with a couple other optional params in 2.
    This TfD is going to pass, and then absolutely nothing is going to happen, because the only way to reconcile this is for someone to try to make a completely new NFUR template (dealing with the really long amount of time and discussion it will take to get to an agreement on that) and then make a bot to edit every single fair use file on the website, which is in the hundreds of thousands (or, alternatively, make a template that works out-of-the-redirect, which would be heavily riddled with technical debt). The whole ordeal would be a multi-week or perhaps multi-month project, not even including how long it will take for the bot to run...
    ...and all that for what? To resolve some minor inconsistencies with how we write fair use file descriptions?
    Forgive the slippery slope argument, but I also feel I must mention that, if this happens, I guarantee you someone will come along a few years later and notice all the file description pages have changed, decry local consensus, make yet another alternative NFUR template, and oh look where we are now.
    Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you add another parameter to the merged template to accomodate the nonoverlapping parameter, or rename it so that it can cover both. It's not impossible, especially since it's only 1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no nonoverlapping parameter, there are 2 half-overlapping parameters. And if we rename it to cover both, how do we merge 2 arguments into 1? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, it's "low resolution" and "minimality" which cover the same ground. And actually, "minimality" is the better name since it doesn't reduce the "minimal use" question down to resolution; resolution isn't the only consideration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot NFUR1's "portion used", which should also be part of minimality. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not convinced that merging two parameters is as difficult as you are making it out to be. Or we make a combined template with both parameters if it's that much of a problem - multi-parameter templates are much less of a maintenance burden than multiple templates. Besides, I am pretty certain there have been more complex mergers in the past. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not convinced that merging two parameters is as difficult as you are making it out to be. How do you do it then?
    Or we make a combined template with both parameters if it's that much of a problem But then why would we do the merge in the first place? Maintenance burden how? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because keeping one template is easier than two, which will confuse folks about which one to use, or accidentally apply the wrong template. It's not as flashy as the effort of merging a template, but it does not make it non-existent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see no reason why this situation is broken and in need of fixing. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – differences are too niche. This is the kind of template that should be singular in nature—too confusing as multiple. Aza24 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the nomination rationale. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nomination Hajoon0102 💬 03:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose having 2 is neither harming nor complicating anything, see not benefit to merging, If it ain't broke. -J04n(talk page) 19:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Having two duplicate templates complicates things, with additional redundancy and maintenance overhead. I don't agree with the argument that the current situation isn't broken — we have two different templates that do the same thing, and this is generally a sign that something is in need of fixing. I also disagree with the argument that merging the templates would entail too much work to be worthwhile: I believe most parameters are similar enough that the manual work required would not be overly difficult, and, ultimately, it would result in a net benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: the two templates are redundant and due to the freeform text in the parameters and option to include information outside the template but within the File page, there is no potential application that could only use one template and not the other. Historical reasons for creation (possibly dubious at the time, too) are no longer applicable. Notice also that these pages are not forward facing so aesthetics are not an important consideration. — Bilorv (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it isn't broken, and there is little to be gained from a merge. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Firstly, a lot of people using these templates don't use it very often. I, for example, just placed one and only realized that #2 existing after I put it there. And as an infrequent user, I really don't see any significant difference between the two, and would have no idea how to choose one over the other. I'm frankly glad that I didn't know that 2 of them existed, because trying to make sense of why one would be better than the other would have been a waste of my time. I'll also add that the documentation pages of each only give passing mention to the other and don't say a single word about what the differences are. While this isn't a reason to merge or not merge, it is not helping the case of those who are claiming that these are somehow different in important ways. It seems the fact that nobody has bothered to explain the difference but there's never been a problem means that there's no reason for two templates. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've performed a "superficial" analysis of the parameters used by each template. But before that, the templates themselves show their overall usage: {{Non-free use rationale}} is transcluded in about 461,000 pages and {{Non-free use rationale 2}} is used in about 211,000 pages. Any merging should be done carefully since any missing parameters could potentially break hundreds of thousands of pages. Now, with that out of the way, here is my analysis:
Fields common to both (note that {{Non-free use rationale 2}} is more permissive in its parameters, allowing all-lowercase parameters and other variations) :
  • {{{Article|}}}
  • {{{Description}}}
  • {{{Source|}}}
  • {{{Purpose}}}
  • {{{Replaceability}}}
  • {{{other_information|{{{Other information|}}}}}} - optional
Fields only in {{Non-free use rationale}}:
  • {{{Special_header|}}}
  • {{{Portion}}}
  • {{{Resolution|{{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution}}}}}}}}}
    • {{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution}}}}}} (only used as an alternative name for Resolution)
Fields only in {{Non-free use rationale 2}}:
  • {{{Author|{{{author|}}}}}}
  • {{{Publication|{{{publication|}}}}}} - optional
  • {{{Date|{{{date|}}}}}} - optional
  • {{{Replaceability_text|{{{replaceability_text|{{{replaceability text|}}}}}}}}} - optional
  • {{{Minimality|{{{minimality|}}}}}}
  • {{{Commercial|{{{commercial|}}}}}}
  • Note: this template defines "other information" as: {{{Other information|{{{other information|{{{other_information|{{{Other_information|}}}}}}}}}}}}
Overall, it looks like {{Non-free use rationale 2}} has more parameters (several of them optional) but is missing 3 parameters from {{Non-free use rationale}}. Please also note that "optional" fields above hide their entire section if missing. The rest do not. Instead most headers will leave a blank entry if the parameter is missing, except for {{{Portion}}} in {{Non-free use rationale}} which has no default. All "mandatory" fields that display some sort of warning when missing are shared between the two templates. --Stux (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special_header looks like it is used by other templates, so that seems fine to migrate over to 2.
  • Portion and resolution should be appended into the same area as Minimality in 2.
Izno (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, confusing to have two templates for the same thing. the parameter analysis above has convinced me that merging shouldn't be that difficult. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with all the parameters from both templates available. Can't see how the original template is effective without some of those parameters, as they are required for WP:NFCC. One comprehensive template is better than two lacking templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as there is no valid reason to keep both, based on all the arguments presented above. In this case, there is good reason to have only one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:1902–03 Campeonato de Madrid table edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sports table. Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, looks like it was merged here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Bangladesh ODI cricket records by opponent edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Bangladesh cricket templates. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2016 European Women's Team Badminton Championships Group 1 standings edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused 2016 European Women's Team Badminton Championships templates. Gonnym (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2016 European Men's Team Badminton Championships Group 1 standings edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused 2016 European Men's Team Badminton Championships templates. Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2014 Football League Two play-offs final edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused 2014 Football League templates. Gonnym (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Basketball Super League 2024- edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and duplicate of Template:Basketball Super League (North America). Gonnym (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:An excerpt from a historical TV show from the national television of Ukraine edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused but also unclear what usage this would have as a template. Probably created in the wrong namespace. Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:S-Bahn-Bern edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused line icon template. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Bhf edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused station link template. Gonnym (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and probably unusable; very few articles incorporate "Bahnhof" in the title. Mackensen (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Unused s-line templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused s-line templates. --Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:1960 Montana Collegiate Conference football standings edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 07:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template is useless because no articles use this template. Vitaium (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Genealogy of the Olympians in Greek mythology edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 05:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in any articles. On almost all pages for figures from Greek mythology, a chart placed directly in the article is used (such as here for example), instead of a template. Such charts are more useful than templates, as they allow for variation at the level of the individual article. Hence, I can't see a template such as this having any possible future usage. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_17&oldid=1163036880"