Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TfD)

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
  Jun Jul Aug Sep TOTAL
CfD 2 5 20 32 59
TfD 0 0 1 7 8
MfD 0 0 0 12 12
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
AfD 0 0 0 30 30

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

How to use this pageEdit

What not to propose for discussion hereEdit

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

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

Reasons to delete a templateEdit

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

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

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

Listing a templateEdit

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

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

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

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019_September_20#Template:template_name.css */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editorsEdit

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

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

Notifying related WikiProjects

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

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

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

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

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

TwinkleEdit

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

DiscussionEdit

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussionsEdit

September 20Edit


September 19Edit

Template:2011–12 Azerbaijan Premier League championship group tableEdit

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Italian wineEdit

Propose merging Template:Infobox Italian wine into Template:Infobox wine region.
The more general template is suitable for Italian wines, as seen at Soave (wine). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Paris by NightEdit

Propose merging Template:Infobox Paris by Night into Template:Infobox television episode.
Redundant, per prior discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 6#Template:Infobox Paris by Night. Though that closed as no consensus, in June 2015, we were told that a revamp of the more general template, to facilitate such a merge, was in hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I vote to merge.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 12:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have tagged the television episode template with noinclude tags for this TFD, as it's causing the notification to come up on ~11k pages, though it's not relevant on (~11k-40) pages given that it's just the Paris by Night template that is being merged. -- /Alex/21 04:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox probability distribution 2Edit

Propose merging Template:Infobox probability distribution 2 into Template:Infobox probability distribution.
Forked template, used only twice after ten years' of existence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:ComparisonEdit

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agreed, unused, and undocumented in the template and project namespaces. --Bsherr (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Franco-Spanish warsEdit

This is not a campaign box but a disambigiation page is disguise The Banner talk 07:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not see what the problem is. There are other identical templates such as: Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Spanish wars, Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Dutch Wars and Template:Campaignbox Anglo-French wars. --Muwatallis II (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree for maintaining this template, because it is useful. We could just move this template into other name. 웬디러비 (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

September 18Edit

Template:FOW Light Heavyweight ChampionshipEdit

WP:NENAN, only a few links. StaticVapor message me! 21:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:FOW International Heavyweight ChampionshipEdit

WP:NENAN, only a few links. StaticVapor message me! 21:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sub_judice_UKEdit

unnecessary and unneeded on an American Wikipedia. UK courts and laws have no jurisdiction in the United States. Also may be construed as a legal threat which is not allowed per WP:NLT. Possibly only useful on the Uk Wikipedia Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep per the arguments made in the previous discussion. This is not American Wikipedia, and there is no UK Wikipedia - this is the English Wikipedia. Although the Foundation is governed by US law ("or other applicable laws"), this template is not aimed at the Foundation ... it's clearly aimed at editors who may fall under the jurisdiction of the UK courts (incidentally, there are several other regional variants). This template is only occasionally used on UK topics where editors face a higher than normal non-obvious risk of breaking the law, so it seems entirely appropriate to notify them of that risk. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per the previous discussion, although I would suggest perhaps merging them into a general template that could cover any country using this legal system. There are many countries in the world using English law where this rule applies (Australia, New Zealand, even Canada, to name a few) and there are editors in all of those countries who should be aware that something they post about an incident has the potential to be a contempt of court. Also there should be clear guidelines as to when the template is used. For example, it would be appropriate to use it in a high-profile criminal case, but not something such as the current prorogation controversy. This is Paul (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note if this template is up for deletion, then the following might also need to be considered: {{Sub judice and Contempt Bermuda}}, {{Sub judice and Contempt Gibraltar}}, {{Sub judice and Contempt Hong Kong}}, {{Sub judice and Contempt Ireland}}, {{Sub judice and Contempt New Zealand}}. D7a894f1d (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Setting my above comments aside for a moment, there's also a general {{Sub judice}} template that should be included. This is Paul (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with This is Paul. It seems some consolidation would be worthwhile. But that should be undertaken separately from this discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge as per comments from other users, do we really need 8 to 9 different sub judice templates? They look virtually all the same and give the same message. Theprussian (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia should not be in the business of giving legal advice to editors, which is what this template does. Also, based on analysis of the relevant laws in the UK, you have to have access to confidential legal documents or proceedings and publish them with malicious intent (the law states intent is required). The law also states that normal run of the mill reporting on pending cases with public materials is not subject to this law. Since Wikipedia only publishes articles based on public sources, it is very unlikely that an editor would run afoul of this law unless they published confidential court documents, which would not be accepted as reliable sources. Those voting to keep this template need to go and read up on this law. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    One wonders who is attempting to give legal advice. What you say is not necessarily the case. Contempt law can be used where a 'suppression' order is made, but the information is discussed in overseas (reliable) publications. It's also possible to mess with active cases using other publicly available information. There is, as I say above, a higher than normal and non-obvious risk of breaking the law, which is why I think this non-advice-giving template is occasionally useful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    The law as written is pretty clear that malicious intent is required here. I do understand that a UK version of a "gag order" (suppression order) is common in these cases, but such an order has to be directed and served on a party who is active in the case, which this law applies to. That's a far cry from an anonymous editor who is simply quoting from RS in the press. I don't see how your average Wikipedia editor could violate this law by simply writing about a case with public documents. A suppression order would have to be served on a party (an order cannot be served on the public "at large" it has to be directed to some party), and that party would then have to go onto Wikipedia and release court info into the public domain "with malicious intent". The template also gives legal advice (tells editors to consult with an attorney before editing an article). It's also clearly a legal threat which is prohibited by WP:NLT. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    I would change my vote to "keep" if the Wikimedia Foundation can configure its servers to only display the template to IP ranges within the UK. Here in the US, we have free speech and this template doesn't make sense or apply here. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    I don't particularly view advice to "exercise caution" as a threat, any more than the WMF's legal statements. I do want to pick on your assertion that a party to the case must be served with a court order. This is of course common for the mainstream media, but these orders apply nonetheless to all within the jurisdiction. A good recent example of this is the recent prosecutions for sharing alleged images of Jon Venables - lots of unknown people on Twitter were pursued, not just the actress who received a suspended prison sentence. This is such a high profile and obvious case that we don't even need the template for the article. Others are less well known. Another good example was the almost-immediate suppression order preventing New Zealanders from using the name of the (alleged) killer in the Christchurch mosque shootings. I'd agree that some geo-targeting would be a useful addition, but we don't have that. It might help to add a flag or something, but at the moment these templates make it clear which editors it applies to. For this reason I don't really support any kind of unconsidered merge either, though there's probably something that can be done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons I notes in the previous discussion on {{Sub judice}} (although I note that arguments like mine did not carry the day in that discussion, and are unlikely to do so here.) TJRC (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:FC Torpedo Minsk squadEdit

Club withdrew from the league. All players released, template is redundant BlameRuiner (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - no need for current squad template. GiantSnowman 09:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:AmarnibasEdit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary template by an editor with 2 edits. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Template:Uw-uallEdit

Probably a redundant template. 2600:1702:38D0:E70:C589:FDCB:CA80:C761 (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete A more specific template should be used. --Trialpears (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only more specific template I'm aware of is Template:Uw-coi-username, and that template would only be appropriate for a subset of cases when this template would be applicable. I'm also don't see to which template this template is redundant. It would be helpful if the nominator could specify. --Bsherr (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    That's because accounts in the "Offensive and disruptive usernames"({{uw-vaublock}}) and "Misleading usernames"({{uw-ublock-double}}, {{uw-adminublock}}, {{uw-ublock-famous}}, {{uw-botublock}} and {{uw-causeblock}}) would be banned. For the "Promotional usernames" part {{Uw-coi-username}} should be used as you said. Lastly for "Usernames implying shared use" I didn't find one for cases such as "Jack and Jill's Account", but most of them would fall under {{Uw-coi-username}}. --Trialpears (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    What about Wikipedia:Username policy#Talk to the user, which states, If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in bad faith, politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username. Doesn't that apply to more than just promotional usernames? And what about cases in which several categories of impermissible usernames apply? Doesn't this template work best for those situations? --Bsherr (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Most of these cases seem to be dealt with by cutomizing the reason in the normal {{Uw-username}} template which I think is better due to more customisation, but I would like to know what people who actually deal with this kind of stuff so I posted a notification at WT:UPOL. --Trialpears (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - probably redundant to what? — xaosflux Talk 22:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion – What we could do is "merge" this template into {{Uw-username}}, so that the latter includes the parameters "offensive", "disruptive", "misleading", "promotional" and "shared use", so for example:
(Collapsed to avoid clutter)
  • {{subst:uw-username|promotional=yes}} would automatically give [...] This is a message to let you know that your username, "Example-bad-username", may not comply with Wikipedia's username policy. Please note that promotional usernames—those that match the name of a company, organization, group, website or product (e.g. "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", "Foobar Museum of Art")—are prohibited. However, you are allowed to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally (e.g. "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "FoobarFan87"). [...]
  • {{subst:uw-username|promotional=yes|offensive=yes}} or {{subst:uw-username|promotional=yes|disruptive=yes}} would give: This is a message to let you know that your username, "Example-bad-username", may not comply with Wikipedia's username policy. Please note that the following types of usernames are prohibited:
  • Promotional usernames: Those that match the name of a company, organization, group, website or product (e.g. "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", "Foobar Museum of Art"). However, you are allowed to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally (e.g. "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "FoobarFan87").
  • Offensive and disruptive usernames: Those that contain words or phrases that are likely to offend other contributors, directly threaten or attack another person or some entity, contain contentious material about living persons, or otherwise imply you do not intend to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia (e.g. "JohnIsAJerk", "WannabeWikipediaVandal"). [...]
We can also include these parameters in Twinkle options (see images in collapsed box below).
(Collapsed to avoid clutter)
What it looks like now
Proposed change
Linguist111my talk page 04:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Linguist111 (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this TfD.
I think a meta-template like that is a good idea. I don't think it makes a template that provides an overview of the policy redundant. This template is most often used on less than clear and convincing violations. In such a circumstance, it may be better to approach a user with a template that provides an overview of the policy rather than identifying a specific part, which comes closer to seeming like an accusation. Not always, but I think it is useful to have the choice. --Bsherr (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
What about this?
Alternative proposal
The "include policy overview" option could generate the text that {{Uw-uall}} currently has, and the parameter could be something like {{subst:uw-username|all=yes}} and/or {{subst:uw-username|overview=yes}}. Linguist111my talk page 16:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposed parameters. Linguist111my talk page 17:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Support the idea of retaining both functions, of course, but keeping them as separate templates would be better. The text introducing the branches of the policy will need to be different: For the meta-template, explaining that the portion of the policy that is of concern is the following. For the general template, setting forth the branches of the policy, without implying that the username implicates all four. Assuming that, now we have a switch that selects between very large blocks of text. With separate templates, the templates' separate pages will preview each iteration fully, the simpler design of separate templates makes them easier to edit for everyone, and the documentation will be simpler. --Bsherr (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:2019 Netherlands Women's Quadrangular SeriesEdit

The table is now in the article. HawkAussie (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting based on its current usage (five articles)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Frietjes, Trialpears, and Pppery: just wanted to ping you (even though you'll likely see this as lurkers) re: the newer transclusions. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    • comment, lst still works even with 5 transclusions (see here). for example, this is now the standard for module:sports table. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment my position has not changed, it is still easier for editors not involved with templates to find and edit the section, but maybe we should make an Lst template that is easier to use without the lst and lsth distinction, better error messages and possibly a bot that try to fix instances broken by changes to section names. --Trialpears (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Eerste Divisie seasonsEdit

Propose merging Template:Eerste Divisie seasons into Template:Eerste Divisie.
Per precedent Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 31. The seasons can be included in Template:Eerste Divisie and create a concise and well-organized template like Template:Tweede Divisie. gidonb (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the {{Tweede Divisie seasons}} 'consensus' from a few weeks ago isn't consensus for this change. The Eerste Divisie is a professional competition, the TD is not. The ED template has 60+ links from it, and there are standalone templates for comparable leagues e.g. {{Ligue 1 seasons}}. GiantSnowman 09:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Fully agree with the arguments presented by Gidonb. And the next step would be to redirect {{Eredivisie seasons}} to {{Eredivisie}}. --Sb008 (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per GiantSnowman.--Wolbo (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:BLP othersEdit

Propose merging Template:BLP others into Template:BLP.
Honestly not sure why we need this. Saying "BLP does not apply directly... but still applies" is a rather muddled message; BLP applies everywhere, and the {{BLP}} template explicitly refers to articles that are not biographies. Perhaps the wording of {{BLP}} could be revised (if necessary), but I'm not sure there's a genuine need for a separate {{BLP others}} template. PC78 (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. The two templates are almost identical in wording, and can concern the same types of articles. Mgasparin (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This was discussed in 2008 at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 21#Template:Blpo. - Station1 (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose {{blp}} generates the category Category:Biography articles of living people, which does not apply to the pages that use this template. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • That category could (should) be populated exclusively by {{WikiProject Biography}} though. Since the category is explicity for "biography articles of living people", can you see any scenario where such an article would be tagged with {{BLP}} but not {{WikiProject Biography}}? I can't. PC78 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I've found instances where BLP is used instead of BLPO (as well as the opposite) because, yes, the wording is similar. As far as I investigated, it was created due to Heath Ledger's death and people continue adding libel towards living people because technically the BLP template didn't apply anymore. If you manage to solve the technical aspects (i.e. Creating the parameter |living=yes/no, and applying it to the >1M pages that use the templates) then I'd support a merge. A better solution if the template is considered unnecessary is to delete it and perhaps merge the message to {{talk page}}: "Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately without discussion". © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 20:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
        • What "technical aspects" do you think need solving? I belive I addressed this in my previous comment. PC78 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
          • The categorization. The templates can be added to any page, they are not dependent of the WikiProject Biography template. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
            • As I already said, the category is for "biography articles of living people". If the article is a biography of a living person, the category will be added via the WikiProject Biography banner; if the article or page is something else and the BLP template is being used directly, the category isn't needed. PC78 (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
              • You cannot control where the template will be added, see Talk:William Windsor (goat), Talk:extraterrestrial life, or Talk:List of composers. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 00:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                • You don't need to "control" where the template is added. Plainly, I am suggesting that the BLP template does not add categories to any page, because it isn't needed even now. PC78 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • WP:CFD. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 04:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • Eh? No-one has suggested deleting any categories. Please go back and re-read what I've written because we don't appear to be on the same page. PC78 (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • (Aside: That example at Talk:William Windsor (goat) uses neither template and is clearly a joke. "This article must adhere to the policy on Biographies of living goats.") PC78 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
──────────────────────
  • Let's see if I can't explain this a little better. The concern appears to be that {{BLP}} add pages to Category:Biography articles of living people while {{BLP others}} doesn't. Category:Biography articles of living people is populated by any of the following:
  • By definition, any biography of a living person should be covered by the second which makes the other two unnecessary. Therefore, if we remove the categorisation from {{BLP}} it could then be used as {{BLP others}} is now. PC78 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC}
    • [1] © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I still don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. The proposal here is to merge {{BLP others}}; that page (and the two others you linked to above) don't/didn't use {{BLP others}}. PC78 (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comment. However I think you can make case for {{BLP other}} to be deleted. I think I'd support that since it looks kinda redundant. – Ammarpad (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The real underlying problem is that BLP should be renamed in such a way that makes clear that it applies to any contentious material about living people in any article. I think the reason for the template was to make sure that editors knew that just because the article wasn't a biography didn't mean they got a pass from policy, since there are many articles that aren't biographies but contain potentially negative, or negative material about LPs. Especially people who don't rate articles of their own. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Sure, but as noted above the BLP template already makes reference to articles that are not biographies. So, what are you opposing exactly? PC78 (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @PC78: The fact that, as Tbhotch has noted, using the BLP template currently autocategorizes the article as a biography whether it is one or not.

        I suppose, as he suggests below, that in the event of a merger that feature be disabled. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

        • As I'm trying to say above, we don't need the BLP template to autocategorise anything, even now. PC78 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment As a person who writes BLPs here and member of both WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Living People (hence the username), I am wondering how removing |blp=yes will affect articles that use multiple templates for various WPs? @Tbhotch: What are you proposing we should use instead for |living=yes/no? I don't see it as a problem. We as Wikipedians used to always put |living=yes for the living and |living=no for those who are not. I don't think its even possible to alternate or merge |living=yes/no into one parameter.--Biografer (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I am not talking about the current yes/no parameter used by the WikiProject Biography. I'm saying that if merged it should exist a method to make the distinction between BLP and BLPO to avoid incorrect categorization. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete {{BLP others}} I mean, George Washington mentions a living person, so does Jesus and Lao Tzu. It's just ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the template is kept, I suggest the text "...it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter" be changed to "...the policy does apply to living friends and family of the deceased subject, as well as other living persons mentioned in this article". Station1 (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both templates. Appreciate this is a break from tradition, but I don't see any value in these talk page templates. The need to inform editors of rules around biographies of living persons is already best achieved by the edit notice generated when entering the edit view of any article that contains Category:Living people. The talk page template is superfluous to that and the wrong location to display that message in terms of usability. Rather than using these templates to display duplicated info to the (usually already knowledgeable) users using the talk page, the community should decide if BLP policy should be included in the edit notice for all articles, as I struggle to think of an article that couldn't potentially have information on living people. SFB 15:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Sillyfolkboy: You know, I think you may have a point there. I do think the edit notice(s) do the job better and are underused. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose both merge and delete. None seem like good options as of today.BabbaQ (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge + Oppose deletion of T:BLP others. The two templates are not identical. One is for the subject of the BLP -- one is for non-BLP articles (an example: lists of people). Each template is specific about the purpose of its usage. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The wording of both is laregly the same, and {{BLP}} explicitly mentions non-BLP articles. PC78 (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Don't agree with you. And "laregly the same" = not identical. Whatever your opinion may be, I follow mine. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Got that you don't agree, but I was hoping you could perhaps elaborate. Why do you think we need a separate template? Why could a single template not cover both uses? PC78 (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
          • What I said is all I'm going to. I'm too tired to get into a debate about it. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The Template will stay in the holding cell until the categorization issue is solved. Nothing will have changed categories if this merger takes place. --Trialpears (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed. I believe I've already covered this above but regardless it should be an easy enough issue to solve, and it should not be an obstacle to agreeing to a merge in principle. Do those who opposed for this reason (Tbhotch, Ammarpad, Daniel Case) have any further comment about this, or any other reason to oppose a merge? PC78 (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    I favor deleting, so I think shouldn't oppose its merge. The end result is at least, superficially the same. I struck my vote. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm OK with it. But also see above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Consolidate to one template through either deletion or merger. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both templates per SFB and User:Daniel Case. This argument makes the most sense! BTW, BLPO is very poorly named. If our concern here is to caution editors about appropriate sourcing for edits concerning living people, why does it matter whether there's a biography involved or not? yoyo (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Yahya Abdal-Aziz: The policy was adopted in the wake of the Seigenthaler incident, which involved a biography of a then-living person and framed the thinking that went into it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Consolidate to one template; I can see no downsides — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Consolidate, oppose deletion of both templates. The template serves to remind people requesting edits of the policy (since the edit warning does not display on the talkpage, if I recall correctly), as well as potentially assisting talkpage discussion. {{BLPO}}, however, seems redundant; it should be merged. As for the concern about {{BLP}} adding the "biography articles of living people" category, that should only be added by {{WikiProject Biography}} with the "living=yes" parameter. If it does add it, a template editor should edit out that so it doesn't cause any issues. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 13:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both templates per SFB, User:Daniel Case, and yoyo's comments above. Edit notices and problem templates are more effective. = paul2520 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment If the templates are deleted how would disclaimers on non-BLP articles be handled? How about adding a {{BLP editnotice}} template? Should all {{BLPO}} uses be converted to such a template? --Trialpears (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Trialpears: I think moving these to an edit notice would be an improvement, but I'm still unsure of the circumstances where that notice is required on non-BLP articles when all other non-BLP are open to the same risk. I think that conversation warrants wider discussion as we may need a community system to request and manage edit notices for problem articles, or it may be desirable to show a BLP warning as a standard edit notice. SFB 21:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to edit notice and delete both templates. I suggest that all current uses of {{BLPO}} are replaced with a new {{BLP editnotice}} template. I'm open to having it as a standard edit notice for all pages, but am afraid it would decrease the efficacy of edit notices in general. If there isn't consensus for a move to edit notices I would prefer the merger as proposed over the status quo. --Trialpears (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI: We already have {{BLP editintro}}; you might want to take a look at that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case, That is the editnotice itself, but it won't apply an editnotice to an article. To add an actual editnotice to specific articles a category would have to be added so it can be displayed through MediaWiki:Common.js. --Trialpears (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Trialpears: I have added that one manually to quite a few articles. Are you saying that you want to set things up so that adding Category:Living people automatically adds the edit notice? Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Daniel Case it's already added to every page in Category:Living people. My suggestion is a template adding pages to another category such as Category:Non-BLP pages using BLP disclaimer. All pages in this category would also have {{BLP editintro}} applied by MediaWiki:Common.js. You can add it to individual pages editnotices, but that wouldn't be a scalable solution since editnotices are template protected and we currently have 3000 {{BLPO}} disclalimers that I would like converted to an edit notice. --Trialpears (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above discussion. Ergo Sum 04:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Per which part of the above discussion? :) PC78 (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose consolidation or deletion. The two templates serve subtly different purposes, with different statements, and it's not unusual for editors to misunderstand that an article that is not a BLP may still may have BLP issues. For example, an article a murder is by definition not a BLP, but BLP issues are applicable in in how it describes current or past suspects; investigators; or family members.
The categorization to Category:Biography articles of living people, already pointed out, is also a material difference, and we shouldn't rely on an article being within the scope of {{WikiProject Biography}} to do that lifting. There may be articles that are not strictly BLPs that may be of interest to that WikiProject; and there may be BLPs that for whatever reason are not of interest to that wikiproject. (You can argue that maybe they should be, but unless a WikiProject Biography member feels it is, it doesn't get tagged.)
I agree there's a problem with the current wording of {{BLP others}}; but the appropriate way to address that is to update that text, not to merge it. If it's merged, editors editing non-BLP articles with BLP issues will face the Hobson's choice of either taking the {{BLP}} template and misleadingly labeling the article as a BLP, with a misleading warning to that effect; or leaving it off completely without the appropriate warning that BLP considerations still apply. TJRC (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until full consideration is given to the consequences of this (especially given how widely this template is used - I came here from a notice at the top of {{BLP}}). The arguments about using the {{WikiProject Biography}} template miss an important point: not everyone knows about that template or the WikiProject. There needs to be a degree of separation between 'BLP' and the tools used to aid that important policy, and the WikiProject Biography set-up. Also, you may be surprised to know just how many people and BLP articles lack 'WikiProject Biography' templates. You still get BLP articles that lack the category 'Living people'. You cannot rely on BLP articles being tagged, and having several ways to do this tagging is actually a feature, not a bug, as it makes it more likely that BLPs eventually get tagged. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:ARPEdit

Template used to link to dead website Aireport in see also sections. Linking to an archive would be useless since the information would be outdated. There has been a previous nomination before the website closed down at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_7#Template:ARP with outcome procedural keep. --Trialpears (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Orphan and delete. The site does seem to be defunct, and I concur there is not much value in linking to an archive since the external link would properly imply current information. --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:AWBBotEdit

Unused template for deprecated process. --Trialpears (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with the nominator's findings. --Bsherr (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 17Edit

Template:UKChartHitsEdit

No longer used or needed. GreenC 23:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Dead link-nowEdit

Useless. {{subst:dead link}} achieves the same thing as {{subst:dead link-now}}, and is shorter. SD0001 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Redirect since it would retain all its current function and makes sense as a redirect. --Trialpears (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:National Assembly (South Korea)Edit

Has existed since 2013 but primarily consists of red links. Some of the articles that do exist look a little undercooked as well. PC78 (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't disagree with the nominator's findings, but I think it nonetheless fits in the exception to WP:EXISTING and otherwise meets the criteria for a navbox. --Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Which "exception" are we talking about? After six years is it "very likely" that these links will be developed into articles? PC78 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:RCBrodieEdit

This is a navigational template for the Brodie family from the soap opera River City. The template is only used in the family article and the seven character links redirect to sections of the family article, so the template navigates nowhere and is unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 16Edit

Template:WikiProject Arabic namesEdit

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Arabic names with Template:WikiProject Anthroponymy.
WikiProject banner for a task force. Should be merged with main project banner to avoid unnecessary duplication. No changes in categorization, but easier maintenance in the future, less clutter and better interactions with auto assessment tools. --Trialpears (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. The Arabic names banner is pretty basic so this would be a simple task. PC78 (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject PterosaursEdit

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs with Template:WikiProject Palaeontology.
WikiProject banner for a task force. Should be merged with main project banner to avoid unnecessary duplication. No changes in categorization, but easier maintenance in the future, less clutter and better interactions with auto assessment tools. --Trialpears (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Looks like the main banner already supports the task force anyway. PC78 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not sure what is meant by easier management. We already have two Tree of Life WPs that are too large for some maintenance tasks to run. If {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} were removed, then each affected article would have to be tagged with both {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} and {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}, increasing the amount of clutter. Right now, only {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} is required. If we really wanted to streamline things, removing the legacy TF parameters from {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} and updating affected pages would be the better option. --Nessie (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @NessieVL: I'm afraid I don't understand the nature of your complaint, nor where {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}} comes into it. All {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} does is feed Category:Pterosaurs task force articles (and subcategories therof), a task which {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} can do just as well on its own. Many pages appear to have all three banners (Talk:Eudimorphodon, Talk:Nyctosaurus, etc.), not one as you suggest. PC78 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @PC78: Just because some banners are misapplied, does not mean everything must be wiped away. All pterosaur articles are both reptiles and paleotaxa. These articles should either use only {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} (preferred), or both {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} and {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}. The latter is more clutter and more duplication, the former is cleaner and easier to parse for maintenance tasks.
      • Also, a taskforce or subproject is allowed to be listed as a taskforce or hook of a parent project. WPBats and WPPrimates are both listed as hooks in {{WikiProject Mammals}}, despite having separate banners. WPMCB was a TF under the {{WikiProject Fungi}} banner until recently, despite not actually being a TF nor subproject. The hooks make it easier for casual editors to put articles in the relevant wikiprojects by giving them multiple options. The AFC approval tools do not suggest them, which is why having both options is preferred for smaller projects.
      • And let's not forget that this project is not defunct or anything, so not sure why we need to start consolidating everything now. --Nessie (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I still don't entirely follow. If a page only uses {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} then it will only feed into categories for that task force. If categorisation for the two parent projects is necessary then you will need to use those banners as well. You assert that only the Pterosaur banner is necessary on those pages; if that's true, then merging it into {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} will be of no detriment to WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. PC78 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
          • OK, let's use another example. Say we are placing WP banners on the talk page for Elasmosaurus. It would get {{WikiProject Palaeontology}}, {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}, and {{WikiProject Marine life}}. Conversely, Giant squid only needs {{WikiProject Cephalopods}}. It does not need {{WikiProject Marine life}}, as that would be redundant. All cephalopods are marine. Likewise, you don't need to tag Bonobo under both {{WikiProject Primates}} and {{WikiProject Mammals}} (nor even {{WikiProject Mammals|primates=yes}}). You only use the first one, {{WikiProject Primates}}. We don't need turtles all the way down. --Nessie (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
            • That logic runs counter to every other WikiProject I've encountered, and I don't see any evidence for it at either WikiProject Marine life or WikiProject Cephalopods (and just to note, Giant squid does in fact have both banners which seems to undermine your argument). To use an example that I'm more familiar with, WP:FILMBIO is a subproject of WP:BIOGRAPHY and instead of having a separate template it has a parameter in {{WikiProject Biography}}; any article about an actor or filmmaker is therefore categorised for both projects because it is relevant to both, the two do not somehow become mutually exclusive of each other. By the same token, Giant squid is relevant to both WP Cephalopods and WP Marine life but it currently requires two templates to achieve the same result, which if anything makes it look like another merge candidate. PC78 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Welcome to the Tree of Life WikiProjects then. Under your logic, Firefly should be not just in {{WikiProject Beetles}}, but also {{WikiProject Insects}}, {{WikiProject Arthropods}}, {{WikiProject Animals}}, {{WikiProject Tree of Life}}, and {{WikiProject Biology}}. --Nessie (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
              • Then lets wind this back to start: if the Pterosaur banner is removed from Talk:Pterodactylus and replaced with a parameter in the other banner, it will have no impact. If the Marine biology is not needed now, it will not be needed after a merge. The existence of a standalone banner for Pteroaurs is neither here nor there. PC78 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
                • Yes, back at the start I said "If {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} were removed, then each affected article would have to be tagged with both {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} and {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}...." Pterosaurs are not marine, they are reptiles. Not all paleontological articles relate to herpetology. I think you are not understanding the consensus of how these are used in taxa articles. --Nessie (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • No, I've just got my wires crossed; clearly I meant Amphibians and Reptiles and not Marine biology. I think it's you who doesn't fully understand how WikiProject banners work. We aren't proposing to get rid of the Pterosaur task force, merely the banner, and if the task force falls under WP Amphibians and Reptiles by default then that won't magically change if we merge the banner into WP Palaeontology. Are there any Pterosaur articles that wouldn't fall under Palaeontology? If not then I can't see any need or justification for keeping it. Whatever impact you think this has on WP Amphibians and Reptiles seems entirley imagined on your part. I think I'm going to let this rest because it doesn't feel like either of us are getting anywhere. PC78 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - it would seem the pterosaur task force is already incorporated in the paleo template for the relevant articles? See for example the talk page of Pteranodon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It would still need a bit of work to incorporate the separate importance ratings and requested image categorisation, but that's an easy enough task. PC78 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @PC78 and FunkMonk: are you volunteering to do all that? --Nessie (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
        • The changes I refered to are fairly trivial, I'd be happy to do them. PC78 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure a bot could do it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm willing to do it and have made some regex that had 0 false positives when converting the 500 uses WikiProject Patna. --Trialpears (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The main benefit this merger would entail would be making sure that all Pterosaurs are tagged with {{WP Palaeontology}} and whether this is desirable is entirely up to the wikiproject, which it has been for all task forces I've seen. If this isn't desirable then I will of course change my mind. For the bats tf example there were some major differences with major arguments being percieved technical problems and unnecessary work, neither of these are problems here. Ultimately though the choice is up to the WikiProject and if NessieVL is still opposed to the change I think it shouldn't be in any way forced by outsiders that have never contributed to any pterosaurus articles. --Trialpears (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Oregon governmentEdit

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Oregon government with Template:WikiProject Oregon.
Should be merged as a parameter to the main template to avoid unnecessary duplication. No changes in functionality, but easier maintenance in the future, less clutter and better interactions with auto assessment tools. --Trialpears (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Looks like the main banner already supports the task force anyway. PC78 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Bury F.C. squadEdit

Redundant template. No reason to keep this now that the club does not have any players. Can be recreated when Bury know what league they'll join JMHamo (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - no players, so no need for a 'current' squad template. GiantSnowman 19:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - and chances are that if Bury resume play next season it will probably wind up being at quite a low level and chances are they will have very few bluelinked players and may not justify the template being re-created (but that is mainly speculation on my part) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Quran ayaEdit

Unused non-English template — JJMC89(T·C) 06:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, unused & unusable. Cabayi (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, useless. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Quran SurahEdit

Unused non-English template — JJMC89(T·C) 06:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete unused & unusable collection of arabic redlinks. Cabayi (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete No links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:BugEdit

Deprecated template linking to bugzilla, now migrated to phabricator. All transclusions should be replaced with {{phab}}. --Trialpears (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wbm1058 Fixing them is actually super easyl since the corresponding phabricator ID is always the bugzilla ID + 2000 (‹See Tfd›bug 45221http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45221 vs T47221). This can be changed in the template and then automatically substituted by AnomieBOT. The merger would be done in under an hour. There is always a risk that the bugzilla redirects will stop working and this would easily avoid dead links if that ever were to happen. --Trialpears (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There are currently 857 transclusions of {{bug}} and 134 transclusions of {{Bugzilla}}. If fixing this requires editing all of them, that would be some high-speed editing to knock them all off in under an hour. However, I find the ‹The template Bug is being considered for deletion.›  message sufficiently annoying that I've updated my user page to use {{phab}}. If this can be done as smoothly as claimed, don't let me stand in the way. I suppose the first step in transitioning, to mitigate the risk that the bugzilla redirects will stop working, is to modify the template to add 2000 and then call {{phab}} (essentially change where the redirects are happening to a place we can control). Template:Bug/sandbox was created in November 2014 by an editor who retired four years ago, and Template:Bugzilla/sandbox has yet to be created. I don't see {{Bug/sandbox}} using the "add 2000 trick". Also noting Template talk:Bug, apparently Phabricator does not support the comment links. Also, {{bug}} supports |comment= and |label= parameters, and support for |label= at least should be added to {{phab}}. See Template talk:Phab for that request. The proposed transitioning templates should be in these sandboxes, for review here. wbm1058 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    I will make sure all that is done before they're replaced. Doing work while the template is in the holding cell is quite standard, but I should be able to update {{phab}} later tonight to accomodate for the merger. --Trialpears (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ali JonesEdit

I recently moved this template to Template:St. Lunatics because I felt the individual did not have enough notable releases to justify having a navigational template while I felt the group did. I was going to start a WP:RM for this after I was reverted, but I am not sure the group has enough notable releases to justify having a navigational template and the best course of action would be to delete the template. Ali Jones has two releases: an album and a song that redirects back to the album, so he has one notable release. Even with the groups he was a part of, Ali & Gipp and St. Lunatics, there are not enough links to having the navigational template. Group releases should and are not included in other navigational template because they are not the individual's releases. Aspects (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - This navigation box contains many useful links. If the navbox can not be kept, it should be repurposed to "Template:Ali & Gipp" or "Template:St. Lunatics". --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, not enough solo releases, collaborative releases are better suited for other templates. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • keep, appears to be in-use on nine articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Dinah JaneEdit

Template which was deleted in April per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 14#Template:Dinah Jane, and then recreated in August without any real evidence that its actual utility had changed -- there's only one new link here that wasn't already in the April version, and it's just a redirect to her BLP rather than a new standalone article. The difference between an artist who qualifies for a navbox and one who does not isn't a question of the number of singles they happen to have released -- it's a question of how many of those singles have their own standalone articles to link to, and if she hadn't cleared the bar to warrant a navbox yet as of April, then one new redirect back to her BLP is not the magic ticket now. The weirdest part, the thing I have the hardest time wrapping my head around, is that the editor who recreated this new version is the same editor who initiated the deletion of the April version. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Doesn't WP:G4 apply? If concensus last time was to delete then padding it out with redirects doesn't really help. PC78 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    PC78 No the original discussion was about the template with two singles, now there are three and an EP. --Trialpears (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    Nom indicates just one additional link, which sounds "sufficiently identical" to me. PC78 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
G4 covers pages that are "sufficiently identical", but excludes pages that are "not substantially identical". I think these are not substantially identical because they are different in substance. Thincat (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think it's better to err on the side of having the discussion instead of speedily deleting. That said, the arguments that prevailed in the prior TfD, are, I think, still persuasive as if made to this template. --Bsherr (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:ItalyDecadeEdit

Redundant to the generic Template:Decade in country category.

I have replaced all uses of this template with {{Decade in country category|Italy|Europe}}, so the template is now unused. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. A appropriate consolidation. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 15Edit

RJLUK templatesEdit

These templates were created 6.5 years ago, and they're not in use outside of a few sandboxes in the user space of an editor who has been indefinitely blocked for almost 5 years. Included in this nomination are a few copies of templates in that user's space that at best should have been history merged into the live templates long ago. Imzadi 1979  23:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. --Rschen7754 18:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:UnprotectedEdit

Very few uses, redundant to {{RFPP|u}}. --Trialpears (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Union Pacific Railroad s-line templatesEdit

{{s-line}} templates for the Union Pacific Railroad. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Union Pacific Railroad. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

SbX s-line templatesEdit

Unused {{s-line}} templates for the sbX bus rapid transit service. Reimplemented in Module:Adjacent stations/Omnitrans. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

MetroLink (St. Louis) s-line templatesEdit

{{s-line}} templates for MetroLink (St. Louis). Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/MetroLink (St. Louis). All transclusions replaced. There are four dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Santa Fe, Prescott and Phoenix Railway s-line templatesEdit

{{s-line}} templates for the Santa Fe, Prescott and Phoenix Railway, a predecessor of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. Folded in to Module:Adjacent stations/Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. All transclusions replaced. There are two dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

SESHR s-line templatesEdit

Unused {{s-line}} templates for the proposed Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. No transclusions; if this capability were ever needed it would be implemented with an Adjacent stations module. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Penn Central s-line templatesEdit

Unused {{s-line}} templates for the Penn Central Transportation Company. No transclusions. There are four dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Buffalo Metro Rail s-line templatesEdit

{{s-line}} templates for the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, which operates the Buffalo Metro Rail. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/NFTA. All transclusions replaced. There are two dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

New York Central Railroad predecessor s-line templatesEdit

s-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway and Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway, predecessors of the New York Central Railroad. Folded in to Module:Adjacent stations/New York Central Railroad. All transclusions replaced. There are eight dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Milwaukee Road s-line templatesEdit

s-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad (the "Milwaukee Road"). Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Milwaukee Road. All transclusions replaced. There are 10 dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Zentralbahn s-line templatesEdit

{{s-line}} templates for the Zentralbahn. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Zentralbahn. All transclusions replaced. There are two dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Berner Oberland Bahn s-line templatesEdit

{{s-line}} templates for the Bernese Oberland Railway. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Berner Oberland-Bahnen, which was broadened in scope to include the Schynige Platte Railway. All transclusions replaced. There are two dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:LseBEdit

Unused. Template:London Stock Exchange works for mobile users. There is no way to have a separate link for mobile users anyway. Svgalbertian (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Public holidays in the United StatesEdit

Too long for a navbox. I suggest we either delete it or turn it into a list. --Bageense(disc.) 23:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

--CONVERT AND THEN DELETE. Much too long for a template, but the information could go into a list article. CONVERT TO LIST. THEN DELETE TEMPLATE.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Dthomsen8, I will convert to a list when the discussion ends. So I ask someone to let me know when I can start working. --Bageense(disc.) 20:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking on that task. Admin will tell you when that happens.--13:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • move to article-space and reformat as a list article, this will preserve any edit history. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, is this serious? The template is fine in length, the sole complaint, that it is "too long", does not take WP:NAVBOX guideline language and the templates already accomplished coherent, orderly, and understandable arrangement into consideration. In other words, the navbox covers its topic well and coherently, as required by the guideline. And because the only nomination argument presented is that the navbox is "much too long for a template", this nomination should be immediately closed as Keep. Please also remember that templates, lists, and categories are totally separate subjects according to the guideline language. In fact, "turn it into a list" isn't a contributing reason to delete any template, per the well reasoned guideline language although I've seen it, as here, incorrectly used many times in these arguments. Sorry about the excess circus-like boldfacing but this discussion is at the closing point and could be closed any minute. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The top of the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates page reads:
"This page in a nutshell: Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others.
I'd hope that regulars here would drop the 'turn into a list' argument forevermore after reading and understanding the governing Wikipedia guideline page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep While the template is really large there's no problem with the topic. There should definetly be a main article here, but that should be solvable. --Trialpears (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, even if it were longer if wouldn't be a problem. There are even bigger navboxes out there and they are all valuable. brad. (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 14Edit

Template:Rochester Rhinos squadEdit

the team is on hiatus so there is no current squad Joeykai (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, no 'current' squad. Can be restored and updated if/when there is in the future. GiantSnowman 13:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:COTWCurrentPicksEdit

All of the collaborations listed in this template are explicitly marked as "inactive"; the only one that isn't is Birds and even that doesn't look like it's had any activity in the last two years. Only three transclusions of this template. Redundant to Template:COTWs which appears to be more up to date. PC78 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Venezuela Squad 1990 FIBA World ChampionshipEdit

list of templates

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 7 came to the conclusion that the deletion of this template and several related ones linked therein needs to be discussed at TFD rather than simply treated as ancillary to the deletion of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 8#Template:Angola Squad 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup. This is a procedural nomination; I am myself neutral on the point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete having a navbox on every squad who ever played in a significant competition is excessive and will result in large numbers of navboxes appearing on athlete articles. Nor does playing a few games together do much to tie the players together. It could be justified if the teams achieved something significant but that clearly isn't the case, the Venezuelan team came 11th and didn't make it out of the group stage. Plenty of prior discussions have come to similar conclusions, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Hut 8.5 15:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as navbox creep per precedent. we don't need these for non-medal winning squads. Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep almost all we keep (or should keep) squad infoboxes for significant international tournaments regardless of placing, which for basketball include both (and only) the FIBA World Cup and the Summer Olympics. (See cricket, football, baseball, rugby, et cetera mentioned here.) They're helpful and easily collapsible at the bottom of the page, see Stipe Pletikosa for an example. The Angola qualifier template can be deleted, though. SportingFlyer T·C 00:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - If we are going to be honest here, if this does get deleted, then why not go and delete the FIFA World Cup templates that didn't get in the top three. So on that front, I will be voting for Keep all except for the Angola qualifier template which can be deleted. HawkAussie (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

September 13Edit

CB&Q s-line templatesEdit

s-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad. All transclusions replaced. There are 44 dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:2016–17 Gibraltar Premier Division tableEdit

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:2009 NHL Entry Draft (QMJHL draftees)Edit

Substitute into 2009–10 QMJHL season and delete. The template is just a table with static content with only a single transclusion. There's no reason for this content to be in Template space. BLAIXX 13:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Old discussionsEdit

September 12

Template:Porn Star

Barnstar/template has already been replaced with Template:The Pornography Barnstar per WP:Barnstars 2.0/Guidlines. JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

September 11

Template:Islamophobia by country

Duplicate to Template:Islamophobia's "Status by country" section. That template is used in each article. If, for some reason, both a side and bottom bars are needed, it is possible to embed "Islamophobia in" in Template:Europe in topic as it has been in Islamophobia in Sweden. Pudeo (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge with {{Islamophobia}}. While navboxes and sidebar aren't necesarily redundant the sidebar is simply better in this case. I don't like the {{Europe in topic}} solution since it generates too many red links. --Trialpears (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 9

Template:Old AfD

Propose merging Template:Old AfD with Template:Old XfD multi.
Kept separate from the now main template {{Old XfD multi}} due to some ancient history. Wrapper should be made substitutable and then migrated to the main template. --Trialpears (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: There are also {{Old FfD}}, {{Old MfD}} and {{Old TfD}} templates, and these might as well be considered for merging as well. It makes little sense (at least at first glance) to merge the AfD template and leave the others as separate templates. Surely, there should be a way to combine the templates for all XfD discussions, shouldn't there? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    Marchjuly While it makes sense at first, I think it would be better to update those templates to accept multiple nominations instead of merging them into Old XfD. This is because using Old XfD for non-AfD venues requires the full page name, which requires significantly more typing. {{Old AfD}} is different since it's already a wrapper and would work without modifying the arguments simply adding more functionality and changing the unnamed parameters and changing parameter names. --Trialpears (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agreed that perhaps these templates can be centralized around a single base and wrappers made, but I agree with Trialpears that there is time savings and simplicity in having the wrappers. --Bsherr (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    Bsherr Just to clearify, my opinion is that {{Old FfD}}, {{Old MfD}}, and {{Old TfD}} should kept separate while {{old AfD}} should be merged. The time savings don't apply since AfD already is the default in {{Old XfD multi}} and is outweighed by the inconvenience of changing to {{old XfD multi}} if there are subsequent nominations. {{Old AfD}} also don't support the date parameter. --Trialpears (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    I see there have been some changes in the templates. {{Old AfD}} used to be a convenience because the documentation made clear that parameter names were not needed for its use. I now see that feature has gone out of style in the other templates. Given that, I think merge is okay. --Bsherr (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. We should merge them and have a single Old XfD template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:The LGBT studies Barnstar

Unused template and the topic can fall under Template:The LGBT Barnstar. JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • It's not techinically true this is an [u]nused template. It's been used at least once. This template came about through this and this discussion. It might be worth inviting those few users to the current discussion. I should just write an essay called Barnstars are cheap because that's how I feel about them.MJLTalk 18:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
That one user hasn't edited Wiki since July 31, 2018, and as far as I can tell by the first discussion at WP:WPWPA, Maranjosie did not receive consensus to add to the Awards project. Instead, the editor made his/her own consensus and then went to another project to do the same. I did that once, but that didn't mean I was allowed to insert to the Awards project. The Awards project has a goal to remaster barnstars 1.0 to barnstar 2.0, and we even have a guidline how to do so. I'm basically reiterating "Adding a barnstar to the list". JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect Eh, noone will miss it so I see no harm in deleting it, but in general I agree that barnstars are quite cheap andt think it's kind of a waste even discussing them. I've boldly redirected a few duplicate userboxes with very low usage and noone has complained. I would go the same route with further duplicate barnstars, especially since barnstars are substituted and redirecting shouldn't change any exsisting transclusions. --Trialpears (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

September 4

Template:Brexit sidebar

Propose merging Template:Brexit sidebar with Template:United Kingdom in the European Union.
largely duplicative templates. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge The Brexit-only template is redundant, and should be merged into the one on British membership of the EU. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Do not merge. Both templates are about different things in their substance. One is about the UK in the EU, the other about the UK trying to leave. -Mardus /talk 16:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, they both concern the UK’s EU membership - be it accession, membership period or potential secession. -Ssolbergj (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - Brexit is a specific topic and the merged one would be WP:TOOLONG. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - per FOARP argument. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. Note that {{United Kingdom in the European Union}} is already a very large template; if I show all the hidden sections, it's four times the height of {{Brexit sidebar}} on my computer screen. I count 106 links in the UK in EU template's Brexit section, versus 36 in the Brexit template, and there's probably a good deal of overlap between the two. Among the 70+ links not in Template:Brexit, why aren't they? Proposed referendum on the Brexit withdrawal agreement is surely in scope, for example, but it's only on UK in EU. If length of template is an issue, despite the collapsed sections, the solution is to move all but the most important Brexit links from UK in EU to Brexit. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. Basically the same topic. The length of the merged template shouldn't be an issue when using hidden sections. -- P 1 9 9   18:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. All of the links on Template:Brexit sidebar were already on Template:United Kingdom in the European Union bar Proposed second Scottish independence referendum which I've now added. Template:Brexit sidebar is now redundant; worth 'merging'/removing to avoid confusion. Legendiii (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • To follow, I've realised I've missed Postcards from the 48% but I'm sure we can find a space for that if it is notable enough to include. Otherwise, as above. Legendiii (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @FOARP: & @John Maynard Friedman: This should hopefully allay any WP:TOOLONG-related fears? Legendiii (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I can see a strong case for merging in almost every case where either is used. The big exception is the Irish Border: if this merger happens that that article will have to have "UK in EU" sidebar and an "Ireland in EU" sidebar (which opens the can of worms per MOS:Ireland-related articles - I've had my fingers burnt in the past by failing to recognise sensitivities so I tread very cautiously if at all).
      • So Plan B: I wonder is it possible to have a Brexit-only sidebar that is capable of standing alone where needed but is embedded in the UK in EU sidebar for all other contexts? it would be exactly the current content and appearance of the Brexit section of the current UK-in-EU. Is that possible? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @John Maynard Friedman: I understand your concerns - I think this (Brexit and the Irish Border) has only become an issue because of the UK-EU relations and not because of Ireland-EU relations, therefore there is no need for an Ireland in the EU sidebar in this article. Instead, if you still wanted to ensure there was an Ireland-related sidebar alongside the UK-EU one, you could use the Template:Politics of the Republic of Ireland sidebar with the 'foreign relations' section expanded/shown? This would be a solution that wouldn't require splitting out the template and adhere to MOS:Ireland-related articles. Legendiii (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. Agree that the two templates are mostly duplicative. --RaviC (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree. Besides, Template:2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum is just titled 'Brexit' and contains the same stuff in a third template, on the same pages. - Ssolbergj (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree, although I believe we can keep both the navbox and a sidebar without merging per WP:NAV: only the two sidebars ought to be merged. Legendiii (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge – One sidebar is enough, as many articles are present in both. — JFG talk 17:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't merge I agree that the current situation is not tenable, but surely see the need for a Brexit-only sidebar. A lot of Brexit-related stuff are actually UK-internal stuff, and is not directly related to EU. Perhaps we should remove all the Brexit-related content from the UK-in-EU-template bar the most important ones? Or embed the Brexit-sidebar within a collapsible as suggested by John Maynard Friedman. As it is now, Brexit it taking all the focus in the UK-in-EU-template, also when used on EU-articles not having any relation to Brexit at all. Merging would be my third choice. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2

Unloved and unwatched

The epilepsy article gets over 2000 hits a day and is on 515 people's watchlists. Granted not all of those 515 users are still active, or even alive, but that's a lot of eyes. It has had 5,029 total edits by 1,952 editors. In contrast File:Epilepsy video.webm on Commons has had one editor: Osmosis, a private company offering medical training videos, not Wikipedians or Commoners. It was uploaded by User:OsmoseIt, from Osmosis, who has since departed the project. The file description page has had a few bot/mass-admin edits which won't have added it to anyone's watchlist. Thus this article-as-a-video has one author, one edit and very likely one watchlister, who is a user who left the project over 18 months ago.

James wants to add hidden links to these unloved and unwatched videos, so that his Internet in a Box and WP:MED/App can include them. They do not represent Wikipedia nor are edited, watched and maintained by Wikipedians. Even if you did watchlist the video, and popped over to Commons to check your watchlist from time to time, you'd have to view e.g. all 8 minutes of the epilepsy video to check if anyone had added a naughty word or a picture of some boobs. There's no way to "diff" the change, so anyone could muck about with the content in a way that would be very hard for you to spot. Perhaps change a 5mg to 500mg or hypertension to hypotension.

So James is proposing to offer 300+ commercially-produced short medical-student training videos to medical students in the developing world. This project is not watching and monitoring their content, yet we are being asked to put up with invisible article template links and unviewed thumbnails to achieve this. Isn't that a bit scary? -- Colin°Talk 14:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this statement from User:Colin is inaccurate in a variety of ways. First I should stipulate that I was a pretty severe critic of the linking to Osmosis videos from WP, for reasons that have been incompletely addressed (I still think WP should be easily editable). To that last point, User:Doc_James said above that "Video is now easily editable via WP:Videowiki" - which is true for many of the videos linked from that page (and Epilepsy is not among them - so Colin's chosen example isn't representative generally, though it might highlight issues with Osmosis video editing). As noted above, I edited the Dengue fever video a little while ago, and the edited version was rendered in seconds, uploaded to Commons in minutes (each with a single click on the script page, after editing), and is now live on the Dengue fever page. — soupvector (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Soupvector, perhaps you missed this comment from Doc James. When WhatAmIDoing challenged the claim the Osmosis videos were editable: "Although it's technically possible to make some kinds of edits, as a first approximation, saying that videos aren't truly editable is not very far from practical reality", James replied "actually it is fairly easy to edit these now with Videowiki. You simple convert them into a video script. Cut up the video into bits. Replace the human voice with machine read. And update away... ". He repeated this claim above. Soupvector, James did not use the template we are discussing to add hidden links to VideoWiki videos. He used it to add hidden links to the Osmosis videos, which the Wikipedia community rejected. His edit, with misleading edit summary "offline only", showed up in my watchlist on Epilepsy. So the Epilepsy video is pertinent and I'm afraid the Dengue fever video is not. Please let me know when you have made the simple edits I requested above. It is only a few sentences, though of course the video bit of "video is easily editable" is likely to be much more of a challenge for you. -- Colin°Talk 16:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Colin I did not mean to imply that I was interested in being your editing monkey. — soupvector (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
No, but you made a claim, and it seems reasonable to ask if your claim can actually be done. You don't want to edit the Osmosis videos and neither has anyone else shown the slightest inclination. Never enhanced, never fixed, never polished. They are the dead product of a misguided commercial collaboration. They have no place on this project, hidden from online readers or not. -- Colin°Talk 19:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I edited one of the videos that originated in VideoWiki. I have not defended the (distinct) Osmosis videos. I think you may be a bit off-topic in focusing on the latter in this TFD discussion, since Osmosis videos aren't the only possible use for this template. — soupvector (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
It certainly isn't off-topic since the only use for this template was to restore the contentious Osmosis videos for the next offline refresh of projects James is involved in, projects that claim to be based on Wikipedia but now seem to be based on a "DocJamesipedia" fork of Wikipedia where the community didn't say no. There has been speculation about what an offline template might be used for, but likely any such usage would require specific templates with their own parameters and documentation. Nobody has demonstrated a working example of a usage outside of WP:MED/App and IIAB. We don't need to keep this template hanging about in case someone finds a use for it: that would be the very definition of a solution looking for a problem. -- Colin°Talk 20:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:OnlyOffline

TLDR: This template was intended to be used to add the contentious Osmosis article-summary videos to the WP:MED/App and Internet-in-a-Box which re-use Wikipedia content, but keep these videos hidden from Wikipedia readers. The Wikipedia community rejected the videos and they were removed from 300 articles 18 months ago. These third-party applications should control the inclusion of additional commercially-generated third-party video material using some off-wiki mechanism, not by editing articles.

Early 2018 some users at the WP:MED project (specifically User:Doc James) formed a collaboration with Osmosis, who develop training videos for medical students and offer subscriptions to such. Osmosis would develop cut-down versions of these as article-summaries, offer them with a free licence, and James would insert them into the lead sections of major medical article topics. 300 such videos were created and added to Wikipedia. The videos were discussed by the community and various concerns with this collaboration were raised. Some objected to the Wikipedia being as freemium content leading readers towards the commercial subscriptions. Others complained that the videos had errors or other weaknesses, but that users could not edit them to correct these faults. It became clear that fixing issues with the videos was not a commercial priority for the company. The videos didn't fit with the "Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" model for user-generated content that can be added, modified and deleted easily online. In March 2018 all 300 videos were removed from articles by Doc James, though they remain on Commons.

The WP:MED/App and Internet-in-a-Box are Wikipedia content reusers. The former concentrates on medical articles, whereas the latter contains all Wikipedia. Both store the content offline (a single download) which avoids the need for online (mobile) data when looking up information. From the Google Play store comments, it appears that the WP:MED/App is largely used by medical students in the developing nations. A previous snapshot of Wikipedia content was taken when these Osmosis videos were included in articles. From a recent post at WT:MED, James has indicated that they wish to take another snapshot of Wikipedia content but today this would not include any of the videos.

To solve this, the OnlyOffline template was created. The intention is that anything included within the template is invisible to Wikipedia online readers, but will be visible to these two offline applications. James added the template to 22 medical articles with links to the contentious Osmosis videos (e.g. Epilepsy). Those edits have all been reverted.

While the name of this template implies a general-purpose "this content is for offline use only" purpose, it doesn't actually achieve that nor is intended to be used as such. If I save a Wikipedia page for reading offline, the content does not appear. It is instead a direct collaboration between the developers of WP:MED/App and IIAB to interpret the style/tag appropriately. The purpose of the template therefore is clearly to identify material that is displayed only on those third-party applications. Presumably James and others would police its usage to ensure it serves only their purpose.

It is not clear why a general "offline" use of Wikipedia would want many GB of commercially created medical-training videos. Videos is by far a more expensive way of delivering information than text. I suggest two reasons. The first is that the WP:MED/App appeals to medical students so they are likely to appreciate these training videos more than Wikipedia's general reader would. The second is Doc James, who hasn't really accepted their rejection by the Wikipedia community. He would like the videos created by his collaboration to be incorporated into off-wiki projects he is involved with: WP:MED/App and IIAB.

There are parallels between (WP:MED/App and IIAB) and other third-party reusers of Wikipedia content. Alexa, Siri, Google Assistant and Bixby all make use of Wikipedia articles and images when answering queries from their users. Often, though, these days Google prefers to get its medical information from trusted commercial partners like WebMD or Mayo Clinic, and falls back to Wikipedia when they lack the topic. These smart assistants reuse Wikipedia content without themselves needing to tag Wikipedia articles with metadata. We wouldn't accept {{Alexa start}} ... {{Alexa end}} markup within our articles wikitext. What's worse, is that the Osmosis videos are intended to replace the need to read the article at all. Rather than reading our up-to-date community-generated and maintained articles, the viewer is encouraged to get a 5 minute summary of the topic created by a commercial third party who sell subscriptions to training videos. So the insertion of this template into articles, is a bit like Google inserting {{Google assistant|IgnoreWikipedia=true|AlternativeURL=https://www.webmd.com/epilepsy}} tags into our articles that link to the WebMD article text they would prefer to present to readers instead of Wikipedia.

Third party applications (WP:MED/App and IIAB) should find an independent, off-wiki method for offering articles-as-videos to their users. A simple text file mapping article name to video URL would suffice and could be hosted on a third-party server such as where the app source is maintained. There is no reason to involve Wikipedia. This is a bad on-wiki solution to a simple off-wiki problem. -- Colin°Talk 13:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is little different from linkfarming in the WP:EL section. JFW | T@lk 13:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as this could have future uses that have nothing to do with the content in the nomination above. If the "content" referenced in an instance of the template's use is a problem, BRD. — xaosflux Talk
    There might be such uses, but they have not been identified, and we shouldn't have templates for hypothetical uses. --Izno (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    That's the worst possible advice you could give to any software engineer. The ability to foresee technical need and anticipate future demands is probably the most important skill any systems analyst could have. Having solutions ready to roll-out when the end-user needs them is cost-free on Wikipedia, and should be encouraged. It's obvious that Wikipedia needs to broaden its delivery models if it wants to meet the 2030 goals, and richer offline content is one means. In this instance, YAGNI actually stands for "You Are Going To Need It". --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    I can think of much worse advice. Maybe "If you get an error message, then turn on all your privs and run it again" or "Don't bother documenting your code as you go. We don't have time for that right now, and we'll go back and add some notes after it ships". ;-D WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    Nah, those are easy to fix in comparison with a failure to
    PLAN AHEAD
       --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    Having solutions ready to roll-out when the end-user needs them is cost-free on Wikipedia, and should be encouraged. So is having them later, when obvious semantic uses are available in context. We don't have that right now. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have had issues with this template, much like the above concerns. I agree almost entirely with Colin. Delete. --Izno (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'll add a second argument: If this is valuable content for Wikipedia to provide, it should be made accessible to anyone accessing the article and above that requires consensus to do so. This content does not meet that criteria. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    Izno, I agree with you that whatever is added for these offline users should be subject to the normal process of consensus. I've been trying to think of another use, something that editors would likely agree could be valuable content for offline users, but which isn't appropriate for online users. So far, my best idea is sister project content. We provide a link in some articles to related images on Commons, which is fine for online users (just click it to see more images) but it is not functional for offline users. So it might be possible to use this to curate a moderate number of relevant images (e.g., what skin cancers look like) that are currently provided via a link to a page or category on Commons, when Commons is inaccessible. WP:GALLERY is written with the assumption that Commons is just a click away, but when it's not, perhaps the images could be presented to offline users in the article. Something similar could be done for some Wikisource contents, in articles about those sources, e.g., a copy of one of the translations of the Magna Carta in the Magna Carta article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing: Of course whatever is added for these offline users should be subject to the normal process of consensus, and it is - in the article where the content is added. If consensus exists to keep that particular content for offline use, then it stays; if not then it is removed. But it's the content you're now discussing, not this template. The template has no effect on the process of determining consensus for its content. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, RexxS, the Wikipedia consensus for the commercially-created Osmosis medical-student-training videos was to reject them all in principle. This isn't subject to article-consensus or wikiproject consensus to override that. They don't fit what Wikipedia is, per explanation at Wikipedia is not YouTube. James would need another community-wide RFC to overturn that decision, and that would be even less likely to succeed now that Open Osmosis is dead. -- Colin°Talk 08:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    Which bit of "this is a discussion about the template, not the videos" didn't you get your head around? This template can be used with far more content than those videos that you're so obsessed with. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator states "While the name of this template implies a general-purpose "this content is for offline use only" purpose, it doesn't actually achieve that nor is intended to be used as such." This is blatantly untrue. This template was created by me as a general purpose template to allow extra content to be made available offline, and I have a track record of producing tools that have general applicability - see Module:Wikidata, Module:WikidataIB, Module:String2 and their many associated templates, for examples. He has been told what my intentions were when I created the template, yet insists on fabricating falsehoods. I resent Colon's attack on my integrity.
    It is perfectly clear that this is a general-purpose template because it cooperates with MediaWiki:Offline.css to provide the styling used offline for any third-party re-users. That project-wide stylesheet, in conjunction with simple additions of classes to the TemplateStyles stylesheet at Template:OnlyOffline/styles.css, can be used to add whatever styles are wanted to extra offline content.
    Whatever problem Colin has with one set of videos – and note that this template is not being used with them – he needs to take his issues to the videos on Commons. I assume he knows how requests for deletion work there. This nomination is a misguided attempt to remove perfectly good functionality from the project – the ability add extra content and style it as desired for offline use without disturbing what is served by Wikipedia online – without any good reason beyond an antipathy to some CC-BY-SA videos, which were commercially produced. Those videos are not this template, and the above rant has no bearing on whether this template should be kept or not. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Ignoring the ad-hominems, examine the earlier statement by RexxS: "a need arose to embed content that was only visible when the content was being viewed offline, via Kiwix. .... it is useful to be able to insert content especially for those readers. I produced a simple template, Template:OnlyOffline, which uses Template:OnlyOffline/styles.css to hide content marked up with the class "onlyoffline". The idea was that Kiwix will also read from MediaWiki:Offline.css which will now display the content when being viewed offline.... My colleague Kelson, who does all the Kiwix work, has suggested that we move the code in Template:OnlyOffline/styles.css to MediaWiki:Common.css" While claims have been made as to its general purpose, the facts are that this was created by RexxS solely for the (WP:MED/App and IIAB) Kiwix implementation. James also admits "We were looking at using this template OnlyOffline to have certain videos only appear within these specific ZIMs [he's referring to WP:MED/App and IIAB] for offline use." The "certain videos" James referred to are the Osmosis medical training vidoes, which are not ones I alone have a "problem with" but that in an RFC started by James were thoroughly rejected by the community.
Wrt Commons, the videos cannot be removed from Commons. They have a free licence and Commons does not care if they are medically correct, encyclopaedic, editable, entertaining, comprehensive or any other consideration that Wikiedian's might have.
WhatamIdoing has already demonstrated that this template does not in fact achieve the goal of having zero impact on any Wikipedia reader. The thumbnail for the video is downloaded by every reader, potentially briefly displayed, and then hidden by stylesheet code, which isn't necessarily run depending on browser settings.
As noted above, the name of this template implies more potential use than its actual implementation permits. It is hard to make a general case for some content being available/displayed only-offline. I would appreciate some suggestions. If one saves Wikipedia pages for offline viewing, this template has no effect - so it doesn't even work. Clearly this template was only ever intended to work by arbitrary convention between Wikipedians and one piece of software.
The only purpose this template has ever been used for and that anyone has concrete use-case for, is to display commercially produced medical training videos in an app that is often used by medical students. The WP:MED folk are sad that the next refresh of their app will lose 300 videos, and have found a really really bad way to get them back. As with all free content open projects, if James and RexxS are upset with the community consensus on these videos, they have the right to fork the project, and thus gain full control. -- Colin°Talk 19:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
"If one saves Wikipedia pages for offline viewing, this template has no effect". Not so. Anybody who remembers to apply the Mediawiki:Offline.css settings for offline use finds that the template works just as I've stated. You're lying again about my intentions, and I'm really sick with you making up such nonsense. I created a general purpose template to do a general job. I don't give a monkey's about the videos, but I do care about improving the experience for offline viewers. If Colin has no interest in making extra online content available for those unable to use Wikipedia online, then he is free to fork the project and keep the content entirely online as he wants. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand how it works, RexxS, and it isn't "anyone who remembers to apply the Mediawiki:Offline.css settings for offline use". You make it sound like that CSS is a standard part of Wikipedia and there is a button somewhere for turning it on or off. That CSS was created solely for James to add Osmosis videos to Internet in a Box (see talk page). Stylesheet changes are a developer feature, not a user feature. -- Colin°Talk 07:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
You have no understanding of how it works as you've amply demonstrated already. The use of CSS is a standard part of MediaWiki software, which employs commom.css, user css and TemplateStyles in rendering content delivered online from the Wikipedia site. Offline.css is the extension that allows Kiwix and other offline apps to style offline content differently, and it's that functionality that I took advantage of to make a template that could deliver extra content to offline users. As for "Stylesheet changes are a developer feature, not a user feature", that's pure bunkum. Stylesheet (CSS) changes are made by editors all of the time. Editors change the display of content with inline styles in tables, with new classes in WP:TemplateStyles, with their own user stylesheets, and so on. This is the encyclopedia that any editor can edit; you don't have to be a dev to do that. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Could allow videos already on Commons under an open license to be provided in an offline environment including the medical app and Internet-in-a-Box. Discussion for that is ongoing. The links to commons we currently provide do not work offline. Video is now easily editable via WP:Videowiki. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • James, the medical app and Internet-in-a-Box are not Wikipedia. Can you please explain why every editor on Wikipedia must permit your team to insert metadata into our articles in order to include videos just for your apps? And why must millions of readers of Wikipedia online download a 10-20KB thumbnail for a video they won't see in order to provide metadata for your apps? Please stop lying about the videos being editable; dishonestly doesn't help your case.-- Colin°Talk 07:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Credible concerns are undermined by ad hominem attacks. I've been critical of the videos, but James isn't lying - people can edit the video script, which then changes the video - so they are editable. These personal attacks are disruptive. — soupvector (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Editing the narration script, after first accepting a robot voice rather than the carefully synchronised human narrator, is not "easily editing the videos". That is a lie [a untruth told to deliberately deceive] and James and RexxS need to stop it. And per my post at WT:MED, despite the 30-odd videowiki videos being in articles since the spring, with a link to the script for "anyone to edit", nobody else has edited the videos. Facts vs lies.
          • Editing a script is easy, contrary to the nonsense you're peddling. The voice is not a robot; it's standard text-to-speech used in thousands of applications. You're the one lying, with the sole intention to sling enough mud and hope some of it sticks. We get it. You really don't like the videos. Now go and take your hatred off to Commons where it's relevant, and quit bludgeoning the commentators here with your off-topic rants. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
soupvector, I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I am not attacking James the person, but what James has written. He has repeatedly written things that are untrue, and he knows are untrue, with the intention of making false claims about projects he is involved in. We are permitted to make serious accusations against other editors, provided the have evidence, and that's the case here. I'm making very serious accusations, with plenty evidence.
The whole purpose of this template is to subvert the consensus of Wikipedians that the Osmosis videos are not welcome on Wikipedia. James wants to present "Wikipedia in a box" as if we still had them on wiki. They aren't community edited or community approved and they never were maintained by the company that produced them. Compare Wikipedia which is constantly updated and text approved by the community. So the version of Wikipedia that James wants to download to his Internet in a Box project is just a fork, and this is not the way to fork. Even if this template is kept, based on "could have future uses" speculation, James still needs to launch a community-wide RFC to gain consensus to restore the videos to articles for download to Internet-in-a-box. Otherwise any claim that Internet-in-a-box contains Wikipedia would be false marketing. -- Colin°Talk 12:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I just edited the Dengue VideoWiki to confirm my impression. Similar to editing WP generally, with the additional step of letting the video render (seconds). I stand by my characterization of disruption. — soupvector (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
soupvector, let's be clear. James is saying that it is easy now to edit the Osmosis videos with VideoWiki. Go watch File:Epilepsy video.webm. At 1:39 it refers to "patients with epilepsy" (remember this is a medical training video, not really a Wikipedia article where WP:MEDMOS discourages the word "patients"). So please change that word in the narration and the onscreen text to say "people with epilepsy". You'll also have noticed that the narration and the text being scribbled onscreen is exactly in sycn. So please ensure your new robot narration is also exactly in sync for the duration of the 8min43sec of the video. At 3:55 the video refers to "simple partial" seizures and "complex partial" seizures. These terms were already out-of-date when the video was made. Per ILAE New seizure classifications, please change those to "Focal Aware Seizures" and "Focal Impaired Awareness Seizures". Now add a new slide on the "History" mentioning the ancient Greeks and the development of effective drugs in the 20th Century. Remember you need to do the same scribble text style of presentation, with cute little animated drawings of Hippocrates rejecting the idea of epilepsy being caused by spirits. Then tell me you can easily edit the videos. -- Colin°Talk 13:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
So if I can make these changes will you drop your opposition? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and one has to question the weird concept that any Wikipedia would actually edit videos they can't see on Wikipedia. We've had 30 VideoWiki videos already on Wikipedia and nobody has edited them. -- Colin°Talk 13:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This deletion nomination is unrelated to the template itself and is rather directed at an experiment with new technology at the intersection of Wikipedia, Wikidata, the mw:Extension:Translate, a proposed meta:Wikispore project called meta:VideoWiki, and WP:Wikipe-tan. I recognize that the Wikipedia community requires the power to protect itself from disruptions. This template is just one tentacle of the larger sea monster, and cutting this does little to change the direction of the beast. I am one of the participants bringing the VideoWiki sea monster into Wikipedia and I like this project and think it is moderate. To experiment we require this template on hopefuy ~100 articles for a 6 months with possible extension. Among the many ongoing Wikimedia experiments with matching Wikidata to Wikipedia - Commons and everything else, this project seems to me to be one of the least secret, lowest budget, most community oriented, and safest experiments in the mix. Personally, I get more irked at the secret big budget Wikimedia Foundation experiments which have zero community participation or documentation and which are more disruptive and bigger perpetual resource commitments than this one. To me, the resistance to this experiment has its origins in being documented and accessible to target with objections. If the WMF does weird things with 10 million USD, no one comments, but if a few community members plan an experiment to affect a 100 articles over months with ongoing conversation, sometimes it seems like a big deal. I generally support Wikimedia community experiments and this project seems to me to be better. safer, and more inclusive than most. I encourage people to raise objections about this and other experiments. I only wish we had a more effective way to document, discuss, approve, and run experiments. I regret that the most controversial experiments are the ones that get discussed, and the safest way to run an experiment in the wiki community context is to fail to document it. I have trouble recognizing that in this deletion nomination, that this actual template is the cause for concern. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. I'm swayed by User:Bluerasberry's moderate approach to allowing this template. I'm sensitive to any risk of forking our content, and hope there could be, at a minimum, aspiration to either (a) accomplish this in future with one of the suggested metadata suggestions or (b) more fully integrate the relevant video content in Wikipedia mainspace. I find WP:VideoWiki/Dengue_fever and other editable videowiki content to be conformant with WP principles, whereas I'm still troubled by the Osmosis videos. I'm inclined to allow this template but limit the test, with limited scope and duration while another solution is pursued. — soupvector (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I am convinced by Colin's argument that the videos are un-wiki and not actually part of the article, especially given the March 2018 decision not to include them and therefore should not be in the wikitext of the article. Given that, the template becomes an unused template with little possibility of use as no other project has needed to create such a template in the history of Wikipedia. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep if the issue is the Osmosis video, then remove the videos. This template can be used in various printed version for a lot more than just Osmosis videos. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Headbomb, can you explain how this template includes the material in a printed version? Are you saying the material appears when one creates a PDF version of a page? At the moment, this appears to be just speculation about what an "only offline" template might do, but not what it actually does. I would think a "OnlyForPrint" template would be more relevant for that purpose. -- Colin°Talk 20:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
      • If the application that prints the articles offline applies Mediawiki:Offline.css - the common stylesheet for offline content - then the content can be rendered and styled by the application. You're so blinkered, Colin, by your hatred of the videos that those are all you consider. This template can be used for any content whatsoever to make it available offline: additional text; more references; translations; as well as images, videos and audio files. The last two wouldn't be suitable for printing, of course, but all of the others could be incorporated into print via a simple third-party offline browser. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
        • RexxS, do you think it could it handle a multi-page PDF? In the context of offline medicine-related contents, official drug information might be particularly useful. It's usually available online as a multi-page PDF (NB this use might be doomed by copyright complications). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
          • @WhatamIdoing: Any pdf could be added in a folder on the SD card that Kiwix (for example) has access to. By making an external wiki-link to that folder and file inside this template, the pdf would be delivered only to the offline browser. There would be no thumbnail download on-wiki because the link is invalid online. Is that what you were thinking of? --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
          • RexxS, why would an application creating printed content based on Wikipedia want to display James's Osmosis video? A video has no purpose on paper unless we live in the Harry Potter universe. There is no single "offline" use-case. There are potentially several, each of which deserves their own template. You claim Mediawiki:Offline.css is "the common stylesheet for offline content". No it isn't. Read MediaWiki talk:Offline.css and you will see it was created precisely for James to offer DocJamesipedia Osmosis videos on his Internet in a Box project. -- Colin°Talk 07:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Which bit of "this is a discussion about the template, not the videos" didn't you get your head around? This template can be used with far more content than those videos that you're so obsessed with. If you think there are "several [cases of offline content], each of which deserves their own template", let's see your suggestion for one of those templates. And then your explanation why this template doesn't already do that job. You're going to have to put up or shut up. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
          • WhatamIdoing, see Template:Commons. We don't need to just link to a Commons category (which could contain an unlimited number of images) but can link to a Commons page (e.g. Commons:Reconquista). It is quite feasible for an offline project such as InternetInABox to choose to download the linked Commons page as well. I think that meets your use-case. Whereas I can't see how this template, which merely tells the browser on the client side to hide an image it has already downloaded, could be used to request a curated set of Commons images in the offline-only scenario. -- Colin°Talk 07:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
            • And how do you think, Colin, that the "offline project such as InternetInABox" would link from a relevant article to that Commons page which is also downloaded onto the memory card? By magic? No, by using this template so that the "external" link functions offline, but doesn't show up in the online article. Now do you start to see the uses of this template? It's not just for videos. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep even though I agree that the video inclusion is highly dubious I find the alternative uses of offline galleries for when the commons isn't a click away. There has been some concerns about loading tumbnails for online users which may be a serious problem, but I'm not convinced this is an intrinsic problem rather than a flaw in the current implementation. --Trialpears (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Trialpears, the "offline Commons gallery" idea by WhatamIdoing was just a bit of brainstorming about what an "only offline" template might be used for. It doesn't actually achieve that, nor has anyone proposed how such a gallery might be implemented, and whether it would be maintained on Wikipedia or on Commons. Very likely if that was an idea folk wanted, a "OfflineGallery" template would be created for that purpose. I'm afraid thumbnails are an intrinsic problem if wikitext is used to refer to a video. Of course an alternative implementation is totally possible: the WP:MED/App and IIAB folk find somewhere off-wiki to store their metadata about what commercially-created videos they want to include in their package. There never was any reason to add this to mainspace. -- Colin°Talk 20:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
      • No it wasn't. You really need to stop imagining you can see inside the minds of other editors. WhatamIdoing was making a valid point about "only-offline" content. That content could be used for extra images that may be useful to some audiences, but are considered an excessive number of images within an online article. We normally direct editors to Commons galleries for that purpose online, but it would be a simple task to include within this template links to images stored locally on an SD card, for example. They clearly mustn't show online, and that sort of functionality is exactly what this template was designed to deliver. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
        • The talk page discussions on the template and css pages suggest otherwise, RexxS. See above about the already existing Commons template. Your hack only hides images that the browser has downloaded, so if people inserted e.g. 20 images from Commons for offline use, all 20 thumbnails would in fact be downloaded by the millions of Wikipedia online users. -- Colin°Talk 07:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
          • If the 20 images were placed in a gallery or slideshow or some other container outside of the article space, then that container would be coded in this template as an external wiki-link when viewed offline. In just the same way that MediaWiki software doesn't download all 20 thumbnails from a Commons page, it also doesn't download thumbnails from what it considers external links, so there would be no overhead for the online reader in these cases. --RexxS (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as per arguments from User:RexxSIan Furst (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, WP should not be a link farm, even if the links are suppressed here. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • keep per RexxS --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems handy in theory and in practice. And per @Bluerasberry:, experiments like this should be no big deal. – SJ + 19:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Unloved and unwatchedEdit

The epilepsy article gets over 2000 hits a day and is on 515 people's watchlists. Granted not all of those 515 users are still active, or even alive, but that's a lot of eyes. It has had 5,029 total edits by 1,952 editors. In contrast File:Epilepsy video.webm on Commons has had one editor: Osmosis, a private company offering medical training videos, not Wikipedians or Commoners. It was uploaded by User:OsmoseIt, from Osmosis, who has since departed the project. The file description page has had a few bot/mass-admin edits which won't have added it to anyone's watchlist. Thus this article-as-a-video has one author, one edit and very likely one watchlister, who is a user who left the project over 18 months ago.

James wants to add hidden links to these unloved and unwatched videos, so that his Internet in a Box and WP:MED/App can include them. They do not represent Wikipedia nor are edited, watched and maintained by Wikipedians. Even if you did watchlist the video, and popped over to Commons to check your watchlist from time to time, you'd have to view e.g. all 8 minutes of the epilepsy video to check if anyone had added a naughty word or a picture of some boobs. There's no way to "diff" the change, so anyone could muck about with the content in a way that would be very hard for you to spot. Perhaps change a 5mg to 500mg or hypertension to hypotension.

So James is proposing to offer 300+ commercially-produced short medical-student training videos to medical students in the developing world. This project is not watching and monitoring their content, yet we are being asked to put up with invisible article template links and unviewed thumbnails to achieve this. Isn't that a bit scary? -- Colin°Talk 14:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this statement from User:Colin is inaccurate in a variety of ways. First I should stipulate that I was a pretty severe critic of the linking to Osmosis videos from WP, for reasons that have been incompletely addressed (I still think WP should be easily editable). To that last point, User:Doc_James said above that "Video is now easily editable via WP:Videowiki" - which is true for many of the videos linked from that page (and Epilepsy is not among them - so Colin's chosen example isn't representative generally, though it might highlight issues with Osmosis video editing). As noted above, I edited the Dengue fever video a little while ago, and the edited version was rendered in seconds, uploaded to Commons in minutes (each with a single click on the script page, after editing), and is now live on the Dengue fever page. — soupvector (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Soupvector, perhaps you missed this comment from Doc James. When WhatAmIDoing challenged the claim the Osmosis videos were editable: "Although it's technically possible to make some kinds of edits, as a first approximation, saying that videos aren't truly editable is not very far from practical reality", James replied "actually it is fairly easy to edit these now with Videowiki. You simple convert them into a video script. Cut up the video into bits. Replace the human voice with machine read. And update away... ". He repeated this claim above. Soupvector, James did not use the template we are discussing to add hidden links to VideoWiki videos. He used it to add hidden links to the Osmosis videos, which the Wikipedia community rejected. His edit, with misleading edit summary "offline only", showed up in my watchlist on Epilepsy. So the Epilepsy video is pertinent and I'm afraid the Dengue fever video is not. Please let me know when you have made the simple edits I requested above. It is only a few sentences, though of course the video bit of "video is easily editable" is likely to be much more of a challenge for you. -- Colin°Talk 16:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Colin I did not mean to imply that I was interested in being your editing monkey. — soupvector (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
No, but you made a claim, and it seems reasonable to ask if your claim can actually be done. You don't want to edit the Osmosis videos and neither has anyone else shown the slightest inclination. Never enhanced, never fixed, never polished. They are the dead product of a misguided commercial collaboration. They have no place on this project, hidden from online readers or not. -- Colin°Talk 19:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I edited one of the videos that originated in VideoWiki. I have not defended the (distinct) Osmosis videos. I think you may be a bit off-topic in focusing on the latter in this TFD discussion, since Osmosis videos aren't the only possible use for this template. — soupvector (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
It certainly isn't off-topic since the only use for this template was to restore the contentious Osmosis videos for the next offline refresh of projects James is involved in, projects that claim to be based on Wikipedia but now seem to be based on a "DocJamesipedia" fork of Wikipedia where the community didn't say no. There has been speculation about what an offline template might be used for, but likely any such usage would require specific templates with their own parameters and documentation. Nobody has demonstrated a working example of a usage outside of WP:MED/App and IIAB. We don't need to keep this template hanging about in case someone finds a use for it: that would be the very definition of a solution looking for a problem. -- Colin°Talk 20:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

August 13

Template:Infoshops

Doesn't meet the navbox criteria: the contents are loosely related and have no lasting relation to each other, i.e., they wouldn't be linked in each others' "See also" sections. The category and list are sufficient for organizing the loosely related contents. The latter has the added benefit of sorting by region. (Also note that this template was a cut-and-paste merge from Template:Autonomous social centers, now a redirect, where you can find the actual edit history and talk page.) czar 14:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep To state it simply, there is a page called Infoshops and this navbox serves as a useful means to group these infoshops. I’ve already explained this to Czar, who came here for “outside opinions” - in that case, why not make a request for comment or ask for a third opinion instead? Anyhow, I’ll put my reasoning again here, based on the navbox guidelines in the Manual of Style:
  • 1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. - yes and that subject is the infoshop
  • 2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. - this guideline isn't so important in my opinion since as the relevant literature (eg Lacey) makes pains to state, infoshops and social centres are vaguely defined themselves, but yeah the majority are, I've checked
  • 3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. - yes i think they do, they are networked in different ways
  • 4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. - yes there is .. and category as well
  • 5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the 'See also' sections of the articles. - yup i think that is true here
    • That's the five guidelines. I don’t think it helps that Czar is cherry picking from them above. Further, Czar is being dishonest in suggesting that 'Template:Autonomous social centers' is the original version. This template was first created as 'Template:Infoshops' all the way back in 2008, then was retitled 'Template:Infoshops and social centers' in 2012, and then it was retitled without any discussion in 2018 to 'Template:Autonomous social centers' (by Czar). I have already indicated this is not a useful thing to have done, since many of the listed infoshops are not autonomous social centres eg CIRA, Extrapool, Freedom Press, 491 Gallery, The Forest and many of the North American projects (happy to explain in more detail if anyone is interested). Mujinga (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the guidelines from which I quoted. The point is that it doesn't meet the third one: this grouping has as much in common as would an arbitrary collection of movie theaters or specialty grocery stores. As I said, it's fine for a category or list but not a navbox. I've already established that "autonomous social centers" are the parent topic to "infoshops", hence the title of the template that retains literally all of the edit history before its cut-and-paste move. But the scope of the title isn't even the point here. Whether it's scoped to "autonomous social centers", "infoshops", or a combined topic, none of those are a subject matter fit for what warrants a navbox on Wikipedia per the quoted criteria. czar 01:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, better to navigate by list article and category. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Meets nav box criteria. It is a narrower category than 'grocery shops'. They are quite a specific type of venture. You can just as well say Template:Street_newspapers have nothing more in common than they are street newspapers. The fact that some users prefer to use list and category methods of navigation doesn't mean other user wont' find this method more useful. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, {{Street newspapers}} suffers the same "loosely related contents" issue and should be nominated as well. czar 11:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Two deletes (including proposer), two keeps so no consensus for deletion. Relisted for over a week with no further discussion. Can someone please close this discussion, thanks. Mujinga (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, much better to use list articles and categories for this sort of thing. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete They wouldn't be linked in a see also section and doesn't have a strong connection, but I don't see anything problematic with keeping them either. --Trialpears (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Whilst not all of them would be linked in each others' "See also" sections, that might be said of thousands of other navboxes, e.g. {{International rugby union}}, {{Pirates}}, and {{Online social networking}}. It has the added benefit of sorting by region, like the List of autonomous social centers. That list is far from complete with only 24 entries, compared to the 61 in Category:Infoshops and ~79 (not including related articles) in the navbox. The navbox is a convenient way to see related articles at a glance, and allow readers to pick and choose amongst them. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
If the list is far from complete, expand it. The point is that we don't use navboxes to collect articles by topic (they need to have some relation to each other); otherwise we have other techniques (lists, categories) for displaying such a collection. czar 03:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Examining a sampling of the articles, they fail WP:NAVBOX criteria 3 and 5 in a big way. The articles rarely refer to each other, and an editor would be unlikely to cross-link many of these articles in their "See also" sections (if in doubt, look at the articles prior to the addition of the navbox).
There are also lesser problems with regard to criteria 1 and 2. Although an article may now describe its subject as an infoshop, and thus give the appearance of being about a single, coherent subject, that is sometimes WP:OR, no reliable source describes the subject as an infoshop. One could remove the offending entries, but it will always be difficult to have a "well-defined group of articles" because infoshop is amorphous (it is often this, it can be that, it may be this, some are, tend to be, etc.) All of this indicates that "the articles are loosely related, and a list or category may be more appropriate". --Worldbruce (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Completed discussionsEdit

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

Closing discussionsEdit

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

To reviewEdit

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

  • Template:Fb_cl_footer2018 September 10Fb_cl_footer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl3_qr2018 April 22Fb_cl3_qr ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r2_header2018 April 28Fb_r2_header ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r2_team2018 April 28Fb_r2_team ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r_footer2018 April 28Fb_r_footer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r2018 April 28Fb_r ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl2_team2018 April 19Fb_cl2_team ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl2_header_navbar2018 April 19Fb_cl2_header_navbar ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl_header2018 April 19Fb_cl_header ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
    Would it be possible for a bot to convert the transclusions of these templates to Module:Sports table? S.A. Julio (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
    Should be doable, yes. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    I could probably do something while I am converting all the {{Fb team}} templates. But, I will have to see how complicated the code is. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Plastikspork and Primefac: Can your bots using Module:Sports table instead in this case, such as [2]? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    Hhhhhkohhhhh, sure. That particular template only had one use, and that use was in userspace, and the title of the page was "concept", so I didn't bother to fully convert it. But in general, the plan is to convert the various table/cl header/cl footer/cl team templates to use sports table. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    I am replacing all of these fb templates Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge into {{Aircraft specs}}:
    There's a discussion about this merger at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot --Trialpears (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For merging into {{Yesno}} - will need heavy sandboxing:
    Primefac You indicated that you had some kind of idea how this merger may be done while closing this discussion with the first step being making a If affirmed/declined a yesno wrapper. I've done that in the sandboxes, but as you can see in the testcases it does change the value for a not insignificant amount of values. Are we supposed to go through each and every template that uses if affirmed/declined to see if it breaks anything and if it doesn't substitute it in? Do anyone have a better plan? -- Trialpears (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see your changes to {{Yesno/sandbox}}. If you don't change the source, then the template won't know what the "yes" and "no" values are. --Gonnym (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry if I were unclear, I meant Template:If affirmed/sandbox and Template:If declined/sandbox is where I've made a simple wrapper version. This will inevitably lead to some output differences if we don't change YesNo directly but I don't believe we have consensus to do so. Several people in the TfD thought we shouldn't touch YesNo and last time a RfC was required before they added on and off. -- Trialpears (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Template:Ctime:062019 March 8Ctime:06 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Template:Ctime
  • {{link language}} wrappers - listed at WP:LLWRAP, see TFD for full close. In short - wrappers should be orphaned; first from template use (see §4 of LLWRAP) then article space.
    Wouldn't this be solved by just making all of them auto-substitute? The templates are so simple that they're already substituable. --Trialpears (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    That is certainly possible for most of them. I do highly suggest you actually read through the discussion before just slapping a one-size-fits-all solution to almost 300 templates; some of them are not direct wrappers and some of them have extra content that may need to be considered. Additionally, all of them have a commented-out section giving the language - this should not be subst'ed. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have read it and will check that they actually are only a direct wrapper (using regex). before adding auto substitute, but if that is enough for 90% of them that's what I'll do after dealing with the unprotected templates. I also wonder what I should replace them with. I feel like In lang would be the best choice, but since this wasn't even a redirect an hour ago and there were so many opinions about it I thought it would be best asking you. --Trialpears (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry if I implied that you were going to rashly jump into this; thanks for being cautious. I would say that for anything that isn't protected and/or has <50 uses, {{language link}} would be fine to use in the wrapper (i.e. they can pretty much stay unchanged). I'll have to have a think about the higher-use ones, though; in particular, I'm going to look at the {{ill}} merger and how we dealt with combining multiple templates with very long names. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    {{in lang}} with rudimentary documentation created.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know what a substitution forcer file is, but I would suggest that if the list at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9/Link language wrappers § Templates with above 100 transclusions is intended to identify templates that should be substed from one template to another template, then that list is flawed. There are templates listed there that are also listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9/Link language wrappers § Non-standard templates.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    AnomieBOT require templates with over 100 transclusions to be added to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force for them to be auto substituted. I thought it would be useful having a list when that time comes. The first step will of course be fixing the unusual templates before starting substituting them. --Trialpears (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Is that even the right tool to use? Substing {{de icon}} templates will return {{link language|de}}<!--German--> (I'm not sure how categories are handled in these kinds of cases). But, if the intent of this whole thing was to replace the icon templates with a more appropriately named template (which {{link language}} is not) then how is the AnomieBot task the correct task? One task to troll through and subst all of the various icon templates and then another to subst all of the {{link language}} templates? Is that safe? Are there cases where {{link language}} is used natively where changing those transclusions to {{in lang}} would be the wrong thing?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I was planning on doing an AWB run to make sure all templates are only transcluding {{link language|langcode}} or whatever redirect we decide on using and then let AnomieBOT substitute it, which I think would do the job. The categories are handled by the template and removing the comments would not affect them. I'm not sure what's happening with {{in lang}}. It was only a redirect to link language a couple of days ago and I thought that was the intent based on the closing comment. Why do we have two templates doing the same thing now? Updating the original template would be better if you want to implement new features. --Trialpears (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    The only consensus reached is for removal of the wrapper templates: the various {{<xx> icon}} templates change to something. The close doesn't say to what those templates are to be changed. One might infer that they are to be 'unwrapped' to reveal the inner template which may not necessarily be {{link language}}; I suspect that to be the most common (and likely only) template that has been wrapped for this application. The use of {{LL}} as a redirect is addressed to the extent that a WP:RFD is required to do anything about it (an implicit no consensus). As a result of this RFC, {{in lang}} was created as a redirect to {{link language}} but never used for that purpose (redirect because no consensus to rename {{link language}}). I converted that redirect to a template as a way out of the mire that the fourth bullet item and definitive no-consensus declaration leaves us in:
    explicit consensus to remove (from article space) {{<xx> icon}} wrapper templates (first bullet point in the close)
    explicit no consensus to delete the wrapper templates (fourth bullet point in the close)
    consensus / no consensus not stated with regard to deprecation of the wrapper templates (implicit no consensus)
    What point is there to removing the wrapper templates from article space if we don't have a consensus to do anything with the wrapper templates themselves once the transclusions are removed from article space? We don't have a consensus for deletion yet the wrapper templates are marked with {{being deleted}} templates which contradicts the fourth bullet item in the close; both conditions cannot simultaneously exist (deleting something that we don't have consensus to delete). The close is mute on deprecation so apparently we don't have consensus for that either.
    So, a new template with enhanced features and different categories to replace any-and-all uses of the wrapper templates. This, I think, meets the single consensus we do have, to remove the wrapper templates from article space. A new template is not constrained by the contradictions of the close. The wrapper templates are left to be deleted in dribs and drabs as anticipated in the close.
    To answer your question: Why do we have two templates doing the same thing now? Yeah, there are two templates doing similar things; the original is constrained by the decisions (and lack of decisions) of an inconclusive RFC. The new is not constrained by that RFC and can be used to replace the wrapper templates in article space in compliance with the one consensus decision achieved by the RFC; the new template has features that the original does not: |link=, |cap=, multiple language support; the new template fills different categories; the new template name is consistent with what it does (preceding text – may or may not be a link – refers to something that is written in <language name>); the new template does not support |cat-lang= for the reasons stated at Template talk:Link language § the cat-lang parameter.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Since there has been no further comment I have done these things:
    1. written Monkbot/task 15: normalize lang icon templates
    2. created as a test bed:
      1. Category:Articles with non-English-language sources – parent category for sub-cats:
        Category:Articles with Abkhazian-language sources (ab) et al;
      2. Template:Non-English-language source category – documentation template for sub-cats;
    without objection I shall:
    1. start a WP:BRFA for Monkbot/task 15
    2. create additional sub-categories in Category:Articles with non-English-language sources according to those categories in Category:Articles with non-English-language external links that are not empty
    3. when approved, run Monkbot/task 15 to replace {{<xx> icon}} and redirects with {{in lang|<xx>}}
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't approve of having both {{link language}} and {{in lang}} doing the same thing. {{link language}} should be updated and then {{in lang}} be redirected. Other than that I think it sounds good. --Trialpears (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    Nor do I approve, however, they are not doing the same thing. It is true they are doing similar things but {{in lang}} is about sources and allows multiple languages to be references whereas {{link language}} is for only external links (which "sources" might be considered to include) and does not allow multiple languages. The latter also has a few issues with some extra parameters allowing strange categorizations. So in shorts {{in lang}} was resigned without the historic constraints imposed upon {{link language}} allowing it to be more flexible and potentially more things (if it is ever widely deployed to so such). If anything, after most of these transclusions have been updated to use {{in lang}}, {{link language}} could be updated to use/redirect to {{in lang}} (or just be deleted outright with the rest of the templates targeted by this RFC decision). 50.53.21.2 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm confused. You start out by saying Nor do I approve but then appear to talk yourself around to suggesting that the {{in lang}} should be deployed as I have outlined above. So which is it?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

To mergeEdit

Templates to be merged into another template.

ArtsEdit

  • None currently

Geography, politics and governanceEdit

ReligionEdit

SportsEdit

TransportEdit

  • None currently

OtherEdit

MetaEdit

Could I claim this merger? I would like to convert this into my first module. It may take some time though since I have zero lua experience. --Trialpears (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Go for it. Just makes sure you sandbox heavily and maybe have one of us check it before you go live. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

To convertEdit

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

  • None currently

To substituteEdit

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphanEdit

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Ready for deletionEdit

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently

Archive and IndicesEdit