Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TfD)

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
  Mar Apr May Jun TOTAL
CfD 9 14 95 34 152
MfD 0 4 4 10 18
TfD 0 0 0 15 15
FfD 0 0 2 0 2
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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 an unused, 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_June_15#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

June 15Edit

Template:TOC US states 2Edit

Unused ToC template, but even if it were, the extra parameter option could have been added to Template:TOC US states, like all other the template parameters, as there is no need for a separate template to do that. Gonnym (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Road marker PK NHEdit

Unused template Imzadi 1979  02:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Pride of Performance for ArtsEdit

Mostly original research, see WP:OR. There is no WP:RS which could verify these entries, no official site either. Template is too long for comfortable navigation and is better navigable using its complementary category. Störm (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose complete deletion - Pride of Performance has an article and in it the lead says that it is one of the awards conferred by the Government of Pakistan on Pakistani civilians in recognition of distinguished meritorious work in the fields of literature, arts, sports, medicine, and science. I've looked to see if the United States has a comparable award, which it does: National Medal of Arts. This award also has navigation templates such as {{National Medal of Arts recipients 1980s}}. Since this is clearly an accepted practice, then maybe splitting this template into 2 smaller ones and removing the duplicate links to the years will make it more easier to read. --Gonnym (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 14Edit

Template:Scott Morrison sidebarEdit

Unnecessary. We don't need these sidebars for every politician, only the most significant ones who actually do have a *series* of articles *about* them, not just vaguely related ones. Doesn't help the reader as the all articles linked are already linked prominently in the Scott Morrison article. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep As creator, I obviously thought there was a purpose, despite not finding many relevant articles yet besides ministries and elections. Six of the previous seven prime ministers of Australia have similar sidebars in Category:Australia political leader sidebars. --Scott Davis Talk 10:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, only used in two articles which are already well-connected in the prose. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
It had been removed from the second ministry page as the royal commission titles forced the box too wide. I've shortened them and put it back on that page and the Morrison Government page. That's four pages in total at present. Should it be on any of the other pages it links to (election, royal commissions, electorate) or other pages I haven't thought to link? Or is it wasted effort to try to improve it now there are two delete !votes? --Scott Davis Talk 05:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
better to use a navbox, since navboxes don't crowd the contents at the top of the article. but, the navigation between ministry articles is already covered by Template:First Morrison Ministry, ... Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep As creator said. Techie3 (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep serves purpose well. Also, in future it will only grow. So better keep it now. Störm (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclonesEdit

Seems unnecessary. Almost every year we have C4 Severe Tropical Cyclones, and there is nothing special to have a template for them, compared with C5 Severe TC. Also, we don't have similar templates for South Pacific cyclones B dash (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@B dash: The reasoning in the deletion nomination is faulty and I oppose the deletion nomination. These are templates, not articles. The template is not an article titled List:Category 4 Australian region tropical cyclones, and no extraordinary notability is claimed (besides, such an article could be warranted anyway). Furthermore, your comment regarding there not being similar templates for the South Pacific is missing the point. The reason such templates do not exist is because no editor has yet decided spend the hours of tedious, repetitive editing that it takes to make these templates, choosing to rather edit and improve articles instead. Additionally, the fact that no such similar template exists for another topic is irrelevant, and does not preclude there being such a template made for the Australian region. These templates serve as a useful navigation tool for readers and editors to find similar cyclones, and provide a complete, compact list of all these systems. Nominating these for deletion is simply causing unnecessary trouble, and no one would benefit from the deletion. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @B dash and ChocolateTrain: We have a template for Category 4 Pacific hurricanes. Why should we delete templates that will be collapsed at the bottom and eventually direct users to a list of storms at that intensity? It seems counterproductive to the project to move forward with this deletion. The excuse that we don't have similar templates in another basin is a poor one at that. If that's the case, why try anything new? Why create yearly tropical cyclone articles? Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Yeah Cat 5s are rare, but that doesn't mean we should immediately discount storms of a lower intensity. Look at Idai, it is one of the most destructive cyclones in the South-west Indian Ocean and it wasn't a very intense tropical cyclone. I am therefore inclined to oppose all three nominations. Good day. NoahTalk 14:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge with {{Category 2 Australian region tropical cyclones}}, {{Category 3 Australian region severe tropical cyclones}} and {{Category 5 Australian region severe tropical cyclones}} to Template:Australian region severe tropical cyclones. These templates are created without care to guidelines and proper nav template useage. Looking at WP:NAVBOX, these templates fail point #4 as there isn't an article about Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones, but more importantly, they also fail the basic principle which is repeated over and over in the guideline, to link to articles, as almost all of the links are redirects to "year Australian region cyclone season" (example: 1979–80 Australian region cyclone season). This means that the templates is just WP:OVERLINKING to the same article multiple times per usage. This would have been a bigger issue if per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL these templates were actually used on the pages they were linking to, as the links would then be meaningless to the reader, which wouldn't understand why some links points to new places, while others lead them to the same page they were viewing. --Gonnym (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Category 3 Australian region severe tropical cyclonesEdit

Seems unnecessary. Almost every year we have C3 Severe Tropical Cyclones, and there is nothing special to have a template for them, compared with C5 Severe TC. Also, we don't have similar templates for South Pacific cyclones B dash (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Basically, you are saying to merge until such articles exist (ie List of Category 4 Australian region severe tropical cyclones)? NoahTalk 15:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
There are two main points to my argument - 1) there is no main article, which sometimes isn't an issue if links exists to actual articles, but then the question arises, why isn't there an article if this group is notable? and 2) most of the links are not to unique articles, but to the same article, over and over. Redirects don't have a place in navigation templates, as they don't navigate between articles. You could edit out the redirect links and leave only the yearly link, but then the 5 templates will duplicate 50~ links, which is why I proposed to merge them. --Gonnym (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: There are no redirect links being used here. Tropical cyclones are given their own sections within tropical cyclone season articles, which is why there are section hashes (#) used in the links to the season articles from the navbox. Regarding the point made above on bidirectionality, the tropical cyclones which do have individual articles all have these templates transcluded onto them, so the condition is satisfied in that regard. It would be unnecessary to have all of these templates on a season article. Also, I don't think the notability thing is really relevant here. The purpose of the template is a navigational aid for readers if they wish to find cyclones of similar strength. ChocolateTrain (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have been working on creating lists for Cat 1 - 5 SPAC and Aus in userspace and can move these into the mainspace at the drop of a hat.Jason Rees (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for using the wrong term, the issue is usually templates with redirects which was why I wrote that, but section links are the same exact issue (and if to stray a bit off-topic here, redirects should be used instead of pipped links, see WP:R). If you create the lists, the section links or redirects still have no place in a navigation template, as again, they offer no navigation at all between articles. You can, and should, link to the relevant list article and to any cyclone that has its own article. --Gonnym (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
While they may not link to full blown articles about the system, I personally feel that its useful to link to the seasonal article section since they are mini-articles about the storms. But maybe @ChocolateTrain: its a case of us having to think about these templates and redesign them.Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I should also make the point that if these templates are deleted, it will be an example of fruit of the poisonous tree. According to the evidence provided by B dash, there was no justification to nominate these templates for deletion originally. All deliberation since then would not have occurred if the templates had not been improperly nominated without cause in the first place, so any potential deletion is tainted by misconduct. ChocolateTrain (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Category 2 Australian region tropical cyclonesEdit

Seems unnecessary. Almost every year we have C2 Tropical Cyclones, and there is nothing special to have a template for them, compared with C5 Severe TC. Also, we don't have similar templates for South Pacific cyclones B dash (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

June 13Edit

Template:BLP-revdelEdit

WP:REVDELREQUEST says To avoid the Streisand effect, there is no dedicated on-wiki forum for requesting revision deletion under [circumstances other than copyright violations]. This template is a clearly against that policy and its restoration from a correct T2 deletion was incorrect. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I understand now. You may delete it again. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The purpose of this template is to avoid the Streisand effect. It is needed because there is no dedicated forum. It places the article in question into the hidden category requested RD2 redactions and with any luck an admin will see it and action the request soon. Pppery, if a non-admin sees an offending edit, please explain how they are to draw it to the attention of an admin to get it hidden. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If used, then keep but make it invisible on the articles i.e. remove the big box but keep the category. Christian75 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:2016-17 I-League U18 ROI Group A tableEdit

unused after being merged (with attribution) with the parent article per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Miami-Dade Transit s-line templatesEdit

S-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for various Miami-Dade Transit services. Consolidated in Module:Adjacent stations/Miami-Dade Transit. There are also 12 dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:XBIZ AwardsEdit

Navigation template with no useful navigation left. All of the remaining targets have been redirected to the parent article at XBIZ Award. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

June 12Edit

Template:9pins res startEdit

unused Frietjes (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Tottenham Hotspur F.C. hit singlesEdit

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 G7 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 20:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

seems redundant since all the links are already in Template:Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Frietjes (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unnecessary duplication. GiantSnowman 09:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as long as the template is replaced with the overall Spurs one on the relevant articles. I am assuming that when I created this template, the singles weren't included in the main club template. Maybe I should have just added them into that, rather than creating a new template but hey...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • you are correct, the songs were added in January 2018. given your comments here, and that you are the only substantial author, I have replaced this template with the main one and tagged it for speedy deletion. Frietjes (talk) 17:10, 13 June 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:Brooks Beast Track ClubEdit

No parent article, so notability not established. --woodensuperman 11:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, article first (if notable), then navbox (if article exists). Frietjes (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:New Jersey New York Track ClubEdit

No parent article, so notability not established. --woodensuperman 11:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, article first (if notable), then navbox (if article exists). Frietjes (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Reebok Boston Track ClubEdit

Only three notable entries. Not enough to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 11:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, article first (if notable), then navbox (if article exists). Frietjes (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Saucony Freedom Track ClubEdit

No parent article, so notability not established. --woodensuperman 11:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, article first (if notable), then navbox (if article exists). Frietjes (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Tinman EliteEdit

Only two notable entries. Not enough to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 11:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, article first (if notable), then navbox (if article exists). Frietjes (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

June 11Edit

Template:XBIZ Foreign FemaleEdit

A non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation. The template duplicates XBIZ Award for Foreign Female Performer of the Year, which appears to fail WP:LISTN itself, and is unneeded. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:NFL loreEdit

Per WP:NAVBOX #4, a navbox should have an associated article. This one doesn't and National Football League lore was deleted last year (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Football League lore (2nd nomination)). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Carolwood Pacific RailroadEdit

Unused route-map template. The article it links to Justi Creek Railway, uses {{Justi Creek Railway}} instead. Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Capdenac - Rodez railway diagramEdit

Unused route-map template for a redlink article. Gonnym (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cape Main Line route diagramEdit

Unused route map template. Says its a railway in South Africa, while the link Cape Main Line redirects to a railway in Massachusetts. Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: It's for an article I never got around to writing. No objection to removing it from template-space but if you do please could you move it to my userspace? I might still write the article one day. - htonl (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Userfy per Htonl. This is clearly required for the draft user:Htonl/Cape Main Line, so the move should be without prejudice to a move back to template space when the article is finished. As for the title, the South African railway seems to be the primary topic for the name, but the Massachusetts railway should be mentioned in a hatnote. Until the article is finished though the redirect is fine as is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Caprock ChiefEdit

Unused route-map as Caprock Chief uses a different version. Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. It was subst'd into the article in 2015; not sure why. I'm going to revert that and integrate any subsequent changes. Mackensen (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: not unused. Useddenim (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Category TOC (Hebrew)Edit

Unused Category ToC template with Hebrew letter support. Can't see this ever being used, as titles are supposed to be in English. Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Category scope CaribbeanEdit

Unused category hatnote. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cathead wwi corvettes ofEdit

Unused category hatnote. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cathead navy ship namesEdit

Unused category hatnote. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cathead korean war military equipment ofEdit

Unused category hatnote. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cathead cold war ships ofEdit

Unused category hatnote. Gonnym (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

June 10Edit

SFRTA s-line templatesEdit

{{S-line}} templates for the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, which runs Tri-Rail. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/SFRTA. All transclusions replaced. There are also 6 dependent s-line modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedway in Poland navboxesEdit

Propose merging Template:Team Speedway Polish Championship seasons, Template:Polish speedway teams, Template:Speedway Ekstraliga and Template:Speedway Ekstraliga seasons with Template:Speedway in Poland.
Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Abcmaxx who posted this at WP:PM with the following rationale: "It is essentially the same template and would be more beneficial to have just the one." Trialpears (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Hollywood VampiresEdit

One album and a barely related are not sufficient for a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 14:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, doesn't seem to have enough for a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Urban expressway of JapanEdit

Unused template Imzadi 1979  05:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:National highway of JapanEdit

Unused template Imzadi 1979  05:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Away goalsEdit

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. kingboyk (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This template reproduces a simple wikilink that would be better off written in wikicode than having to call a template every time. This is not what templates are for. Every instance of this template should be subst'ed and then the template should be deleted. – PeeJay 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 09:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. A category should be added to the template to track matches where it was applied. It's more consistent to use the template and its redirects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Why add a category when you can just check the "What links here" page? – PeeJay 22:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per Walter. The templates are better for consistency. Bmf 051 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • In what way? If people want to write something different than what the template displays, they can do so by simply not using the template. It is utterly pointless. – PeeJay 22:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete This has no reason to be in a template as opposed to standard wikitext. * Pppery * survives 00:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Per nom and Pppery, subst and delete. --Izno (talk) 04:07, 10 June 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:Warsaw Tramways Line 1Edit

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. These are not unused as they are linked from Trams in Warsaw#Route list. Having these as templates will allow them to be transcluded into articles about the individual tram lines should they be written and/or about stops/stations on the route, without needing to have lots of complicated and easily broken code in an article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - templates are not articles and should not be linked to from article mainspace. This does that and a very poorly fashion. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete templates that are linked rather than transcluded do not fulfill the stated purpose of the template namespace, to contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 11:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • So where else should it go? Including the diagrams inline in the article is clearly undue, a standalone article would have insufficient prose, yet the line diagrams are very clearly encyclopaedic information. If these were images there would be no question they should be included as they currently are, and yet equally an image would be uneditable and so inferior to the template. The encyclopaedia is therefore clearly best served by ignoring the "rule" that templates must be transcluded. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure this information is encyclopedic. We don't have articles on the individual tram lines, nor on the tram stops. The former could be written; the latter would probably fail to meet notability guidelines. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete these amateurish diagrams really need to go. They were just about OK in 2004 generally, they're not OK now. They're OK I guess for a short North-South line, but they fail for anything more complex. They look cheap, tacky and unprofessional. And they breed. People see one and they make others. They need replacing with proper maps. Tony May (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Interesting opinion, but completely irrelevant to this discussion. You would need to get consensus at somewhere like WT:RDT before deleting them for being "amateurish". Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that these should be kept as they provide useful information, but ideally a better way could be found to include these in the article as the current method is unsatisfactory. Could they be made collapsible perhaps? G-13114 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf & G-13114. Tony May's criticisms may be discounted, as he has a long history of hyper-criticism of others' images. (Nor do I see him offering to create geographically-accurate maps.) Gonnym seems to be arguing both sides of the issue, claiming simultaneously that they can't be kept because they're not transcluded, and that they can't be transcluded (uncollapsed) either.
    Please see this discussion from just six months ago as to precisely why stand-alone Route Diagram Templates exist. Another relevant discussion is here (where Gonnym also argued against the consensus). This one explains why RDTs should be kept separate from articles. Need I go on? Useddenim (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
But I will. Here is the same thing from three years ago. WP:DROPTHESTICK already. Useddenim (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. My argument was very clear. Templates should be transcluded, not linked to. If you want to transclude it, then transclude it. If you need to hide it, then that violates another MOS guideline. Seeing as how you need to go against the MoS twice to keep these, should make you question why. --Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Your opinion that templates must always be transcluded is clear. Unfortunately for you consensus has repeatedly found (Useddenim lists only some of the relevant discussions) that there are at least some cases when linking to templates that are not transcluded is perfectly acceptable. We do what is best for the encyclopaedia even if that means that not everything is rigidly black and white. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the diagrams are important, you should create Warsaw Tramways line diagrams per the discussion linked above. However, if these are minor bus routes, then WP:NOTTRAVEL. But, using template space to house content that isn't transcluded anywhere is not the answer. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Firstly these are not bus routes (the clue is in the name). Secondly, that article, if created, would simply transclude these templates (for the reasons repeatedly explained, separating the very tricky and easy to break template code (which is exactly what a route diagram template is, again the clue is in the name) from natural language content is a Good Thing) and so, completely unnecessarily, make it harder for readers to access. Pease explain how this benefits the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Vermont Radio MarketsEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Templates of this type used to be nested in the "below" sections of the radio market templates that are listed in it, in order to ensure that those templates were crosslinking each other — but that method was deprecated a long time ago, and the crosslinking is now just done directly instead of by calling a separate subtemplate — and the templates involved here are already doing their crosslinking the contemporary way rather than relying on this. Most of the other templates like this were deleted a long time ago, accordingly, and this is just a straggler that got missed in the process. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Not sure the current method of linking is actually the correct one. You have in this example 7 articles, all manually creating a list of templates, which requires a lot of overhead, while, using a simple template and placing it on the /doc page (not the template), is actually the more correct way to handle things like this. --Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • We should not be linking outside of main article space into template space from navboxes in this manner. Readers would expect to stay in article space when selecting a link from a navbox. --woodensuperman 14:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and use this instead of the current method of linking templates. Place this in the /doc page of each of the navboxes. --Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Interesting idea with using this in the /doc instead of the (called) template itself. Would like to hear more thoughts on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The links to adjacent radio markets are for the end user, not the internal editor of template documentation. The documentation page is the wrong place for them, because they're meant to be reader-facing content — placing the links in /doc instead would completely defeat the entire purpose of having any crosslinks at all, because it removes them from their actual purpose: the end user, the person who doesn't understand how radio markets are actually organized and is trying to find stations that aren't in the template they're looking at because they rimshot from outside the actual market, is who they're for. Bearcat (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Template space is only for reader-facing content when transcluded - we shouldn't be directing the casual reader outside of mainspace like this. They should be directed to articles for information, not template space, which is part of Wikipedia's "nuts and bolts". So the only appropriate place for these links to template space is in the documentation, as they should only be used to assist editors, not readers --woodensuperman 13:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
It is absolutely mission-critical to Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations that radio station market templates must crosslink to adjacent markets. The issue is that because radio stations are regularly audible in more than just one market, but radio stations are templated only for their originating market and not for every adjacent but separate market their signal happens to overlap, readers regularly browse the market template expecting to find adjacent-market stations that aren't actually in their own market and thus don't belong in its template. WPRS needs a way to direct those readers to the adjacent market templates in which they'll actually find the station they're looking for: we have to have a way for readers in Detroit to get directed to 89X without directly adding 89X to a market template it doesn't belong in; we have to have a way to direct readers in Buffalo to the Hamilton-Niagara template in which they'll find The River 105.1, without directly adding that station to the Buffalo market template since it's not a Buffalo station.
Our radio templates are based on the actual official radio market, but the general public often isn't familiar with the distinction, but instead thinks of their radio market as being inclusive of any station they can actually pick up on their radio regardless of whether it's really part of their radio market or the next one over — which is precisely why the radio market templates have to be able to crosslink each other in a reader-facing way. Without them the entire purpose of even having radio market templates at all will be completely disembowelled by the constant addition of adjacent-market stations to the wrong templates. That's precisely why WPRS even started doing it in the first place: radio stations were ending up with five or ten or fifteen separate market navboxes at the bottom, in defiance of TCREEP, because people kept trying to add adjacent-market stations to any market template where the station's signal could even be heard at all — Buffalo stations weren't just getting intermingled and TCREEPed with Hamilton ON stations; they were getting intermingled and TCREEPed into the Toronto radio market. But that's not what we want: we want stations to be navboxed only for their originating market, not for every adjacent market where their signal happens to still be audible, but readers still need a way to find those adjacent rimshotters they're looking for.
And at any rate, the purpose of TFD is strictly to determine the keepability or deletability of this template alone. TFD does not get to override a longstanding consensus about the formatting of templates that aren't up for deletion — the matter of whether non-deleted market templates crosslink each other or not will be decided by WikiProject Radio Stations, in a discussion conducted by WikiProject Radio Stations under the auspices of WikiProject Radio Stations, and not by anybody else but WPRS itself. A change like this has profound implications for the entire structure of WPRS's entire template stock, and thus requires WPRS to be notified — you're not allowed to sneak massive changes like this under a WikiProject's radar by conducting it in a discussion that the WikiProject was never properly notified about in order to even participate at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, for the radio station project to decide this would be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. To fundamentally go against guidelines such as WP:SELFREF and WP:SURPRISE is not appropriate. As WP:NAVBOXes are for navigating between articles, it would be acceptable to link to list articles with this information from these navboxes, but not to other templates. We should never be sending readers away from mainspace in this manner. I would suggest that, if they don't already exist, list articles should be created to mirror the navboxes, and these lists for adjacent markets can be linked from the navbox instead. --woodensuperman 08:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and remove links to template space from navboxes. We should not be directing readers "behind the curtain" from article mainspace. --woodensuperman 13:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, but keep the links to adjacent templates per Bearcat. As Bearcat explained, linking to adjacent markets is critical, and the current method of linking directly to a smaller list of adjacent markets is more useful and relevant than an exhaustive list of all markets within a state or province.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:48, 11 June 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:WXW World Lightweight ChampionshipEdit

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

The result of the discussion was keep Frietjes (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep This is a pretty standard template and I could not find a valid reason to to use it, so I have populated the pages with it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The template is now in use.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 00:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep; Galatz' work renders the nomination reason moot. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 10 June 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:YogācāraEdit

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In doubt Template no longer unused as the author spread its use. The Banner talk 07:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The template is now in use.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 00:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep; the nomination reason no longer applies. Frietjes, could you provide a new deletion rationale, or could you withdraw? Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:XRL PassengerEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

unused and no reason why it couldn't be included in an article directly. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The template is now in use on Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link Hong Kong section.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 00:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep; the nomination reason no longer applies. Frietjes, could you provide a new deletion rationale, or could you withdraw? Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If it's wanted, then just subst and use directly on page, as it isn't used anywhere else. --Gonnym (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst into article. Useddenim (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete because the template appears to be unused again. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:53, 13 June 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:CondellZabecki2001Edit

It appears that Paradoctor was anticipating that this citation template would be widely used, but it's only in two articles. I believe it should be subst'ed and deleted. howcheng {chat} 22:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment IMO, the current situation would justify it on its own. I wasn't aware at the time how irrational consensus can be, and what a mess resulted from that. After some resistance, I gave up the attempt at refactoring. Delete it if you must, this is for a time when the structural issues have been addressed. I would like to hear how this improves Wikipedia, though. Paradoctor (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment Cf. {{BarrowTipler1986}} Paradoctor (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
After further investigation, I've discovered there are a number of these specific-source templates that are used on only a handful of articles. As a software developer myself, I'm all about code reuse (and I've even made my own), but I feel like there should be some sort of threshold at which point having a specific-source template outweighs the negative aspects of it, those being:
  1. Clutter: imagine if we had templates for every source that's used in multiple articles... I can foresee a whole ton of duplicates as people just decide to create their own (because we follow no standard naming convention), so we end up with CondellZabecki2001, cite Truppenführung, Beck1933, and German Art of War and now someone has to convert those into redirects... and the worst-case scenario would be that there are multiple versions of the same template and each one is only used in one article.
  2. The principle of least astonishment: I've been here for almost 14 years and I was still thrown for a loop when I saw this in the wikitext.
Anyway, for this specific instance, I suppose if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and I have neither the time nor energy to go on a crusade against sparsely used citation templates, but I would humbly suggest that if you intend to create specific templates that won't be widely used, that you do it in userspace and subst them when actually citing those sources in articles. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"duplicates": As a software developer with long Wikipedia experience, you should be able to "imagine" a simple, efficient approach for duplicate management, both incoming and legacy. It took me about a minute or so. ;)
"thrown for a loop": That's owed to the "structural issues" I mentioned.
"if you intend to create": As I said, "I gave up the attempt".
"subst them" You mean, refactoring by hardcoding every instance of a constant?  
Anyway, I've taken Machiavelli's advice on reform and reprioritized long since, so whatever you do, happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Management of duplicates of course can be done with redirects but you have to know that those dupes exist in the first place; the problem is making sure that editors know what tools are available to them and if there's one thing my experience in software has taught me, it's that you cannot predict/control how users are going to behave (for anything that you try to idiotproof, there will always be a newer class of idiot). As for subst'ing citation templates from your user space, it's not like sources change very often. The most common might be that a web link rots and needs to be replaced by the Wayback Machine version. In all cases there has to be a balance between ease of use and ease of understanding. There are, after all, legitimate use cases for denormalizing a database table. That's why I was thinking that at certain threshold, using a custom template really starts to make sense. I don't know what that level is, but it's certainly not a handful of transclusions. Regardless, unless someone else feels really strongly about this, consider this request withdrawn. howcheng {chat} 18:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, better to use the standard method for adding citations to articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:CITEVAR Paradoctor (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep—nothing wrong with this template warranting deletion. Imzadi 1979  18:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

June 9Edit

Template:African UnionEdit

Propose merging Template:African Union with Template:Life in the African Union.
The contents in Life in African Union can to fit in African Union Template and more to it.Manabimasu (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • merge, the navbox has a better layout. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Netherlands squad 2019 UEFA Nations League FinalsEdit

Long established consensus on WP:FOOTY and past TfD discussions (example here, here and here) to only have international squad navigational boxes for the men and women's: World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and each continent's top level competition. The UEFA Nations League is not a top level competition, and there was agreement in a discussion from last month that there should not be squad navboxes for this competition. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 08:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Nations League is a new concept but I don't think it could be seen as a top level competition otherwise UEFA Champions League or something should be create a list according to this sequence too. KyleRGiggs (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Link language wrappersEdit

The explanation of this nomination has become very long, so I have collapsed the main nomination content. These templates have survived two previous nominations (2010, 2013) so I would like to present a more comprehensive analysis and that addresses concerns from the previous discussions.

I request those participating minimally peruse the questions in the FAQ section below before !voting; preferably read the whole nomination.

For convenience, I have included a brief summary below that lays out what this nomination is proposing (but mostly not why it is being proposed, hence why reading at least part of the whole nomination is requested).

Full nomination rationale.

Background/nomination rationale: These templates are all wrapper templates of {{Link language}} that don't accept any parameters. Their naming convention is not optimal: it's a relic of the original version of {{Link language}} (then-titled "Template:Languageicon") that would display an icon. The image-displaying functionality was removed in the second edit to the template. This naming can cause conflicts with actual icon templates (e.g. {{cricon}} vs. {{cr icon}}, {{ruicon}} vs. {{ru icon}}).

Unnecessary wrapper templates are inideal is because they split template code across multiple pages. This has multiple disadvantages:

Basically, consolidation creates a form of DRY design.

Replacement strategy: As far as I can tell, the only reason these templates exist separately are to allow convenient usage; it is understandably more convenient to type {{langcode icon}} than {{Link language|langcode}}.

Therefore, I would like to suggest template transclusions be replaced with a template redirecting to {{Link language}}. There are several possibilities, but I'd like to suggest {{LL|langcode}} as one good alternative title; it's even shorter than {{langcode icon}}.

This naming suggestion is not intended to be the "one true format"; other redirects and the template itself could still be used. But since there are many transclusions, the replacement is probably a task for a bot to do, so this would be deciding how the bot replaced the preexisting template transclusions.

Template redirects: But it would be negligent to discuss replacements while not bringing up the {{langcode}} redirects, which are even shorter than any suggested replacement, and will also be deleted if these wrappers are deleted.

For these to be retained, they would need to be converted into wrapper templates and would retain all the problems that wrapper templates have. However, name-wise, these are less problematic than the misleadingly named "icon" series, so I am slightly more amicable to keeping them and turning them into the canonical wrappers.

In general, though, it seems best to discourage wrapper templates and prefer redirects because it's a more centralized method of design that's more likely to remain consistent. There's also a greater consistency of expectations: with wrapper templates, similarly named templates can do totally different things, but this is not true of parameterized redirects. And this consistency of expectations holds true here too: {{langcode}} redirects are not consistently implemented, and some names are reserved for other uses, like Template:yo, which has significant usage as a redirect to {{Reply to}}. I don't think it makes sense to retain inconsistently present redirects to just to save 3 characters of typing for certain cases; consistency will ultimately make these templates easier to use, even if there is a tiny bit more typing involved.

FAQ:

  • {{langcode icon}} is so much shorter to type than {{Link language|langcode}}!
    As discussed above, I am not suggesting replacing current transclusions with {{Link language|langcode}}, but a shortened name redirect like {{LL|langcode}}; the shortened name could be even shorter than the current convention!
  • Why delete instead of merging and redirecting?
    Redirecting would be misleading. A redirect would not render like the previous version if used in article; it would simply display the default state of {{Link language}} when given no parameters.

    "Merging" doesn't really have any particular meaning in the context of this discussion, since they are already wrapper templates.

  • What about the red links in the article history?
    This concern seems misplaced. If we thought red-linked template transclusions in article history were problematic, we would never delete any templates ever.

    However, since this nomination suggests the deletion of widely-transcluded templates, one could argue the number of potential red links to be encountered in article history is larger than the standard TfD discussion. But here's the thing: as long as T36244 remain unimplemented, article history will always be fundamentally misleading about how templates worked because it does not show the state of the template at the time it was transcluded; it shows a transclusion of the current version of the template. It should not be our responsibility to create the illusion that page histories display prior template transclusions reliably.

    And the purpose of this template won't be some huge mystery: this discussion will be linked in the deletion log shown on all deleted pages. The red-links actually do the job of conveying the message that the template no longer serves the original purpose.

  • How will I be able to search for links in a specific language if these templates are deleted?
    Every language has a specific category listing articles in that language, e.g. Category:Articles with French-language external links (there are also more sophisticated methods of searching like Quarry's database replicate, and you could ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests (and other places, like certain editor's talk pages) if you want help finding something more specific).
  • Why fix what's not broken?
    Why not improve the existing format so it's just as easy to use if not easier, while ensuring it's less likely to be broken in the future?

    I will note I do consider these templates to be "broken" in certain respects, but it depends on your definition of "broken".

Background: {{Link language}} is a template that is placed near an external link to note its language. There are currently several options for using it, each involving an ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2, or IETF language tag, which I will denote here as langcode (basically a shortened form of the language name, examples being "en" for English, "fr" for French, "de" for German, and "ja" for Japanese). There are currently several options for using this template, depending on the language: {{Link language|langcode}}, {{langcode icon}} (and often 2-3 redirects: {{langcode}}, {{langcode-icon}}, and rarely {{Ref-langcode}})

Proposal: I am proposing template transclusions of the form {{langcode icon}} (and their corresponding redirects {{langcode}}, {{langcode-icon}}, and rarely {{Ref-langcode}}) be replaced by something like {{LL|langcode}}.

In practice, this would mean a bot would replace, for example, all occurrences of {{fr icon}} and {{fr}} with a templated form like {{LL|fr}}. {{fr icon}} and {{fr}} would no longer be usable by editors going forward.

As a weaker proposal, I have also suggested only eliminating the {{langcode icon}} form, while retaining the shortened form {{langcode}}, but this seems less ideal because {{langcode}} isn't consistently implemented for every langcode (and probably shouldn't be, as certain names like Template:yo are commonly used for other purposes). Retro (talk | contribs) 22:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment: Because this is an extensive nomination, it will take me a bit of time to use AWB to tag all the affected templates with TfD notices. I'll make a note here when I'm done. Retro (talk | contribs) 22:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
      Done Except for the template protected pages (which I've requested be edited here). Retro (talk | contribs) 23:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
      Note: All templates on the list are now tagged. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: So this is replacing a zero parameter template with a single parameter template, where the parameter is directly derived from the old instance? Thus little/no chance of errors during replacement? Hence a bot _could_ be trusted?
When replacing {{langcode icon}}, would you ask the bot to replace with {{Link language|langcode}} or with {{LL|langcode}} ? I could argue both ways. Obviously {{Link language}} is less overhead, more direct, and demonstrates "best usage". However, advertising the new shortcut usage {{LL}} quickly in several thousands of places might better gain future editor adherence. (cat herding 'taint nothing to the butterfly herding done rightchere)
When peeking at {{Link language}} it nervously chitters 230,000+ usages! (288610 at the moment) When I do a scientific poll of your list of templates (sampling 'transclusions' for the last 10 entries) I see some have 0 usages, some have <~10 usages, three have hundreds, and one has 9,000+ usages. Do you have any idea how many of the 280,000+ usages are represented by the combination of your set?
I think it is worth noting that the proliferation of these continues. Just randomly probing I came across Template:Azb icon created in April. Shenme (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Shenme and Tom (LT): Yes, I believe substitution could make bot replacement rather straightforward; we just put what we want into the template and then the bot will substitutes it verbatim. As for whether to use {{LL|langcode}} or {{Link language|langcode}}, I would lean towards "LL", as I assume it's the standard people will want to conform to. It's obviously not as clear as {{Link language}}. There are other compromises though; we could create new redirects like {{In lang|langcode}} or {{Link lang|langcode}} if we wanted to balanced typing ergonomics with clarity.

    By your question, I assume you mean how many of the transclusions use the wrapper templates as opposed to the {{Link language}} directly? I assume only a negligible amount use {{Link language}} directly, but I can back to you with harder data in a moment if you want. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (edited 03:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC))

It wasn't entirely an idle question, since quantity sometimes overwhelms the system. But I _was_ worried someone would object based on numbers. Yet if a tuned bot does this, overload doesn't happen? I was thinking of just using wget or curl and processing the text responses down into counts (though I wonder if I'd get blocked for, um, overloading the toolserver?). If you have a better way, though, it'd save me from a block? :-) Shenme (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Nah, CirrusSearch seems like a much better way that work within the system: 3101 results. That won't count redirects (and weird transclusion that use too many explicit numbered parameters), but it should be a fairly accurate ballpark. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Overall, I think this is a good idea conceptually. These are a huge set of templates and a single template is easier to maintain, easier to add new languages to, decreases overhead, helps standardise the appearance of things and any changes, and I think is also in the direction where other language templates are heading. In terms of the implementation, we would have to be careful that no errors are induced as Shenme points above. Also, I do not like the title 'LL' as I feel a plain language title that may be easier for new editors to understand, however would respect the majority opinion on this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question. Is substituting the templates not an option? –MJLTalk 03:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @MJL: I'm not sure if I completely understand your question; apologies for my lack of understanding.
    Substituting the templates is one potential method of eliminating these template transclusions, and probably the ideal method of elimination if this discussion is in favor of deleting the wrapper templates. We will probably want to do a few tweaks before substituting, though, but it should be fairly straightforward. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Retro: Looks like you did understand my question lol. It was in reference to Shenme's comment above. Thank you for the answer!   (edit conflict)MJLTalk 03:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    On a different note, {{Zh-classical icon}} seems to be broken; which is unfortunate. How possible is it to use {{#invoke:Language/data/wp languages}} in {{LL}}? I thought it was already supported..? –MJLTalk 03:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    That is unfortunate. Still investigating, but {{Link language}} directly invokes {{invoke:lang|name_from_code|}}, so there's some level of indirection there causing a bug. Retro (talk | contribs) 04:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    But actually {{zh-classical icon}} is unused, and the phrase "zh classical" is used less than 10 times in mainspace. Retro (talk | contribs) 05:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @MJL: (ping) Retro (talk | contribs) 05:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Retro: I see... So should the template be deleted? It's currently a part of your proposal. –MJLTalk 19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @MJL: Yeah, it'll be fine if it's deleted in this nomination; it won't cause any problems. Even if it does survive this nomination, it should probably be nominated separately because it's a non-standard and discouraged code. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    The error at {{Zh-classical icon}} arises because zh-classical is not a valid IETF language tag. I presume that it refers to Classical Chinese which article says that the language is synonymous with Literary Chinese which has the ISO 639-3 code lzh.
    Module:Language/data/wp languages is used by Module:Lang which is used by {{Link language}}. Direct use of Module:Language/data/wp languages is discouraged because the provenance of the data there is almost wholly unknown; some of the codes there are wholly non-standard.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, huh. That's what I thought, but I wasn't aware that Module:Language/data/wp languages has discouraged use. –MJLTalk 19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: When this is done, would you please include the options for upper and lower case versions? "in [language]" [sic] is irksome to me when the template is placed at the beginning of/in front of a link, etc. I'd like to be able to have "In [language]" as an option, and possibly the default option. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @DocWatson42: That could certainly be added as a parameter, perhaps |cap=yes. However, it is my understanding from something I read elsewhere while constructing this nomination (I'll link when/if I find it) that the existing MOS consensus is to only use template after the link. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Reading some discussions, I'm getting the sense that I may be mistaken. But I'll get back to this. Retro (talk | contribs) 04:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Retro: I request the option because so often I find the template placed at the beginning of a link, etc., or just after the bullet. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I read the rationale and I understand there are maintenance issues with the current system and also vandalism concerns, but the proposed change would be another step in making Wikipedia hard to edit because of having to remember template syntax. There is already too much of this and I do not see the concerns raised as justifying yet another step in the direction of making editing difficult for anyone but the technologically highly educated. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Yngvadottir: As I mentioned above, I'm open to other names besides {{LL|langcode}}. I don't know if you consider {{langcode icon}} easy to remember, but I personally consider it an unintuitive naming scheme. If we standardize one one naming format, I see these templates as being easier to use, because they're more consistent. Retro (talk | contribs) 04:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I do consider "icon" easier to remember than "LL|" because it's a word. I don't think there's a way around the fact your proposal will add yet another code string that editors have to remember. It could be argued that only highly motivated and savvy editors use these anyway, as opposed to not noting the language, just typing the language name or 2-letter code, or leaving a bare link for someone to run a script over, but this hits precisely the editors with relatively shaky English who want to cite websites in their native language. Words are easier to remember (and teach) than code. (There are days I flub "ill" or the "As of" template, and "sfn" is still too much for me.) It's a cumulative memory load, and the essence of the project is that those with knowledge and willingness can help build the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Yngvadottir: Would you be more amicable to replacing with {{in lang|langcode}}, since that's also a word (and hopefully relatively clear to the template's purpose, thus probably being likely to become memorable)?

    I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that my proposal has to create increased complexity for the average editor. I think this can even be an opportunity to increase usability.

    Honestly, I don't find the current limitations of {{Link language}} particularly helpful myself. For instance, it would be nice if I could do {{Link language|French}}, but that is not currently supported. But this TfD can't really fix that problem; that will require some dedicated tweaks to {{Link language}}. Retro (talk | contribs) 04:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

    That would be easier to remember, yes. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Yngvadottir: Does that mean your oppose is only conditional on whether the replacement is {{LL|langcode}}? Or would you prefer status quo regardless? Retro (talk | contribs) 12:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    No, as per my previous edit summary here, I'm still opposed because I am not persuaded the change is justified. Any change will contribute to the barriers to editing, and tempt long-standing editors to not try—not noting the language, or just slapping in a bare URL, are things borne of frustration that we already see. But if it is decided that a change is desirable, I appreciate your suggestion as being less of a deterrent. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Literal argument display doesn’t seem difficult to implement here, and I could see it done one of 2 ways: 1) add a fourth set of data linking fully spelled out names; 2) display literal argument as a final fallback when no language is found. But, honestly, in either case, the decrease in consistency could be good reason for people to oppose. While being able to spell out a name is definitely nice, there’s a lot of value in the system established now. My biggest concern for either option would be a clash between a 2/3 letter code and a language with a short common name. A good solution regardless of changes to the template would be an autogenerated table that displays every possible output with a list of accepted inputs in a highly visible location. There are several sources for varying standards linked in the template documentation, but something built specifically for this template would be much better. I don’t have a stance either way, but from a technical glance, such a change seems rather trivial. 1F6😎E 08:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @U 0x1F60E: I appreciate your comment. I am certainly not proposing that new argument functionality be added as a result of this discussion; it was only an example, and can be discussed further at a later time. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This will be much easier. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportOwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose— I would prefer {{langcode icon}} or the shortened form {{langcode}}, but not {{LL|langcode}}. Shorter language code, will be easier for new editors and reduce in pagesize when linking many non-English literature or weblink to an article. Fiipchip (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Fiipchip: My proposal is to replace {{langcode icon}} and {{langcode}} with {{LL|langcode}}, so your vote should probably be an oppose.

    But if even though you're not okay with replacing with {{LL}} (a common concern; the inclarity of the name seems to be a bit of a sticking point in the previous discussion), would you be okay if they were instead replaced with {{In lang|langcode}}? Retro (talk | contribs) 12:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

    @Retro:thank you, I have updated to oppose. I would still prefer the shorten version of langcode. Let's face it, reducing the wordings can reduce the pagesize and at the same time minimise errors. If there is a maintenance issue due to shortening of the codes, I would vote for {{LL|langcode}}. Fiipchip (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Fiichip: I have updated the summary, so hopefully it's a bit more clear (if you have any other questions, feel free to ask them!)

    Based on your previous comments, it seems like you might generally be in favor of my proposal to remove the {{langcode icon}} while keeping {{langcode}} as an option (the "weaker proposal" noted above in the summary). Retro (talk | contribs) 14:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

    @Fiipchip: And I misspelled your name, so it didn't ping correctly :-P. This ping should work. Retro (talk | contribs) 14:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A few comments. I firmly oppose the end result being a template name with the word "icon" in it. "Icon" has a meaning, and from checking some of the templates, none of them have any icon in it (as was pointed by nom). Yngvadottir has expressed concern that editors will have to remember another piece of code string, I'm assuming they meant the country code, but how is that different from remembering what XX icon template to use? Those are the same parameters. --Gonnym (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Gonnym: So basically, you support getting rid of the {{langcode icon}} wrappers, but you're neutral towards the {{langcode}} template redirects?

    Regarding Yngvadottir's concerns, I think you've misunderstood: Yngvadottir is concerned about another codeword like the shortened form "LL" in my suggested redirect replacement {{LL|langcode}}. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

    Leaning support, which is why I didn't vote. Waiting to see more comments first. If that is Yngvadottir's concern that is basically a non-issue, as that is like opposing RM for that reason. --Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am already used to using {{ja icon}} {{de icon}} etc., and if the change is seamless, i. e., if I use the legacy name and it just gets redirected to the new template name that takes parameter, that's fine. But proposing to get rid of it so I would wind up getting warning message would be imposing and annoying.
  Comment: As for "icon". This template {{Link language}} used to appear in a shade of gray and slightly smaller size: "(in Japanese)". Visually not all that different from the   icon used by {{translator}}. I would have preferred to have this css style "icon" but certain users mobilized to get rid of it. --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per given reasons (long-term maintenance, current template names are deceptive). howcheng {chat} 16:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Keep the {{xx icon}} method alive. A change for what appears only the sake of it, and a deletion of this present template, will only cause disruption, no matter how insignificant it appears to be for fellow editors. Ref (chew)(do) 17:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support for the change because it will decrease maintanence load. Slight support for keeping current syntax when it is already heavily used for a specific language. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose and keep the existing method alive. It's not broken. Also, can we please do something so that <see Tfd> doesn't appear against every single instance of the templates used. That's doing more damage to the encyclopedia than this change would whether implemented or not. Gricehead (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Gricehead: I don't mean to be a bother, but I was wondering what kind of damage having the notice does? I don't feel it compromises the purpose of the template; it's a bit more visual clutter, but it might encourage editors who would not otherwise participate in this TfD to come, and it will only be there temporarily.

    I take full responsibility for adding those notices; it was done intentionally so that it would display in the manner you note. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Retro: In my opinion it's visual clutter that adds no value to the encyclopedia for our readers. I agree it might well bring editors to this discussion (like it did me), but I suspect many many more people read than edit (I have no stats to back this up). Gricehead (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
There is not consensus to noinclude templates for reasons other than them being substituted. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Pppery: I appreciate the archived discussion, though I'm not sure why you immediately reverted your mention of it. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A belief that my initial commentare came across as unnecessarily hostile. I've restored that post. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yet another non-problem not needing fixing. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This tfd prompted me to dust off User:Monkbot/Task 6: CS1 language support. That task was developed to add |script-title=, where appropriate, based upon either the content of |language= in the cs1|2 template or upon an appropriate {{<xx> icon}} template directly adjacent to the cs1|2 template. To get the most complete coverage, it made sense to normalize the {{xx icon}} templates and their redirects to a consistent form before making the decision to add (or not) |script-title=. Further, even when not appropriate to add |script-title=, in the cases where there is an adjacent {{<xx> icon}} template, it makes sense to add |language=<xx> and remove the {{<xx> icon}} template. If this tfd is successful, there will be work for me to remove the normalization code and add support for the new template (this is an observation, not a complaint). So, having dusted off task 6, I am running the bot to cleanup uses of {{<xx> icon}} templates adjacent to cs1|2 templates.

    When initially writing task 6, I wrote some test code that became the basis for the {{<xx> icon}} normalization used by task 6. I've dusted that off too, updated to the list of templates for this tfd, tossed out most of the original code in favor of code based on my most recent bots, and voilà, most of a bot done. It does need to be checked for data accuracy, and it does need a new-template name, but should suffice as a starting point if this tfd is approved. Code is here.

    When deciding on a name for the new template, beware {{llink}}, yet another language template, this one strictly for ISO 639 codes. Some advantage may be gained by using the {{LL|langcode}} form (regardless of whatever it is named, if it is named). A single template like this can produce a nice rendering of a list of languages; much nicer than the lists of languages at Moravia § External links, for example (ignore the tfd messages and look at the list).
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Trappist the monk: The multiple languages is actually potentially a huge benefit in terms of widening options, and definitely not scaleable to wrapper templates (imagine: {{en fr icon}}, {{en de icon}}, {{fr de icon}}, plus another 1.67 * 10^96 such templates). I don't expect people would really create such templates, but it is simply an analogy to show the limiting mindset of defaulting to a set of wrapper templates.

    I wish I had focused more on things like that in my rationale (I also wish I had pared down its extreme verbosity). This sort of thing is really the reason why I think it's better to utilize the primary template, because it opens room for editors to have more options within the better structured framework, rather than to be deceived by a pseudo-consistency of wrapper templates that narrows ones' potential options. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

    I have tweaked Module:Lang/sandbox and {{link language/sandbox}} so instead of this:
    ‹See Tfd›(in Czech) ‹See Tfd›(in English) ‹See Tfd›(in German) ‹See Tfd›(in French) ‹See Tfd›(in Spanish) ‹See Tfd›(in Italian) ‹See Tfd›(in Polish) ‹See Tfd›(in Russian) ‹See Tfd›(in Japanese) ‹See Tfd›(in Chinese)
    this:
    (in Czech, English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Russian, Japanese, and Chinese)
    Categorization (mainspace only) and error messaging works. Probably not completely proper to keep this in Module:lang because it is too tied to a specific template (in this case primarily because of categorization) so some (all?) of the new code should probably be moved into Module:Lang/utilities. I may go ahead and do that because this seems a handy thing to have around.
    As I was writing this message I mis-typed the template name and wrote {{language link/sandbox}}. That experience suggests to me that the base name of the template is too confusing (yeah, we have a redirect for the live template and could create one for the ~/sandbox ...). But I begin to agree with those who have have suggested {{in lang}} as the template name simply because {{in lang}} matches the function of the template.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It was a bad idea in the first place to have individual templates for each language code, on top of associated redirects. I understand change can be hard for many, but the new syntax will not be that difficult to learn and is still succinct, if even more so. This change is necessary to standardize these templates and easily allow changing them consistently in the future, instead of in many places (if, for example, we want to display a notice for languages with rare font support, this can be done in a central location). As another user mentioned, the name is also deceiving, and we should say what we mean: there is no icon. This isn't just change for change's sake as many non-technical users will see from their perspective, but important semantically and structurally. Opencooper (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose out-right deletion. unfortunately, the two-letter templates are used on commons and many other non-English WPs, so this would create endless problems with broken transclusions of deleted templates. however, I would support making them auto-substituted by bot. this would be a more graceful way to deprecate them. for an example of the complexity, see Template:en which is namespace dependent to behave like the commons template in file space. Files are frequently temporarily copied over to facilitate protection. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Frietjes: Your note about Template:en actually seems to slighly support my proposal. {{en}} is not one of the template I propose to delete in my proposal because it is actually an exception case; a {{lancode}} template that does not redirect to the corresponding {{en icon}} wrapper template. This demonstrates the naming here is ultimately an inconsistent patchwork (and fundamentally so: wrapper templates reserve extra pages by their nature). Under the current model, it seems conceivably easy that one could accidentally use {{en}} when they really intended to get the output "(in English)". Retro (talk | contribs) 15:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    Because I was curious, I've added a list of two-character redirects to {{<xx> icon}} templates to the template list. Also added links to see what redirects are available for each of the nominated templates.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Frietjes: For the long-term, I see even the {{langcode}} templates as being ambiguous, because I've sampled a few different language wikis and found them being used in a variety of ways. However, in the short term, I can see the benefits for a deprecation period where the templates are still supported (I'm going to post a comment about this soon).
    In the long term, it might be ideal to turn the {{langcode}} templates into redirects to a langcode disambiguation page, but we'll have to see how they get used in the long term. Retro (talk | contribs) 13:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    More curiosity, I've added a list of all ISO 639-1 codes as template calls to the template list. This covers the lowercase and mixed-case versions ({{<xx>}} and {{<Xx>}}). For completeness, I'll do another list of upper case codes ({{<XX>}}).
    In the list there is only one other like {{en}}: {{ka}}.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Trappist the monk: Out of curiousity, what is your approach for generating these lists? I was thinking about throwing together a Python script to generate a comprehensive table and it made me curious about your methodology. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    Manual, assisted by the regex facilities of my editor when simple repeatable tasks are more quickly done that way. I didn't want some sort of automated thing; I wanted to look at each template call to see what it was and then comment or not depending on what I saw.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    Upper case list done.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that a bot should be allowed to replace all the usage of {{foo icon}} because these templates do not render icons, nor should they AFAICT. There's certainly some of us editors who happen to know the existing syntax, but there is no actual big loss if we're forced to convert to having to know some other piece of syntax that is less counter-intuitive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all A clear, in my mind, instance of hundreds of templates doing a task that could be (and is, to some degree) done by one template. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question. What is to prevent the recreation of one or many of these templates by someone ignorant of their previous creation and deletion? Hyacinth (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Hyacinth, see WP:SALT. Frietjes (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Question. @Frietjes: Would anything lead these potentially misguided people towards the appropriate place/means (aside from an assiduous search on their part)? Hyacinth (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        • @Hyacinth: I'm going to make a comment soon that will probably address your concern. Retro (talk | contribs) 13:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yngvadottir, Kiyoweap, Refsworldlee, StudiesWorld, Frietjes, and Hyacinth: You all have, in one form or another, expressed concerns that outright deletion may leave behind those used to the existing way of using these templates.

    So here's my suggestion: instead of deleting the templates immediately after all the transclusions are replaced, we let the templates remain usable and deprecated for a time. If new transclusions arise, they can be replaced (probably by bot). Perhaps they can eventually be deleted in a later discussion if everyone has become used to the new model, but that can be a discussion for another time.

    Of course, some of you have also expressed that you feel replacement is unnecessary, and you are welcome to repeat or elaborate on that here, but I don't necessarily see that as productive in furthering the discussion. For me, this discussion has shown that a primary benefit of centralizing (in addition to my rationale about name ambiguity) is to allow future renovation to {{Link language}} without requiring hundreds of templates be edited to be able to use those renovations; Here, I'm referring specifically to DocWatson42's suggestion to add support for capitalization and Trappist the monk's sandboxing to allow support for a compact list of multiple languages. Retro (talk | contribs) 14:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

    I think that plan makes sense. However, I think that if any of the templates continue to see significant transclusions going forward, we should consider maintaining them specifically, while deleting the rest in the class. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    That will be good to consider after we see how usage counts settle. I don't really think we'll continue to see signficant usage, because I suspect many people look at existing pages to remember how to use a template (I certainly do on occasion). On the flipside, there are certain templates that have never been used and that are similar existing template names, so those might eventually be good targets for redirecting or deleting. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    If the decision is to deprecate the templates in the template list (and their redirects?) then each of the deprecated templates should be marked with {{deprecated template}}. I mean if (if) anyone ever reads the documentation, there will be the don't-use-this-deprecated-template message glaring at them which might go some way in reducing the use of old-style templates. Or not.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Trappist the monk: {{Deprecated template-inline}} would probably be better, so it doesn't break the formatting around it by inserting a giant box. But I seem to remember another template that might be even better...
    On a side note to this TfD discussion, I've been looking at some of the depreaction templates, and I'm starting to think they should all be merged into {{Deprecated template}} with a |type= parameter, in the style of {{Template for discussion/dated}} Retro (talk | contribs) 12:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    I do not mean that every instance of the deprecated templates in article space should be marked with {{deprecated template}} which is why I wrote: I mean if (if) anyone ever reads the documentation, there will be the don't-use-this-deprecated-template message glaring at them which might go some way in reducing the use of old-style templates. Or not. Given the push-back that happened because the templates in the list are/were marked with the tfd annotation, I suspect more of the same could be expected from use of {{deprecated template-inline}}.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, sorry I misunderstood. So your suggestion is more along the lines of editing the documentation metatemplate that all the wrapper templates use to note the wrapper templates are deprecated. I think that suggestion makes sense. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong, decisive support. The arguments of Retro are too formidable for me to doubt. Getting rid of the LIE that is the Langcode "icon" templates will do much good for new editors. Retro has been so patient with you guys, and yet they've been met with petty complaints. Too much of the opposition to this proposal is motivated by sheer resistance to change. The Wikipedia community has accomplished much larger, much more complicated tasks that this. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: Retro says his suggestion will "allow future renovation to {{Link language}} without requiring hundreds of templates be edited" but this maintenance issue he claims seems nonexistent to me.
  • I've looked at {{ja icon}} and it calls on {{Link language}}. Presumably the "hundreds of templates" are the same. So whatever changes to {{Link language}} is updated on the hundreds of templates it calls, n'est-ce pas? --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Kiyoweap: Template parameters have to be explicitly invoked through wikicode like {{{arg name}}}. Therefore, if one wants to add to a new parameter to multiple templates, each template has to be edited to add each new parameter's name. In this case, it would be code like |arg name={{{arg name}}}.

    Though technically, explicit argument declaration wouldn't be necessary if the entire code was turned into a LUA module. But such is not the case currently: as you note, all of the modules call {{Link language}} directly. There would still be the initial maintenance with the LUA module: the template code invoking the module would have to be copied and individually tweaked for each of the 300+ template titles. Retro (talk | contribs) 02:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Though I think language full names are easier to remember than language codes. Masum Reza📞 02:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. per above. I really can't see a reason why we need to call them icon templates nor why we need {{fr}} when (in French) works just as well and would be much more consistent with other languages. Honestly, this template should just be a magic word to make them consistent across all projects, but I digress.MJLTalk 02:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Australian tropical cyclone intensity smallEdit

Unused templates with the same accessibility problems as {{Saffir-Simpson small}} (see below). Some of these scales are not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what to think about the so called accessibility problems as its not my area of expertise, but would comment that the 3 scales are the same (abr the weaker intensities) and are mentioned on Wikipedia.Jason Rees (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Are the scales the same across regions? --Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nominator NoahTalk 16:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - although I have urged keeping the more-used Saffir-Simpson version below while the identified problems are addressed, it is less useful to keep these three. With no transclusions, a good path of action is probably to fix and improve the Saffir-Simpson version, and then (re)create other legends based on it (or possibly extend a single "color legend" template using an option for different scales). —AySz88\^-^ 05:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Saffir-Simpson smallEdit

Inaccessible and similar in function to {{Saffir-Simpson scale}}. See also archived discussions (especially the last comment), below. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No codeEdit

I removed the HTML code, and replaced it with proper wiki code. I also removed the "mouse over for more details" text, since mousing over the links just gave the link target (which is the same for all links of course). Finally I right-aligned it, which is needed for all its current users (see Category:Tropical_cyclones_by_strength and children). Jdorje 05:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Mousing over the cell was supposed to give things like "Tropical Storm, 39–73 mph (63–117 kph)" which makes the template pretty much a complete replacement for {{Saffir-Simpson-US}}, though a little less obvious about how to use. If there's some sort of conflict between the tooltips, perhaps the links should be removed instead because Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale is already linked to above the cells. --AySz88^-^ 00:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree the links should be removed. I've never seen any useful tooltips, either on this table or on the season button bar. Jdorje 00:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Does that mean the tooltips didn't work for you, or you don't think it would be useful? --AySz88^-^ 00:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I just changed the width so it's consistent across all parent widths, and with a seperate edit re-added the mouseovers (though not the text indicating their existance). The mouseovers can be removed if they're felt to be a problem. --AySz88^-^ 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The tooltips do not work so long as the text is a link. Jdorje 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yikes, I wasn't aware of that, that's a big problem for the button bar. Thanks for telling me. I'm using a Wikipedia plugin-thing that previews a page, so I never noticed. --AySz88^-^ 01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Tooltips are inaccessible Web designEdit

As mentioned in above discussion from 2005, content in tooltips is not accessible to everyone. Non-sighted users, keyboard users, and — especially important in 2018 — touchscreen users cannot perceive tooltips. Setting the template to nomobile should help, since it's of little use to them, but non-sighted users will still hear meaningless letters and numbers. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Im not sure that this template is really needed at all. We link to the SSHWS at various points in the articles while the timeline image contains all the windspeeds and colours that this template does. I also note that its sister templates are all Template:Australian tropical cyclone intensity small, Template:BOM Scale small and Template:FMS Scale small are not transcluded anywhere, which makes me wonder even more about it being needed.Jason Rees (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with {{Saffir-Simpson scale}} where used. Tooltips / Hover text are indeed not supported by the MOS (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text). --Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This template was mainly intended as a color legend for maps and tables (such as in 2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Season_effects) where a key for the meanings of the colors is desired, but not so much the information about the scale itself. The tooltips inside the template were "nice to have" but not the template's main purpose; if the template is kept, the tooltips and accessibility issues can be addressed separately.
For context, at the time the template was made, the use of colors to convey category and strength information was widespread in WikiProject Tropical cyclones, and screen space was scarce: a 800x600 CRT monitor was a plausible use case. With that in mind, {{Saffir-Simpson scale}} may not be a drop-in replacement. Some refactoring could create a solution, such as in the aforementioned table, which has a column that explicitly lists the categorization for each storm, obviating the legend.
WPTC might still have need of a miniature legend like this, though - for example, I would have expected some transclusions to provide a key for track maps (Wikimedia:Category:Atlantic hurricane tracks). The discussions on tooltips and addition of "nomobile" seems to have muddled the applicability and usage of the template - moving the template (after replacing to zero transclusions) could be an option to allow the project to repair it, or modify it to work better with modern UI. —AySz88\^-^ 08:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

* Delete with no replacement I would suggest simply deleting this template and not replacing it. None of the other season articles have their scales at the top of the effects table, so it isn't needed here. The TC scales page is already linked. One could also view the timeline on the page to see the scale. NoahTalk 14:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

    • I'm not sure the consistency argument works - one might as well say that the other basins *should be using* their templates more (plus, there are other contexts where this template is used than the effects tables). And Tropical cyclone scales, in the word "category" in the column headers, is a mix of all the basins' scales, not the specific one being used. More broadly, almost by definition this is a brief on-hand alternative to the main place for this information. Usability-wise, removing the ability to have a legend at all seems to be a step backwards and prone to confuse (unless there's a decision to remove color entirely instead). —AySz88\^-^ 05:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - after some more research, I'm getting more convinced that the issues being identified are more shortcomings and lack of maintenance than reasons to delete. The transclusions of this template are indeed at places where the articles have want of a labelling of the colors. I'd suggest that the need here is to address the issues - perhaps a redesign based on or merged with the other instances where a color legend is used, such as in the timelines and track maps, or a merge with some smaller option of {{Saffir-Simpson scale}}, in a design without the wind speed columns. (I can't guarantee how quickly the project would address this comprehensively, but seems improper to go to deletion for lack of this work.) —AySz88\^-^ 05:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – This template provides another function for using a scaled-down version of the table, just like how the Template:Hurricane infobox small has its own specific purpose separate from that of the larger Hurricane infobox template. This template is also used in a large number of articles with hurricanes/storms that are warned on by the U.S., probably every single hurricane season article with a Season effects table. Any issues with the smaller template as it is can be resolved with maintenance and syntax adjustment (if needed). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:ISO 3166 adjEdit

Template:This user talkEdit

rarely used. Viztor (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep since it is used/transcluded. Unless a target to redirect or merge this is found, there's no reason to delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
It is used by three people, should not it be in User space in this case? Viztor (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel. Userspace templates don't really need the maintenance and watching that mainspace templates do; there's no harm in having this template with a few transclusions if nothing else does the same job. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Question @Steel1943 and Nyttend: Since when do we need to disambiguate user talk page? If not, should it be marked as humorous material to avoid confusion? Viztor (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • See discussion near the bottom of User talk:Asterion/Archive 11. The point is basically to be a user-talk version of {{User page}}, but simpler and oriented toward helping a reader find the article of the same BASEPAGENAME. Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Also it seems it could use {{about}} for similar things. Viztor (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cs1 functionEdit

In Citation Style 1 templates, the parameters subscription= and registration= are deprecated. Since the nominated template is only used on documentation for templates that transclude {{Subscription required}} or {{Registration required}}, this purpose of template is deprecated and following the directions in this template are now inaccurate since using the subscription= or registration= parameters in Citation Style 1 templates now returns a red warning message stating that the aforementioned parameters are now deprecated. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Deletion historyEdit

Propose merging Template:Deletion history and Template:Multidel with Template:Old XfD multi
Propose merging Module:Deletion history with Module:Old XfD multi.
A clear instance of two templates serving the exact same purpose, of listing past nominations for deletion. Note: I have noincluded the TfD tag on Template:Old XfD multi given that the template being merged into it has only one transclusion. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Would also support {{Multidel}} being merged into this. --Gonnym (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, as well as support merging {{Multidel}} as long as existing transclusions of {{Multidel}} are converted to use {{Old XfD multi}} parameters and appearance. Steel1943 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • {{Multidel}} tagged and added to nomination (I also support merging it, but simply didn't come across it when making the original nomination). * Pppery * it has begun... 17:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support all It'll make life a lot simpler to only have one of these templates. They all do substantially the same thing. –MJLTalk 23:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question Pppery, Gonnym, Steel1943, and MJL, what do you think of {{Oldprodfull}}? Either it ought to be included here, or it would help if someone would explain why it doesn't belong here. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Nyttend: It doesn't belong here because the templates I listed are for past deletion discussions and it is for past proposed deletions. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Nyttend: That's a good question! I see prod as similar to {{Old moves}} in that it isn't a traditional XfD. However, and more importantly, I feel like if we were to include it within this merge that it'd confuse newbies. Prod is a very... different process to get used to. It'd just make it sound as if the article went through a more rigorous review than it actually did by surviving prod. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 23:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, thank you both for your helpful responses. I wasn't sure whether the focus should be on the deletion process (more broadly) or the discussion (more specifically). Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (all): We don't need three different templates for noting previous XfDs; consolidating templates like these increase the consistency of display (and probably ease of using in the long term). Retro (talk | contribs) 15:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:2019 Liga 2 tablesEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:35, 10 June 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).

Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex s-line templatesEdit

S-line data modules

{{S-line}} templates for Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Denton County Transportation Authority, and the Trinity Railway Express, respectively. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Module:Adjacent stations/Denton County Transportation Authority, and Module:Adjacent stations/Trinity Railway Express. All transclusions replaced. There are also 14 dependent s-line modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Political protests in the 21st centuryEdit

This Navbox's scope is way too wide. I suggest that, before we delete it, we break it down into smaller, more reasonable topics. For example, we can turn each subgroup (i.e Colour revolutions, Arab Spring, Anti-war, etc...) into an independent Navbox (if such Navbox doesn't already exist).

This Navbox isn't helpful at all. Despite its name, it is actually about every protest in the entire 21st century. What will it look like a decade from now, for instance? --Bageense(disc.) 12:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, better covered by a list article or categories. Frietjes (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Frietjes. Navboxes need to focus on a topic with a limited number of articles, or they need to focus on the premier items in a broad topic. I can't envision how to narrow down this topic to a few premier items (especially since 80% of the century hasn't happened yet), and as Bageense notes, the template is simply too large already. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Convert to a list a fascinating, encyclopedic and potentially useful resource for modern history inclined readers. Should not be a template, but I wonder if a list (eg Protests in the 2000s, protests in the 2010s) would be a more appropriate format in addition to categories. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Convert to list per Tom. Very surprising there isn't a list already. --Gonnym (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Convert to list—completely unwieldy as a navigation template at this point and only going to get worse as nom says, but could be useful as list of protests in the 21st century (or split further) —Nizolan (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Also agree with nom that some of the categories could be hived off into separate navboxes (colour revolutions and international protests seem like obvious candidates, less convinced of the utility of some of the other sections for this) —Nizolan (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tom (LT), Gonnym, and Nizolan:   Done! List of protests in the 21st century. Still working on it though. --Bageense(disc.) 16:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

June 8Edit

Module:Testcase rowsEdit

Superseded by Module:Template test case. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Module:Testcase tableEdit

Superseded by Module:Template test case, as evidenced by Special:Diff/636399687 . * Pppery * it has begun... 18:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • history merge since it was essentially forked without attribution. Frietjes (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:WPCD-PortalEdit

Delete 10-year out-of-date talkpage template having an external link that is completely busted; no alternative external target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Module:SpectralColorEdit

Unused (except on own doc page) six years after creation. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete There may not exist a practical application that would comply with WP:COLOR. If anyone can disprove me, then keep. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailedEdit

Unused; content has been merged into {{Trillium Line route diagram}}. Useddenim (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • redirect since it was merged without attribution. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Frietjes, which will also reduce problems caused to old revisions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Module:Section transcludeEdit

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. (Wikitext version: {{#section:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{{1}}}}} * Pppery * it has begun... 00:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Lithuanian route member signEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Used template, superseded by actual graphics. Imzadi 1979  01:10, 8 June 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).


Old discussionsEdit

June 7

Module:Gutenberg

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. Wikitext versions of the three templates that use this module written in Template:Gutenberg author/sandbox, Template:Gutenberg Australia/sandbox and Template:FadedPage/sandbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 16#Module:Books_and_Writers, a discussion that closed with consensus to convert a template with roughly the same degree of code complexity to Wikitext. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep because it can be done doesn't mean it is the best solution. We went from a single Module file to three template source files to maintain and track. Also it was my plan at some point to tie this into Wikidata which tracks Gutenberg IDs. -- GreenC 00:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Vgy

The video games WikiProject does not link years to the "YYYY in video gaming" articles anymore. This is one of those archaic Wikipedia things that used to be done back in the mid-2000s, but overtime the practice has been abandoned. The template should be deleted to settle it permanently. TarkusABtalk 12:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Lordtobi () 13:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion, but would support deprecation / docs warning against casual use. Maybe even mass subst'ing. It's still used in a lot of articles and deleting will break old revisions of articles, so would prefer a softer approach. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This is a philosophical question completely not germane to this discussion, but... do we/should we operate as if we care about old revisions? I wasn't aware that old revision readability was something that we were meant to preserve. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I've never seen it come up as an argument to keep something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Axem Titanium: I say no. If I may quote something I wrote for another TfD discussion:
        This concern seems misplaced. If we thought red-linked template transclusions in article history were problematic, we would never delete any templates ever.

        However, since this nomination suggests the deletion of widely-transcluded templates, one could argue the number of potential red links to be encountered in article history is larger than the standard TfD discussion. But here's the thing: as long as T36244 remain unimplemented, article history will always be fundamentally misleading about how templates worked because it does not show the state of the template at the time it was transcluded; it shows a transclusion of the current version of the template. It should not be our responsibility to create the illusion that page histories display prior template transclusions reliably.

        And the purpose of this template won't be some huge mystery: this discussion will be linked in the deletion log shown on all deleted pages. The red-links actually do the job of conveying the message that the template no longer serves the original purpose.

      • Retro (talk | contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template, and templates are not generally kept solely for the sake of preserving old revisions. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does it really hurt to keep it? Sports articles have their own season/year template, so it's not like this is something that was only done for video games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per MOS:YEARLINK. The main usages I see are in infoboxes and lead/prose and in neither case these have strong relation to the subject. The few articles that actually talk about gaming years are better off linking directly rather than using an obscure template. And there already are navboxes for years for relevant articles. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment @Hellknowz: MOS:YEARLINK does not apply here as far as I know because this links to a related article concerning the year. Or are you trying to say that it goes overkill? --Duonaut (talk | contribs) 02:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Why wouldn't YEARLINK apply? It's literally for linking to year articles with no significant relation. Yes, it's based on WP:OVERLINK. There are very few valid cases for year links, and it's mostly the year and decade articles. And these templates aren't even used there. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete (and not deprecate) - While I see a point in such a template, its use in the infobox does indeed violate MOS:YEARLINK, so keeping a template which users don't know when to use correctly, only provides a tool for easier misuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talkcontribs) 10:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with @Dissident93:; I don't see why the vgy template can't be keep. I do get it for gy but delete the two templates is kind of overkill. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose agreed @Dissident93, if deleted, it's not going to be a nice one. Don't to do that. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete It should be noted that the various MOSDATE scripts remove this template manual links like the one this template would produce whenever it is found in an article being processed. Per nom, per Hellknowz. -- ferret (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that at the very least this template should be substituted or phased out before deletion. At that, it is possible that this could still be used situationally in articles more relevant to video gaming history. --Duonaut (talk | contribs) 02:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Duonaut: You misunderstand how TfD works; if the consensus of this discussion is determined to be delete, the template will be put into Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell until all of the transclusions are resolved. Retro (talk | contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It’s a simplistic template which could easily be typed longhand through a direct Wikify or a parenthetical addendum. KirkCliff2 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - The template serves only to encourage the addition and retention of non-relevant wikilinks. The "Keep" votes all seem to rely on the non-argument "It's not hurting anyone."--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or deprecate - there may be a point in using this template, but if it is being misused most of the time, it needs to go. Besides, simplistic templates such as this stack up template usage, and pages take longer to parse than they should. Gamingforfun365 05:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The only reason given in the nomination for deletion is that the template is "archaic", which is not a reason for deletion according to WP:DEL-REASON. The template has a specific purpose not filled by any other template, so there is no reason to delete. Phediuk (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
LOL, the page you link to actually says that it is a reason for deletion. Right at the top: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following".--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per the oppose voters above. This template has a specific purpose that no other template has. Hansen Sebastian's 2nd account (Leave me a message here) 04:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think part of the question should be whether or not that specific purpose is necessary. If 'YYYY In Gaming' articles aren't being supported by the Gaming WikiProject, then why do we need to keep it? It can just as easily be replaced by a link to the year the game was released, i.e., 2019, if a year link is necessary. I rather agree with Hellknowz about that. --Praefect94 (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Serves no purpose anymore and violates policy. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate in articles, but not delete: While most of the previous delete votes note that this template's use in mainspace is in violation of MOS:YEARLINK, this template actually has more uses in the user talk namespace than it has in articles; it's used on 1,571 user talk pages it's directly used on 372 user talk pages. I don't see any point in breaking all the links or replacing . Conditional template code can be added to the template so it will not display a link when use in articles, and all occurrences can be replaced as appropriate (not necessarily in that order: the template could be removed in mainspace before applying the conditional template code).

    I will also note that MOS:YEARLINK is not straightforwardly applied here, because the links are to year articles specific to video games. MOS:YEARLINK says:

    Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) and year articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless the linked date or year has a significant connection to the subject of the linking article, beyond that of the date itself, so that the linking enhances the reader's understanding of the subject.
  • It goes on to give this example of appropriate use:
    [[1787 in science|1787]] might be linked from a passage discussing a particular development in the metric system which occurred in that year.
  • I don't know if linking the date a video game was released to that year in video games is an acceptable example of appropriate use (I suspect not, hence my deprecate !vote), but it might be better to discuss year links separately, rather than pseudo-discussing it in the context of this template and talking past one another. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "has more uses in the user talk namespace" That's because it's used in VG newletters. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      @Hellknowz: I know, but I don't see any reason to intentionally break all those links by deleting, or to edit 1000+ 100+ user talk pages and give people the false impression they have new messages. The argument for deleting appears to be primarily based on WP:OVERLINK, but that only applies to article usage; if we make the template conditional so it only display plaintext in articles, then the overlinking problem is solved. (I am not arguing the template should remain in articles afterwards. It should be replaced, but plaintext will prevent future misuse.) Retro (talk | contribs) 18:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      The newsletter is transcluded, not substituted. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      @Hellknowz: It is transcluded in many cases, but that still leaves 372 user talk pages where it was substituted. I'll strike my previous statements to use that more accurate number. I did sample occurrences of it in userspace before commenting (apparently I chose a bad sample since all the ones I saw were substituted), but I should have been more precise with my numbers. I still think 100+ is a significant number of user talk pages to disturb when cleaner solutions are possible. Retro (talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

June 6

Template:Infobox Palestine municipality

Replace and delete

Municipality-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Geography_and_place#Place:

  1. The only Arab-country having a specific place infobox
  2. The only non-UN-member having a specific place infobox

77.183.60.95 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

{{main other|{{#invoke:Settlement short description|main|{{{settlement_type|{{{type|}}}}}}|{{{short_description|}}}|{{{subdivision_name|}}}|{{{subdivision_name1|}}}|{{{subdivision_name2|}}}}}|}}
Are you aware of any other set of administrative territorial entities that has specific code to generate a short description. In {{Infobox Palestine municipality}} which will be displayed, the selfmade or the one from {{Infobox settlement}}? 77.183.46.198 (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not aware of any other specific infoboxes that specifically automatically generate short description code. It would be possible (I think) to implement this with {{Infobox settlement}} by setting the governate value to the subdivision_name parameter and type to the type parameter. However I am still undecided. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Solved. Code has been changed to use the short description code in {{Infobox settlement}}. TerraCyprus (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Place infoboxes in Arab League member states and the State of Palestine
Infobox settlement (whole country) Infobox settlement (part of country) Infobox Palestine municipality (part of country)
  1.   Algeria: Provinces of Algeria, Districts of Algeria, Municipalities of Algeria
  2.   Comoros: Autonomous islands of Comoros
  3.   Libya: Governorates of Libya, Districts of Libya
  4.   Morocco: Regions of Morocco, Provinces of Morocco
  5.   Mauritania: Regions of Mauritania, Departments of Mauritania
  6.   Sudan: States of Sudan
  7.   Somalia: Regions of Somalia, Districts of Somalia
  8.   Tunisia: Governorates of Tunisia
  9.   Egypt: Governorates of Egypt, Regional units of Egypt
  10.   United Arab Emirates: Emirates of the United Arab Emirates
  11.   Bahrain: Governorates of Bahrain, Former regions of Bahrain
  12.   Iraq: Governorates of Iraq, Districts of Iraq
  13.   Jordan: Governorates of Jordan, Districts of Jordan
  14.   Kuwait: Governorates of Kuwait
  15.   Lebanon: Governorates of Lebanon, Districts of Lebanon
  16.   Oman: Governorates of Oman, Provinces of Oman
  17.   Saudi Arabia: Regions of Saudi Arabia, Governorates of Saudi Arabia
  18.   Syria: Governorates of Syria, Districts of Syria
  19.   Yemen: Governorates of Yemen, Districts of Yemen
  1.   Palestine: Governorates of Palestine
  1.   Palestine: Non-governorates of Palestine

77.191.61.64 (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. JelgavaLV (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Substitution of Template:BOTREQ

Canned-response templates are generally substituted, with the exception of templates for venues that don't have a permanent archive (RfPP, AIV). WP:BOTREQ is archived, so its template should be substituted for consistency reasons. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Make subst-only per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I've advertised this at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Bot requests. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't typically make templates with files in them subst-only. --Izno (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Izno: Yes we do: Template:HD's subtemplates, and Template:ESp and its ilk are all subst-only despite containing files. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
<moved from TfD> {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there a specific problem that would be fixed by making this subst only? It seems like a net-negative IMO. Legoktm (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Seems in line with all the other reply and message templates to keep archive history consistent. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Uw-violence

There is no need for this warning template. Instructions for dealing with threats of violence are provided at WP:VIOLENCE. Interstellarity T 🌟 01:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • comment (delete?) having a warning template seems like the opposite of the discretion advised at wp:Violence, so deleting seems to make sense, but... I wish there was more input, maybe we should relist and warn at... where...? - Nabla (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography

Propose merging Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography with Template:Infobox religious biography.
Similar infobox and WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 07:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: How does the proposer envision dealing with the parameters listed under "Specialized information for Latter Day Saint Leadership", "For Political office holders", and "Military Service" in {{Infobox Latter Day Saint biography}}? This would not be a straightforward merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative Oppose Changing to Comment: Per Jonesey, there are a number of parameters in the Latter Day Saint biography which would need to be addressed. Several are unique enough to warrant a unique template. If the parameters are dealt with, I support the merge. Rollidan (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • create a module with the LDS specific information and refactor {{Infobox Latter Day Saint biography}} to use that module. by the way, this actually looks closer to {{infobox officeholder}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace with a module per Frietjes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

June 5

Template:Super Over

Template includes ball-by-ball detail which is excessive and no reliable source is providing for verification. SocietyBox (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Added the module, which should clearly suffer the same fate as the template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an overly esoteric way of essentially saying X team won in extra time. As the nom says, it fails WP:V. All the cricket scorecards will show that a team beat another team in the super over, and that's all we need to add to matches on WP when that applies. Adding the whole template for a single over for one match is a hugh distraction to the rest of the fixture. If someone wants a more detailed breakdown of what happened, ball by ball, they can find it elsewhere. There's no need to replicate it on WP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this is just WP:FANCRUFT, no need for such a detailed template on an over of cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see some very slight value in keeping it, but only for matches where there is detailed coverage of the match on the article page (including a full scorecard), which would typically only be tournament finals. Using alongside a standard {{Single-innings cricket match}} is completely disproportionate: the Super Over template is 10 lines long, a basic usage of the match template is 5 lines long. Spike 'em (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This is similar to penalties in football. However, I agree that it need not be that detailed. 117.198.112.144 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep , it's shows a special innings (Super Over) in T20 cricket. For a whole match we update the singl innings template, just like that super over is also should be shown. Nivas88 (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Keep, How can you are not getting source about Super over for the inngings. Super over Scorecard is available in the original link of that match. It's so funny Lol...
If super over template will delete then add another single innings template to show super over details... 2405:204:610F:AC6A:97F9:E182:439A:E12F (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is way too much detail and would be better served by a sentence of prose added as a note, if necessary, to the template dealing with the match scorecard. Even that is essentially a MIRROR of something that would be even better served by an external link to one of the many places that cricket scorecards are kept online. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessarily long and verbose. Also, what's the point of having a bowler column and putting the same name 6 times? sudhanva (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, overly detailed and rarely properly sourced. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - To address comments that this is too detailed, I propose that the "Bowler" column be dropped, since the entire is bowled by a single nominated bowler. Also, the "Batsman" column should be called "Batter" so that it can also be used for women's matches. MadScientist (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified WP:CRICKET.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Lugnuts summed it up perfectly. It's not needed. StickyWicket (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are situations where a template like this could be useful, e.g. in the article about the final of a knockout T20 tournament. It's not perfect, but I think it's on its way to being a very good way of representing this info. – PeeJay 15:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a mirror of every single scorecard, or part-scorecard, of every cricket match ever played. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep We do keep a lot of match scores, which is perfectly normal. As long as noone is argueing to delete most scores, looks like this template helps keeping thing tidy, so keep it. Although it looks like it needs cleanup that is no reason to delete. - Nabla (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Viking Invasion of England

Propose merging Template:Viking Invasion of England with Template:Scandinavian England.
Seems like much overlapping scope. Might as well merge? PPEMES (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment There is a bit of a cultural difference at the high level here, with one template suggesting That parts of England were once called "Scandinavian England" and is, or was, a place. "Viking Invasion" is "limited", in name, anyway, to an event (series of events). If I had to go with one name it would be the latter. I like the "Viking Invasion" structure a little better. I wonder if "Scandinavian England" might be split, with most merged into "Viking Invasion," the other maybe more cultural to "Danelaw England." Student7 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Template:Scandinavian England has been renamed to Template:Norse activity in the British Isles. PPEMES (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles tree

WP:FANCRUFT. Misuse of navbox. Should probably be reformatted and included once at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters if at all. --woodensuperman 14:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Strong Keep, (??) no reason to get rid of an interesting and informative template like this. I can see putting some templates up for deletion, but not good ones. Thanks. (p.s. WP:FANCRUFT is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy) Randy Kryn (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a proper WP:NAVBOX. There is already a navbox at {{The Vampire Chronicles}} which contains all the characters. This one does not need to be transcluded on every article. If this information is kept it should appear once only (at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters) in a different format. --woodensuperman 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Although {{The Vampire Chronicles}} template lists the 13 individual character articles this one shows many more, as well as giving readers the interesting familial relationships and timeline. Readers (at least me) find it interesting and informative. It improves the encyclopedia, improves the pages it is (and can be) placed on, and is a fine addition to Wikipedia's Vampire Chronicles collection. There is nothing wrong with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is everything wrong with it. It's content masquerading as a navbox. It certainly does not belong along the bottom of multiple pages. If this was a single use template sitting at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters, I'd probably have left it alone, but what the hell is it doing sitting at the bottom of Anne Rice? This needs at the very least converted to a different format, and used sparingly on extremely relevant articles. Something like Aztec emperors family tree, or Noldor#House of Finwë. This is NOT a WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 12:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Anne Rice is linked in the title. The family tree helps the understanding of the linked pages, and provides the readers with a valuable visual aide concept map to the topic. And it improves rather than harms the encyclopedia (which is what all of these discussions are about). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
She may be linked in the title, but this isn't a navbox and the content is tangential to her biography. And cluttering up pages with family trees disguised as navboxes on irrelevant pages does harm the encyclopedia and certainly does not improve the experience for anyone. --woodensuperman 13:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
"for anyone" is incorrect, when I first saw the template it was interesting and informative to my mental-map of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You may find it "interesting", but that doesn't stop it from being in the wrong place. --woodensuperman 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Your link is to another opinion essay. Interesting is a good descriptor of one of the many attributes a good template can have. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The template should not be used as a navbox at the bottom of the page, but there are other family tree templates. There are appropriate uses for them. This is more a question of where it should be used and how the template should be formatted. The template should not be deleted just because of those things. If there are no other uses for it, it could be included just at the page mentioned in the nom, but it could be neater to keep the code as a separate template page. M.Clay1 (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason it is using the navbox markup? If this is changed, then editors might not mistake it for a navbox and use it as such. --woodensuperman 07:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
For whatever reason, family tree templates use navbox markup. I don't think many people would confuse it for a navbox. I've never seen one used as a navbox before. Its use as such seems like a unilateral decision by User:Randy Kryn. I think most editors will agree that it shouldn't be there. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems {{Downton Abbey family tree}} and {{Half-elven family tree}} manage to not use the navbox markup. I would suggest that this method be employed by all family tree templates. --woodensuperman 14:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • delete or reformat per Template:Downton Abbey family tree. navboxes are hidden in mobile view, so if this is really important we should show it to all viewers, but if it's simply for navigation, then we don't need to present the links in tree form. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Iran Men's squad 2015 WT Taekwondo World Championship

I can't remember if we ever had such templates for individual sports. that looks unnecessary for me, we have World Championships in amateur individual sports almost each year imagine if someone creates such templates for each country for each sports each year for Taekwondo, Wrestling, Judo, Weightlifting etc. that will be too much. to me not notable enough to exists. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • delete per nom, navbox overkill. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • keep these templates are new innovation and Without conflict with politics.thease are nessacery for sports like Taekwondo, Wrestling,Weightlifting that having separate team cup in addition to individual medal.in the article of these sports we can see ranking of table for teams and they are important.no template showed it before.i'll create them for other countries (we had squad in football,volleyball and others sport and they are existed because of needed)..i researched many articles and some people asked me to create something like this and i Observe the all rules for this subject..it shows medallists and the people who don't get medal in one team in competion and the place of team at the end of tournement. it is featured template and will be better and more recognized in future.thanks.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    we have many templates like this : Template:England squad – 1975 World Cup .. are them unnessacery too? these are needed for many reasons for many people that eager to know about the teams squads participate in world cup or world championships competitions in every sports,maybe historical for future..--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between professional and amateur sports. the coverage for team sports like football is much more than amateur sports. Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mohsen1248: Only the first template has been tagged. Please remember to tag all templates you nominate for deletion. * Pppery * survives 21:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Pppery: Not my fault. actually I tagged all of them you should warn who removed the tags. Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Oops, looks like I misread the history. @Mojtaba2361: Please do not remove TfD tags from templates while they are still listed at TfD. * Pppery * survives 21:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've restored the TfD tags. * Pppery * survives 22:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Northern Arizona Elite

Propose merging Template:Northern Arizona Elite with Template:Footer Northern Arizona Elite.
{{Northern Arizona Elite}} is an older, unused duplicate of {{Footer Northern Arizona Elite}}. It has no transclusions and all of the information and functionality in the former (which is now outdated anyways) is available in the latter. Habst (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Are either of those even valid templates? Northern Arizona Elite is not an article. I can't see how if the group itself isn't notable there needs to be a navigation template for its members. --Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    • They definitely are, NAZ Elite has received a lot of mainsteam media coverage and has been deserving of an article for a while now in my opinion (like at [2] [3]). Wikipedia just takes time to catch up sometimes as there aren't many active athletics editors. --Habst (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • delete both as there is no parent article (cart goes after horse). Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • hi Frietjes, thank you for your vote but i really don't think it would be a good outcome at all to delete the template, i proposed the merge here to improve them and i think that would be a step backwards. i created the style of template originally for Template:Footer Nike Oregon Project and Template:Footer Bowerman Track Club, two clubs that rival NAZ Elite in the US, and i was actually really excited to see that GoOKC adapted it for NAZ Elite, and i wanted to do him a favor in return by doing some housekeeping on the templates -- not intending at all to trigger a delete of his work. if you think having an NAZ article would help, i think i am capable of writing one, but it will have to take a few days because i am in the middle of a move. in retrospect, i probably should have merged the two articles myself as an entirely non-controversial merge. can i delay the vote as the nominator until after my NAZ Elite article is completed then? thanks, --Habst (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Habst, you can request to have it moved to draft- or user-space until the article is completed. Frietjes (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
        • hi Frietjes, the problem with that is then the articles will have to be downgraded and have the transclusions removed while the template is deleted -- athletics coverage (especially in the US) is super limited on wikipedia and NAZ Elite is definitely notable. if possible i'd like to delay the vote as the nominator instead, or even withdraw it with no action for now which would be better than deleting. thanks, --Habst (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
hi Woodensuperman, thank you for merging the templates. that was the original goal of this tfd, but i fear that putting it up here was a huge mistake that i hope you can help me fix. for the reasons above i really do think NAZ is notable enough to have an article and template. do you know if it is possible for me to postpone or close the vote that i started, because i did not start it with the intention of deleting the template? i hope you understand that in my opinion, the vote has gone out of hand because the english wikipedia has a severe shortage of athletics articles when compared to topics in published RSes, so in my opinion deleting templates for a notable track club in the U.S. would be a step backwards.
also, i see that you have nominated Template:Brooks Beast Track Club, Template:New Jersey New York Track Club, Template:Reebok Boston Track Club, Template:Saucony Freedom Track Club, and Template:Tinman Elite all for deletion. you only noticed those templates because i posted about Template:Footer Northern Arizona Elite here, right? i am being honest with you, this was my greatest fear. i know that i can save them all, but i need time to draft my rationale. i do think we should have standards for inclusion and of course we shouldn't include random teams that aren't notable, but all the templates you inserted are from notable teams that should all have athlete articles. i still need to think about my best course of action, but i am worried that we will not reach the most fair outcome so i think we should really be careful about taking our time with these nominations. thank you, --Habst (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Db-f8

The preferred way to flag F8-eligible files is via {{subst:ncd}}, which allows files to be sorted by the date they were tagged, so as to not overwhelm the main CSD category and allow adequate time to research/review each transferred file. In my experience, editors that use this tag are unfamiliar with our local file policies and file policies on Commons, and end up tagging files which were either inappropriately transferred or require many fixes in order to be acceptable for Commons. I think the best solution is to redirect this tag to Template:Now commons dated, so that there will be more opportunity for experienced editors to review tagged files and verify their eligibility for Commons. FASTILY 23:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • If I will still be able to delete using F8 in Twinkle's CSD menu without tagging the file, then I can support a redirect to Template:Now Commons. Otherwise, I oppose. @Amorymeltzer: Could you confirm what Twinkle's behavior would be if this were redirected. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @JJMC89: It will work as {{Now Commons}} has a delete-reason span, although that's a bit tautological (per below) as this was specifically added because such a redirect previously broke Twinkle. ~ Amory (utc) 10:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Some history/context, Twinkle used {{Now Commons}} up until March/April, when I changed Twinkle to use {{db-f8}}; what is now Template:Db-f8 was created in 2007 about six months after {{db-nowcommons}} was first added to Twinkle, and Twinkle had never been updated. More accurately, Twinkle was using {{db-nowcommons}}, which from 2007 to 2010 pointed to (what is now) {{db-f8}}, but was redirected in 2010 by Geni to [deal] with CSD flood, and as far as I can tell that just stuck. Doing so broke F8 deletion via Twinkle for 6.5 years until MusikAnimal added the delete-reason. ~ Amory (utc) 10:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not particularly well-versed or interested in filespace stuff, so take all of this with a grain of salt, but if all of the above is true, then sure, that makes sense. Twinkle provides a thorough description of the criteria for F8 tagging/deletion, but if people are ignoring that and those working in filespace areas want a different workflow, then we should do so. F8 is a weird beast, so perhaps the thing to do is turn it into a Di-style tag, like with {{Di-no fair use rationale}} or {{Di-no license}}? That seems appropriate to me (again, salt) and would take it out of CAT:SD (as desired). If that's done I think the thing to do would be remove F8 tagging from Twinkle's CSD module and move it to the DI module to be alongside tagging for F4, F11, etc. Deletion via CSD would still remain. If this is redirected per above, I'd probably do the same move from CSD to DI, although I don't love the idea of having {{Now Commons}} in both the CSD and DI modules. ~ Amory (utc) 10:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on whether to keep this template, but it makes a plausible redirect so I am against deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not asking for deletion, just a redirect :) -FASTILY 00:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Salem–Vriddhachalam–Cuddalore Port line

Unused rail route map. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Useddenim: Do you remember if this was used anywhere? Most of the diagram seems to be duplicated by {{Salem–Virudhachalam line}}, which is in use, but I don't think there's a route diagram for the rest of the line. It's not clear to me if the two apparently discontinuous segments are actually one line. Jc86035 (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@GoldenDragon2293Return and Chandan Guha: can you answer this question? Useddenim (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Balablitz: I was not associated with these templates. Balablitz may be able to say, if it was used or not. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim, Chandan Guha, and Jc86035: My apologies for the delay in reply. I just had a look at various pages of Southern Railway. It seems that part of the line i.e Salem-Vriddhachalam section is already covered under the Template:Salem–Virudhachalam line template used in Salem Junction railway station page and the part from Vriddhachalam-Cuddalore Port Jn is covered under Chennai Egmore–Thanjavur main line template. We can either create a new page and link this template to it and in pages where it exist, we remove the stations and just add a connecting arrow (What is the usual Wiki convention here ? Do we create separate pages for terminus to terminus connections ?) or we can discard the template. I prefer the first way here as it reduces the size of the template and makes it a bit neat. Also a point to note is that there is a new line planned in between the Salem-Vriddhachalam part. I am planning to work on the Southern Railways after I have finished work under the Eastern & NE Railways. Please let me know what is your decision in this regards. ---- GoldenDragon2293Return (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest making the overlapped sections collapsible, and then adding the template to all relevant pages to provide context for the others. Does this sound like a reasonable solution? Useddenim (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Capitals of provinces of Thailand

There is no such thing as the concept of a province "capital" in Thailand. Originally, this listed the towns/cities the provinces were named after (and which served as the seat of the provincial offices), but as the offices of some provinces have moved location, this has morphed into an WP:OR listing of municipalities in which the offices are located, labelling them as "capitals" where no reliable source does. It's absurd to say Ban Tom is the capital of Phayao Province and Bang Rin of Ranong. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of capitals in Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Paul_012 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep (I've copied and pasted this from the List of Capitals in Thailand AfD) for now, at least procedurally. For instance, searching "Phetchaburi" "capital" brings up a number of sources which cite it as a provincial capital. For instance, [4] lists several regional cities as capitals. The infobox for each province lists a capital as well. If we take the nom at face value, there's going to be a fair bit of cleanup required, but considering there's evidence of provincial "capital"s existing in English, I think this list is valid until otherwise shown. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I haven't researched this yet but just a comment on your last statement. There is no such thing as evidence of provincial "capital"s existing in English - either Thailand has provincial capitals or doesn't. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The AfD has been closed as redirect to Provinces of Thailand (which I've adjusted to use "Namesake town/city" instead of "capital" to avoid confusion). User:SportingFlyer, does this affect your !vote? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan

Replace and delete

Prefecture-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

Other entities either use Infobox city Japan or transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly. No reason found, why 49 prefectures shall have their own wrapper.

Visualisation of Japan place infobox usage
 
Infobox usage on articles about places in Japan

78.54.185.74 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • The template was kept in this TfD from 2011. – Uanfala (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • My argument in that discussion - at which point the wrapper was unused - was "Keep or redirect to Infobox Settlement; to discourage creation of a new, redundant template." That does preclude replacement and deletion now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, it makes maintenance of the articles a lot harder. After a merge, and a year from now: E.g. how do you check that all Japanese articles still links to Prefectures of Japan, Municipalities of Japan and so on? With a template or wrapper its done automatic. How do you check it for all the articles about Egyptian settlements? Christian75 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    FUD. The template proposed for replacement and transcluded on 49 articles does not ensure "that all Japanese articles still links to Prefectures of Japan, Municipalities of Japan and so on" nor does it check that "for all the articles about Egyptian settlements". 77.191.146.215 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    How do you ensure that the 49 (47) prefectures links correct after a year? But you are right, after a merge the Japanese prefectures will be "fully undetectable", and it will be nearly impossible to ensure consistency between the articles infoboxes. You are saying it "Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, [...]": And I ask how? E.g. how do you change a label links for all prefectures (settlements) for a given country (with reduced maintenance?) Christian75 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    FUD. But you are right, after a merge the Japanese prefectures will be "fully undetectable" - I did not claim that and they are "detectable", e.g. via Category:Prefectures of Japan. it will be nearly impossible to ensure consistency between the articles infoboxes - Direct inclusion of Infobox settlement as is done with ~420000 other articles will ensure some consistencies, the rest will be done by the same procedures as for those 420000. Behaviorial note: Don't claim things I didn't say. 78.55.20.251 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    One of the meanings of "FUD" is "Fully undetectable"... But please explain how the maintenance burden is lowered. About the 420000 other articles - it should be rolled back, to at least wrapper "level". Christian75 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete - only 49 transclusions. Japan already has one country-specific box, two is one too much. TerraCyprus (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Christian75: the infobox uses a fair number of specific fields that will be cumbersome to edit and difficult to maintain if it were replaced with the generic template. – Uanfala (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    FUD. Only included 49 times. And which of the specific fields had its value changed in the past 10 years? None? 89.12.15.31 (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Note : per Christian75: the infobox uses a fair number of specific fields - that user didn't bring up that claim. Are you stating the untrue on purpose? 89.12.203.15 (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    You know, the TfDs you participate in would be a lot better if you didn't pretend you didn't understand the English language and if you stopped throwing derogatory labels at everyone who disagreed with you. As for your more substantial point: I don't know how many values of specific fields have been changed in the past 10 years (the template as a whole has been substantially rewritten [5] so I'd assume there might be at least a few), but that's not part of what I was arguing. – Uanfala (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    No evidence, no substance. You know, the TfDs you participate in would be a lot better if you didn't pretend you didn't understand the English language No, I don't know. Where did I pretend anything or is it you just putting "derogatory labels" on other users personality? throwing derogatory labels at everyone who disagreed with you - any proof that happened? Re As for your more substantial point: I don't know how many values of specific fields have been changed - i.e. your "Keep"-reasons are not based on facts at all and come down to pure voting, something you complained about [6] - hypocrite? 89.12.203.15 (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note possible canvassing by nominator on meta (1, 2, 3). * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    No, these users have been involved before: [7], [8]. WP:AGF 77.191.247.206 (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    That doesn't make it not canvassing. You notified me, Pigsonthewing, and Darwinek on our meta talk pages. Pigsonthewing and Darwinek and I all supported at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_7#Infobox_settlement_wrappers, so you have therefore notified only users who expressed a preference against {{infobox settlement}} wrappers earlier, an example of votestacking. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    Defamation.: No user was against substitution of "Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan" within the TFD time of 7 days. Cape Verde, Peru, Russia are currently outside Japan. 77.13.95.37 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    Meta as defence against stalking: It was done on meta, because there is stalking, see Uanfala, when s/he voted here - just after an admin was asked to close. 77.13.95.37 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    If you notify some editors involved in a previous TfD, you must notify all editors who've commented, see WP:APPNOTE. – Uanfala (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Allow me to negate the canvassing by doing that, then. Pinging all participants in the two TfDs the IP linked to above, except for users who already participated in this one: @Tom (LT), Gonnym, Tisquesusa, Underlying lk, Markussep, RexxS, Ymblanter, Agathoclea, Nyttend, Hhkohh, Kusma, Matthiasb, Zackmann08, Scope creep, and Calliopejen1:. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. The set of articles is very stable, no addition of new articles to be expected. It is also very small. JelgavaLV (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. Stable set of articles. Replacement with our standard infobox will not make the maintenance harder, on the contrary, this standardization will reduce the maintenance and overall burden.--Darwinek (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, replacing templates with wrappers is an unfortunate tendency and must be stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • "replacing templates with wrappers is an unfortunate tendency and must be stopped." Indeed. This is, though, a proposal to replace a wrapper with a template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Calliopejen1 in the previous discussion — this has several dedicated fields for transliteration from Japanese, which is a useful component that wouldn't be useful in the main Infobox settlement. We shouldn't put Japan-specific components into a general template, and getting rid of these components' use in current articles by deleting the current template wouldn't be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: An extra Infobox for 49 articles, because of "several dedicated fields for transliteration from Japanese"? Either Nyttend is not aware of Template:Infobox settlement#Name and transliteration or something else is going on. How is it done for articles about places outside Japan, e.g. in China or to begin with, about places in Japan that use IB settlement directly, e.g. Kansai region? 77.13.247.168 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I said it before, an certainly will says it until end of days: It was big nonsense to start combining all those templates into Infobox settlement. Whoever started this infobox settlement never relly edited settlement articles. Did you guys never wonder about that no other big language version did ever follow the English wikipedia on this erratic path? Did you ever compare the source text of, say, Stow, Ohio an de:Stow (Ohio). If so, this discussion won't exist. Which infobox is more easy to use? Editing articles with Templage:settlement is terrible. For us translators it's unusable. The translation tool does not handle it, cannot handle it. It's time to turn around and re-instate individual infoboxes for each country and type of settlement. (BTW: A prefecture isn't a settlement at all – it's an administrative unit like a county.) The nmination is nonsense, any further nomination of this kind is big nonsense. --Matthiasb (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • As the nomination clearly says: "Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is 'used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country'". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete - after looking at the parameters, the most specialized ones (Flower, Tree, Bird, etc.) seem to be of dubious relevance.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (with a caveat) substitution would lead to "blank" parameters being present in articles. This will just confuse new editors, who lets say are changing what is currently |Municipalities=, would then have to change |blank1_info_sec1=. If the intended wrapper template {{Infobox settlement}} can handle these parameters which currently need the "blank" parameters, I would support substitution. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Dreamy Jazz: |Municipalities= as well as |Districts= belong to |parts=, this has been fixed [9]. The other blank fields belong to flower, tree, bird, fish; the code has been changed, so that editors will see the "name" of a field even if it is empty [10], the code is as follows:
<!-- blank fields (section 1) -->
| blank_name_sec1         = Flower
| blank_info_sec1         = {{{Flower|}}}
| blank1_name_sec1        = Tree
| blank1_info_sec1        = {{{Tree|}}}
| blank2_name_sec1        = Bird
| blank2_info_sec1        = {{{Bird|}}}
| blank3_name_sec1        = Fish
| blank3_info_sec1        = {{{Fish|}}}
77.183.46.198 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem still is that the blank parameters are still there. I would want to see the parameters |Flower=, |Tree=, |Bird= and |Fish= in {{Infobox settlement}} before substitution. If these parameters are not added, my vote is keep. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: What in your opinion is the "problem" with blank parameters being there? The {{Infobox settlement}} has been coded with blank parameters, do you want to deny users to use them as coded? And if you think these biota symbols are that relevant to get their own parameters, why don't you propose them? For U.S. states biota symbols are not included in {{Infobox settlement}}, but managed by an extra box - are you aware of any other set of administrative territorial entities that have biota symbols within {{Infobox settlement}}? @Pigsonthewing and Underlying lk: what do you think? 77.183.46.198 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
It is that in 49 articles unclear blank parameters will be placed. For new users it may be confusing how to change a parameter which uses a blank parameter. In visual editor, this is only more confusing as where you would expect a simplified name (e.g. the parameter |coordinates= in visual editor is presented with a header of Coordinates), the blank parameters have two input boxes which are named by their parameter names (i.e. "blank2_info_sec1" and "Blank name section 1"). These, I can only imagine are confusing to new editors, who expect to see an input boxes named "Tree" and "Fish", not "Blank name section 1" and "blank3_name_sec1" (their current names). This could be alleviated slightly by giving these blank parameters nicer names for visual editor (i.e. nice names in templatedata) which could specify these are custom parameters in a clear way, but this is difficult as this name would have to fit all cases (i.e. not just this template), and this does not still get past the issue of new users using source editor, who won't have the visual editor to help them understand what parameter is the right one to change. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 08:28, 11 June 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/Administrator instructions.

To reviewEdit

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

To mergeEdit

Templates to be merged into another template.

ArtsEdit

Geography, politics and governanceEdit

ReligionEdit

SportsEdit

TransportEdit

  • None currently

OtherEdit

I made the changes to Template:Infobox software in its sandbox and submitted an edit request here. --Abgnac (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

MetaEdit