Wikipedia:Templates for discussion
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared. |
V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 6 | 18 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 11 |
MfD | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed.
How to use this page[edit]
What not to propose for discussion here[edit]
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 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}}.
- 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.
- Moving and renaming
- Use Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Reasons to delete a template[edit]
- The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
- The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
- 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.
- 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 template[edit]
To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. 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:
Note:
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 Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:
|
II: List the template at TfD. | Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.
Add this text to the top of the list:
If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add Use an edit summary such as 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 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 Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the {{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. Deletion sorting lists are a possible way of doing that. 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 editors[edit]
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 a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.
[edit]
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 {{subst:Tfd notice}} 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[edit]
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 successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.
Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle[edit]
Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. 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.
Discussion[edit]
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.
Closing discussion[edit]
Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.
Current discussions[edit]
July 13[edit]
Template:~~~~[edit]
- Template:~~~~ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I do not dispute claims or counterlaims about being useful for CJK users, but the only difference from {{4~}} is that this one warns the user if it is not substituted, which would be a useful feature that should be incorporated into {{4~}} and its relatives. Here is one statement from the talk page that is more recent than the previous TfD in 2020:
Have the creator of this template and those who participated in the TfD actually typed in CJK? If so this template should make no sense to them. In order to insert any template, you have to insert
{{
and}}
, which you can't type in if you have a full-width IME/keyboard on. So you'd have to turn the IME off to type{{subst:
, turn it on to type~~~~
, and then turn it off to type}}
to insert this template, which takes far more effort than to just turn it off and type~~~~
.
— User:Nardog 02:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- The template is template-protected, so I cannot add the TfD tag. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
July 12[edit]
Template:1874 Canadian federal election/New Brunswick Southwest[edit]
- Template:1874 Canadian federal election/New Brunswick Southwest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I couldn't find sources to add confirming its information. Boleyn (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:1874 Canadian federal election/Laval[edit]
I couldn't find sources to add and confirm the information. Boleyn (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:1980 Canadian federal election/Argenteuil[edit]
- Template:1980 Canadian federal election/Argenteuil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I couldn't find sources to confirm results. Boleyn (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Starmer Shadow Cabinet[edit]
- Template:Starmer Shadow Cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Starmer Cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Starmer Shadow Cabinet with Template:Starmer Cabinet.
With the election being in Labour's favor by a comfortable margin, these two should be merged as the "Shadow Cabinet" one will be redundant within a day's time. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fully agree this would be the best thing to do. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: For historical usage, as the current cabinet could be suffuled over time, and thus make those templates not "redundant" as well. —— Eric Liu(Talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ericliu1912, this is the only "Shadow cabinet" template made for any country, let alone for UK opposition (at least, I can't find any example of it). Given there is an article dedicated to it, its fine. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- At least 4 other Shadow Cabinets have templates created for them, covering almost all of the Official Opposition since 2005. Besides, I think it would be of enough importance for individual Shadow Cabinets as a part of British parlimentary institution to be given simple navigational boxes. —— Eric Liu(Talk) 16:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ericliu1912, this is the only "Shadow cabinet" template made for any country, let alone for UK opposition (at least, I can't find any example of it). Given there is an article dedicated to it, its fine. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Senegalese Tirailleurs[edit]
Contains only one link outside of the title navbox. All are red links to this Wikipedia. With the rest being external links to the French Wikipedia. No navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion I will be using the template to create new articles about these neglected colonial units. +JMJ+ (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- You should create articles before the navbox. Navboxes are meant to link articles that exist not to be created down the line. If you want to work on this, then this should be userfyed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Gallery/old[edit]
- Template:Gallery/old (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused template - appears to have been created 11 years ago for testing something, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Gallery/aux[edit]
- Template:Gallery/aux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused template - appears to have been created 11 years ago for testing something, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Ddag[edit]
- Template:Ddag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Double-dagger (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Ddag with Template:Double-dagger.
add a "sup" param to {{double-dagger}} and redirect; see also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 6#Template:Dag Queen of Hearts talk 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Wrong place[edit]
- Template:Wrong place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This uncategorized template from 2010 appears to have been used no more than twice. The incorrect parameter in the documentation is a clue that this has never been useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Presidency of Jimmy Carter[edit]
Duplication of Template:Jimmy Carter. All links here are featured on Carter's main navbox. I can understand the the navbox being larger. But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Discussion of the template and other presidency vs. president biography templates is currently ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, this is an unneeded duplicate navbox of entries already present on the main Jimmy Carter nabox. And yes, scores if not hundreds of tangential additions could be trimmed from presidential navboxes, which should not include every law that the president signed but only those which they initiated and/or worked to pass and were then semi-identified with them (LBJ's Voting Rights Act, FDR's New Deal legislation, etc.). This does not need additional discussion elsewhere, an obvious duplication of existing material. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:1980 Canadian federal election/Egmont[edit]
I couldn't find references to confirm these results Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:About-redirect-text[edit]
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I had used this template at Special:Diff/1075626728 and probably at least one other article. But its use cases seem to have been superseded by other templates. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
July 11[edit]
Template:Alien Father[edit]
- Template:Alien Father (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox for a deleted page on a band that only contains red links as all of the album articles were also deleted. Unlikely to be used again. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Even the main article has been deleted by PROD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Country data Alexandroni Brigade[edit]
Decoration disguised as template. WP:DENY. The Banner talk 12:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Verification requested[edit]
It looks like this template is completely redundant nowadays. It seems that it was created to handle cross-wiki rename requests or something back in Ye Olde Days before Single-User Login was invented (checking if a user who wanted username X was the same as the user with username X on the other language wiki). However, with SUL now being a thing, this template seemingly hasn't been used since 2010 (no transclusions since december 2010), so it should be safe to subst out all 5 remaining uses of this and then delete this template (along with its redirect, {{ver}}) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 10:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Country data Likud/doc[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Documentation subpage for a template that does not exist any more. WP:DENY The Banner talk 09:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Country data Golani Brigade/doc[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Documentation subpage for a template that does not exist any more. WP:DENY The Banner talk 09:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Country data Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Decoration disguised as template. WP:DENY. The Banner talk 09:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Country data Likud[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Decoration disguised as template. WP:DENY. The Banner talk 09:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:2024ILDem/sandbox[edit]
This is not needed and is not even really being used to experiment with anything. This should just go to the relevant page about the Illinois Democratic primary. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. We generally keep sandboxes, even if they are unused. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Sandboxes for a template like this are not necessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Wikipedia Naming Convention changes[edit]
No transclusions. Created in 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Hemraj BC[edit]
- Template:Hemraj BC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with no main article and only three links in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Know Your Meme[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 withdrawn. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Know Your Meme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Looking at its transclusions, looks like the only use this template is for external links. I'm quite certain that any use of this in the external links section are WP:ELNO #1 and #12, therefore this template shouldn't be used at all, which means it should be deleted. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as creator. Originally intented to be for External Links in a similar way to IMDb title, but it can also be used as a tertiary source. Also, this template has been translated to 13 diferrent languages. --Mayimbú (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Umm. That obviously shouldn't be used as a source per WP:KYM. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Posted a notice at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard to here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @0xDeadbeef, the example on the template's documentation is a link for the Doge (meme). The linked page at knowyourmeme.com contains more information than the Wikipedia article, and information that would not necessarily be appropriate for the Wikipedia article (e.g., copyrighted images).
- The process described on their website is user proposals that are then handled by paid staff, so I don't think that this counts as an open wiki. Even if it did, it probably exceeds the standards for longevity and stability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. This makes sense to me. consider this withdrawn. When I get to a computer I could close this but someone else can feel free to as well. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Australia squad 2013 World Men's Handball Championship[edit]
- Template:Australia squad 2013 World Men's Handball Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Most of the entries are deleted, so not much use for navigating between the 3 players left. Also unusual to create a template for a team that came last in the tournament. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
July 10[edit]
Template:User-rfa[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. WP:G7 SoWhy 18:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Template:User-rfa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Created in 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:DeclineVP[edit]
- Template:DeclineVP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. This boilerplate message is for User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof, which was made obsolete by Huggle in 2009. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Css[edit]
- Template:Css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template with no transclusions that has been marked as deprecated since 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This seems to be another instance of User talk:Enterprisey/script-installer#Confusing history of importScript - the template never should have been deprecated, and it has always been subst only so having no transclusions is of no note. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Csb-day[edit]
- Template:Csb-day (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Csb-notice-pageincludes-rand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Template is tied to a bot that is marked as deactivated and has not edited since 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Conditional template call with newline[edit]
No transclusions except in an unused template subpage (nominated immediately below). Created in 2008. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Infobox body of water/fm[edit]
Unused subpage. Here's an insource search. Created in 2009 and probably used then, but the infobox has presumably been updated since then to no longer need it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Module:Location map/data/Manila[edit]
- Module:Location map/data/Manila (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Module:Location map/data/Manila with Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila.
The module uses a low resolution map based on probably outdated OpenStreetMap data. The module can be redirected to Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila (preferred) or Module:Location map/data/Metro Manila. Sanglahi86 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have just finished revising all articles that transcluded the Module:Location map/data/Manila to use the Philippines City of Manila and/or Metro Manila pushpin maps. There are currently no remaining articles. Thus, I propose Module:Location map/data/Manila be redirected to Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Trademark Victorian Government[edit]
No transclusions. Created in 2022. Probably redundant to Wikipedia's overall copyright processes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete- As the creator of this template I dont really find it neccecary and have barely used it myself even when appropriate NotOrrio (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Essentially a highly specific version of {{Trademark}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:TransperthFerries[edit]
No transclusions. Appears to have been superseded by the more comprehensive {{Perth public transport}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:UF-media[edit]
- Template:UF-media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Created in 2010. Possibly superseded by a similar template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:WP FTC[edit]
- Template:WP FTC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Created in 2009. Appears to have been superseded or to have fallen out of use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
July 9[edit]
Template:Country data Givati Brigade[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Decoration disguised as template. The Banner talk 21:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- same question as below. MWQs (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, most brigade-sized units do not have a country-flag every time the name of the unit is used. In my opinion, it is purely decorative but without using the normal flag icons or file links it is way more difficult to spot them. The Banner talk 11:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also per WP:DENY, as the creator is blocked as sockpuppet. The Banner talk 22:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Country data Golani Brigade[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Decoration disguised as template. The Banner talk 21:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "disguised"? I didn't intend this as anything hidden or deceptive. It's a military unit that's mentioned in a lot of infoboxes, this was intended as a streamlined substitute for using {{flagicon image}} with an image file name and a separate [[Golani Brigade]] link. MWQs (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, most brigade-sized units do not have a country-flag every time the name of the unit is used. In my opinion, it is purely decorative but without using the normal flag icons or file links it is way more difficult to spot them. The Banner talk 11:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also per WP:DENY, as the creator is blocked as sockpuppet. The Banner talk 22:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:North Africa and West Asia topic[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused template The Banner talk 21:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- delete - I forgot I started work on this, and I don't intend to do anything further with it. MWQs (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also per WP:DENY, as the creator is blocked as sockpuppet. The Banner talk 22:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Deomyinae[edit]
- Template:Deomyinae (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template is unnecessary as we can always navigate the taxonomy via the taxonomic infoboxes. And now we have to maintain the taxonomy in 3 different places: the infoboxes, the genus articles (which list the species), and navigation templates like this. Why do we need such redundant systems that just create more work? Nosferattus (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a standard navbox that is used in many articles. Clearly useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete is my preference, as I share concerns about keeping redundant information up-to-date across multiple pages. However, I don't understand why this template was singled out over everything else in Category:Mammal species templates and it's subcategories. Many (but not all) mammal species have navboxes. Very few other organisms have navboxes like mammals do. If I was going to single out one mammal species navbox for deletion it would be {{Murinae (Others)}}. The subfamily Murinae is split across 10 navboxes, why not just make one (massive) navbox for the subfamily? And putting two genera in the "Others" navbox is completely unintuitive for readers when the other navboxes are arranged by parts of the alphabet. Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Ranfurly Shield 2016 Waikato vs King Country[edit]
- Template:Ranfurly Shield 2016 Waikato vs King Country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ranfurly Shield 2016 Waikato vs Thames Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ranfurly Shield 2016 Waikato vs Wanganui (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ranfurly Shield 2019 Otago vs North Otago (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ranfurly Shield 2019 Otago vs Thames Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ranfurly Shield 2021 Hawke's Bay vs East Coast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ranfurly Shield 2021 Hawke's Bay vs North Otago (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Match result templates which were subst into the articles here and here. Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiMediaLinks[edit]
- Template:WikiMediaLinks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused user template. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Warsaw central stations/doc[edit]
Unused as Template:Warsaw central stations uses {{Railway-routemap}} for documentation. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Trigonometric Functions Exact Values Table[edit]
- Template:Trigonometric Functions Exact Values Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused math table. If used should be subst directly into article. Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. A truncated version of the table is already in Exact trigonometric values#Common angles. Substing the template into that article would not provide any additional information to the reader, since all the values can be derived from the angles of the first quadrant so don't do that either. Nickps (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Nickps. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Remove numbers[edit]
- Template:Remove numbers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused string manipulation template. Probably replaced by one of the other various templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Public transport Madrid[edit]
Unused transport link template. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header[edit]
- Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Drummers by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Guitarists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Pianists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Violinists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging All of the above together.
These category templates basically set three parameters:
|Occupation=
|JobPortal=
|ParentOccupation=
Where the last two are the same value between the templates.
|Occupation=
can be easily retrieved by using {{last word|
, thus eliminating the need for endlessly creating these template for every single item, and using code to handle things more efficiently. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
{{PAGENAME}}
}}
- Lean oppose for now. Hey there (as the template creators); I don't think that "
|Occupation=
can be easily retrieved by using{{last word|{{PAGENAME<nowiki>}}}"
this actually applies. There are several nationalities that follow the structure of FOOians from COUNTRY, such as the Russian Empire and Georgia, and Northern Ireland. So it would not always grab the template. I do think that this could be generalized to a broader range of musical instruments, but not how you have described it. Part of the advantage of making the template specific to a given occupation is to keep flexibility if the parents change or another parent category is added. Each of the nominated templates have different parent categories.
- accordionists is parented by Aerophone players and Keyboardists
- pianists is parented by Category:Keyboardists,
- violinists is parented by Category:Bowed-string musicians,
- guitarists is parented by Category:String musicians,
- drummers is parented by Category:Percussionists
At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. But merging them, as you have suggested, would eliminate that possibility down the line. I could see creating another layer on top that called a specific subtemplate based on the presence of a specific occupation, similar ot how Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header current works using |"{{#if:{{in string|source={{PAGENAME}}|target=FOO INSTRUMENT|plain=true|nomatch=}}"
. But I really would be reluctant to overgeneralize it. Mason (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overgeneralizing this system is much more better than having hundreds of similar templates like this. The maintenance burden in continuing with your current system is just insane. Regarding countries that won't work in the proposal, if you show a current category that it fails with it, I'm sure we can get it to work. Also, if the templates aren't complete then please stop creating more uncomplete templates and finish the ones that you've created. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please explain why it is "insane" to have templates that are specific to a given occupation. Right now there are 5 in your nomination, not hundreds. These templates are designed to be flexible so that changes in the category nesting can be easily applied, and ease the present burden on handling parent and child categories for a given occupation. I see this is much less burdensome than having to go through each nationality. As I already said, "At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. ". What I mean what there is no need right now, because the parent categories don't exist at the intersection of century and nationality. I've added in an example for accordionists [1]. I thought it wasn't a good use for resources to go through multiple if checks for categories that don't presently exist. It isn't that the templates are incomplete, its that there is the potential that these categories might eventually differ. Mason (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I think that a couple of questions and a suggestion on my talk page would have been more constructive than using ableist language to better understand the the purpose of the templates. Mason (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please explain why it is "insane" to have templates that are specific to a given occupation. Right now there are 5 in your nomination, not hundreds. These templates are designed to be flexible so that changes in the category nesting can be easily applied, and ease the present burden on handling parent and child categories for a given occupation. I see this is much less burdensome than having to go through each nationality. As I already said, "At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. ". What I mean what there is no need right now, because the parent categories don't exist at the intersection of century and nationality. I've added in an example for accordionists [1]. I thought it wasn't a good use for resources to go through multiple if checks for categories that don't presently exist. It isn't that the templates are incomplete, its that there is the potential that these categories might eventually differ. Mason (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
July 8[edit]
Template:Timeline House of Alpin[edit]
Single use template. Text can be included in House of Alpin, the only articles where it is used. The Banner talk 21:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Fourteenth Doctor stories[edit]
- Template:Fourteenth Doctor stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tenth Doctor stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Fourteenth Doctor stories with Template:Tenth Doctor stories.
The template is unnecessary given that the three episodes plus specials page all link to each other through inline links and with {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}}. Though with the inclusion of The Power of the Doctor a merger was proposed with Template:Tenth Doctor stories. As the two incarantions are pretty linked and both played by David Tennant. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: They are still two distinct incarnations. The point about inline links is arguably a non-issue (seeing as navboxes are, y'know, there for ease of navigation so people don't need to dig around the article for said inline links). Granted, the similarity between this and {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}} is more of a concern. However, I'd argue that keeping these templates separate would be better for futureproofing (in case any more notable 14th doctor content gets made), better for organization (as the content for each incarnation is categorized away from the other incarnation's content), and a bit more user-friendly (as the 14's content won't get buried under the mountain of 10's content, and it avoids the potential ugliness of splitting one navbox between two incarnations which itself is likely to be a bit of an organizational headache). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 10:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Dick Schoof sidebar[edit]
- Template:Dick Schoof (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Dick Schoof sidebar with Template:Dick Schoof.
A navigation bar and a sidebar is duplication, in particular because there is not much to link yet Dajasj (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Module:Citation[edit]
- Module:Citation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The 2018 TfD says that "a soft redirect in a module is not possible". That's not true anymore. require('Module:Module wikitext')._addText('{{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}}')
would do exactly that. I'm not saying the closer made a mistake; Module:Module wikitext was created two years after the TfD, but that doesn't mean we can't reevaluate the close since things have changed now. Nickps (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Trappist the monk since their comment on RfD brought the module to my attention. Nickps (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Umm, that
require()
doesn't work. I don't know why and I'm not going to take the time to figure it out. Currently, if Module:Citation is invoked you get:{{#invoke:Citation|citation}}
- Lua error in Module:Citation at line 1: This module is retained for historical and structural reasons; consider using Module:Citation/CS1..
- I think that error message appropriate. Readers should never see it but editors will if they are doing something that they ought not do (and are paying attention ...).
- If we want to 'soft redirect' Module:Citation can't we just add
{{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}}
to someplace in Module:Citation/doc and be done? - —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That require doesn't work because it just redirects the page. If you add a second line that says
return require [[Module:Citation/CS1]]
under it, then the module will be functional too. Nickps (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)- I've edited Module:Sandbox/Nickps to demonstrate. {{#invoke:Sandbox/Nickps|citation}} gives Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which doesn't look too promising at first but it's the same error as {{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation}}: Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which means the redirect is working. Nickps (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I just pushed the change to Module:Citation directly as a proof of concept. It can always be reverted later. Nickps (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- What is it that I am not understanding? You get the Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150 error message because of line 2 at Module:Citation (permalink). It is not obvious that line 1 (permalink) is doing anything that we want. If, as WP:SOFTREDIR says,
Soft redirects differ in that they leave the reader on the redirect page
that isn't happening because line 2 is pretty much the equivalent of a hard redirect. So tell me, what it is that you are attempting to accomplish with your edit? That edit puts the soft redirect outside of the module documentation. Wouldn't it be better to add{{soft redirect}}
to the ~/doc page? - Part of my misunderstanding was that I expected an invoke of Module:Citation to do nothing but put up a soft redirect annotation and halt as WP:SOFTREDIR sort of suggests that it should. The soft redirect annotation is for direct wikilinks (
[[Module:Citation]]
→ Module:Citation). That being the case, I see no benefit to be gained by using the module to create the soft redirect annotation when the same can be accomplished by including{{soft redirect}}
in the ~/doc page. - Just what am I missing?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now I'm confused. If you open Module:Citation you're left at the redirect page. So by the definition you provide, that's a soft redirect. I don't see how a redirect being soft or hard has anything to do with what it does when transcluded. Now, we could move the soft redirect template to the documentation page, although that would require changing the second line (then only line) to
return require('Module:Citation/CS1')
to avoid creating a hard redirect. Or, we could avoid this entire conversation and go with Pppery's suggestion of making a hard redirect. Nickps (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)- If it must be a redirect, let it be a hard redirect or (my preference) leave it as it was and delete
{{Citation/lua}}
as unused/unnecessary. And then let us be done with this. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed on a hard redirect being better than a soft one. Nickps (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it must be a redirect, let it be a hard redirect or (my preference) leave it as it was and delete
- Now I'm confused. If you open Module:Citation you're left at the redirect page. So by the definition you provide, that's a soft redirect. I don't see how a redirect being soft or hard has anything to do with what it does when transcluded. Now, we could move the soft redirect template to the documentation page, although that would require changing the second line (then only line) to
- What is it that I am not understanding? You get the Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150 error message because of line 2 at Module:Citation (permalink). It is not obvious that line 1 (permalink) is doing anything that we want. If, as WP:SOFTREDIR says,
- Actually, I just pushed the change to Module:Citation directly as a proof of concept. It can always be reverted later. Nickps (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've edited Module:Sandbox/Nickps to demonstrate. {{#invoke:Sandbox/Nickps|citation}} gives Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which doesn't look too promising at first but it's the same error as {{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation}}: Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which means the redirect is working. Nickps (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That require doesn't work because it just redirects the page. If you add a second line that says
- Umm, that
- Here's a link to the previous TfD. Nickps (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep it's marked historical, that's sufficient. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ideally we would move Module:Citation/CS1 to this title - there's no reason things are the way they are other then history. Otherwise just hard redirect now that hard redirects are possible - there's no reason for a soft redirect which would deliberately get in all possible users' way. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of simple and full deletion, without particular prejudice in this discussion about the location of Module:Citation/CS1. Beforehand, probably the minimum regardless that needs to happen is a history merge for everything that ended up in Module:Citation/CS1, which I'd guess is everything up to the neat cutoff point that Dragons flight made obvious (the diff). (Well, IMO, Module:Citation/CS1 is probably better located at Module:Citation Style 1 [or Module:Citation Style 1 and 2] than anywhere else, since CS1 is not an atomically-named title and the reason for it presently living at a subpage is that Module:Citation could reasonably hold a whole bunch of differently named things in its subspace (see e.g. the Module:Cite LSA discussion elsewhere....) Izno (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Holly Trolley (VTA)[edit]
Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This is an infrequent tourist service that gets three sentences in one article. It doesn't need an RDT. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Can I place this somewhere in VTA light rail? If so, I can do that. If not, you can delete that.
- - SleepTrain456 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- @SleepTrain456: Even there, it's still going to be just a few sentences. We don't need a dedicated RDT for an infrequent seasonal service that operates entirely over trackage shown in other RDTs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- P.S., I've since added the template to VTA light rail, and failing that, to California Trolley and Railroad Corporation. If they belong to one of these, that's fine by me. If they belong to neither article, you're welcome to delete it.
- - SleepTrain456 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: CT&RC seems to be the correct place with this diagram, as it wouldn't be appropriate nor necessary to have the entire VTA light rail network there. Useddenim (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: the CT&RC article is the right home for it. Jackdude101 talk cont 13:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:They aren't[edit]
- Template:They aren't (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Too specific, plus it can be done by just {{they are|Example}}n't
. Currently not used. Nardog (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:They use[edit]
- Template:They use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Subst and delete. Too specific. {{gender:Example|he uses|she uses|they use}}
isn't too long and we can't create these for every verb ad infinitum. Nardog (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- go ahead, and tbf I kinda made template:they verb shortly afterwards to solve the issue of creating these for every verb ad infinitum by having one that would very obviously solve it for every possible verb 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 16:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Template:They verb is useful, the rest are unnecessary special cases. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:IPAc-is[edit]
- Template:IPAc-is (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Created in 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
User:UBX/Juve Merda[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 Procedurally closed.. Wrong venue. User boxes are discussed at WP:MFD. Whpq (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Offensive against Juventus Football Club, "merda" in Italian is a vulgar word equivalent to "shit"Qwerty 9706 (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I think userboxes are supposed to go to MFD, not TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Australia squad 2019 World Women's Handball Championship[edit]
- Template:Australia squad 2019 World Women's Handball Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Most of the entries have been deleted as non notable. A navbox for 3 players (including 1 under AfD) is not useful. Also unusual to create a team template for a team that came last in a competition. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
July 7[edit]
Template:Verifiedbadge[edit]
- Template:Verifiedbadge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Created by a user blocked for spamming, to use in his autobiographical article (since deleted). Clearly this is of no use to Wikipedia, but I wasn't able to find a suitable criterion for speedy deletion. Un assiolo (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no transclusions or incoming links. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 00:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Seconda Categoria[edit]
The template was only transcluded in Seconda Categoria; it was likely originally meant to link pages of all the regional tournaments in this league (which do not have Wikipedia pages), but it only links to the names of the regions. Not useful. Broc (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 18:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:BC Körmend by season[edit]
Navbox with all red links in the body. DB1729talk 10:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:User WP:AGS[edit]
- Template:User WP:AGS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonial Empires/Userbox/CEBASICBOX, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Template:User_WikiProject_Dacia, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Category:WikiProject_Dacia_participants and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:WikiProject Colonialism participants. Although the WikiProjects are gone, these templates and their accompanying categories have historical interest. It would have been helpful to bundle these related nominations together or at least link them. And polite to notify the successor wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but change "is a participant" to "was a participant". There's no reason that past relationship can't be expressed through a userbox. Also this is the wrong venue (should be at MfD). * Pppery * it has begun... 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:User WikiProject Dacia[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonial Empires/Userbox/CEBASICBOX, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Template:User_WP:AGS, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7#Category:WikiProject_Dacia_participants and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:WikiProject Colonialism participants. Although the WikiProjects are gone, these templates and their accompanying categories have historical interest. It would have been helpful to bundle these related nominations together or at least link them. And polite to notify the successor wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. – Joe (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but change "is a participant" to "was a participant". There's no reason that past relationship can't be expressed through a userbox. Also this is the wrong venue (should be at MfD). * Pppery * it has begun... 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Dacia Invitation[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Fake pp-semi[edit]
- Template:Fake pp-semi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There is no real place this would be used, even as an example. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:User18[edit]
- Template:User18 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep No user template has similar or more expansive contents than this one. In particular, it is the only one that links to Special:AbuseLog and Special:Log/block. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just fixed the broken unnamed parameter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Also, because it's one of the only ones able to easily cross-link a user from a Wikimedia sister project (the other is {{Userxx}}). It was created to support linking users involved in cross-wiki issues, which admittedly don't come up that often, but it a big time-saver when it does. It looks like I must have forgotten about it when the time came to use it, so ironically, this Tfd has reminded me. There are not a ton of users who are interested in or know how to deal with cross-wiki issues, so it would be helpful to keep this around for that purpose. Maybe it needs a rename, to highlight the cross-wiki nature of it, and if someone could suggest a good name for it, I'd support that. (as creator) Mathglot (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Evidently nobody cares about whatever virtues are being extolled here because this has remained unused for years. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: This template now has transclusions, apparently because of this edit. It does not appear to be used anywhere except for in this list of many similar templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Usbk/light[edit]
- Template:Usbk/light (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I'll try to dig a bit more. I believe this template was created to allow pages to contain very large numbers of userboxes without falling over. It may on the other hand have been to deal with slightly tendentious categories. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC).
- Confirmed someone who didn't get it had removed the uses of the template. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC).
- Confirmed someone who didn't get it had removed the uses of the template. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Cat[edit]
- Template:Cat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Category link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Cat with Template:Category link.
{{Cat}} has the option for a "category:" prefix (i.e. {{cat|stubs}}
and {{cat|Category:stubs}}
have the same output: ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Stubs), but otherwise this template just has fewer features than {{Category link}}. {{Category link}} does not accept the category prefix ({{Category link|Category:Stubs}}
becomes ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Category:Stubs), but does allow for various options. They should be combined. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge Template:Category link to Template:Cat as an inferior duplicate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose I could've made it more clear in my nomination, but {{Category link}} has numerous options which {{Cat}} lacks, such as
|count=
,|count_type=
, and the ability to "pipe" links ({{category link|X1|X2}}
becomes ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› X2) (you can read more on at Template:Category link/doc). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose I could've made it more clear in my nomination, but {{Category link}} has numerous options which {{Cat}} lacks, such as
- Merge as both do the same thing. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge or reverse merge as both do the same thing. Unless someone has other criteria it seems reasonable to keep the one with the most features, as HouseBlaster says. I am not sure how the merge will technically impact the current usage of the template, hopefully there are solutions for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: As HouseBlaster mentioned in an above comment, {{Category link}} has the ability to pipe links, which is incredibly useful (I've personally used it extensively on my saved links page). If the templates are merged, this functionality should stay. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update: because the ability to optionally include a category prefix at {{Category link}} would be a good idea regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I have gone ahead and added that functionality to the sandbox. The sandbox version calls a new subtemplate, {{Category link/core}}, which has the added benefit of eliminating multiple calls to the WP:EXPENSIVE PAGESINCAT magic word. If this merge goes ahead, we just need to sync the main template with the sandbox and redirect {{cat}} to {{category link}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support updated proposal above. Seems to include all functationality without making usage more complicated and seems unlikely to break anything. MClay1 (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Update
{{Category link}}
to cope with any extra prefix, then redirect{{Cat}}
to{{Category link}}
. (Maybe check{{Cls}}
and{{Cls}}
too?) — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 16:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
July 6[edit]
Template:Newspaper of record[edit]
Unused wikidata related template. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, albeit a little weakly. The nominator seems to be under the misimpression that a template being unused is by itself sufficient grounds for deletion. It is not. This template was developed for potential use in a Module:Find sources template, and while it wasn't initially adopted, it might be in the future, and given that its development stage is appropriately tagged and that retaining it is cheap, that provides grounds for keeping. It is also relevant for editors looking at the history of the creation of the find sources module, and could have other uses for editors seeking for other reasons to associate a country with its newspaper(s) of record. Sdkb talk 06:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- The commentor above is under the misimpression that the nominator does not know how TfD works and that hundred of templates get deleted on a weekly bases for being unused. 3 years being unused is a clear indication that either the template creator has abandoned a template or that the community does not want it. Both are valid grounds for deletion. Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
and has no likelihood of being used
isn't exactly ambiguous, and is bolded for good reason. To the extent it's not being followed, it ought to be — even when there's only a small chance they'll be used in the future, the maintenance cost of retaining templates is minimal (particularly when their documentation is clear, as here). Deletion for the sake of deletion does not benefit the encyclopedia. Sdkb talk 14:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)- I'm yet to be convinced of the value of deleting templates, merely because they are unused. Or indeed for any reason, except when they are using a valuable piece of namespace that could be better used. Even then moving is an option. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC).
- The commentor above is under the misimpression that the nominator does not know how TfD works and that hundred of templates get deleted on a weekly bases for being unused. 3 years being unused is a clear indication that either the template creator has abandoned a template or that the community does not want it. Both are valid grounds for deletion. Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or send to a preferred sandbox per nom. The quoted portion of the relevant page probably needs updating rather than relying upon in a TFD; the practice at TFD is clearly deletion of unused templates, even with the possibility of use. Izno (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- We should follow what's best for the encyclopedia, rather than what current practice here has drifted to. And as @Rich Farmbrough said above, it's not clear what benefit current practice serves. Sdkb talk 04:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
[edit]
Navbox only contains three blue links (not including the header, which links to the general Wesleyan Cardinals football page), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. There is also not an article for List of Wesleyan Cardinals starting quarterbacks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: (I think this is how opposing and supporting works) Has four now, so I could see the rationale for both keeping or deleting it. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Despite four links, it does provide navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Eastern Football League seasons[edit]
Navbox with all red links. DB1729talk 14:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Riddell District Football League seasons[edit]
- Template:Riddell District Football League seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with all red links. DB1729talk 14:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Western Region Football League seasons[edit]
Navbox with all redlinks. DB1729talk 14:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Wales Conservative Party MPs[edit]
As a result of the recent election, the template is currently blank. 2601:249:9301:D570:B519:DC52:8298:C7B (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Old discussions[edit]
July 5
Template:Blink
- Template:Blink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template has been deleted multiple times. The creator removed a speedy deletion tag, so rather than get in a dispute, here's a TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The previous, unrelated version of this template was deleted because it didn't work (it used the actual blink tag, which has been deprecated for around twenty years). There was not a consensus to forbid any template from ever existing on the English Wikipedia with the pagename
blink
, although if it would make you happy, I could rename this to {{blink2}} so that it isn't a "recreation". jp×g🗯️ 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)- JPxG, what do you want this gross thing for? Folly Mox (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's an article about the blink element, whose primary illustration is rendered with this template, which makes text blink. There is also a section about the deprecated blink and marquee tags at HTML element. It's obvious that the template is not appropriate to randomly be used for emphasis in article text, which is why there's a bold exclamation-pointed sentence on the /doc page telling you not to use it this way. Indeed, we have lots of content that would be inappropriate to put in random articles, like File:Communist Hammer and Sickle Star Flag.svg or File:Flag of the Ku Klux Klan.svg (which are illegal to display in some countries). The <blink> tag was quite bad, but hopefully we can agree it was less bad than the Khmer Rouge, whose insigna we display in their article; I think we can similarly depict a <blink> tag in the articles about <blink> tags, or deprecated HTML tags more broadly.
- It's true that it would be in theory possible to delete the template, and replace its invocations entirely with inline formatting on the two articles where it's in use -- but that inline formatting would still require TemplateStyles, so it would still require a stylesheet to be located somewhere. The idea of attaching a
/styles.css
subpage to a mainspace article, and then invoking that stylesheet from a different mainspace article (or having two identical .css pages on two different mainspace pages) seems quite obtuse and unorthodox to me, especially if a template for doing this already exists and works fine. - In general, my understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia templates is that they're supposed to allow code to be used on multiple pages, rather than forcing people to manually copypasta large complicated blocks of 100% identical code (in this case,
<templatestyles src="Blink/styles.css" /><span class="blink-css">{{{1}}}</span>
andblink, .blink-css { animation: blink 1s step-end infinite; } *::@keyframes blink { *:: 67% { opacity: 0 } *::}
, and additionally a content-model change to enable the second to be loaded from a separate page because it can't be styled inline with MediaWiki). jp×g🗯️ 00:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)- Just like with Template:Marquee, you build it and people use it and we end up with horrible (User:Alpine0x37 User:One cookie) GeoCities like pages. Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it is reasonable for us to try to completely prevent people from making silly userpages, that doing so should be an objective of our template system, or that it should take a higher priority than using said system to write articles. jp×g🗯️ 06:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just like with Template:Marquee, you build it and people use it and we end up with horrible (User:Alpine0x37 User:One cookie) GeoCities like pages. Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's an article about the blink element, whose primary illustration is rendered with this template, which makes text blink. There is also a section about the deprecated blink and marquee tags at HTML element. It's obvious that the template is not appropriate to randomly be used for emphasis in article text, which is why there's a bold exclamation-pointed sentence on the /doc page telling you not to use it this way. Indeed, we have lots of content that would be inappropriate to put in random articles, like File:Communist Hammer and Sickle Star Flag.svg or File:Flag of the Ku Klux Klan.svg (which are illegal to display in some countries). The <blink> tag was quite bad, but hopefully we can agree it was less bad than the Khmer Rouge, whose insigna we display in their article; I think we can similarly depict a <blink> tag in the articles about <blink> tags, or deprecated HTML tags more broadly.
- JPxG, what do you want this gross thing for? Folly Mox (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I find neither argument convincing here. Deleting {{blink}} won't stop people from building GeoCities-style pages if they want to, and I'm not even convinced we should care if they do. But I also don't see the value in a fake (because it doesn't actually use the blink HTML tag) self-demonstrating example in pages like blink element - it seems to me that people can understand what an element blinking means without it being shown to them. And I agree G4 doesn't apply. Since the burden is normally on the nominator in deletion discussions weak keep I guess. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
July 3
Template:Cite LSA
- Template:Cite LSA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Module:Cite LSA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This citation template has never served its intended purpose (not a single page using it is about linguistics) and it's not CS1 compatible so it's nearly impossible to maintain. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 20:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support deletion. It's a pain in the ass to interact with, and I've only encountered in on geology articles, which should not use LSA style. It's used under 1000 times, so can easily be converted with AWB and similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with appropriate CS1 templates in articles. This may have to be done by hand to match the WP:CITEVAR style in each article, like this. The original purpose of this template is long gone, per this discussion and much previous discussion on the template's talk page, including this rabbit hole that led to undoing a misguided template move or merge many years ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I think this TFD would also apply to Module:Cite LSA. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and replace per above. I've also added the module to the nomination. Gonnym (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I tagged Module:Cite LSA with {{subst:tfd}}. Nickps (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Jonesey95. I think the move towards a definitive house citation style in the last decade since I wrote this is a net positive. Readers can go to any article where information will be in a consistent format without the need to learn a dozen citation styles, and it reduces the maintenance burden on editors. The benefit of keeping the template—writers get to feel good due to a sense of ownership over the style of an article—is not enough to outweigh the benefits of moving to a consistent house style. — Wug·a·po·des 21:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I actually think there's value in a other module systems supporting other citation systems external to our own. There have been previous requests for such (cite mla and vancouver have shown up before), and I appreciate this for the experiment that it is. Help talk:CS1 has additionally discussed making more of its module components available as libraries for systems like these. Izno (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:EIDR
- Template:EIDR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links. Created in January 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are 222980 records in wikidata with the property that template presents, the thing itself is an ID for identify media that is not tied into a particular vendor or platform, if effort is needed, it is it promoting EIDR not in dismantling the infrastructure around it Back ache (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete template is of little use. It would be used to add an external link to articles, however the link in reality really adds little value to the articles. The basic information is already in the articles, and providing IDs solely for other databases and streaming platforms isn't of any use to the vast majority of article readers. Anyway the link itself per WP:EL needs to be immediately useful and they aren't. Additionally it seems to provide nothing that isn't already what Wikidata's point is which renders it a pointless duplicate link. Canterbury Tail talk 00:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- ouch :-( Back ache (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't seem to be useful for the reader? The creator is now mass adding them to film articles, with no explanation. Mike Allen 00:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was trying to show by example some of the articles it covers, it also has the potential to me more than just a link template because as an industry wide ID there maybe microdata that could be added Back ache (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Probably should be rewritten as a catalog id template for citations, rather than for use in external links (which no one uses templates for anyway). See my comment below. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- In regard to external link templates, there are some very popular ones for example youtube, twitter, linkedin etc the advantage with using them is as a platform evolves (as is currently happening rapidly with twitters transformation into "X") if the surrounding URL's change, just a change to the template is needed. Your point about transforming it into a citation template makes sense Back ache (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could this work better as an authority file entry for {{authority control}}? That seems a better place to consolidate structured metadata than in subheading External links, or inside a citation (although I could see citations to this database supplanting user generated sources like imdb for things like runtime). Folly Mox (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2
Template:Continental Asia in 200 CE
No transclusions or incoming links. Created in early 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please keep , it's part of a series, and it will be used at some point. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This template is part of a series of over thirty template maps of Continental Asia across different time periods. I know I've seen this one transcluded in an infobox before, early in article development prior to replacement by a newly created more specific map template.Our encyclopaedic coverage of circa 200 CE Asia history topics is not yet particularly thorough, and it would be a shame to discard this work just because it's currently unused.In general and as a set, I think all templates in this series should be kept whether or not they have any transclusions at the moment. I think my memories of how this template was previously used could be extrapolated to future use cases: templates from this series are transcluded until a more specific map is located or created, if ever. Just because the usage is temporary doesn't mean that it's not useful. Folly Mox (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
July 1
Template:Romania film list
- Template:Romania film list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Romanian film list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Romania film list with Template:Romanian film list.
Two sidebar templates with the same scope. DB1729talk 03:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Use Template:Romania film list that has all the valid blue links. No need to make this side bar that large for no actual benefit. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Bus companies in West Midlands
- Template:Bus companies in West Midlands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Bus companies in the West Midlands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Bus companies in West Midlands with Template:Bus companies in the West Midlands.
One navbox transcluded to another with slightly adjusted title. DB1729talk 00:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Template:Bus companies in the West Midlands there is nothing to merge there. That was an improper template creation. Gonnym (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the improper creation was an attempt to fix the name and add the definite article "the". I don't know but "...in the West Midlands" sounds more correct to me. Taking a look through Category:West Midlands (region) and Category:West Midlands (county) it looks like it's done both ways, but including "the" is more common. (and fwiw we have Template:Bus companies in the East Midlands) -- DB1729talk 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- It should have been created as a redirect instead of a transclusion. I would support a redirect of the new one to the old one, or move the older one to the page with "the" in its title for grammatical correctness. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the improper creation was an attempt to fix the name and add the definite article "the". I don't know but "...in the West Midlands" sounds more correct to me. Taking a look through Category:West Midlands (region) and Category:West Midlands (county) it looks like it's done both ways, but including "the" is more common. (and fwiw we have Template:Bus companies in the East Midlands) -- DB1729talk 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
June 30
Template:CFLStartingQuarterbacks
Similar to this discussion about Template:NFL starting quarterbacks navbox, this navbox changes weekly during the CFL season and has to be transcluded and untranscluded on individual pages each week. It is not particularly useful from the end of the season to the beginning of a new one, when players may not even be on their listed teams anymore. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Repurpose Remove the current starters but keep the links for the team lists. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Repurpose Agree with WikiOriginal-9; keep links for team starting quarterback history. Cmm3 (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
June 29
Template:Infobox climber
- Template:Infobox climber (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox mountaineer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox climber with Template:Infobox mountaineer.
I think that Template:Infobox mountaineer could be handled by Template:Infobox climber. A lot of mountaineers do climbing and visa-versa. Infobox climber is the most important infobox (and the most detailed) and has the richest level of detail on their climbing/mountaineering career (I think infobox climber captures all of mountaineer career data. The mountaineer infobox items of "famous partnerships", "final ascent" and "retirement age" are subjective items). The main differences are around the non-climbing items that cand be just merged? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Noting also that we have been recently merging several mountaineering categories and climbing categories together such as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 26#Category:Works about mountaineering, amongst others. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)- Pinging User:Cullen328 who I have seen participate at climbing AfDs - @Cullen328, what do you think of my proposal? I have put a notice of this on at WikiProject page but no one has answered so far - are there any others who should be pinged? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could you list the parameters that would need to be added or have different names? That would make it easier to see if these indeed have the same scope. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Aszx5000, I am not familiar with the details of the respective infobox parameters, but I agree that mountaineering and climbing are basically the same sport with many variations ranging from bouldering to high elevation expedition mountaineering. I think that it is counterproductive to try to separate it into two separate sports, so I am generally supportive of what you hope to accomplish. I am 72 years old and have not been an active mountaineer for about 15 years, so I am not current on recent developments in the sport. Cullen328 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Gonnym, The disjoint of the parameter sets for these two templates appears to consist of the following:
|main_discipline=
,|other_discipline=
,|start_discipline,=
|height=
,|weight =
,|start_age =
,|partnerships=
,|website =
,|typeofclimber =
,|namedroutes =
,|highestredpoint=
,|highestonsight=
,|highestboulder=
,|apeindex=
,|knownfor=
,|worlds =
,|final_ascent=
,|medaltemplates=
,|updated =
,|partner=
,|children =
,|parents=
,|relatives=
,|firstascents=
. Further, the following parameters would have to be aliased to one another:|retirement=
and|retirement_age=
;|notable_ascents=
and|majorascents=
.That said, {{Infobox climber}} wraps {{Infobox sportsperson}}, whereas {{Infobox mountaineer}} does not appear to, so many of the mountaineer parameters not present in the climber template may actually be inherited (the family stuff for sure).Why not just wrap {{Infobox sportsperson}} with {{Infobox mountaineer}} instead of trying to realign everything here? How many articles have a problem where it's unclear which template is more appropriate for the subject? Both genuine questions for Aszx5000. Folly Mox (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)- I agree that the way {{Infobox climber}} does so is the better way. I'm leaning support this merge unless someone has any valid objections. One thing though, when the merge happens, please make sure you use the correct naming conventions for parameters (snake case) and climber uses a mix of 4 different styles. Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Would definitely keep {{Infobox climber}} as it has lots of good objective facts when used properly (e.g. Alexander Huber, Chris Sharma, Catherine Destivelle). The issue is that {{Infobox mountaineer}} has essentially the same 'biographical' facts (i.e. personal and family info) as {{Infobox climber}}, but outside of 'notable ascents' (which is the 'major ascents' on {{Infobox climber}}), the rest of the 'career' section are either not objective facts or not really notable things in mountaineering, and should be discarded. I would be happy to help guide any merge process (I am very active in WProj Climbing). Once done, there are a few more upgrades we want to make to {{Infobox climber}} to improve its usefulness. thanks to all above. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could you list the parameters that would need to be added or have different names? That would make it easier to see if these indeed have the same scope. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)- Are we agreed to merge the two boxes per the discussion? Pinging @Folly Mox, @Gonnym (I am assuming @Cullen328 is out?). It would be great to have a single "climber" infobox. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you're planning on doing the work yourself, sure, support merge to avoid another relist. Folly Mox (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, good luck with the merge. I'd recommend that while you are doing the merge that you chose one style of parameter names. Currently you have
|main_discipline=
,|namedroutes=
, and|show-medals=
which isn't user-friendly. Gonnym (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are we agreed to merge the two boxes per the discussion? Pinging @Folly Mox, @Gonnym (I am assuming @Cullen328 is out?). It would be great to have a single "climber" infobox. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on the merge, but as long as the infobox is undergoing renovation: For speed climbing competitors, should there be a space for speed records? For instance this is not currently in the infoboxes for Sam Watson (climber) and Aleksandra Mirosław (current world record holders) nor national record holders such as Shauna Coxsey although it is in the text of the articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
June 27
Template:Diplomatic missions of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Template:Diplomatic missions of Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with no transclusions or incoming links. No blue links to full articles in the body of the navbox. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Third reason in WP:TFD#REASONS says to delete when a template has no likelihood of being used. Three years is not a long time; similar templates have been populated over time. Many of the structured templates I created in Category:Diplomatic missions by receiving country started off as bare-bone/transclusionless and now have increased usage. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There are three blue links now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC).
- I do not see any blue links to full articles about the navbox's subject in the body of this navbox. The navbox has not been edited for content since 2022. It may be useful someday, but it is not useful for navigation yet, so it should not exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is becasue people have deleted articles without doing proper WP:Before, I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC).
- This is becasue people have deleted articles without doing proper WP:Before, I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC).
- I do not see any blue links to full articles about the navbox's subject in the body of this navbox. The navbox has not been edited for content since 2022. It may be useful someday, but it is not useful for navigation yet, so it should not exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Unused template. No links to relevant full articles. The Banner talk 22:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't keep templates because of speculation about what might happen in the future. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
June 26
Taiwan political party templates
- Template:Congress Party Alliance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:DPP/short (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Green Party Taiwan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Hakka Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Independent (Taiwan) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Kuomintang Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:New Party Taiwan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:New Power Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Non-Partisan Solidarity Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:People First Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan Constitution Association (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan Farmers Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan Home Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan Independence Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan People's Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Taiwan Solidarity Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Third Society Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Young China Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This family of templates contains just wikilinks, maybe with an icon (mostly used for decoration in violation of MOS:ICON). Over the last few years we've been moving away from the "one template for every version of X" system (be it for political parties, national sports, etc) in order to allow for easier updating and centralised coding. This is also a good example of "text stored in a template". Primefac (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at most of these templates and several transclusion cases. I'm not seeing a violation of MOS:ICON, but I agree that this is a lot of templates for what could be easily accomplished with a single template taking a single parameter (and maybe an optional boolean controlling icon display). I'm thinking combine and replace, although I'm not presently volunteering to do the work, since I've been pretty busy and will almost certainly forget. Folly Mox (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I agree that simple links should not be hosted in a template. There is just no reason for that. If such a thing is actually valid, then there probably should be a template for every single concept. In reality, writing New Power Party or {{New Power Party}} is no different and if {{NPP}} is valid as a redirect, then it would have been valid as redirect, which NPP is not. This just seems to bypass the basic system of how links work here. Other than that, we already have a module that acts as database for political party names and colors. So that should already take care of this. Regarding the icons, I also agree, but for some reason during the merge a few years back, we left the group of templates with icons out of it. So if this passes, we should take care of the other templates in Category:Political party name templates (which also includes US templates like Template:GOP, which is exactly the same). Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
June 22
Template:Edit semi-protected
- Template:Edit semi-protected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Edit extended-protected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Edit template-protected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Edit fully-protected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Edit interface-protected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Request edit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Edit semi-protected with Template:Request edit.
As I have (surprisingly) recently discovered, this entire family of templates auto-detects the protection level of the template for which the edit request is being made. This means that an {{FPER}} placed on a template-protected template will result in exactly the same thing as a {{TPER}}. Because of this, it seems to me that there is little reason to keep these all as separate templates, instead using the more obvious and reasonably-named {{request edit}} as the base template for this family (instead of the latter template being used as a dab for all five). Primefac (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I have struck {{request edit}} since most of the participants feel it's not well-suited for the final target. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Merge the first five togetherbut keep {{request edit}} as is since COI edit requests are, and need to be, a separate process (a page someone has a COI with can also be protected). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- Perhaps a parameter such as
COI=yes
ortype=COI
could be used to flag the type of edit request that is being made, which would allow all six templates to be merged into Template:Request edit. That would still keep them a separate process. Adam Black t • c 16:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- Is there any reason to do that, though? It seems to just make things more complicated for everyone. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how it complicates things, it streamlines the process of requesting an edit. Btw, {{request edit}} has been deprecated, so you're already meant to use a different template - {{edit COI}}. Adam Black t • c 22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to do that, though? It seems to just make things more complicated for everyone. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Striking my merge !vote per below discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps a parameter such as
- (edit conflict)Request edit used to be for COI, and it's a generic name that could refer to it or edit partially-blocked as well. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Merge (Non-Admin vote) Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 16:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Being an admin doesn't mean very much here--there's no need to point out you aren't one. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge the first five and keep {{Request edit}} as a disambiguation per Pppery. I was also rather surprised and amused to find out that the edit request templates automatically emulate each other based on the page's protection level. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- As no one has suggested a title for the proposed merged template, perhaps {{Edit protected}}? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Should probably have "request" in its name. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Then maybe {{Protected edit request}} to match the Module it invokes, though I should note that the possibly enticing shortcut {{PER}} is already a template for the Peruvian flag. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{PTER}} and/or {{ProtER}}? Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Or even {{TPER}}, based on extension of, and analogy with WP:TPE? Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{PTER}} and/or {{ProtER}}? Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Then maybe {{Protected edit request}} to match the Module it invokes, though I should note that the possibly enticing shortcut {{PER}} is already a template for the Peruvian flag. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Should probably have "request" in its name. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- As no one has suggested a title for the proposed merged template, perhaps {{Edit protected}}? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge first five unless there is some yet-to-be-discovered reason to have them separate. Gonnym (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{request edit}} needs a new name, since that's not what it does. Other than that, I see no issue with merging the others. Izno (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I see an issue (based on the VPT chatter), and the underlying module already deals with these reasonably. Oppose. Izno (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment[Edit: Oppose]: These do not behave identically when the edit request is to an unprotected page. For example, you could use {{Edit extended-protected}} for an article that is within an WP:ARBECR topic area but which has not presently been protected. (If the page is protected, you have to use|force=
to forcea different protection levelthe default protection level specified by the wrapper.) SilverLocust 💬 23:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- Need to make sure the force stuff isn't broken, it is needed sometimes. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because I don't think it's possible to merge these without breaking current functionality (as I explain below), I am changing my comment to an "oppose". (I don't oppose creating a sixth template with no default level that instead would say when the protection level could not be detected, but I oppose redirecting or deleting the five templates proposed for merging.) SilverLocust 💬 20:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Need to make sure the force stuff isn't broken, it is needed sometimes. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment this template set is missing a template for requesting edits that are editfiltered, so autodetection doesn't help, when you need extra rights due to an edit filter instead of page protection. If these are merged, will a switch be available to select a rights level for that situation? -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Except the last, they're all wrappers for Module:Protected edit request with slightly different arguments, so in that sense they're already merged. But we should probably keep the slightly different behavior in that {{Edit fully-protected}} should default to fully-protected if the auto-detection fails, {{Edit semi-protected}} to semi-protected, and so on rather than turning them all into redirects to a single wrapper. {{Request edit}} should probably have no default, if that's reasonable. Anomie⚔ 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weak merge, now that the last has been struck, keep different behavior defaults if feasible per Anomie. I also agree that with everything already under one-module it really doesn't make that much of a difference. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge - I do like Anomie's point about the default action Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Conditional oppose merge per Anomie. These separate 'templates' are just wrappers for that edit request module really, so not any duplicated template code to worry about. Let's not possibly cause unintended behaviour for a template that's used at least hundreds of times everyday, especially with the auto-detect failover. There are other potential complications like what 65.92.244.237 has written above. Though, consider this vote invalidated if it's possible to merge all of these templates together without changing the behaviour and functionality of these templates. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Conditional support creating a template with auto-detection, as long as the existing templates are kept per SilverLocust and Anomie. Rusty4321 talk contribs 14:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support, but the target should maybe be {{Protected edit request}}. {{Request edit}} may be the destination or redirect to a different merge target, since hatnotes can direct users to more appropriate templates. SWinxy (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support the currently-proposed merge of the first five. Agree the final template name should be something like {{Protected edit request}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:ECR doesn't always get applied using WP:ECP. Therefore, using {{Edit extended-protected}} on a page that is not extended confirmed protected makes sense. The autodetection will not be able to handle that case. Add that to the other edge cases described above by other editors and it's clear that this merge will create more problems than in will solve. Nickps (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously I don't oppose a merge if the current default behavior is retained. Nickps (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Unless I am mistaken {{EPER}} doesn't currently recognize non-ECP pages that also happen to be under ARBECR. If I am mistaken, then yes, the post-merge template will be able to handle it because no functionality is being lost (just renamed). Primefac (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'm going by what Anomie said. If the auto-detection fails, {{EPER}} defaults to ECP. So, while it doesn't recognise that the page is under ARBECR, it still handles the situation correctly. I also just noticed that SilverLocust has already raised this issue. Nickps (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- There would be a loss in current functionality, Primefac. For example,
{{Edit extended-protected|force=yes}}
would no longer work. - Each of the five wrapper templates proposed for merging has a default level. E.g., {{Edit extended-protected}} is
{{#invoke:protected edit request|extended}}
(where the default there isextended
). If the page to be edited is unprotected or if|force=yes
is used, then that default level is used. If these were all redirected to one template, then there would be a loss of functionality unless someone knows how to tell a module not merely which wrapper is invoking a module (since there would only be one merged wrapper), but rather which redirect is being used to transclude the wrapper that invokes the module (and I don't think that is possible). If no default is provided when invoking the module, then it presently breaks with the error message Lua error in Module:Protected_edit_request/active at line 299: attempt to concatenate local 'boxProtectionLevel' (a nil value). when the page is unprotected or|force=yes
is used. SilverLocust 💬 20:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)- @SilverLocust The module could use
getContent()
to get the text of the current page and then search it for one of the redirect templates. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)- That would potentially break when viewing old revisions/permalinks, and probably need to take into account possibilities like multiple requests on a page (compare Module:Is infobox in lead's difficulty of handling multiple infoboxes). I prefer not to have templates behave differently when viewing permalinks/old revisions of a page. (Ahecht also replied at Village pump (technical), where Nickps asked whether this is possible. PrimeHunter replied expressing opposition to the suggestion.) SilverLocust 💬 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The simple solution for new uses is to transition from
|force=yes
to specifying the level to force, eg.|force=extended
. I agree there's no straightforward solution for existing uses, so we should just leave the existing templates as is, but stop advertising them in preloads and documentation pages. – SD0001 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)- Why exactly would something like
{{Request edit|force=semiprotected}}
be better than{{Edit semi-protected|force=yes}}
? Other than to satisfy a misguided desire for {{Edit semi-protected}} to be a redirect rather than the wrapper it is now? Anomie⚔ 11:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why exactly would something like
- @SilverLocust The module could use
- There would be a loss in current functionality, Primefac. For example,
- Well, I'm going by what Anomie said. If the auto-detection fails, {{EPER}} defaults to ECP. So, while it doesn't recognise that the page is under ARBECR, it still handles the situation correctly. I also just noticed that SilverLocust has already raised this issue. Nickps (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Unless I am mistaken {{EPER}} doesn't currently recognize non-ECP pages that also happen to be under ARBECR. If I am mistaken, then yes, the post-merge template will be able to handle it because no functionality is being lost (just renamed). Primefac (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously I don't oppose a merge if the current default behavior is retained. Nickps (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support per reduced clutter of templates to ensu8re a smoother and more effective way of getting editor's attentions regarding articles and editing. The move would be very helpful in sorting edits an allowing -people to use those templates better as it would be easier and more effective as opposed to having them separate. 97.77.64.90 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support, just makes sense and simplifies things on the technical side DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support, The auto-detection feature makes the distinction between semi-protected and fully-protected templates unnecessary for users requesting edits. This would streamline the editing process and improve clarity. 2603:8080:B8F0:5360:70CF:3BF2:4A5C:A546 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Good luck finding "more thorough discussion and clearer consensus". The nomination is flawed in that it overlooks that the different templates have different behavior if the autodetection fails (and also if
|force=
is used?). Opinions seem largely split between those who seem unaware of that and so support merging, and those who are aware of it and want to keep that behavior. Anomie⚔ 20:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)- Yes, @ToadetteEdit, a relist was not appropriate in this situation. What should have happened is a request probably WT:TFD to close the discussion, since several of the regular closers have participated already. Izno (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment In my opinion, none of the editors who support the merge have adequately addressed the problems identified by myself, Anomie and SilverLocust. Moreover, the simplification in the process that they wish to achieve could also be done by following SilverLocust's idea of
creating a sixth template with no default level that instead would say when the protection level could not be detected
. By making that sixth template and updating the procedures at WP:MAKINGEREQ to use it we would get the best of both worlds. The editors wouldn't need to use a different template depending on the protection level, but at the same time they would be able to use the old templates with|force=yes
to force another level when appropriate. Nickps (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC) - I suppose this is somewhat directed at Anomie, Nickps, and SilverLocust, and maybe pppery, but if this discussion is closed with no major changes taking place, and this RFD indicated that the generic-name redirects should be kept as-is, is everyone really saying that we should have inappropriately-named redirects pointing to templates that can detect the protection of a page, but because we don't want to change those wrappers we're just going to keep everything completely as-is? Primefac (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not following your logic there. I'm not seeing anything inappropriate about redirecting {{edit protected}} -> {{edit fully-protected}} given that the target works for both kinds of protection. And, looking back at the May discussion I could be convinced to retarget any redirects that don't specifically talk about protection to the disambiguation page {{request edit}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) My initial concern was that we have a bunch of generically-named redirects (e.g. template:edit protected) that are pointing at {{Edit fully-protected}}. Those in favour of keeping the redirects as-is said that since FPER auto-detected the protection level anyway, it made no sense to retarget. However, when I came here to suggest getting rid of the distinction since the templates can all auto-detect anyway (i.e. just have one "edit request" template), those same people say that the auto-detection is insufficient and thus we have to keep all of the SPER/TPER/FPER/etc separate. I honestly haven't evaluated the whole discussion here to actually see what way the wind is blowing, but I just wanted to check with those opposed that I am reading their concerns properly. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) IMO the main problem with your RFD was that you're trying to turn functional (if imperfect) redirects into redirects to a disambiguation page that doesn't function properly as a template. Turn {{Request edit}} into a template that actually requests an edit and I don't think anyone would object to changing the redirects.
Nor do I see anyone here objecting to that idea of making {{Request edit}} function to request an edit; the objections are all about breaking the fallback behavior if the auto-detection fails (and the|force=
parameter) for all the other templates. Anomie⚔ 15:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)- That's fair, and also the reason why I withdrew in favour of coming here. I suppose the main reason I never thought about using {{request edit}} in that way is because it used to be used for COI or pblocked requests (which are not covered under the SPER/FPER/etc scheme) and needed that disambiguation, but if folks think that having {{request edit|protection type}} is a useful way to take care of these redirects, I'm all for it. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not following your logic there. I'm not seeing anything inappropriate about redirecting {{edit protected}} -> {{edit fully-protected}} given that the target works for both kinds of protection. And, looking back at the May discussion I could be convinced to retarget any redirects that don't specifically talk about protection to the disambiguation page {{request edit}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- So, it's been over two weeks since the last comment here, now. Looks like there is overall a consensus in favour of the merge. Are we gonna close this? — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- An uninvolved editor will assess the consensus and make a decision. If you wish to speed up the process, feel free to post it at WP:ANRFC. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- When this is closed, can someone ping me, so that I can check that my script User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool is up to date with the changes decided here. I haven't read through this discussion or what the changes are that have been proposed but I do intend to keep my script up to date with any changes that come from this. Terasail[✉️] 17:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, while the vote count seems in favor of merging, I stand by my earlier statement that the nomination was flawed and most of the supporters were unaware of the differences in behavior that cannot be preserved in any reasonable "merge". Anomie⚔ 17:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- An uninvolved editor will assess the consensus and make a decision. If you wish to speed up the process, feel free to post it at WP:ANRFC. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Completed discussions[edit]
A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".
For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.