Wikipedia:Templates for discussion
V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 37 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 16 | 21 | 37 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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.
Notifying related WikiProjects
[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]- Template:Rita (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with just two links in the body, both to albums of questionable notability. I learned long ago that trying to persuade music editors to read WP:NALBUMS is useless, but this navbox is not useful yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Template not needed, as apart from main article, only 1 article and I have AFDed that. Redlinks are not notable as this is a local tournament so we won't need team and stadium articles to be created. Thus template not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Only one link; can be created in the future if the sport is held again. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete can be re-created when there's 3 or 4 blue links, which will not be before 2032. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Luftwaffe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This is a link template (in the same vein as recently-deleted GAF) and should be deleted as such. Izno (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Previous TfDs for this template: |
Has been deleted before in May 2018. Still not enough notable entries, and these are all included in Category:Astatine compounds. 141Pr -\contribs/-
- That previous deletion was via Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Template:Astatine compounds. If the template is kept this time, need to include that in its talkpage XFD history. DMacks (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as there are 4 articles. As long as the articles exist, then it is fair enough to have navigation between them in a template. (Perhaps some articles deserve to be deleted, and if they are and there are only two articles left, then I would support the scrapping of this template). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:WikiGame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2011. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Barmati Panth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Looks to fail the "should be at least 5 articles included" of WP:NAVBOX, with only Mamaidev and Maheshwari as useful links. The Hinduism, Satpanth, Nizari and Isma'ilism articles linked at the bottom seem indirectly related and do not mention Barmati Panth. Belbury (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Move topicon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions except in one editor's sandbox. Proposed in 2020, apparently, but not used anywhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify on the "proposed in 2020" bit, here's the history as best as I can reconstruct it. In April 2020 Sdkb noted that the RM banner is relatively disruptive from a UX perspective and proposed a change to the banner. Generally there are three main issues with the RM banner which still apply in 2024 which I'll give in order of increasing severity.
- Unlike banner issues such as NPOV or inadequate sourcing, page titling is an editorial concern irrelevant to most readers. It contributes to banner blindness, and it immediately distracts the reader from trying to find the information they came to the page for.
- It brings a lot of noise to move discussions on highly trafficked pages. Our page titling criteria (e.g. COMMONNAME) and consensus based decision making (i.e. NOTAVOTE) are not well understood by the general public. Having closed a lot of requested moves including the 2020 Kyiv rename, closing becomes harder when you have a high volume of "ILIKEIT" comments and exceptionally so when it is on an active, high-profile, or geopolitical topic. This slows down the RM process and leads to the banner being up even longer which amplifies the first problem.
- The current RM banner and process are an effective vector for political campaigns to influence public opinion without actually needing to move the page. As a case study, take the inciting incident for this template which concerned the title of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation which had 4 RMs in 1 month. Biden supporters wanted to focus on the allegation by Tara Reade and pushed for leaving Biden's name out of the title and using the singular rather than the plural; Biden opponents wanted to highlight Biden and other less substantiated allegations by including his name and using the plural. Ultimately I think we got the call right, but the problem wasn't making the right call: for over a week while this RM was active we advertised in Wikipedia's voice, without citation, that a major candidate for public office may have engaged in multiple sexual assaults. I think that's a bad outcome, but it's remarkably easy to pull off: just start a "good-faith" move discussion and you get free advertising for your unverified POV on any page you like no matter how high traffic for 7 days (or longer if it attracts enough noise to make finding a closer difficult).
- With all this as background, Netoholic suggested converting the RM notification from a page banner to what MediaWiki calls page status indicators and {{Move topicon}} was my attempt at implementing it. There was a technical problem with the template which caused it to stall out after a request to modify common.css, and given the pandemic at the time and other priorities I think it fell off everyones' radar. For the reasons above, I think it's still a viable initiative and worth keeping around in case someone wants to pick it up. — Wug·a·po·des 22:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with Wugapodes that it should be kept given the ongoing need to reform the way RMs are advertised. If anyone would like to help out with the common.css issue, I'd love to pick up the initiative again. Sdkb talk 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice subject to the consensus-establishing exercise that actually moves RM to using a template like this. "We might use it" isn't good enough. Izno (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's rather hard to develop any new feature if you're required to get the feature approved before you're allowed to create a demo. Sdkb talk 15:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's clearly not being used as a demo, having been created 4 years ago. And I said "subject to the exercise" anyway, which at a gracious review might be interpreted as "whenever you get around to actually working on it again". Which can also be done in a user space sandbox anyway. Izno (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm ready to work on it again now. We need help picking up from someone more familiar with CSS here. Sdkb talk 05:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's clearly not being used as a demo, having been created 4 years ago. And I said "subject to the exercise" anyway, which at a gracious review might be interpreted as "whenever you get around to actually working on it again". Which can also be done in a user space sandbox anyway. Izno (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's rather hard to develop any new feature if you're required to get the feature approved before you're allowed to create a demo. Sdkb talk 15:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Newyorkerize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template violates accessibility guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text, as screen readers will vocalize the diaereses, rendering the words unintelligible. I can confirm this is the case, as I tested the template by installing a text-to-speech web browser extension. Amendment: I may have incorrectly filed this, as my nomination was not for deletion but for discussion, as this is a templates for discussion. The issue isn't the mere use of the diaereses but its non-standard application of them, which would be vocalized by text readers. Svampesky (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did not invent the diæresis. It's been part of the English language for at least a century; if there is an accessibility issue with people using uncommon orthography, this is something which needs to be resolved either by the embedding of metadata (e.g. setting a non-printing tag with correct pronunciation) or the improvement of screen-reading software. In either case, I posit it would be better to better handle this case through a coöperative endeavour, rather than immediate deletion of any template which (within five hours of its creation) does not emit perfectly compliant accessibility-supporting output to all software ever written. jp×g🗯️ 04:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not commenting on the issue, just this text:
or the improvement of screen-reading software
. That isn't something that can happen in a Wiki discussion. If there is an issue with screen readers and something we do (even if it is correct), we should stop doing it until the issue on their end is resolved. Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)- Off the top of my head -- we once had a user named ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ; we currently have a user named ජපස (his name is not even written like that irl, he just uses the letters). We have user signatures featuring stuff like "×", "🗯️", "☏", "¢", "😼", and the utterly cursed "𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇" -- we have people who use diacritics and diæresis on Latin characters in articles, talk page discussions and their own names. If it is in any way incumbent on us to avoid ever using characters outside of the standard ASCII set, this comes as extremely significant news to me. jp×g🗯️ 08:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is backwards. The burden is on screen-reading software to parse text as it exists correctly out in the world, not on us to change otherwise correct content to make it screen reader compatible. Sdkb talk 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not commenting on the issue, just this text:
- Keep. There's almost certainly better ways to go about this than immediately flagging something for deletion without so much as trying to consult the person that made the template first or even just creating a discussion about it on the talk page. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep on principle. Nominating a potentially useful, and decently documented, template seven hours after its creation is too bitey (link for explanation of WP jargon; I know that JPxG is not a newcomer). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not find the accessibility argument the nominator made persuasive. However, I'm struggling a bit to see the utility of this template, as we don't really use the New Yorker style. Why did you create it, JPxG? I'm inclined to keep it if there's any valid reason, even if just for humor (templates are fairly cheap), although I'd consider adding
{{subst only}}
to the doc. Sdkb talk 15:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC) - Delete. I honestly can't see a realistic purpose for this template. It's not going to be used in mainspace (points in the general direction of WP:MOS), and anyone who wants to go the length of doing something like this elsewhere will know what to do anyway. Izno (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Hamas history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template also has a poorly defined function per WP:TG. Contrary to its name of "Hamas history," it seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information about "Hamas members," including their positions and years and places of birth and death. For some reason there is also an assassination-like map attached to the template. It is also unsourced and fails four of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines. It should be deleted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep FourPi (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was intending to change the template page name to "Hamas members", I had already changed the displayed title, but I assume moving it during the deletion discussion would cause trouble?
- Which four WP:NAVBOX guidelines does it fail and how? the only one I can see a major problem with is "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template" but that could be solved fairly easily by either renaming it {{Hamas sidebar}} or creating
List of Hamas membersa new page. - The sources are all in the linked pages. I have only once seen a source in a navbox, so I presumed they were against the style guide? but I can add them if they are allowed?
- It doesn't show assassinations, the map shows birthplaces and family origins (most of them died in Gaza, or outside the range of the map, a map wouldn't show much).
- FourPi (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- On second thoughts a list seems inappropriate, it at least needs another name? "List of members" has the "assassination map" feel to it? And I think the template already matches well enough other pages like List of Hamas leaders or Hamas history? We already have a lot of pages about Hamas, we need to sort and link what we have already. Currently {{Hamas sidebar}} seems most fitting, a lot of topics have a comprehensive footer and a summary sidebar? FourPi (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – I think there's no more issue regarding this sidebar. For the sidebar, no need to put the references as per WP:NAVBOX. However, we have to create new page based on this. I totally agree that we maybe can create the List of Hamas members page to fulfilled the guidelines.
- – Thegreatrebellion (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion: Would you support changing it into a horizontal template? Makeandtoss (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why would horizontal be better? FourPi (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we already have that, Template:Hamas. I think we better just don't change it to the horizontal one and change the content of it.
- – Thegreatrebellion (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion: Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, can you rephrase it? FourPi (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion: is arguing for the merge of the two into the horizontal template, which I would definitely support. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think they are suggesting we improve it and keep it separate? FourPi (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion: is arguing for the merge of the two into the horizontal template, which I would definitely support. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion: Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, can you rephrase it? FourPi (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Mostly because based on how its used in the Mohammed Deif it serves no real purpose. It would only be marginally helpful to someone who's trying to learn about Hamas's history through its members, and it slightly assists in navigation for that one purpose. It would be more elegant to have a list of important Hamas members linked in the Hamas template. TimeEngineer (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TimeEngineer Can you explain what you mean by "how its used in the Mohammed Deif" page? if there are still two very similar sidebars there, then I agree we don't need both, but the lack of other images etc. meant it didn't seem urgent to decide which. FourPi (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The template has poorly defined function per WP:TG. It serves no purpose, has no precedent, and seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information including about their places of birth, their militant operations, their wives, their children, and even their religions. For some reason there is also an assassination-like map attached to the template. It is also unsourced and failed all five of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines namely #4 the existence of its own separate article. It should be deleted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep FourPi (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I changed the title to history, because that seemed to better describe the content, this template includes more past figures and fewer current / recent than the one you listed above. But I presume I shouldn't move the page yet?
- It's basic biographical details, their leadership role, birthplace, date of death, etc. The date of death link to the page about it if it is a page to link. Religious diversity within the group is relevant to the topic.
- What do you mean by "unsourced"? Navboxes don't usually include sources? All the info is in the linked pages, with sources. I have left out any information that sources conflicted about in the linked articles, e.g. the dates of birth for many of the leaders of Hamas are disputed, so I've left them out.
- How does it fail all of the navbox rules? the only one it seems to fail definitively is the having a matching main page. But a page could be made. Creating a page seems equally valid as deleting a template to solve the problem of "template doesn't have a page".
- FourPi (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)- @Catfurball, merge with what? If anything I was thinking it needs to be split, into one for politicians and another for militants. FourPi (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – For this sidebar, I think we might have to do some cleanup like:-
- Removing the irrelevant stuffs like their religion, their wives & children;
- Keeping the important things like their places of birth, their militant operations;
- Adding the major information like their ideology (Islamist, Communist, etc), their political spectrum (Hardline, Centrist, Moderate, etc).
- I think there's no issue on other things.
- Everyone can add more suggestions to improve this sidebar.
- – Thegreatrebellion (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Thegreatrebellion.
- Which page do you think it should be linked to? (I was not aware of that rule until Makeandtoss listed it, I had read the relevant parts of the technical guide for navboxes, I hadn't noticed the was also style guide, etc.) The two most relevant pages I have found so far are:
- Both of which help to focus the scope a bit, by excluding some of the fringe groups like Islamist anti-Hamas groups in the Gaza Strip. If there is a modern history article that also possibly fits? FourPi (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion ideologies probably don't work well on a navbox with no citations, they're too debatable, and extreme or moderate is too subjective.
- But I'll expanded all the acronyms, because "Islamic Resistance Movement" and "People's front…" etc. are somewhat obvious? and official names shouldn't lead to edit wars?
- I've also added a few of the most relevant shared ideologies as a combined list.
- Year founded would also be useful to add.
- FourPi (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion do you know what they might mean by "cleaned and streamlined" and similar comments? I took off things like flags already. I've tried to match the formatting of the other sidebars but it ends up a mess, so I didn't even save it. Palestine is an unusual place and it doesn't fit well in the same lists, but trying to format existing lists the same way is just messy. Can you identify any other ways to make it neater? FourPi (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion: Can you point out to any precedent of a template on a country's leaders spanning multiple eras? Makeandtoss (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most political offices in countries that are well-covered on Wikipedia have templates for leaders that go back to whenever the office was established, e.g. {{Prime Ministers of Israel}} {{US presidents}} {{Prime Ministers of India}} The Indian PM template also includes links to: Spouse of the Prime Minister of India, List of things named after prime ministers of India, List of prime ministers of India by previous experience, etc. For Israel there's a template for every ministry, e.g. {{Israeli Education Ministers}} and they all go back to when then office was established, so {{Palestinian leaders}} goes back to the fist leader of each faction. The sub-lists in {{Palestinian leaders}} are factions who have a current leader, or who are currently active, and each goes back to the first leader (with a few gaps left to fill). FourPi (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Prime Ministers of Israel}} has their time as leader of a state within India in brackets, like {{Palestinian leaders}} has related pages. FourPi (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- We already have {{Template:Palestinian prime ministers}} so this would obviously make no sense and shows how peculiar this scope is without precedent for any other place. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Prime Ministers of Israel}} has their time as leader of a state within India in brackets, like {{Palestinian leaders}} has related pages. FourPi (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most political offices in countries that are well-covered on Wikipedia have templates for leaders that go back to whenever the office was established, e.g. {{Prime Ministers of Israel}} {{US presidents}} {{Prime Ministers of India}} The Indian PM template also includes links to: Spouse of the Prime Minister of India, List of things named after prime ministers of India, List of prime ministers of India by previous experience, etc. For Israel there's a template for every ministry, e.g. {{Israeli Education Ministers}} and they all go back to when then office was established, so {{Palestinian leaders}} goes back to the fist leader of each faction. The sub-lists in {{Palestinian leaders}} are factions who have a current leader, or who are currently active, and each goes back to the first leader (with a few gaps left to fill). FourPi (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is also {{English, Scottish and British monarchs}} going back to 1603 in two countries (they're in columns). Or if you mean the Mandatory Palestine section? some Israeli templates include thatera too, e.g. {{Israeli elections}} includes 5 from before 1948: 1920 Assembly of Representatives election, 1923 Palestinian Legislative Council election, 1925 Assembly of Representatives election, 1931 Assembly of Representatives election, and 1944 Assembly of Representatives election. FourPi (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are also lots of templates of a political ideologies that cover leaders through the whole history of the movement, like my idea of matching {{Palestinian leaders}} to the Palestinian nationalism page, e.g. {{Far-right politics in Australia}} goes from Frank Browne (journalist) and Eric Campbell (political activist) from decades ago, to Avi Yemini and Blair Cottrell who are current, there's also {{communism in India}} {{conservatism in Canada}} {{Irish republicanism}} and others. Big topics have matching end bar {{sidebar}} {{fascism sidebar}} {{liberalism}} {{liberalism sidebar}} and sidebar. Obviously they're not identical, but they're different countries and different ideologies. I've included the information most relevant to politics in Palestine. The others all just have a big decorative graphic at the top, but I don't know what you could easily summarize on a map for any of them? There's nothing very relevant that would fit in the small space? The others are sorted into categories of people, orgs, etc. and they don't pair the people with the orgs. But currently {{Palestinian leaders}} sorting by faction is a similar number of lists organized in a way that makes sense. The others couldn't be organized that way because there are too many organizations and not enough owls from each, some Palestinian factions have been around since the 60s but the Australian far right is a lot less s:table. FourPi (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Clean or Delete I don't think its a very valuable template, but if its kept it should 100% be dramatically cleaned and streamlined. TimeEngineer (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TimeEngineer can you give some specific suggestions for what your mean by "cleaned and streamlined" please? FourPi (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Single use, poor quality template The Banner talk 11:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:North Wind (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single use, bad quality template (American railway passing through England?) The Banner talk 11:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Single use, bad quality template. (Seriously, an American railway starting in Germany and crossing into England and Portugal?) The Banner talk 11:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Matt Shakman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Fails the WP:NENAN rule of five, with only three existing articles. Does not merit a navbox at this time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Cc-by-sa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Deprecated transclusionless template, and should thus be deleted.
If kept, this could become a disambiguation page for the various CC BY-SA licenses. But I think a disambiguation page is worse than useless: There is no way to know what license the author intended to use for their work, so only the author can fix the error caused by using this template. A template which can literally only be an unfixable problem when used should be deleted. A link in the deletion summary to Category:Creative Commons copyright templates should be a nice way of ensuring people can find the template they are looking for while preventing problematic transclusions. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:1930 Canadian federal election/Waterloo South (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I couldn't find sources to verify this information Boleyn (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, the source (from the Library of Parliament) has been in the green expandable "Source(s)" box at the bottom since I created the template. I did notice the link was dead, so I've updated the citation with a Wayback link. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Had made a suggestion for improvement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive 33#Chinese elections, but no changes have come forth. Moving towards deletion as the template does not deliver on what its title promises, it merely lists sessions of the National People's Congress which is just a rehash of certain heads of {{National People's Congress}}, and does not serve as a navigable aid to articles about the actual process of delegate selection to the NPC (compare with {{Chinese elections (1912–1949)}}). Neither are NPC elections the sole form of elections in China. This template needs a complete overhaul and as of now is very apt for a WP:TNT. Gotitbro (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep While the articles included do not have 'election' in their titles, they do include details of the respective elections. For example, 1st National People's Congress includes details of the election to the Congress and the Congress' election of the chairman and vice chairman. In future, you would likely get more engagement by raising the matter either on the template talk page or WT:E&R, where there are more likely to be editors interested in the specific topic. Cheers, Number 57 23:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:SO Cholet squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No people with any existing articles linked on this squad template. Club was relegated five whole divisions and everyone notable left. Will be a while before any wikilinks appear here, so just delete and create again in the future (and that's only an IF they get promoted in the future) Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. No purpose in keeping this right now. Gricehead (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 14:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:R (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Please {{subst:r}} into <ref>
. For my arguments for deletion, I cite the preivous TfD's !keep reasons, except I claim that VisualEditor's introduction has turned them into !delete reasons. Also see the centralized discussion leading up to the TfD and my inspiration, Template_talk:R#This_abomination_needs_to_go.
Help:List-defined_references#Overview (LDRs), key word "Alternatively", are off-topic and not to be confused with {{r}}. WP:CITEVAR's spirit is stability in visual appearance, which substing doesn't affect. Its repetition of WP:COSMETICBOT defers to consensus here at TfD.
Previous reasons against use focused on needlessness and the learning curve. No, this isn't even a separate referencing system, only a wrapper. Another editor said "" title="Template talk:R">my first time seeing that" and "" title="Template talk:R">not at all obvious". In response to arguments claiming difficulties in reading the source code, I extrapolate "Normal editors should not ... require[] at least a little bit of computer programming skill", and assert that normal editors in 2024 should not be required to understand wikitext.
The main argument at the previous TfD was a "50% reduction in visual clutter" going from <ref> to {{r}}. I claim a further 50% reduction in visual clutter by deleting this template in 2024. <ref name=X/> is length 13, while {{r|X}} is length 7, but VE's [1] is as short as length 3. VE gives us a 75% total reduction for named refs, and a 99% reduction for refs containing URLs and used once. In fact, quickly working with references is my main use case for VE. "For me visual clutter in edit mode is the largest impediment to editing for flow, to the point where it's nearly impossible to do so with a lot of references." The problem is that {{r}} not only breaks VE, but is slower to parse and learn.
142.113.140.146 (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Previous TfDs for this template: |
- Support retiring {{subst:r}}. We need to clean up old code. Anything that is not compatibile with VE needs to be retired or rewritten so that it is, to improve new editor experience (and experience for most old editors as well). Effectively, articles with {{subst:r}} are hard to edit and improve by most editors (who use VE), and this is not sustainable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly useful, as it is used on 28,000 pages. Whether the nominator likes it or not, WP:CITEVAR is an established guideline, and applies here. If this template doesn't work with the just-out-of-beta Visual Editor, the Visual Editor should be fixed. Unfortunately, VE has many bugs that the WMF developers have chosen to left unfixed while moving on to shiny new projects like Vector 2022 and dark mode, but that doesn't mean we throw away useful templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Substituting it doesn't change the citation style, just the markup.
{{r|a|b|c}}
and<ref name="a" /><ref name="b" /><ref name="c" />
are the same citation style, likeX, pp. 7–8
andX, pp. 7{{en dash}}8
are the same citation style. I rather doubt that WP:CITEVAR means use whatever markup the first contributor used. Nor does always substituting it get rid of the template. SilverLocust 💬 23:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)- The above statement is not congruent with the consensus interpretation of CITEVAR. Replacing {{cite web}} with its expanded wikitext would be an equivalent CITEVAR violation and, if you tried it, would have people showing up at your door with pitchforks and torches. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is circular reasoning. CITEVAR is a guideline. The WP:DEL-REASON's reason 10 ("Redundant or otherwise useless templates") is a policy. Policies takes precedence over guidelines, which "are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Here at TfD, this discussion is the "seeking consensus for the change" part of CITEVAR. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that it is widely used means ipso facto it is not useless. It is not redundant because no other template provides the same function. One can use spelled-out html-like markup instead, but that doesn't make it redundant, no more than any template that expands to something else is redundant, such as {{reflist}}. (A redundant template would be a new name for the same function as another template, and even in that case we would often redirect rather than delete.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is circular reasoning. CITEVAR is a guideline. The WP:DEL-REASON's reason 10 ("Redundant or otherwise useless templates") is a policy. Policies takes precedence over guidelines, which "are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Here at TfD, this discussion is the "seeking consensus for the change" part of CITEVAR. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above statement is not congruent with the consensus interpretation of CITEVAR. Replacing {{cite web}} with its expanded wikitext would be an equivalent CITEVAR violation and, if you tried it, would have people showing up at your door with pitchforks and torches. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Substituting it doesn't change the citation style, just the markup.
- Keep. I thoroughly dislike this style of referencing, but if I wanted to get rid of this template I'd have to get consensus to deprecate the referencing style first, and I don't see that succeeding. The TfD nomination of a template that implements the style is the wrong way to go about this. As for the comments about VE, I'm a big fan of the visual editor but it should never be the case that the limitations of an optional editing interface should control the style choices we approve of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Fix VE. EEng 17:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep convenient shorthand for named references (regardless of whether list-defined or duplicates from elsewhere in an article). Whenever we have a Wikipedia problem related to Visual Editor, it is always Visual Editor that is the problem. Delete Visual Editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Personally, I don't like this template but don't see how the template could be deprecated from this discussion. There is a valid reason to substitute and move on: the same effects can be achieved with
<ref name="">
, and that second method will work on the VE while {{r}} is very awkward for new editors on VE. However, I don't think this discussion will have a broad enough reach to achieve consensus (per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). There are thousands of pages where editors have chosen to use {{r}} over<ref name="">
, and the TfD notice is not transcluded onto those pages. To transclude it would destroy the readability of those articles for the week or so the discussion ran. Also, I remember coming across a howto video on creating a Wikipedia article from scratch from GSoW (off-wiki writing workshop for skeptical and scientific writing on-wiki), and it recommended {{r}}. GSoW editors would be another hundred or so folks that would presumably vote to keep here. Rjjiii (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)- Changed to weak keep.
- @Rjjiii: My fault not using better consensus seeking venue WP:VPR, but it's almost snowing.
- @David Eppstein: I realized {{r}} resembles a non-redirect {{tsh}}. I generally accept {{tsh}}s' usefulness and nonredundancy. Despite VE's Ctrl+C Ctrl+V autogenerating named refs, I learned about source users' continued convenience. Anyway, definitive consensus from this TfD'd be nice.
- Testing invalidated claims {{r}} not LDR breaks VE, but VE rebuts 2010's !keeps. However, I didn't anticipate CCC softening hostility from the CD, by editors claiming increased usage and establishment as a real style. CITEVAR seemingly encompasses the CD now. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Previous consensus to deprecate these tabular diagrams: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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 delete. Izno (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:NFC below TOO (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:NFC below TOO/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Category:All non-free files possibly below the threshold of originality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused and the usecase is limited. If a non-free file is relicensed as free and a user disagrees that it is free, then they should discuss it and if needed go to WP:FFD. That's the standard procedure.
If deleted then also Category:All non-free files possibly below the threshold of originality and Template:NFC below TOO/doc should be deleted. Jonteemil (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:47, 15 August 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.
Disused template with no transclusions. WP:HOCKEY recently discussed removing rosters from teams where the players are not notable. Flibirigit (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Toonami programming block navboxes
[edit]- Template:Toonami Cartoon Network (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Toonami Adult Swim (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This is just a programming block for content licensed by Toonami, not content that they produced. WP:NOTTVGUIDE; WP:UNDUE. --woodensuperman 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This is indeed more a TV-guide. So per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The Banner talk 12:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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 merge to Template:Christopher Paolini. Izno (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:The Inheritance Cycle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Christopher Paolini (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:The Inheritance Cycle with Template:Christopher Paolini.
The links in {{The Inheritance Cycle}} navbox are completely contained within {{Christopher Paolini}}, and the latter only has a couple of additional links. I propose to redirect the former template to the latter or replace transclusions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. --woodensuperman 11:23, 14 August 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.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers/Waterfalls task force is a task force of WikiProject Rivers. Usages should be replaced with {{WikiProject Rivers|waterfalls=yes}}
. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:WikiProject Western Australia Gascoyne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject Western Australia Goldfields–Esperance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject Western Australia Great Southern (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject Western Australia Kimberley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject Western Australia Mid West (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject Western Australia Peel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject Western Australia Pilbara (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject Western Australia South West (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
All of the above projects have been deleted. These aren't needed anymore as the pages are tagged with {{WikiProject Australia|WA=yes}}
. Gonnym (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:JAIHplayer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Junior A ice hockey team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Created in 2012. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:HOCKEY recently discussed removing rosters from teams where the players are not notable. Flibirigit (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with no transclusions and no blue links in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with no transclusions and no blue links in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/TUGS task force is a task force of WikiProject Animation, however, the project is marked as inactive and has no categories. So either straight delete without replacement or merge to Template:WikiProject Animation (which will require creating dozens of categories that no one is currently using). Gonnym (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Module:Sanaa map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused except in one editor's user space. Created in 2016. Not in English. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
After another template for this database was deleted per a prior TfD, I am nominating this additional one as it has only been used to supplement for the basic citation templates (such as examples at List of University of Nebraska–Lincoln people where both are used) and is only used on 48 mainspace articles which are primarily not major political figures.
The Political Graveyard has been deemed an unreliable source, as per here, and does not appear to hold much significance other than listing some facts that can be found from other, more reputable sources. I am going to echo Wikipedia:Not everything needs a template for this, as direct citations for any facts cited by this should be replaced with reliable sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with just one transclusion. All links in the navbox lead to the same article. Not useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 14:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with a main article link but no links in the body except for "related articles", which results in this navbox being useful in only one article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions in article space. No documentation or categories. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Prehysteria! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
All individual film articles redirect to the film series article. Mika1h (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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 Delete; deleted as G7 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:UKcountythumb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or documentation. Created in 2006. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete - this is so old I have no memory of creating it, but looking at the code, I'm guessing it was to provide map functionality that is now provided much better by infoboxes, and is therefore long obsolete. Joe D (t) 09:23, 13 August 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.
No transclusions. Appears to have been superseded by {{Sydney Inner West Council}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Template:Hanoi Metro lines and one other
[edit]- Template:Hanoi Metro lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Hanoi Metro colors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Not needed. This style of template has been long deprecated in favor of Module:Adjacent stations/Hanoi Metro, which is used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Mind.in.a.box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Both albums by the band that had articles have been redirected for not being notable, so there's only navigable link in this template now, and that's a link to another musical project by the frontman. No need for this template anymore. Ss112 19:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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 (G7) (non-admin closure) SilverLocust 💬 18:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Module:Page text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused duplicate of Module:Page * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 12 August 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.
Unused template by indefinitely blocked user. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Module:UserCategory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused module by indefinitely blocked user. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Module:PV-options (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused, pointless. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Unused, broken template (depends on parser functions that don't exist here) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Unused, broken template (depends on parser functions that don't exist here) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:General warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to {{color box}} and broken * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Davar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused, broken template (depends on parser functions that don't exist here) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Maariv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused, broken template (depends on parser functions that don't exist here) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Project was redirected 5 years ago to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. Replace with {{WikiProject Hinduism}}. Gonnym (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support It was apparently maintained only by 1 editor. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:WikiProject Joe Biden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject Donald Trump (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject Hillary Clinton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
These 3 banners are for WikiProjects which were redirected here as they weren't active other than the tagging. If the tagging is needed, pages can be tagged with {{WikiProject United States|USPresidents=yes}}
. Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep {{WikiProject Hillary Clinton}}, as she was never a president or vice-president. The template is transcluded 200+ times, so it appears to be useful.Oh FFS, the project page has been redirected, so this TFD for Hillary Clinton is now a WP:FAIT. The reasoning at the MFD is bizarre and wrong on the Hillary Clinton project, but I can't be bothered to fight it. No opinion on the other two. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)- I completely missed that point, odd that Clinton was redirected to United States Presidents. Gonnym (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonnym Ditto WikiProject Kamala Harris (?) Personally, I didn't think any of these projects needed to be redirected but (shrug) ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The main pages of the WikiProjects were changed to redirects but none of the associated pages to a WikiProject like invitations, article assessment pages or article talk page banners were handled. I think the discussion closure decision was incomplete. There is more to a WikiProject than its main page. Thanks for nominating these templates so some decision happens about them. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonnym Ditto WikiProject Kamala Harris (?) Personally, I didn't think any of these projects needed to be redirected but (shrug) ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I completely missed that point, odd that Clinton was redirected to United States Presidents. Gonnym (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since the respective wikiprojects were merged into WikiProject United States Presidents, the templates should be replaced by
{{WikiProject United States|USPresidents=yes}}
and then deleted or redirected. I think a consensus to keep the tagging function is implicit in the MfD outcome of "redirect" rather than delete. – Joe (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:WikiProject IDP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject British Library (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:WikiProject IDP with Template:WikiProject British Library.
Wikipedia:GLAM/British Library/IDP is a sub-group of the British Library page. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonnym I think this one might be easiest as substitute and delete rather than merge? I think from memory it was only used to identify pages from a particular editing event. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Having the block of code of Template:WikiProject IDP in 29 articles isn't really a good option. Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics/Gene Wiki is a task force of WikiProject Molecular Biology. Usages should be replaced with {{WikiProject Molecular Biology|Gene Wiki=yes}}
. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Unused banner for a Project that was shut down in 2014. See related Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 16#Template:Article Incubator. Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:JKS (director) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The director has no article, his name redirects to Alone (2015 Kannada film). The other film in the navbox has no article. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Navbox with no main article, not enough articles to make this useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Drum Corps International World Championship host venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unnecessary template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: I support deleting the template, but I would like to see the information transferred to Drum Corps International World Class Champions similar to List of Super Bowl champions before then. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Presidency of Richard Nixon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Ronald Reagan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Barack Obama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Bill Clinton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Gerald Ford (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of George H. W. Bush (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of George W. Bush (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Joe Biden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Precedent from my nomination of the Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox. All links here are featured on the main navbox. I can understand 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. All of these templates must go and don't add much for navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Strongly Oppose Discussion of presidency templates vs. president biography templates remains ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- All duplication between the president biography and presidency templates has been removed per expressed preference of editors for smaller biography templates at the discussion, so
this nominationthese nominations and the prior deletion of the Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox are now arguably without merit. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)- That discussion did not result in consensus. You are ignoring long community standard of having a clear consensus on any major changes to any style of formatting in regards to these templates. If a discussion is ongoing, then a nomination for deletion is not without merit. More templates are not a solution here and not every article deserves its own template. There had been no issue with the main president navbox having articles of their presidency included. You are editwarring across these templates even to go far to restore the Jimmy Carter navbox after it had been redirected following the Tfd for its own discussion. This is a violation of policy to edit war after Tfd consensus. And in several of your edits, you cite consensus was gained, but no such thing as happened. You are subverting discussion protocol and you can be reported to the ANI discussion board for this. So, please stop and let other users here add their views. You are Bludgioning this discussion well beyond what has been tolerable for users to see what your argument is. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- All duplication between the president biography and presidency templates has been removed per expressed preference of editors for smaller biography templates at the discussion, so
- Strong Support per the Presidency of Jimmy Carter deletion. CommonKnowledgeCreator, you missed the point there and here. Removing the presidency topics from these individuals overall navboxes separates access to massive portions of their lives from readers of the linked articles. As only one example of many, family is missing - and all of these individuals had family living with them in the White House. Books about their presidency, campaigns which brought them to the presidency, etc., should not be divided among two navboxes when one has been adequate for the entire existence of their navboxes. Per Jimmy Carter. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Edit war in progress, which I'll try to avoid, presidential entries are now being removed from individual navboxes where they have been present since their inception. I reverted a couple but am not going to keep playing whack-a-navbox. Please stop edit warring. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
CommonKnowledgeCreator, you missed the point there and here. Removing the presidency topics from these individuals overall navboxes separates access to massive portions of their lives from readers of the linked articles. As only one example of many, family is missing - and all of these individuals had family living with them in the White House. Books about their presidency, campaigns which brought them to the presidency, etc., should not be divided among two navboxes when one has been adequate for the entire existence of their navboxes.
You have missed the point there and here. As I noted at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page discussion, other editors there have expressed a preference for the shortened version of the biography templates as I have modified them, and you have consistently been dismissive of the concerns that I have raised with your assertions about how the templates should be organized. Other editors that I have had discussions with at Talk:Presidential Succession Act explicitly stated that legislation should generally not be included in biography templates, while per WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE, editors are not permitted to create criteria for inclusion in a template that suggests certain topics related to a broader topic are of grater importance than others. Since that's the case, then none of them should be included in the biography templates and a separate presidency should be created instead because it so broad of a topic that it requires a separate map from the biography. A president's family is not related to their presidency; they had family members before and after their presidencies and having family members is not part of a president's official duties or powers.- Unless something like a family wedding happens at the White House during the presidency as an official ceremony, it is unrelated. Books about their presidency are not typically written by administration officials, and as such are not directly related to their presidency. Some campaigns happen before individuals are President, and such campaigns are not part of their presidencies, while being President-elect is an official government position under the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, one-term presidents are under no constitutional or legal obligation to seek a second term, and as such, it is not an official duty or power of the presidency and is thus unrelated to the presidency. By contrast, signing bills into law, issuing executive orders, Supreme Court decisions over the decisions and directives, are related their presidency because those do involve official duties and responsibilities. This is not an edit war; you are an editor acting as though you own this project (WP:OWN) since only you really
youseem to have a problem with it. WikiCleanerMan's comments are about duplication, which there would not be if you would stop reverting my edits. You also clearly have little or no understanding of how the U.S. system of government works or about the Presidency of the United States, and as such, should not be editing about these topics. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)- There is no consensus in the discussion you link. Very large presidential sections on president navboxes can be placed in a collapsible section without readers losing access to the complete Wikipedia collection (Trump, Biden included). Much information-loss occurs when long-time entries are removed from the principal navboxes, which you have done at the navboxes under this discussion, citing a non-existent consensus, and then have edit warred over when that information was returned. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CON, if consensus is not reached by editing, then consensus is reached by discussion using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense and not by voting on resolutions. Editors in the discussion have expressed a preference for smaller biography templates, opposition to duplicative templates, and support for separating presidency templates from biography templates, while other editors created the Presidency of Bill Clinton, Presidency of Barack Obama, Presidency of Donald Trump, and Presidency of Joe Biden templates—which means that there would be a consensus by editing in favor of separate presidency templates if you would stop reverting the biography templates so that there is duplication to justify deleting the separate presidency templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Likewise, after reviewing the relist discussion for the Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox (which I was not notified of), the consistent concern expressed by editors has been mainly about duplication rather than your preference for including a selection of the topics related to a presidency in the biography template of the president—which I would reiterate is inconsistent with the WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX policies. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no consensus in the discussion you link. Very large presidential sections on president navboxes can be placed in a collapsible section without readers losing access to the complete Wikipedia collection (Trump, Biden included). Much information-loss occurs when long-time entries are removed from the principal navboxes, which you have done at the navboxes under this discussion, citing a non-existent consensus, and then have edit warred over when that information was returned. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Why would you get rid of them? The presidencies of these presidents are an extremely important tool for documenting the history of the country and the world. Not just for the policies, but also the many events under their watch and decisions they made. We need to add even more to them. Significantly more. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I can understand the navbox being larger.
I would add, as I noted in the deletion discussion for the Presidency of Jimmy Carter template and at the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page, not every law that they have signed during their terms in office is being included and only the ones that have Wikipedia articles. Like I've noted here, in the previous deletion discussion, and at the talk page discussion, to do otherwise would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX—specifically the part of the latter policy that states: "Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)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.- I'd also add that WP:NAVBOX also explicitly states: "templates with a large number of links are not forbidden". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency.
I agree insofar as you are referring to the Presidencies of William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield since Criterion 4 of WP:NAVBOX states "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." However, the templates you have nominated for deletion satisfy Criterion 1 ("All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject") and entries can easily be changed to satisfy Criterion 2 ("The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article"), which means at least 3 of the 5 criteria that WP:NAVBOX recommends for good navigation templates would be satisfied for them. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)- Vinnylospo, if you can work your way through CKC's walls of text and extreme edit warring at the templates, these navboxes duplicate the entries already present at the president's navbox. Separating the person from the presidency also separates their other life achievements from reader access while having them in one place - which has always been done and for the same reasoning. Nothing is lost by deleting these duplicate templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair, but I think either one should be way way larger. Including major events, disasters, deaths, etc Vinnylospo (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Vinnylospo. Major events, deaths, etc. should only be included on navboxes if they have something to do with the navbox topic. A person's presidency covers the actions that they were involved in, not everything going on in the world. Things like that are covered by other navboxes and articles. Somebody dying during a presidential term is very tangential to that term of office unless, like the Osama bin Laden killing by Obama, they were directly involved. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah but what about for major political deaths that they presided over like P. Nixon, R. Nixon and Foster for Clinton or Reagan, Ford, Rehnquist and Lady Bird for Bush? Vinnylospo (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Vinnylospo. Major events, deaths, etc. should only be included on navboxes if they have something to do with the navbox topic. A person's presidency covers the actions that they were involved in, not everything going on in the world. Things like that are covered by other navboxes and articles. Somebody dying during a presidential term is very tangential to that term of office unless, like the Osama bin Laden killing by Obama, they were directly involved. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair, but I think either one should be way way larger. Including major events, disasters, deaths, etc Vinnylospo (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Vinnylospo, if you can work your way through CKC's walls of text and extreme edit warring at the templates, these navboxes duplicate the entries already present at the president's navbox. Separating the person from the presidency also separates their other life achievements from reader access while having them in one place - which has always been done and for the same reasoning. Nothing is lost by deleting these duplicate templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well yeah I wouldn’t make one for those three either. Vinnylospo (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think of you delete all of those, you have to delete the one for Trump too. It’s only fair. Vinnylospo (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Vinnylospo, yes, agreed, but the entries for Trump's presidential term(s) should be included on his {{Donald Trump}} navbox, and if too large for easy viewing they can be, as I've mentioned, put into an enlargable section which would be collapsed when viewing the navbox. This solution is the obvious solution to the larger navboxes, and has been used on hundreds if not thousands of navboxes. Thanks for staying with the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I don’t get why we don’t just merge them all into one. Like for instance, look at how the Iraq war is done, there’s sub nav boxes within that nav box. I think that would be great. Vinnylospo (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
...if you can work your way through CKC's walls of text and extreme edit warring at the templates... Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
...and if too large for easy viewing [as] they can be, as I've mentioned, put into an enlargable section which would be collapsed when viewing the navbox. This solution is the obvious solution to the larger navboxes, and has been used on hundreds if not thousands of navboxes. ...Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I don’t get why we don’t just merge them all into one. Like for instance, look at how the Iraq war is done, there’s sub nav boxes within that nav box. I think that would be great. Vinnylospo(talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Randy Kryn, let me be very clear because you have mischaracterized what I have explicitly said in these discussions: I do not oppose using collapsable sections with these navigation templates. Actually, I'll go further: I do not oppose merging the biography and presidency templates with collapsable sections. However, other editors at the Presidential Succession Act talk page this past February argued that legislation should generally not be included in a biography template. However, the letter of the WP:NAVBOX policy requires that there be no additional criteria leading to a selection of related topics for inclusion in a navigation template due to the core WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE policies, and if laws are not sufficiently related to the biography of a president even
ifthough they are directly related to their presidency (since the president signs them into law), then other topics related to their presidency are not sufficiently related to their biography either. - Additionally, WP:NAVBOX expresses a preference for smaller templates such that if a larger template can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates then they probably should be, and other editors at the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page expressed a preference for the biography templates as I had modified them and have since expressed a preference for excluding articles related to the president's biography (i.e. the family members, books about the presidencies, and elections). I have no problem with large navigation templates with collapsable sections, but other editors in these discussions do not appear to agree with what you are proposing for these templates and would appear prefer the splits. I am trying to keep the templates consistent with the explicit letter and rationale behind the content policies and the expressed preferences of most of the other editors I have interacted with throughout these discussions—of which you are only one, and would be unreasonable for your preferences to dictate outcomes. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think doing it like Template:Iraq War would be ideal as you can have a tab for each one. And include the Template:Presidency of Donald Trump, you can take those as well as the ones for his family, media, businesses as well. It’s weird how Trump has multiple bag boxes when you can in all honesty condense it all into one. Vinnylospo (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- See my previous comment. WP:NAVBOX has an explicit preference for smaller templates such that if a larger template can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates then that should probably be done. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't, that's from an essay that you just tried to sandwich into the guideline criteria. As for the discussion you mention just above, that was a local discussion at an out-of-the-way talk page, and would not apply here. Collapsed sections on navboxes are useful, common, and solve all of your concerns. These "presidential" navboxes are not needed and, if presidential items are removed from existing navboxes, do serious damage to site navigation. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, that's from an essay that you just tried to sandwich into the guideline criteria. As for the discussion you mention just above, that was a local discussion at an out-of-the-way talk page, and would not apply here.
Yes, it does, and no, I didn’t. The WP:NAVBOX policy states: "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." It is not from any explanatory essay. The criterion that Iproposedadded from the WP:ATC essay for the WP:NAVBOX policy has nothing to do with the length of navigation templates but with overlapping entries.AllWhat I have proposed to the WP:NAVBOX policy with respect to template length is additional language that recommends but does not require splitting large navigation templates into smaller templates where the smaller templates would still satisfy most or all of the criteria for good navigation templates.- I would add that WP:NOTBUREAU notes that existing content policies document an already-existing community consensus about a topic, so the explicit preference for smaller templates in the WP:NAVBOX policy that I've explicitly quoted in this comment reflects an existing community consensus about navigation templates while your preferences do not. Additionally, per WP:CON, multiple editors in the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page discussion have stated an explicit preference for smaller templates (as well as WikiCleanerMan in their original post for the deletion nomination), for the biography templates as I had modified them, and for the presidency templates that I created. The Presidential Succession Acts are laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, so the talk page discussion I had with the editors there in February is not "out-of-the-way".
- As I have said multiple times in these discussions, this is not an edit war and you are engaging in ownership behavior (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) with respect to
thisthe biography templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't, that's from an essay that you just tried to sandwich into the guideline criteria. As for the discussion you mention just above, that was a local discussion at an out-of-the-way talk page, and would not apply here. Collapsed sections on navboxes are useful, common, and solve all of your concerns. These "presidential" navboxes are not needed and, if presidential items are removed from existing navboxes, do serious damage to site navigation. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- See my previous comment. WP:NAVBOX has an explicit preference for smaller templates such that if a larger template can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates then that should probably be done. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think doing it like Template:Iraq War would be ideal as you can have a tab for each one. And include the Template:Presidency of Donald Trump, you can take those as well as the ones for his family, media, businesses as well. It’s weird how Trump has multiple bag boxes when you can in all honesty condense it all into one. Vinnylospo (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I don’t get why we don’t just merge them all into one. Like for instance, look at how the Iraq war is done, there’s sub nav boxes within that nav box. I think that would be great. Vinnylospo (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Vinnylospo, yes, agreed, but the entries for Trump's presidential term(s) should be included on his {{Donald Trump}} navbox, and if too large for easy viewing they can be, as I've mentioned, put into an enlargable section which would be collapsed when viewing the navbox. This solution is the obvious solution to the larger navboxes, and has been used on hundreds if not thousands of navboxes. Thanks for staying with the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Unused after my edit removing it from the List of Topics related to Obama article. Just unnecessary article content duplication in template space. Has no usage on that article or anywhere else. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Usages should be replaced with {{WikiProject New Jersey|education=yes}}
. Gonnym (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:WikiProject South Park (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject Animation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:WikiProject South Park with Template:WikiProject Animation.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/South Park task force was converted in 2019 to a task force of WikiProject Animation. Add a parameter to the parent banner, replace usages, and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per Gonnym's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:WikiProject Florida Gators (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject University of Florida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:WikiProject Florida Gators with Template:WikiProject University of Florida.
Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Florida/Florida Gators subproject is a task force of WikiProject University of Florida. Add a parameter to the parent template, replace usages and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Project was redirected in 2013. I propose replacing with {{WikiProject Ecoregions}} and not redirecting as the template is barely used. Gonnym (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:XMSR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The remaining local traffic and weather channels from Sirius XM closed in 2023, so this template—for use in navboxes—is no longer useful. See coverage in Radio World: https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/programming-and-sales/siriusxm-pulls-plug-on-traffic-and-weather Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Waypoint Media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Coastal TV Broadcasting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Waypoint Media with Template:Coastal TV Broadcasting.
Template refused to edit (because of name mismatch??); hadn't created a template for a long time; copied & relinked articles instead of doing a Move; sorry for trouble. Chaswmsday (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Old discussions
[edit]
- Template:Empty-warn-NPF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Similarly to {{Empty-warn}} (see RfD) the name is confusing. "Empty" is understood to mean either A3 or C1 but not A1 which does not apply to empty pages. This template was kept at a previous TfD because it was used by PageCuration but this no longer applies as it has been removed from Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Deletion is my preferred outcome since the template is unused butI wouldn't oppose moving it to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF which would be a reasonable title and would match the pattern in Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)- Keep. Still used by mw:PageTriage. See deletionTags.json line 22. There are plans to convert PageTriage to use standard rather than custom (-NPF) templates in phab:T362477, but we're not there yet. These -NPF templates should stay in the meantime. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not ideal. Cam we at least move the page to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF? The redirect left behind will make it so nothing gets broken and we can delete it as soon as deletionTags.json gets updated. Nickps (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I feel strongly enough about to bring it here. Let's make it happen. Nickps (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nickps Can you file a task to update deletionTags.json Sohom (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- We should probably wait for the TfD to close. For all I know someone may object. I'll do it right after that. Nickps (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's how I picture it going. First the TfD closes as move so the template is moved to the new title and the redirect at the old title makes it so PageTriage won't get broken. Then I open the task to update deletionTags.json and finally when the update is made, I tag the redirect for WP:G6. Is that fine? Nickps (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't G6 the redirect. Redirects from page moves are supposed to exist forever, to help people track down pages that have moved. They cost nothing for us to keep :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well in this case the redirect falls under WP:R#D2 since, as I've said above "empty" is not really associated with A1 but since the deletion isn't uncontroversial anymore, I'll take it to RfD when the time comes. Nickps (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that a {{R from page move}} falls under WP:R#D2 (
The redirect might cause confusion
). Besides being a standard practice to leave these redirects (which is why the software automatically does it), it alleviates confusion rather than causing confusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that a {{R from page move}} falls under WP:R#D2 (
- Well in this case the redirect falls under WP:R#D2 since, as I've said above "empty" is not really associated with A1 but since the deletion isn't uncontroversial anymore, I'll take it to RfD when the time comes. Nickps (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't G6 the redirect. Redirects from page moves are supposed to exist forever, to help people track down pages that have moved. They cost nothing for us to keep :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's how I picture it going. First the TfD closes as move so the template is moved to the new title and the redirect at the old title makes it so PageTriage won't get broken. Then I open the task to update deletionTags.json and finally when the update is made, I tag the redirect for WP:G6. Is that fine? Nickps (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- We should probably wait for the TfD to close. For all I know someone may object. I'll do it right after that. Nickps (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nickps Can you file a task to update deletionTags.json Sohom (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I feel strongly enough about to bring it here. Let's make it happen. Nickps (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not ideal. Cam we at least move the page to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF? The redirect left behind will make it so nothing gets broken and we can delete it as soon as deletionTags.json gets updated. Nickps (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note to closer Please ping me when the TfD is closed so I don't forget to file the task. That is, unless you want to do it yourself. Nickps (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Resize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Midsize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Resize with Template:Midsize.
{{resize}}
reduces text to 90%. {{midsize}}
reduces text to 92%. As seen in the lorem ipsum samples at the bottom of {{Font size templates}}
, they are all but indistinguishable. In the interest of eliminating unnecessary complexity, I suggest merging midsize with resize, making them "aliases" a la small and smaller. Uses of midsize would be further reduced from 92% to 90%. What are the odds that those uses will be adversely impacted? Exceedingly low, in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I somehow botched it using Twinkle. This should be a proposal to merge midsize into resize. No clue how to fix it since it affects a lot more pages than this one. (One would think Twinkle would be smart enough to catch this error. One would be wrong.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- the Earth page is completely broken due to a message going "‹ The template below (Resize) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›".
- this should be fixed i think TerrariaTree3852 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I've made an attempt to fix this; see my contribs. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that 92% or 90% does not make any difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't have an opinion about this template, but this nomination has broken the heavily used template:XfD relist. See today's RfD for example. Please can you unbreak it quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed (disabled the banner at transclusions). SilverLocust 💬 09:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed (disabled the banner at transclusions). SilverLocust 💬 09:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tentative merge: {{midsize}} accepts
|size=
, which can translate to|1=
in {{resize}} (if|2=
is present, AFAICT). {{midsize}} also accepts|height=
for line-height. Would we add that parameter to {{resize}}, or get rid of it? Someone will need to make a detailed plan for this merge to be successful. A sandbox version of the merged template would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Someone will need to make a detailed plan
- Someone knowledgeable and eminently competent like you, I suggest. You could manage the "project" and delegate to worker bees like me. I could handle anything but template code changes, such as template doc changes etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I have removed {{midsize}} from a number of templates in which it was violating MOS:SMALLFONT. Also, this proposed merge would presumably also affect {{midsizediv}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to keep commenting. I have found that the majority of uses of {{midsize}} are inside of navbox, infobox, and other templates in which the size of text is already reduced; I am working on removing those MOS:SMALLFONT violations rather than doing a template merge and then later having to remove it. This work should not affect the TFD outcome; I just don't want people to be surprised or suspicious when the initial 2,400 transclusions is drastically reduced during the course of this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Another usage is using it in a unlinked note. This should be replaced with actual note templates like this. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to keep commenting. I have found that the majority of uses of {{midsize}} are inside of navbox, infobox, and other templates in which the size of text is already reduced; I am working on removing those MOS:SMALLFONT violations rather than doing a template merge and then later having to remove it. This work should not affect the TFD outcome; I just don't want people to be surprised or suspicious when the initial 2,400 transclusions is drastically reduced during the course of this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update: Qwerfjkl and I have reduced {{midsize}}'s transclusions from about 2,400 to under 240 in article space by removing instances that conflicted with MOS:SMALLFONT. There are likely a few more that should be removed to comply with the guideline, but they are getting more difficult to find among the MOS-valid usages. If this discussion is closed as "merge", this trimming should make replacement easier. Also, I found only two instances of
|height=
being used among 2,000+ removals, so that parameter is probably safe to ignore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC) - I don't know what to think about this. Resize is a shit name for a template that defaults to 90% but also actually resizes things. {{font}} exists if a use actually needs an arbitrary number. So perhaps that's one to throw in the mix being considered here. I don't think it makes sense to merge the two nominated templates for what they're doing and how they're named. If I had any thought, it would be to change resize's default to 100% and then shift midsize's down to 90% from 92%. Either that or up to 95% (which would make it a valid use in infoboxes; 95% x 90% > 85%) and actually make it reasonably "mid"... size. So in that case it may have been premature to remove midsize from where it is used... Izno (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree in principle, but a suboptimal name at the (widely used) target shouldn't stop us from merging two essentially identical templates. If someone wants to propose that {{resize}} be renamed or split, that's a separate discussion. As for removing {{midsize}} from infoboxes and navboxes, text in those boxes is at 88% already, so 97% is the most that internal text can be reduced to, which is a pointless change for readers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- These aren't really all that identical though, if we're operating in the space of "templates that change sizes". Resize allows a block display and arbitrary font size. Midsize doesn't. And we shouldn't merge a template with a shit name into a template with... a half decent name. I think I'll make a bold comment now, oppose merge. Izno (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- They are pretty much identical. Midsize does allow a block content option, using {{midsizediv}}, mentioned above. It can be switched to {{resize}} with the
|div=
option. And Midsize does allow for arbitrary font size with the|size=
option. I tried to explain all of this above, but it looks like I failed. Again, if the target name is a problem, we should start another merge or rename discussion, not bail out entirely on a valid merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)- You did not fail, I disagree with your characterization of similarity. But even if that weren't the case, I'm arguing that the names are sufficiently bad that the merge itself is bad and should be rejected. "Again". As for
we should start another merge or rename discussion
, you are empowered to do so. That's why I said "find another target". The alternative is to make it clear how these are different templates, which would be removing the arbitrary font selection in midsize. As for {{midsizediv}}, that's not part of this template despite your framing it as a question of options that would be in this template (it's not). Anyway, we're into circles territory at this point, so I suggest you disengage. Izno (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- You did not fail, I disagree with your characterization of similarity. But even if that weren't the case, I'm arguing that the names are sufficiently bad that the merge itself is bad and should be rejected. "Again". As for
- They are pretty much identical. Midsize does allow a block content option, using {{midsizediv}}, mentioned above. It can be switched to {{resize}} with the
- These aren't really all that identical though, if we're operating in the space of "templates that change sizes". Resize allows a block display and arbitrary font size. Midsize doesn't. And we shouldn't merge a template with a shit name into a template with... a half decent name. I think I'll make a bold comment now, oppose merge. Izno (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not entirely off topic: For another shit name, one with more adverse impact, see
|upright=
when used for image scaling. Been that way for many years and the shit name argument has failed in extended discussion(s). Seems we're inured to shit names. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree in principle, but a suboptimal name at the (widely used) target shouldn't stop us from merging two essentially identical templates. If someone wants to propose that {{resize}} be renamed or split, that's a separate discussion. As for removing {{midsize}} from infoboxes and navboxes, text in those boxes is at 88% already, so 97% is the most that internal text can be reduced to, which is a pointless change for readers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of Template:Birth year and age with no clear indication why another version is needed. Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, @Gonnym this template is in the same vein as {{Birth date and age2}} compared to {{Birth date and age}}. It's not a duplicate of {{Birth year and age}} because that template doesn't allow you to calculate age at a specified date, as compared to age as of today. If this is deleted, then {{Birth date and age2}} should also be deleted by the same reason. --Habst (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of what it can do that the other template can't? Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonnym, sure, here is an example:
- How old was George Washington Carver in 1900? {{Birth year and age2}} can tell you:
- ‹The template Birth year and age2 is being considered for deletion.›
- Can you give an example of what it can do that the other template can't? Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
1864 (aged 35–36)
- The result is suitable for inclusion in any list of people (e.g. sportspeople) with their year of birth and age as of some achievement. {{Birth year and age}} can't do this sort of math, it can only tell how old something was as of the current moment, not as of any particular date. --Habst (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 11:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Iw2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Duplicates {{interlanguage link}}, unmaintained and more or less unused (no article-space uses, only 7 transclusions). Primefac (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. {{Iw2}} does not duplicate {{interlanguage link}}. Compare
- {{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} Hanning Schröder
- with
- {{iw2|Hanning Schröder|Hans Schröder|de}} ‹See Tfd›Hans Schröder ●
- — Yuri V. (t•c) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC).
- Yuri V., what is the intention of your example above? We should not be linking to disambiguation pages in articles. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{iw2}} does not duplicate {{interlanguage link}}
- Indeed, compare {{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} and [[Hanning Schröder]], they identical, Hanning Schröder = Hanning Schröder. On the contrary, {{iw2|Hanning Schröder||de}} ‹See Tfd›Hanning Schröder ● we see, that article was translated, and remove iw2 to [[ ]].
- The template {{iw2}}, as [[article|any necessary text]], allows to write any necessary text, e.g. {{iw2|Fedir Vovk (disambig)|any text|uk|Федір Вовк}} ‹See Tfd›any textuk, so, after translation, appropriate bot removes iw2 and obtains [[Fedir Vovk (disambig)|any text]] any text.
- — Yuri V. (t•c) 20:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC).
- And which bot does this? Primefac (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- BunykBot, see example 1, example 2, example 3, ... — Yuri V. (t•c) 02:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC).
- Does that bot run on en.wiki? Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It does not, nor is it approved to run here. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does that bot run on en.wiki? Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- BunykBot, see example 1, example 2, example 3, ... — Yuri V. (t•c) 02:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC).
- And which bot does this? Primefac (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{iw2}} does not duplicate {{interlanguage link}}
- Yuri V., what is the intention of your example above? We should not be linking to disambiguation pages in articles. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Oppose.{{interlanguage link}} hasn't at least one possibility of {{iw2}}.- Indeed, compare {{ill|Fedir Vovk|de|Fedir Wowk}} and [[Fedir Vovk]], they identical, Fedir Vovk = Fedir Vovk. On the contrary, {{iw2|Fedir Vovk||de|Fedir Wowk}} ‹See Tfd›Fedir Vovk ● we see, that article was translated, and remove iw2 to [[ ]].
- — Yuri V. (t•c) 19:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC).
- Duplicate oppose !vote struck. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing why we need to highlight a wikilink if the wikilink exists. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, "highlight a wikilink" isn't principal, I remove it. The main feature is checking #ifexist: {{{1|}}} and a message "the article is translated", see pop-up ●. — Yuri V. (t•c) 16:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC).
- But that's my point - if the article exists on enWiki, why do we need some sort of special "this has now been created" notice? If the page has been created, then it should show up as just a regular wikilink (which is what {{ill}} does) until it can be un-transcluded. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- More than ten years I wrote "template:iw2" on my page user:Yuri V. as the most nesessary template for me. This template is used on approximately 108,000 pages of ukwiki, 327,000 pages of ruwiki etc. I don't see or understand any harm from this template may be in enwiki.
- P. S. Now there are exist uk:template:link-interwiki and pl:template:link-interwiki, they are better, much stronger and more comfortable than both {{iw2}} and {{interlanguage link}}. I'm trying to adapt them to enwiki instead of iw2. — Yuri V. (t•c) 16:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC).
- What other projects do doesn't affect us. We have an interwiki template, {{ill}}, which is far superior to this template. I'm not saying that your efforts were not done in good faith, or that the template wasn't at one point useful (or is currently useful on other projects) but enWiki does not need it, which is why I am suggesting that it be replaced with (i.e. redirected to) {{ill}}. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but {{ill}} can't replace {{iw2}}. Only {{uk:link-interwiki}} is superior both {{ill}} and {{iw2}}. — Yuri V. (t•c) 17:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC).
- It's the last time I'll say it, but yes, it very much can, and a template on a foreign language project cannot be used here because it's, well, not here. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but {{ill}} can't replace {{iw2}}. Only {{uk:link-interwiki}} is superior both {{ill}} and {{iw2}}. — Yuri V. (t•c) 17:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC).
- What other projects do doesn't affect us. We have an interwiki template, {{ill}}, which is far superior to this template. I'm not saying that your efforts were not done in good faith, or that the template wasn't at one point useful (or is currently useful on other projects) but enWiki does not need it, which is why I am suggesting that it be replaced with (i.e. redirected to) {{ill}}. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, "highlight a wikilink" isn't principal, I remove it. The main feature is checking #ifexist: {{{1|}}} and a message "the article is translated", see pop-up ●. — Yuri V. (t•c) 16:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC).
- Delete per above. Izno (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Yuri V. has successfully convinced me it's not redundant. But their argument fails because the way it isn't redundant is that it adds extra pictographic doodads which don't convey any useful new information. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:49, 12 August 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.