Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 14 48 62
TfD 0 0 0 11 11
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 1 1
RfD 0 0 9 28 37
AfD 0 0 0 2 2

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

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

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

Listing a 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:

  • If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the TfD notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the TfD tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators or Template editors.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_June_25#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.

Add this text to the top of the list:

  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

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

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

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

{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
III: Notify users. Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

edit

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

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

edit

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

edit

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

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

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

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

Twinkle

edit

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

Discussion

edit

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

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

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

Closing discussion

edit

Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.

Current discussions

edit

Propose merging Template:Marvel-Comics-trademark-copyright with Template:MarvelAni-trademark-copyright.
The "MarvelAni" copyright template adds an additional sentence for Marvel's various animation copyright needs, and as of this discussion, is only used to note on 11 files. The info of the "MarvelAni" template can be added to the "Marvel-Comics" template, and it also is helpful should any additional expansions be done, they can all just be coded to the "Marvel-Comics" template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As I recently updated the formatting for both of these templates and added some additional features, I think merging these would be a more adequate solution than having two split templates with one calling the other. I will note that this should also be done with merging {{DCAni-trademark-copyright}} into {{DC-Comics-trademark-copyright}}, as well, given they are quite similar in concept and have the same features. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Unclear purpose. DB1729talk 15:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Pac-12 navboxes

edit

These navboxes have either one or two bluelinks. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with three blue links in the body, one of which links to the main subject. Note, the author has suggested this might be a candidate for deletion.[1] -- DB1729talk 12:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with two blue links in the body, one of which is to the main subject. Note, the author has recommended this deletion in another TfD.[2] -- DB1729talk 11:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful copy of Template:Middle East topic The Banner talk 09:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner, what do you mean by "unsuccessful copy"? MWQs (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you make clear that it is a copy/fork from "Template:Middle East topic". Second, the template starts with "prefix= join= the Greater Middle East". The Banner talk 16:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
demo
edit

{{Middle East topic| religion in }} different content {{d Middle East topic| religion | in }}

{{d Middle East topic| religion | in }} uses variables differently (this is to explain the redirect) {{Middle East topic| religion | in }}

Propose merging Template:Navbox_usage with Template:Navbox documentation.
The target seems to serve the same purpose but is much more comprehensive. Set theorist (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with two blue links. DB1729talk 23:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it has three (including the parent), and the other redlinks are valid future articles. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mackensen. It contains information relevant to the subject displayed in a standardized format at an expected location. (It would be much less visible if buried as text in the article.)12:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Useddenim (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has two links in the body. That does not justify a navigation box. --DB1729talk 11:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article content template used only for the 2024 Indian Premier League final and subsequent future events. Deleting this template will not result in any loss of attribution, as the creator of this template is the only one who has used it.LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just disabled display of a non-free file (that which is specified in the infobox given the year) outside of mainspace. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of this preload is to maintain uniformity within the IPL final articles.
If it isn't worthy of a template, then Userfy it to User:Vestrian24Bio/Sandbox/IPL/Final preload over redirect. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Hindu Temples in Pudukkottai District with Template:Hindu temples in Pudukkottai District.
The incorrectly capitalized version is the larger and the one generally in use with far more transclusions than the (correctly) uncapitalized version. I suggest merging under the title "Template:Hindu temples in Pudukkottai District" and correcting the name at each article where it's transcluded. DB1729talk 00:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Project was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with two blue links in the body, one of which links to the main subject. DB1729talk 15:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No tranclusions. This navbox appears to have been superseded by the more comprehensive {{Team17}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused software release version template. Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused software release version template. visionOS 1 was redirected to visionOS. Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. The image was removed per WP:NFCC violation(s).[3] -- DB1729talk 11:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the original author has indicated they wish this template to be deleted.[4] --DB1729talk 15:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navigation template. All link pages were deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nomination.Red links won't help much in this case. As the channel's original programming is deferred for an indefinite period. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 14:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused infobox template. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation of a non-existing template. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link templates. The notes says to use Template:IPC athlete instead. Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused abbreviation template. Gonnym (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused icon related template. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused citation template. Gonnym (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate and unused sidebar of Template:Campaignbox French Indochina created by the same user. Gonnym (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and empty route map. Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused tables which were recently substituted into List of European Athletics Championships medalists (men). Gonnym (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy I made these with the intent to mirror their usage across the championships medalist lists, the event page, and the event at championships page. See similar usage for the World Championships medalist template set. I created a dedicated article set for the World Championships and Olympics but ultimately life got in the way before I got around to the European article set – such a set is ready for translation from the French Wikipedia (see fr:100 mètres aux championnats d'Europe d'athlétisme). I still think these are valid article sets to create, hence would prefer these be userfied rather than deleted because these templates are still a valid concept for keeping medallists aligned across pages. SFB 17:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Pages it links to use {{Palestinian elections}} and {{Israeli elections}} instead. Having a third navbox on the same pages linking to the same pages is pointless. Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I left this a bit unfinished then forgot about it. The problem I was trying to solve is that the {{Israeli elections}} template has a lot of elections before Israel existed,. That seemed weird and misleading, or at least somewhat confusing. I was trying to make something that better explained what the elections were, in the early half of the 20th century. But some of the labels on that one aren't quite right. I've moved it to my user space till I've worked it into something more finished. There are several pages that relate to those early 20th century elections that is where it would go, instead of either of the other two, but I hadn't put it there yet because it wasn't finished. MWQs (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as creator, I created it after I could not find votes for a specific election, and have since found sources. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused election template. Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Propose merging Template:Edit semi-protected with Template:Request edit.

As I have (surprisingly) recently discovered, this entire family of templates auto-detects the protection level of the template for which the edit request is being made. This means that an {{FPER}} placed on a template-protected template will result in exactly the same thing as a {{TPER}}. Because of this, it seems to me that there is little reason to keep these all as separate templates, instead using the more obvious and reasonably-named {{request edit}} as the base template for this family (instead of the latter template being used as a dab for all five). Primefac (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck {{request edit}} since most of the participants feel it's not well-suited for the final target. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the first five together but keep {{request edit}} as is since COI edit requests are, and need to be, a separate process (a page someone has a COI with can also be protected). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a parameter such as COI=yes or type=COI could be used to flag the type of edit request that is being made, which would allow all six templates to be merged into Template:Request edit. That would still keep them a separate process. Adam Black tc 16:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason to do that, though? It seems to just make things more complicated for everyone. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it complicates things, it streamlines the process of requesting an edit. Btw, {{request edit}} has been deprecated, so you're already meant to use a different template - {{edit COI}}. Adam Black tc 22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my merge !vote per below discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Request edit used to be for COI, and it's a generic name that could refer to it or edit partially-blocked as well. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge (Non-Admin vote) Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 16:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being an admin doesn't mean very much here--there's no need to point out you aren't one. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the first five and keep {{Request edit}} as a disambiguation per Pppery. I was also rather surprised and amused to find out that the edit request templates automatically emulate each other based on the page's protection level. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As no one has suggested a title for the proposed merged template, perhaps {{Edit protected}}? TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should probably have "request" in its name. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then maybe {{Protected edit request}} to match the Module it invokes, though I should note that the possibly enticing shortcut {{PER}} is already a template for the Peruvian flag. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge first five unless there is some yet-to-be-discovered reason to have them separate. Gonnym (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{request edit}} needs a new name, since that's not what it does. Other than that, I see no issue with merging the others. Izno (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I see an issue (based on the VPT chatter), and the underlying module already deals with these reasonably. Oppose. Izno (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [Edit: Oppose]: These do not behave identically when the edit request is to an unprotected page. For example, you could use {{Edit extended-protected}} for an article that is within an WP:ARBECR topic area but which has not presently been protected. (If the page is protected, you have to use |force= to force a different protection level the default protection level specified by the wrapper.) SilverLocust 💬 23:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Need to make sure the force stuff isn't broken, it is needed sometimes. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I don't think it's possible to merge these without breaking current functionality (as I explain below), I am changing my comment to an "oppose". (I don't oppose creating a sixth template with no default level that instead would say when the protection level could not be detected, but I oppose redirecting or deleting the five templates proposed for merging.) SilverLocust 💬 20:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this template set is missing a template for requesting edits that are editfiltered, so autodetection doesn't help, when you need extra rights due to an edit filter instead of page protection. If these are merged, will a switch be available to select a rights level for that situation? -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Except the last, they're all wrappers for Module:Protected edit request with slightly different arguments, so in that sense they're already merged. But we should probably keep the slightly different behavior in that {{Edit fully-protected}} should default to fully-protected if the auto-detection fails, {{Edit semi-protected}} to semi-protected, and so on rather than turning them all into redirects to a single wrapper. {{Request edit}} should probably have no default, if that's reasonable. Anomie 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge, now that the last has been struck, keep different behavior defaults if feasible per Anomie. I also agree that with everything already under one-module it really doesn't make that much of a difference. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - I do like Anomie's point about the default action Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional oppose merge per Anomie. These separate 'templates' are just wrappers for that edit request module really, so not any duplicated template code to worry about. Let's not possibly cause unintended behaviour for a template that's used at least hundreds of times everyday, especially with the auto-detect failover. There are other potential complications like what 65.92.244.237 has written above. Though, consider this vote invalidated if it's possible to merge all of these templates together without changing the behaviour and functionality of these templates. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support creating a template with auto-detection, as long as the existing templates are kept per SilverLocust and Anomie. Rusty4321 talk contribs 14:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but the target should maybe be {{Protected edit request}}. {{Request edit}} may be the destination or redirect to a different merge target, since hatnotes can direct users to more appropriate templates. SWinxy (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the currently-proposed merge of the first five. Agree the final template name should be something like {{Protected edit request}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:ECR doesn't always get applied using WP:ECP. Therefore, using {{Edit extended-protected}} on a page that is not extended confirmed protected makes sense. The autodetection will not be able to handle that case. Add that to the other edge cases described above by other editors and it's clear that this merge will create more problems than in will solve. Nickps (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I don't oppose a merge if the current default behavior is retained. Nickps (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I am mistaken {{EPER}} doesn't currently recognize non-ECP pages that also happen to be under ARBECR. If I am mistaken, then yes, the post-merge template will be able to handle it because no functionality is being lost (just renamed). Primefac (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm going by what Anomie said. If the auto-detection fails, {{EPER}} defaults to ECP. So, while it doesn't recognise that the page is under ARBECR, it still handles the situation correctly. I also just noticed that SilverLocust has already raised this issue. Nickps (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There would be a loss in current functionality, Primefac. For example, {{Edit extended-protected|force=yes}} would no longer work.
    Each of the five wrapper templates proposed for merging has a default level. E.g., {{Edit extended-protected}} is {{#invoke:protected edit request|extended}} (where the default there is extended). If the page to be edited is unprotected or if |force=yes is used, then that default level is used. If these were all redirected to one template, then there would be a loss of functionality unless someone knows how to tell a module not merely which wrapper is invoking a module (since there would only be one merged wrapper), but rather which redirect is being used to transclude the wrapper that invokes the module (and I don't think that is possible). If no default is provided when invoking the module, then it presently breaks with the error message Lua error in Module:Protected_edit_request/active at line 299: attempt to concatenate local 'boxProtectionLevel' (a nil value). when the page is unprotected or |force=yes is used. SilverLocust 💬 20:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SilverLocust The module could use getContent() to get the text of the current page and then search it for one of the redirect templates. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    )
    02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would potentially break when viewing old revisions/permalinks, and probably need to take into account possibilities like multiple requests on a page (compare Module:Is infobox in lead's difficulty of handling multiple infoboxes). I prefer not to have templates behave differently when viewing permalinks/old revisions of a page. (Ahecht also replied at Village pump (technical), where Nickps asked whether this is possible. PrimeHunter replied expressing opposition to the suggestion.) SilverLocust 💬 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple solution for new uses is to transition from |force=yes to specifying the level to force, eg. |force=extended. I agree there's no straightforward solution for existing uses, so we should just leave the existing templates as is, but stop advertising them in preloads and documentation pages. – SD0001 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why exactly would something like {{Request edit|force=semiprotected}} be better than {{Edit semi-protected|force=yes}}? Other than to satisfy a misguided desire for {{Edit semi-protected}} to be a redirect rather than the wrapper it is now? Anomie 11:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per reduced clutter of templates to ensu8re a smoother and more effective way of getting editor's attentions regarding articles and editing. The move would be very helpful in sorting edits an allowing -people to use those templates better as it would be easier and more effective as opposed to having them separate.
97.77.64.90 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, just makes sense and simplifies things on the technical side DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, The auto-detection feature makes the distinction between semi-protected and fully-protected templates unnecessary for users requesting edits. This would streamline the editing process and improve clarity.
2603:8080:B8F0:5360:70CF:3BF2:4A5C:A546 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Good luck finding "more thorough discussion and clearer consensus". The nomination is flawed in that it overlooks that the different templates have different behavior if the autodetection fails (and also if |force= is used?). Opinions seem largely split between those who seem unaware of that and so support merging, and those who are aware of it and want to keep that behavior. Anomie 20:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, @ToadetteEdit, a relist was not appropriate in this situation. What should have happened is a request probably WT:TFD to close the discussion, since several of the regular closers have participated already. Izno (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my opinion, none of the editors who support the merge have adequately addressed the problems identified by myself, Anomie and SilverLocust. Moreover, the simplification in the process that they wish to achieve could also be done by following SilverLocust's idea of creating a sixth template with no default level that instead would say when the protection level could not be detected. By making that sixth template and updating the procedures at WP:MAKINGEREQ to use it we would get the best of both worlds. The editors wouldn't need to use a different template depending on the protection level, but at the same time they would be able to use the old templates with |force=yes to force another level when appropriate. Nickps (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox links only to a user page. DB1729talk 18:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because I haven't started the project and it isn't in full swing. Snipertron12 Talk 09:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no links. DB1729talk 16:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One useful blue link in the body. Two of the three redirect to the subject. DB1729talk 13:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NENAN The Banner talk 10:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There used to be (barely) enough stuff to warrant a navbox here. Then I BLARed most of it and now there isn't. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is a navbox that changes almost every single week during the NFL season, and is not particularly useful from the end of a season to the beginning of a new one (roughly eight months). For example, at the moment, Trevor Siemian is listed on this template as the starting quarterback for the New York Jets, despite not being on their roster. But as the template is currently structured, he will remain there until September when the Jets start a different quarterback in week 1. Who started at quarterback in the NFL on a week-to-week basis during the season, and who last started in the final week of the season, is not useful here. Template:Current NFL long snappers, Template:Current NFL punters, and Template:Current NFL placekickers were all previously deleted for similar reasons. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's an article for this navbox, unlike the other three. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's an article that covers the scope unlike the other three, but I do agree that having a backup QB who started one game in Week 18 remain listed in the template for the next nine months isn't ideal. If consensus does lean towards this being deleted, then the article should go with it for the same reasons. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a horrible idea for a template. A navigation template should not be so dynamic that is requires adding it and removing it from pages each week. Gonnym (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox only contains two blue links (excluding the header, which links to the general Fort Worth Cavalry page), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox only contains three blue links (not including the header, which links to the general Wesleyan Cardinals football page), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. There is also not an article for List of Wesleyan Cardinals starting quarterbacks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose: (I think this is how opposing and supporting works) Has four now, so I could see the rationale for both keeping or deleting it. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Washington & Jefferson Presidents football article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no blue links. DB1729talk 15:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with one blue link. DB1729talk 15:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no blue links. DB1729talk 15:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_12#Category:Pretenders_to_the_Albanian_throne, the linked AfD's, and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_12#Template:Pretenders_to_the_Mexican_throne: WP:OR list of pretenders to a defunct monarchy. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barely-used navbox full of unlinked entries and mistargeted links - not worth it. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a navbox-worthy topic, as Bir Bikrom is a military award with 175 recipients to date. Category:Recipients of the Bir Bikrom has 26 articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Navbox with one blue link. DB1729talk 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidently a future bus route that does not have a main article. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates only have one transclusion each, which do not meet the standards for templates. Content should be substituted into the articles they are used in. The college football WikiProject will argue that these templates is necessary for some sort of category hierarchy within the WikiProject but content on Wikipedia still needs to meet Wikipedia standards first and foremost. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; part of a standard scheme of standings templates. The templates all now have two transclusions each. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Jweiss11 was canvassed to this discussion by Thetreesarespeakingtome ([5]). Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eagles247, at least one of these templates was created by Jweiss11, which would/should have triggered a notification to Jweiss on 13 June by you. You're welcome to pursue an accusation of canvassing at WP:ANI, but I don't think that will turn out fruitful given this fact. Izno (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've struckout my comment and notified the other template creators. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out which templates have "over five transclusions"? I've only found transclusions at the individual NCAA Division III season pages (the only one that they were transcluded on when these were nominated for discussion here), and now at List of NCAA Division III independents football records, a page you've just created in an attempt to avoid deletion here. I've also nominated that page for deletion since it fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe five was an exaggeration but some do have plenty. 1973 has four (if you don't wanna count the list of independent records [which you should] then don't), 1974 has three, 1977 has three, 1978 has four, 1979 has four, 1980 has SEVEN, 1981 has four (with one draft not included), 1982 has five, 1983 has four, 1984 has three, 1985 has five, 1986 has five, 1987 has five, 1988 has four, 1989 has SIX, 1990 has five, 1991 has SEVEN, 1992 has SIX.
    To mass delete every single one based on the original nomination (the 2023 one) and then STATE that you only know of ALL of them only having two proves you did not even bother to check before mass nominating every single one.

    "I've only found transclusions at the individual NCAA Division III season pages (the only one that they were transcluded on when these were nominated for discussion here), and now at List of NCAA Division III independents football records, a page you've just created in an attempt to avoid deletion here."

    Since they have two anyway the correct course of action is to nominate the list of records if it does not pass guidelines and the RE-nominate pending the deletion of the list. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struckout the templates above that are transcluded on at least two pages other than the one you just created to try to "save" these templates. Thank you for pointing these out, I had looked at the first 25+ templates to see if there were more than 1 transclusion each and none were, so I incorrectly assumed the other 24 were the same. I regret not finishing my research before making the nomination, but I stand by the remaining templates here. There are still 31 templates that don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion pending the result of the AfD. I agree that the AfD should have a result before this TfD, but I also think that article should not have been created in the first place. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [6] 1975, [7] 1976, [8] 1993 have two now. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eagles247, what should be obvious now is that article development related to the templates you've already stricken from the nomination could be repeated for most if not all of the templates that you haven't yet stricken. And more generally, how does it serve Wikipedia to have some members of a well-defined, discrete set in template form, but others not? Doesn't that make the encyclopedia unnecessarily complicated and inconsistent in form? Don't you think you're attempting to apply a broad rule in a rigid manner that doesn't best serve the development of the project? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jweiss11: Wouldn't it make more sense to create articles first so that templates meet Wikipedia standards at date of creation? I also don't think these specific standings are relevant on team season articles anyway, since their records are unrelated to each other, unlike teams in conferences, but that's a discussion for another time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the problem is the way in which you are trying to apply these standards bluntly even when they obstruct the advancement of the project. It's more valuable to have templates there to provide context and completeness at articles like 1973 NCAA Division III football season even before some minimum number of individual team season articles is created. Reliable sources will often report the standings of various independent teams at a given level of play alongside and in analogous form to conference standings: e.g. [9], [10], [11]. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If completeness of the main season articles is what you want, you can just substitute the standings templates into those articles until creating a template is warranted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completeness of the main season articles is not the only thing I (and others here) want. We also want efficiency and consistency. Why would you want to delete templates only to have to recreate them later? You'd just be creating unnecessary busy work in service of wiki-bureaucracy. Also, having a discrete set of analogous tables mixed between templates and non-templates makes the structure of the encyclopedia more complicated, less predictable, and more difficult to navigate than it should be. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created in 2018. It cannot work as designed, because there do not appear to be any articles that fit the naming scheme in the template code. If it is kept, it should be moved to Template:Area Record to match similar templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a failed attempt at creating a template for the common formal Athletics abbreviation of an "Area" or Continental record. A template for the formal abbreviation "AR" is too common a letter combination to be useful. Since this did not become functional under this weird spelling, most editors of this subject including myself create a manual redirect to the record mentioned. This should be a template. Instead of deleting this, a useful, more technical editor should create a workable solution to achieve this need.
Side comment. There is a functionality issue to this comment box. The use of the shift key takes the cursor to the beginning of the paragraph, so all sentences are built backward and have to be copy pasted to the correct position to be readable.Trackinfo (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No user template has similar or more expansive contents than this one. In particular, it is the only one that links to Special:AbuseLog and Special:Log/block. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed the broken unnamed parameter. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Superseded by a module.
Noah, BSBATalk 22:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musical group navbox with no useful links to albums or singles in the body. The only blue link is to another associated act. DB1729talk 11:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless navbox, with zero associated non-main articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused family tree. Articles use a different tree. Gonnym (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Owari clan uses Template:Generations of Jimmu. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route map. Gonnym (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused section header template. In articles this shouldn't be used and in non-articles we have Template:Fake heading. Gonnym (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inferior duplicate of an existing template. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused wikidata related template. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, albeit a little weakly. The nominator seems to be under the misimpression that a template being unused is by itself sufficient grounds for deletion. It is not. This template was developed for potential use in a Module:Find sources template, and while it wasn't initially adopted, it might be in the future, and given that its development stage is appropriately tagged and that retaining it is cheap, that provides grounds for keeping. It is also relevant for editors looking at the history of the creation of the find sources module, and could have other uses for editors seeking for other reasons to associate a country with its newspaper(s) of record. Sdkbtalk 06:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The commentor above is under the misimpression that the nominator does not know how TfD works and that hundred of templates get deleted on a weekly bases for being unused. 3 years being unused is a clear indication that either the template creator has abandoned a template or that the community does not want it. Both are valid grounds for deletion. Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and has no likelihood of being used isn't exactly ambiguous, and is bolded for good reason. To the extent it's not being followed, it ought to be — even when there's only a small chance they'll be used in the future, the maintenance cost of retaining templates is minimal (particularly when their documentation is clear, as here). Deletion for the sake of deletion does not benefit the encyclopedia. Sdkbtalk 14:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm yet to be convinced of the value of deleting templates, merely because they are unused. Or indeed for any reason, except when they are using a valuable piece of namespace that could be better used. Even then moving is an option. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Unused route map. Gonnym (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree , I doubt I'll figure out BSicons soon enough to make it presentable for NCRTD. Arlo James Barnes 06:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can ask for help at the train wikiproject. Gonnym (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused mix of a link and a citation template. Gonnym (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just use the database citations and the link to the mountain article. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Needs discussion --- per WP:TfD, we need to ensure that this template is unlikely to be used again. Buaidh has built complex tables of information about mountain peaks. He has used this template in the past, although it is currently unused. I'd like to hear from Buaidh about future plans: is this template now deprecated? Unfortunately, he only edits Wikipedia every 2-3 weeks. I would ask any closing admin to wait for 2-3 weeks to allow Buaidh to respond. — hike395 (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm awake despite my senescence. I have no future plans for Template:Mountain link. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 09:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear form you! All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Unused table related template. Gonnym (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused population database template. Gonnym (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navigation template with all links being redirects. Gonnym (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table related template. Gonnym (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused citation template. Gonnym (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox for a football team that dissolved. Gonnym (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - defunct club does not need a 'current' squad template. GiantSnowman 16:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and empty navbox. Gonnym (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar that acts like a family tree. Gonnym (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 21 linked articles, but mostly unlinked. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template was originally intended to provide a reader with detailed scheme of the interchange located in the Warsaw city centre and was inclouded through the "{{Enlarge}}" function in the Template:M1 line (Warsaw Metro). There are other examples on wiki using the same solution, see Template:Railways around London Paddington station RDT linked in e.g. Template:Bakerloo line RDT. — Antoni12345 (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Templates should not be linked to like this as they aren't article content. If they are linked to, that means you are using them as content and they should be an article. Additionally that link itself is an MOS:EGG link, but that is the least of the problem, as links like that will practically never be found as they are hidden away like that. Gonnym (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that ship has sailed (train has left the station?) as {{Enlarge}} is now used on over 750 pages and approximately 250 other templates. Useddenim (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A local consensus in a very small part of the project does not get to override guidelines like MOS:EGG and WP:CLICKHERE. Gonnym (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym:
  1. I think you're misinterpreting the use of {{enlarge}} here so that you can justify your POV in order to be able to delete {{Warsaw central stations}}; and
  2. What's your "better" solution?
Useddenim (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now added to appropriate pages. Useddenim (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean Junior Champions Figure Skating templates

edit

Other nations do not include navigation templates for the Junior championships, only the Senior ones. Additionally, half of these names have no wikilinks, rendering the templates unhelpful. The Pairs template features only one team! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclone current storm templates

edit

Violations of MOS:CURRENT and WP:NOTNEWS... determined to be improper by uninvolved editors at ANI. These editors state that the inclusion of current storm information violates policy and that attempting to duplicate official information may be dangerous. Updating this information also wastes the time of editors since it is not included in the final version of the article. We do not and should not have a responsibility to keep updated current information on storms since that's not what Wikipedia is for. People should refer to official sources for current storm information. Noah, BSBATalk 18:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of Wikipedia policies. OhHaiMark (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the reasons given in the nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified WikiProject Weather and WikiProject Tropical cyclones – editors have expressed intent to discuss on a WikiProject talk page, so hopefully editors watching those two project pages will be willing to do so here instead to keep the discussion centralized. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not meant to be current news and is likely highly unreliable for that. We should not be giving the impression to readers that this is the place to go for potentially life or death warnings. Even if these templates didn't directly go against the mentioned policies/guides, they seem a bad idea. CMD (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CMD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though I have been frequently updating for the past 4 years using the infobox, I agree with all these editors that Wikipedia is not a place for current news, and we should not be responsible for warning people if the storm will make landfall. People should be directed to the RSMC, or the country's meteorologist. HurricaneEdgar 14:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia should NOT be a source for getting current warnings. That is what meteorological administrations and hurricane centers are for. We ain’t a newspaper!! West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all comments provided so far. In addition to policy concerns, I think it is dangerous (to the end user and as a risk of lawsuits aimed at Wikipedia) to set ourselves up as a reliable source for life-saving information when nobody is guaranteed to update a current weather infobox when a new advisory is issued and infringes on WP:NOTADVICE in addition to other policies cited. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 19:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they are in violation of Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia should not present itself as a source for up-to-date storm advisories and weather forecasts. Drdpw (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Navbox with one link. DB1729talk 22:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there are more links that could be added if this is wanted. Sambalpur University Institute of Information Technology, List of colleges affiliated to the Sambalpur University, Gangadhar National Award For Poetry. Might be more found in the category. Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Izno (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as now used. Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Watatsumi uses Template:Three generations of Hyuga which has some overlap with this. This should either be used, merged or deleted. Gonnym (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused ITTF ranking tables. Gonnym (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table template. Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused todo list. Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#To-do list doesn't use this. Gonnym (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Way to early to be in use. Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete qualification will probably start in 2026 or 2027, which will be the earliest that this template will be needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too early, full of redlinks. GiantSnowman 18:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. For all we know, this event might not happen due to some unforeseen event. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 keep. Izno (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally gross sea of redlinks; ergo, an unhelpful template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has 7 blue links so it can be useful. Just remove all red links. Or this can be merged without red links to Template:Finnish Figure Skating Championships as it duplicates the event years already anyways. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left the other three discipline templates (men, women, ice dance) alone, because those were predominately blue links. There is little chance that the red links on this template will ever be developed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I count fourteen blue links. The red links may encourage the development of articles; Lars Björkman, for example, was a co-winner of this event seven times with two different partners, and he won and medaled in other skating events as well. He and other people in this navbox are probably notable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More blue links would be interesting but a check on the Finnish template turned out to have the same red and blue links. Usually a template with 5 or more blue links is worth keeping, and this template qualifies on that point. The Banner talk 09:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Until these were created, {{Category series navigation}} was used on these categories and did the same thing. The addition of more links isn't needed as using if you really want all links, just use the parent category. Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These templates were just created but right now seem to be unused. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are no longer unused. Liz Read! Talk! 18:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This season navigation boxes are underused and only used on the season article and not on any person linked in these templates. They also have very few actual links with the season three having only one link. Either these are not wanted and should be deleted, or they should be merged into Template:Dancing with the Stars (Greek TV series) with only blue links. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consists only of articles that are linked in Dancing with the Stars (Greek TV series) season 1, etc. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this is used, it is not used on the articles it links to, as none of the season articles have articles as all have been deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely useless template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Content is embedded at 2023_ICC_Women's_T20_World_Cup_Asia_Qualifier#Knockout_stage. I can't imagine this content being required anywhere else. DH85868993 (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused hardcoded instance of Template:4TeamBracket. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Content is embedded at 2024_ICC_Women's_T20_World_Cup_Qualifier#Knockout_stage. I can't imagine this content being required anywhere else. DH85868993 (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused hardcoded instance of Template:4TeamBracket. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

edit

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox climber with Template:Infobox mountaineer.
I think that Template:Infobox mountaineer could be handled by Template:Infobox climber. A lot of mountaineers do climbing and visa-versa. Infobox climber is the most important infobox (and the most detailed) and has the richest level of detail on their climbing/mountaineering career (I think infobox climber captures all of mountaineer career data. The mountaineer infobox items of "famous partnerships", "final ascent" and "retirement age" are subjective items). The main differences are around the non-climbing items that cand be just merged? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also that we have been recently merging several mountaineering categories and climbing categories together such as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 26#Category:Works about mountaineering, amongst others. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Cullen328 who I have seen participate at climbing AfDs - @Cullen328, what do you think of my proposal? I have put a notice of this on at WikiProject page but no one has answered so far - are there any others who should be pinged? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list the parameters that would need to be added or have different names? That would make it easier to see if these indeed have the same scope. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aszx5000, I am not familiar with the details of the respective infobox parameters, but I agree that mountaineering and climbing are basically the same sport with many variations ranging from bouldering to high elevation expedition mountaineering. I think that it is counterproductive to try to separate it into two separate sports, so I am generally supportive of what you hope to accomplish. I am 72 years old and have not been an active mountaineer for about 15 years, so I am not current on recent developments in the sport. Cullen328 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, The disjoint of the parameter sets for these two templates appears to consist of the following: |main_discipline=, |other_discipline=, |start_discipline,=|height=, |weight =, |start_age =, |partnerships=, |website =, |typeofclimber =, |namedroutes =, |highestredpoint=, |highestonsight=, |highestboulder=, |apeindex=, |knownfor=, |worlds =, |final_ascent=, |medaltemplates=, |updated =, |partner=, |children =, |parents=, |relatives=, |firstascents=. Further, the following parameters would have to be aliased to one another: |retirement= and |retirement_age=; |notable_ascents= and |majorascents=.
That said, {{Infobox climber}} wraps {{Infobox sportsperson}}, whereas {{Infobox mountaineer}} does not appear to, so many of the mountaineer parameters not present in the climber template may actually be inherited (the family stuff for sure).
Why not just wrap {{Infobox sportsperson}} with {{Infobox mountaineer}} instead of trying to realign everything here? How many articles have a problem where it's unclear which template is more appropriate for the subject? Both genuine questions for Aszx5000. Folly Mox (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the way {{Infobox climber}} does so is the better way. I'm leaning support this merge unless someone has any valid objections. One thing though, when the merge happens, please make sure you use the correct naming conventions for parameters (snake case) and climber uses a mix of 4 different styles. Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would definitely keep {{Infobox climber}} as it has lots of good objective facts when used properly (e.g. Alexander Huber, Chris Sharma, Catherine Destivelle). The issue is that {{Infobox mountaineer}} has essentially the same 'biographical' facts (i.e. personal and family info) as {{Infobox climber}}, but outside of 'notable ascents' (which is the 'major ascents' on {{Infobox climber}}), the rest of the 'career' section are either not objective facts or not really notable things in mountaineering, and should be discarded. I would be happy to help guide any merge process (I am very active in WProj Climbing). Once done, there are a few more upgrades we want to make to {{Infobox climber}} to improve its usefulness. thanks to all above. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unused notice of questionable utility. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 23:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from its appearance, it should be a substitution template. It even has the inline HTML comment found in substitution templates. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it appears to have been substed some 350 times, but basically not in the past 5 years. There's about 40 uses by someone else but not many of those are since 2019. I find the template similarly questionable in general however. Izno (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foreign relations of the DPR and LPR

[edit]

The DPR and LPR were puppet states of Russia and had no foreign relations. Aldij (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They did have recognition from a few other countries, although, looking at Donetsk People's Republic–South Ossetia relations, sourcing doesn't seem to be of the quality you'd want to write good standalone articles that go further than "X officially recognized Y". The navboxes have four and two links respectively, so not great, although there's no objection to recreating them if more articles can be written (hopefully with better sources). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination has nothing to do with the templates and is a political statement than of actual concerns with the navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, nominated by a blocked user and I agree with WikiCleanerMan. xq 00:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep should be the default. Multiple relistings almost always indicate keep. It's not clear that there will be long term value for these templates, but at the moment they should remain. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions or incoming links. No blue links to full articles in the body of the navbox. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Third reason in WP:TFD#REASONS says to delete when a template has no likelihood of being used. Three years is not a long time; similar templates have been populated over time. Many of the structured templates I created in Category:Diplomatic missions by receiving country started off as bare-bone/transclusionless and now have increased usage. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are three blue links now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    I do not see any blue links to full articles about the navbox's subject in the body of this navbox. The navbox has not been edited for content since 2022. It may be useful someday, but it is not useful for navigation yet, so it should not exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused template. No links to relevant full articles. The Banner talk 22:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been added to appropriate article. Useddenim (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are several problems with this template. It is massive, and thus unusable in any article. The Airport line does not cover the full extent of its route as shown on File:TransperthRailwayMap.svg. The Morley–Ellenbrook line also does not cover the full extent of its route, which is meant to reach Perth station. The colours of each of the lines is incorrect (correct colours are shown on Module:Adjacent stations/Transperth). The size of the rail network makes this sort of template impractical and hard to read because the labels for each station have to be on either the left or right side, which results in the Ellenbrook line stations being listed in between the Joondalup line stations, for example. Steelkamp (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     "Massive" is subjective, not objective. And there are many route diagrams in use that are longer, wider, or both, than this one.
    • The Airport lane has been corrected.
    • The colours have been adjusted (within the constraints of the available icons).
    • The nature of route diagram templates is that (with rare exceptions) the labels are on the sides.
    • The Morley–Ellenbrook line has been repositioned separate from the Joondalup line.
    All in all, this objection sounds to be mostly WP:IDL. Useddenim (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Useddenim: Can you give some examples of other route diagrams that a longer or wider? It might help to see some other large routemap templates and where/how they are used. I believe that Template:Routemap is mostly used by single lines and not whole networks. Steelkamp (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steelkamp: See Category:System rail transport templates for starters; Template:S-Bahn Zentralschweiz RDT is one. Template:Midland Main Line RDT is considerably longer. And nowhere does it say that RDTs are only for single lines. Useddenim (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it might be used again at some point. G-13114 (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unused railway related image template. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, since it seems to be one of the better alternatives available for depicting these concepts. (I could see it being used in an article about a historical rail incident where signals were implicated, but no contemporary image of that signal aspect exists.) I'd also be interested to know if its creator has concrete plans for it. TheFeds 23:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unused route map. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been added to an appropriate article. Useddenim (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unused template that does what Template:Delink does. Gonnym (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is currently used, at the ANI header (just sporadically, so not showing up currently), as well as somewhere else I'm forgetting and don't have time to find at the moment (I'm on mobile with limited internet). It is not the same as {{delink}} — please reread the documentation. Delink won't help you for a parameter value that has the linking in the parent template. There's plausible use in the future, and a suitably strong warning in the documentation that in most cases you don't really want to use it, so overall no reason to delete. I suggest withdrawing the nomination, Gonnym. Sdkbtalk 14:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at the code at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header. Am I missing something or was this entire template created just because you wanted to add a silly smile to the header ([12])? Because without {{4-1}}, the code works fine:
    {{if April Fools|{{Spoken Wikipedia|date=2007-02-20|Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard Slash Incidents.ogg}}}}
    
    If that is the sole reason for that, I'm still sticking with the delete rational and also remove the smiley. Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonnym, please do not remove the documentation that explains this template's purpose (and which I just referenced above) in the midst of this TfD. I created this template because there are various circumstances in which someone might want to use a template field that is normally wrapped in a link, but not want a link in a particular niche circumstance. The linked example is one — this template allows the {{4-1}} (which is better characterized as the mandatory humor disclosure than a "silly smiley") to be added — but there are others. I have indeed used this template in other circumstances (which were since resolved, thus why it's no longer transcluded elsewhere), which I can try to remember and dig up if you or others are curious. The example in the documentation with {{redirect}} is also only quasi-hypothetical. But it's somewhat immaterial, as the overall use case is laid out clearly in the documentation, and WP:TFD#REASONS is very clear that being unused is not sufficient rationale for deletion unless the template also has no likelihood of being used in the future. Sdkbtalk 23:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the "documentation" as it isn't documentation, but you telling a irrelevant story. Documentation should be short and to the point. So far you aren't adding any usages other than the one at the header template which isn't really needed. Gonnym (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.