Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
On this page, the deletion or merging of templates, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.
How to use this page
What not to propose for discussion here
The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
- Stub templates
- Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
- Userboxes
- Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
- Speedy deletion candidates
- If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at Tfd, tag it with {{Db-repost}}. 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.
Reasons to delete a template
- 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
To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).
I | Tag the template. |
---|---|
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
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 |
|
II | List the template at Tfd. |
Follow to edit today's Tfd log.
Add this text at the top, just below the 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:
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:
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 after the |
|
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 notify any interested WikiProjects (look on the top of the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion. 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.
Twinkle
Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also 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
Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.
People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.
Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.
Contents
- 1 How to use this page
- 2 Discussion
- 3 Current discussions
- 3.1 March 29
- 3.2 March 28
- 3.3 March 27
- 3.3.1 Template:List of computer viruses (Numeric) UI
- 3.3.2 College football national champion navboxes
- 3.3.3 Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs
- 3.3.4 Template:Chest trauma
- 3.3.5 Template:Protected generic image name
- 3.3.6 Template:The Real Housewives of Vancouver
- 3.3.7 Template:BS!
- 3.4 March 26
- 3.5 March 25
- 3.6 March 24
- 3.7 March 23
- 3.8 March 22
- 4 Old discussions
- 4.1 March 20
- 4.2 March 15
- 4.3 March 12
- 4.4 March 11
- 4.5 March 3
- 4.6 February 25
- 4.6.1 Article Feedback Tool templates
- 4.6.2 Template:Bassets
- 4.6.3 Template:Swedish far-right
- 4.6.4 Template:Honda international timeline
- 4.6.5 Template:2016 UCI World Championships
- 4.6.6 Template:2015 UCI World Championships
- 4.6.7 Template:2014 UCI World Championships
- 4.6.8 Template:State leaders by year
- 4.6.9 Template:Weather box/quick
- 4.6.10 Template:Better image needed
- 4.6.11 Template:Corruption in India
- 4.6.12 Template:Infobox monastery
- 4.6.13 Template:Infobox Hindu leader
- 4.7 February 24
- 4.8 February 23
- 4.9 February 21
- 5 Completed discussions
- 6 Archive and Indices
Current discussions
March 29
Template:Delete page
- Template:Delete page ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:La ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Delete page with Template:La.
For background, see WP:HD#Templated links with specified deletion rationale. Basically, I asked if there were a way to have {{la}} supply a deletion rationale, e.g. by adding a parameter that would be automatically filled into the rationale box when you clicked the "delete" link. As it's not possible, Edgars2007 created this new template, explained how to use it, and concluded with But it may be better to include in the main {{la}} template, an opinion with which I agree. I'm just seeking further opinions as to whether this would be a good idea, as well as technical assistance in carrying that out. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I have no objection on the merits, but Template La is transcluded pretty much everywhere - 278,112 pages as of just now. It's an easy to remember template with only two characters, and one of the most useful in the entire project. I'd be triple cautious about mucking about with it. Might be better to use a deletion-specific version, such as {{la-d}} or some such. {{lad}} doesn't work, because then you get (Judaeo-Spanish) instead. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose, as per my comments below, as premature and overbroad. We can add the parameter to deletion-specific templates without changing La or impacting its core function. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm having trouble seeing what Delete page even does differently. I would also recommend resolving this TFD as quickly as possible since the deletion template is breaking transclusions all over the project. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Maintain Template La due to its inherent usefulness on notice boards and name the new version with the deletion rationale something different such as {{la-d}}. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment (as "original proposer") Yes, we can close this merge proposal. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- This idea is not to get rid of {{la}} by renaming it or merging it anywhere: the idea is to merge in the feature of {{delete page}}, whereby providing text in a parameter causes that text to be prefilled in the deletion rationale box when you click "delete". Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- This template is usually called from another template - {{afd2}}, as an example. Why ask for a parameter? Could we not add a switch or something that adds the full pagename if the template is on a page beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? The template could then add the parameter. In fact, hold on, {{afd1}} does precisely this - if you delete an article using the toplink, and that article has a properly formatted AFD tag, then the link for the deletion debate is filled into the deletion rationale box. This is exactly what we're trying to do, yes? Except the idea was to do it for redirects? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with switches, so I can't offer an opinion. I'm using it at User:Anomie/Neelix list/frogs, where it's definitely helpful for each line to have a link that takes me directly to a complete deletion page; no other template of which I'm aware has this capability. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then use {{lan}}. It will automatically fill in "G6 - Neelix" as the deletion rationale, rather than wait for a parameter. So you use it as {{lan|Example}} and it will do the rest. I think this will accomplish what you need for this situation, and it will table changes to {{la}} for another day. (And, if lan works, it might serve as proof of concept for those future changes.) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- But what if I want to use this template in a different situation in the future? Won't I have to edit the template? I want a template with which I can replace [[article]] with {{template|article|rationale}} and have the rationale automatically supplied when I click the delete link; find-and-replace is significant here, since I need to be able to make all the changes with a few button clicks in Notepad. As written, {{delete page}} does all this, so if retaining the template instead of merging it is the best way to fulfill my needs, I'm fine with that; I just don't want to get stuck with a template that only works in one situation or a template that doesn't fulfill my needs at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty much. For this list, this specific Neelix-related set of deletions, this template will work. In the future, we can have a longer discussion about amending La or having a deletion-specific template that accepts a parameter (or just make Lan do that). But I think changing a template used on 280k pages is premature, given the number of different circumstances in which La is used. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is meant to be that discussion. Once again, what's wrong with adding a feature to this template, right now? Nobody's given a single example of how adding such a feature would impair anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think we've hit on a few, but I will sum them up. This is a widely-used template, and the proposed feature would be useful in only a small percentage of uses of that template - not enough, I think, to justify adding a parameter and complicating what is supposed to be a very very simple template. Because the La template is called from other templates in most cases (as with Afd, for example), you'd have to use the deletion template and then go back in and edit the La template to add your parameter - which defeats the whole point of adding the function in the first place. It'd be simpler in those circumstances just to type in the rationale in the box. So not only is it more work, but you've knocked another set of pages out of the percentage for which this would be useful. I'm happy to try it out on a small subset of articles - the Neelix redirects are a prime candidate, and the hard-coded rationale fits well there. But I think amending La is too big a change to a widely used template for not nearly enough gain. This is using a hammer where a scalpel would do. It's a good idea, and I think we can implement it in time. But I'm not ready to support a change of this scope. Not this quickly, not to this template. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is meant to be that discussion. Once again, what's wrong with adding a feature to this template, right now? Nobody's given a single example of how adding such a feature would impair anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty much. For this list, this specific Neelix-related set of deletions, this template will work. In the future, we can have a longer discussion about amending La or having a deletion-specific template that accepts a parameter (or just make Lan do that). But I think changing a template used on 280k pages is premature, given the number of different circumstances in which La is used. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- But what if I want to use this template in a different situation in the future? Won't I have to edit the template? I want a template with which I can replace [[article]] with {{template|article|rationale}} and have the rationale automatically supplied when I click the delete link; find-and-replace is significant here, since I need to be able to make all the changes with a few button clicks in Notepad. As written, {{delete page}} does all this, so if retaining the template instead of merging it is the best way to fulfill my needs, I'm fine with that; I just don't want to get stuck with a template that only works in one situation or a template that doesn't fulfill my needs at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then use {{lan}}. It will automatically fill in "G6 - Neelix" as the deletion rationale, rather than wait for a parameter. So you use it as {{lan|Example}} and it will do the rest. I think this will accomplish what you need for this situation, and it will table changes to {{la}} for another day. (And, if lan works, it might serve as proof of concept for those future changes.) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with switches, so I can't offer an opinion. I'm using it at User:Anomie/Neelix list/frogs, where it's definitely helpful for each line to have a link that takes me directly to a complete deletion page; no other template of which I'm aware has this capability. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- This template is usually called from another template - {{afd2}}, as an example. Why ask for a parameter? Could we not add a switch or something that adds the full pagename if the template is on a page beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? The template could then add the parameter. In fact, hold on, {{afd1}} does precisely this - if you delete an article using the toplink, and that article has a properly formatted AFD tag, then the link for the deletion debate is filled into the deletion rationale box. This is exactly what we're trying to do, yes? Except the idea was to do it for redirects? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment if this is merged it should not merge into "Delete page"; however, we have many variations on the lx and xl template sets, so perhaps all of the 'lx' templates should be able to be used this way? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Couldn't we just add a
|rationale=
parameter to {{la}} and all related templates? That's all I'm attempting to request in this merger nomination. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- If that's all you're asking, why not have an RFC on the Talk page instead of disrupting hundreds of thousands of transclusions? You seem to have identified a unique need and are proposing a small addition (just one extra parameter) to a protected template. This is not a TFD merge discussion, except for the fact that you've made it so. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- "This is not..." Did you notice who created the discussion, and what was originally proposed? Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with this kind of process; my template work consists almost entirely of navbox work, and I'm quite the newcomer otherwise to template work, so stop biting me. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Couldn't we just add a
- Support merging and deleting Template:Delete page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: The discussion so far has had a bit of confusion as to what's being proposed. To help reach consensus, let's restrict things to the actual proposal here. The question is whether to add the functionality to specify a deletion rationale into {{la}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Honda international timeline
- Template:Honda international timeline ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Modern Honda vehicles ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Honda international timeline with Template:Modern Honda vehicles.
Redundant template, the latter has covered more models. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Current events/revisedlayout
- Template:Current events/revisedlayout ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Like Portal:Current events/Calendar box (which is currently at MfD), this template is also unused. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment it looks like a skeleton? (ie. substed template) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:European championships in 2016
- Template:European championships in 2016 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Not needed and there is not even an article for this. No template exists for previous seasons. Qed237 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Un-necessary fork template Template:European championships is enough.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It meets the requirements of WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX. Why don't need? Similar to {{World championships in 2015}} and {{World championships in 2016}}. Also it's not a fork: {{European championships}} linked to main competition articles but {{European championships in 2016}} contains the links to 2016 articles (more than 10 entries now). "No template exists for previous seasons" is not a reason to delete 2016 navbox. 178.94.165.65 (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 14:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 18:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I question "not needed", though there is not a main article for this (which may suggest that this is bad WP:WEIGHT, and which is one of the criteria for a good WP:NAVBOX). --Izno (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Mid-Del PS
- Template:Mid-Del PS ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
3 links and a redirect does not a navbox make, per WP:NENAN. Izno (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Norman PS
- Template:Norman PS ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
3 links does not a navbox make per WP:NENAN. Izno (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Dixie Highway sidebar
WP:TOOSOON, only two blue links, one of which is only tangentially related to the subject. Delete until the corresponding articles are made. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete—per nom, it's too soon to need the template, and it may never be needed as it's not a given that we'd need separate state-detail articles for the Dixie Highway. Imzadi 1979 → 04:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Unneeded sidebar, especially considering it's mostly redlinks. I should also note we do not have any of these sidebars for Interstates and U.S. Routes, as we have hatnotes to the state-detail pages in the prose and categories to handle the need. Dough4872 16:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:On the Fringe
- Template:On the Fringe ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Only two live wiklinks. Not enough for navigation. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
March 28
Template:Kandy Skykings roster
- Template:Kandy Skykings roster ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Skykings roster ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
hard to see how these would be useful outside of a single article. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Subst and delete both per nom. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Star Parivaar Award templates
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Sautan ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Sasur ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Saas ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Pita ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Patni ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Pati ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Naya Sadasya (Male) ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Naya Sadasya (Female) ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Mazedaar Sadasya ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Maa ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Khalnayak ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Jodi ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Jethani ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite International Jodi ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Devrani ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Devar ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Bhai ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Bhabhi ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Beti ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Beta ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Behen ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favourite Bahu ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Star Parivaar Award for Favorite Chota Sadasya ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
The above award categories doesn’t even have their own independent pages and they are all unsourced and fail WP:V. These templates are also been created by known socks Chander (talk · contribs · count), Sukriti3 (talk · contribs · count), Noormohammed satya (talk · contribs · count) and one possible WP:SPA AgunDana (talk · contribs · count). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge all into Template:Star Parivaar Awards. There is a stand-alone article for Star Parivaar Awards, so a corresponding template may be appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- But the article doesn't even mention any of the winners backed with WP:RS. The award itself is of questionable notability being an in-house trophy looting ceremony. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:EXISTING -- Two articles is not enough to navigate. 🍀 Corkythehornetfan 🍀 03:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Corky, there are now four articles linked from this navbox. Will you consider withdrawing the nomination? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Withdraw - enough to navigate now. 🍀 Corkythehornetfan 🍀 13:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as more articles have now been created. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
March 27
Template:List of computer viruses (Numeric) UI
- Template:List of computer viruses (Numeric) UI ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:List of computer viruses (E-K) UI ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, intended for list articles that have since been merged. ~ RobTalk 21:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
These navboxes are redundant now that the more inclusive Template:College football national champion (championship game era) navbox has superceded them. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs
- Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs with Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs.
No reason to separate named and unnamed medical signs and symptoms (confusing in fact). Would benefit readers to have these located in the same navbox, making navigating less confusing. Tom (LT) (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Chest trauma
- Template:Chest trauma ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Trauma ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Chest trauma with Template:Trauma.
Duplicate scope (and at least 50% of contents!) Contents have better navigational value if included all together. So I propose a merge Tom (LT) (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Protected generic image name
- Template:Protected generic image name ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Pp-generic-image ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_March_7#Template:Protected_generic_image_name has decided to deprecate the usage of this method for handling vaguely named files, so this template should be deleted, or if the links are an issue marked as historical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Adding a subtemplate.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:The Real Housewives of Vancouver
- Template:The Real Housewives of Vancouver ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Completely unnecessary navbox. Only two links and only used on one of the two linked articles. AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:BS!
- Template:BS! ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Not used in any articles and not part of the current WP:RDT documentation. Only mention outside a user sandbox is in the deprecated part of the transwiki guide. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 03:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
March 26
Template:Slavic Orthodox Christianity
- Template:Slavic Orthodox Christianity ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
There is no such thing as "Slavic Orthodox Christianity". That article does not exist and the template it made up of various Eastern Orthodox concepts. Very confusing. Zoupan 18:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I got the idea to create this template from some of the articles about the Russian slavophiles and articles like this one Slavic Orthodox. I did not create this article nor the term nor the other releated articles. So I wonder if the above editor can find a source that says there is no such thing as Slavic Orthodox? Since there is of course Slavic Christianity and Slavic neopaganism, Slavic Muslims and sources that use the term Slavic Orthodox [1], [2], [3]. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
DJ Ritendra templates
- Template:DJ Ritendra ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:DJ Ritendra singles ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Articles on artist and most of his works were deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invisible Love. --Finngall talk 17:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, no viable wikilinks present anymore. ~Mable (chat) 17:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Clocker (Transformers)
- Template:Clocker (Transformers) ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template masquerading as an article about a non-notable fictional character. No point moving it to the mainspace as it'll just end up being deleted sooner or later as yet more Transformers fancruft. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clocker (Transformers). Josh Milburn (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Hassan Rana
- Template:Hassan Rana ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Not notable. Only one film is released out of three. Musa Talk 18:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep because TFD isn't very concerned about notability. That's for AFD to decide. However, a navbox is for navigation between related articles. This one links 4 articles, total. Some may consider that too few. (I don't, necessarily.) The chances of this template being deleted would increase if the articles were deleted, first, but I don't see any such proposal. —PC-XT+ 03:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 14:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, four articles related to one another is perfectly fair for a navbox. Rana has a big role in these films and the "categorization" makes perfect sense. If one or two of the articles gets deleted, we're in a different situation. ~Mable (chat) 15:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:IMFACT
- Template:IMFACT ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Too few links to justify a navigation template. Random86 (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, the band is covered by the Star Empire Entertainment template. This adds nothing. ~Mable (chat) 08:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No substantive entries. Redundant, unnecessary, and unwarranted. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Dilbert books
- Template:Dilbert books ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
generally redundant (in terms of working navigation links) to {{Dilbert}}. Frietjes (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I merged some links from this template into the Dilbert template mentioned above, and that works fine. This template adds nothing, and we'd do better with a "List of Dilbert publications" article. Delete. ~Mable (chat) 00:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
March 25
Template:New Talent Awards
- Template:New Talent Awards ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Main article for this template has been deleted. Template had only two remaining transclusions, both of which I have just removed. I see no current or future use for this navigation template. Safiel (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Safiel: The template was nominated for speedy under WP:G8 as the main article New Talent Awards is already deleted. Why was the CSD declined and this TfD started? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Dharmadhyaksha: A navigation template does not fall within the strict requirements of CSD G8. It is not a subpage or a talkpage of a deleted page. In the past, I have had administrators decline my speedy deletion attempts on templates and require that I go through TfD instead. I would actually like to see CSD G8 expanded to include navigation templates, but for now, that is not the case. Safiel (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seems that admins differ on this point of view. Template:TheGlobalIndianHonourBestActress and Template:TheGlobalIndianHonourBestActor have been deleted previously on same CSD criteria. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- As there does seem to be confusion and differences of opinion on this issue, I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion asking for some general guidance on the issue. Safiel (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting the discussion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- As there does seem to be confusion and differences of opinion on this issue, I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion asking for some general guidance on the issue. Safiel (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seems that admins differ on this point of view. Template:TheGlobalIndianHonourBestActress and Template:TheGlobalIndianHonourBestActor have been deleted previously on same CSD criteria. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Dharmadhyaksha: A navigation template does not fall within the strict requirements of CSD G8. It is not a subpage or a talkpage of a deleted page. In the past, I have had administrators decline my speedy deletion attempts on templates and require that I go through TfD instead. I would actually like to see CSD G8 expanded to include navigation templates, but for now, that is not the case. Safiel (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Scleroprotein disease
- Template:Scleroprotein disease ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I propose that this template is deleted because it adds to 'navbox clutter' on pages and does not help readers navigate between pages.
I propose that this template is instead converted to a table placed on the page Collagen disease, and links provided (if necessary) in the 'see also' sections. I just do not think this template helps readers, and hence am proposing this. I look forward to the opinions of other editors Tom (LT) (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Infobox political party/div
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox political party/div ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
No longer used by Template:Infobox political party, should be without any transclusions after cache is fully updated. PanchoS (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Infobox MTR
- Template:Infobox MTR ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox station ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox MTR with Template:Infobox station.
This can be replaced by {{Infobox station}}; it is not necessary to have a separate infobox template for every system.
I am the creator of {{Infobox MTR}} (which is a wrapper based on {{Infobox station}}), which I was replacing {{Infobox MTR station}} with acc. to this TfD discussion, but stopped replacing it due to lack of interest. I don't think that it was much of a good idea to make this wrapper, given that it's actually completely unnecessary. While it automatically fills in most of the parameters of {{Infobox station}} (the only advantage), it uses Module:HK-MTR stations (for things like the lines and number of platforms) instead of getting values from Wikidata, as is now possible. It would be a better idea to automatically call values from Wikidata through {{Infobox station}} instead. Merging would involve substituting this template where it's used (as well as other enclosed template calls using {{{|safesubst:}}}
). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please clarify. Since the result of the previous discussion for {{Infobox MTR station}} was to delete and use {{Infobox station}}) or this wrapper instead, are you going to complete that deletion or substitution at the same time? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Secondarywaltz: I'll substitute {{Infobox MTR}} after adding safesubst, etc.; but turn {{Infobox MTR station}} directly into a wrapper for {{Infobox station}} so that it doesn't take as long to complete the process. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Bryant Bulldogs Basketball Roster
- Template:Bryant Bulldogs Basketball Roster ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
should not have current roster templates for college teams Joeykai (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:EXISTING One link does not navigate this navbox... 🍀 Corkythehornetfan 🍀 01:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
March 24
Template:Redirect5
- Template:Redirect5 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
It's used on only one page (Mu (letter)). It was used on ~5 pages when I first looked, but most of those usages proved improper or needless when I checked them, and so I replaced those usages with {{redirect}}. It implicitly encourages people to add needless text to hatnotes (against the guideline). Having fewer hatnote templates overall makes the system simpler, which is desirable. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep.
Not only has the nominator not proven its lack of usefulness, but the nominator also admitted to orphaning the template out of process. No redirect hatnote template is similar to this for this specific purpose.The template serves to further explain the readers the distinction when the "...redirects here. For ..., see ..." still isn't enough as proven in Mu (letter)'s current reversion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- @Steel1943: There are 5 pages on which I replaced the template. On Marriage, its use was almost certainly a mistake or typo (I corrected the mistake by applying {{redirect4}}), and on the other four its use was unhelpful. Those other four hatnotes did not need the extra context, which should not be added in most cases: the Wikipedia:Hatnote guideline is very clear in saying "Keep explanations to a minimum". I mentioned in the nomination that use of the template generally contradicts the hatnote guideline, which ought to be proof of its general lack of usefulness. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Nihiltres: I think I see what you mean about the pages you edited as I don't think I placed those templates (please correct me if I'm wrong.) However, on Mu (letter), there really is not a clearer way to distinguish why a character that looks exactly like a letter of the alphabet redirects where it does. If I recall, I created the template specifically for Mu (letter) since no other available options sufficed to explain the situation with the non-alphabetic symbol that looks completely identical to an alphabetic symbol redirects there. To the naked eye, an editor could think that the letter M redirects there when it clearly doesn't. There were no other hatnote templates that could be customized in the way I built {{Redirect5}} to explain the situation. In other words, most likely, this template will refer to symbols that looks like alphanumeric symbols that neither represent a standard alphabet letter or number. Instead of recommending this template for deletion, possibly the documentation should be updated instead to explain when specifically this template should be used. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Having reflected on it a little, we can probably replace the Mu case with
{{redirect-distinguish2|Μ|the Latin letter [[M]]}}
, which currently produces as its text "Μ" redirects here. It is not to be confused with the Latin letter M. That seems quite clear as a replacement, given that the user's arrived at "Mu (letter)". {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- @Nihiltres: The issue I see with that hatnote that could still cause confusion is that the "...M redirects here" text still looks like the Latin letter M ... since the Greek and Latin letters look identical. Your idea sets the expectation that all readers have an initiate understanding that the 26-letter alphabet is derived specifically from Latin. The hatnote doesn't help the reader understand that there is a specific difference between Latin and Greek symbols/letters to help them understand and locate the proper topic. To kind of put what I'm saying in a bit more context, I don't think that redirects should ever have to specify what character code made them arrive at the destination page if a character looks identical to another (since that would obviously be far to much), but without basic explanation between the two identical but different characters, readers could still be confused no matter which variation of the character they use. The format in this template allows an option to expand on that explanation without having to use {{Redirect}} or {{Hatnote}} since it could serve a specific purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I may see if there are other pages where this hatnote could be valid to better illustrate my concern regarding the "alphabet" issue. If so, I'll place this template on those pages to show its possible usefulness. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Nihiltres: At this point, it looks like that the template could be placed on all 26 Greek alphabet pages to distinguish them from their Latin counterparts. (I've already added the template to at least Alpha and Beta.) With that being said, it may make sense to change the wording in this template and rename it something like {{Redirect-distinguish3}} or even {{Redirect-distinguish-alphabet}} since the "Redirect-distinguish" text may make more sense, as you pointed out. Using Alpha for example, the hatnote could be adjusted to say "Α", the Greek letter, redirects here. It is not to be confused with the Latin letter A. Then, it can be changed around to customize what alphabet languages are being distinguished from each other. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Having reflected on it a little, we can probably replace the Mu case with
- @Nihiltres: I think I see what you mean about the pages you edited as I don't think I placed those templates (please correct me if I'm wrong.) However, on Mu (letter), there really is not a clearer way to distinguish why a character that looks exactly like a letter of the alphabet redirects where it does. If I recall, I created the template specifically for Mu (letter) since no other available options sufficed to explain the situation with the non-alphabetic symbol that looks completely identical to an alphabetic symbol redirects there. To the naked eye, an editor could think that the letter M redirects there when it clearly doesn't. There were no other hatnote templates that could be customized in the way I built {{Redirect5}} to explain the situation. In other words, most likely, this template will refer to symbols that looks like alphanumeric symbols that neither represent a standard alphabet letter or number. Instead of recommending this template for deletion, possibly the documentation should be updated instead to explain when specifically this template should be used. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Delete or merge into {{Redirect}}. Nom has shown that it is underused. So, this is a good candidate for spring cleaning. (Disposing of the non-essentials.) We can already implement its function using {{Hatnote}} in the rare cases that are needed (like we always do). Or we can get more serious and merge it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or merge into {{Redirect}} or {{Redirect-distinguish2}} per Codename Lisa. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Creator comment: Since I strongly believe that merging will not work in any application as I have adequately described above, and since it seems that this template is going to stay in any fashion, I'm going to remove all remaining transclusions and stick a grand ol' {{Db-g7}} on it. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Unicode
- Template:Unicode ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template was used as a work-around for display of Unicode characters in Internet Explorer 6. Discussion on the talk page concluded this isn't useful any more nowadays. This template should be substituted before deletion. —Ruud 21:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete after substing. Just to note: IE6 was not the problem, it was XP (affecting also Chrome). With MS having dropped support two years ago, there is no reason to maintain this.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
21:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)- MS still support corporate installations of XP. Our article states "As of January 2016, Windows XP desktop market share is 8% (and market share is higher in e.g. China at 26%, India; Asia in general and Africa), making it the fifth most popular after Windows 8.1 and OS X (though some statistics rank it second after Windows 7". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Being the English Language Wikipedia, I don't quite get why China's share is so important here. I think reader share is more significant.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
19:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Being the English Language Wikipedia, I don't quite get why China's share is so important here. I think reader share is more significant.
- MS still support corporate installations of XP. Our article states "As of January 2016, Windows XP desktop market share is 8% (and market share is higher in e.g. China at 26%, India; Asia in general and Africa), making it the fifth most popular after Windows 8.1 and OS X (though some statistics rank it second after Windows 7". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per my reply to Edokter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Edokter: Could you clarify which browsers on XP are affected. IIRC Firefox has never needed this hack, not even on XP. Do the most recent versions of IE and Chrome that run on XP need this?
- @Pigsonthewing: Even if those browsers need this hack, then it's important to consider that:
- Keeping this template around is still going to be pretty useless, as no one is bothering to add it to any articles anymore.
- Chrome support for XP will end April 2016. So if you're still running XP with anything other than Firefox, then having a few Unicode character not showing up is going to be the least of your concerns.
- —Ruud 09:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Ruud Koot, Firefox seems to be the only one handling all unicode correctly, as long as the proper fonts are available. IE, Chrome and Opera all rely on Windows for proper Unicode support, and are more prone to fail.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
15:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ruud Koot, Firefox seems to be the only one handling all unicode correctly, as long as the proper fonts are available. IE, Chrome and Opera all rely on Windows for proper Unicode support, and are more prone to fail.
-
- Weak keep, though I am on XP,
my !vote is more about using a documented template rather than raw html markup—PC-XT+ 02:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC) 02:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)- Oh, are you proposing to remove the class, (and HTML wrapper,) as well? In that case, there would be no raw HTML concern —PC-XT+ 02:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PC-XT: Yes this is about completely removing this hack, so there is not going to be any raw HTML inserted instead of this template. —Ruud 09:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alright. I edited my !vote. This workaround is losing its need as time goes on. It has almost been de facto deprecated by disuse. There are still "many" of us XP users. (I don't use it exclusively, but prefer it for many things. I tend to collect and use old OSes, as my name implies, but I know some who use it almost exclusively.) As argued, most of us tend to have more important concerns than Unicode characters displaying properly. If we do care, we tend to use Firefox or, somewhat rarely, other local workarounds, because unlike wikis, most sites don't let us install such things on them. It is most often just a minor annoyance, now. I still lean towards keep, though probably not for long. Do we have any statistics on what browsers are used by XP visitors? If most are using Firefox, it would strengthen the deletion argument. —PC-XT+ 21:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PC-XT: The relevant group is Windows XP users that haven't switched to an alternative browser (under the assumption that people that were smart enough to switch to Chrome are also smart enough to switch to Firefox next month). In June 2015 the usage share on Wikimedia sites of MSIE 6.0 was 0.25%, of MSIE 7.0 was 0.63%, and of MSIE 8.0 was 1.28% [4]. But keep in mind that the share for IE7 likely includes a lot of Vista users, and the share for IE8 a lot of Win7 users. This is also for all Wikimedia sites; a disproportional percentage of the those requests may well go to projects other than the the English Wikipedia (as XP is disproportionately popular in Asia as Andy pointed out above). —Ruud 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- And by the way, this template is (was) only needed for more exotic Unicode characters. Latin letters with common diacritics, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and Japanese should all be fine without it. —Ruud 23:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm... That's interesting data, but I'll need to think about it. I'm not sure someone who is still using XP but not using IE would necessarily use Firefox, though if they cared about this issue, they would be more likely to. Some just don't seem to get along with Firefox. Many XP users change the user agent string, especially for older browser versions, to something more common. If they pretend to be a different OS, however, these corrections would be disabled, anyway. Wikimedia sites get a lot of traffic, so a small percentage can still be a lot. The HTML page percentage is 1.75% for the two older browser versions. I expect these include more annonymous usage. I certainly don't mind removing this from any characters that don't need to use it. I might go through some transclusions to see if they are needed, myself... —PC-XT+ 07:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 08:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Something else to think about... inaccessibility creep: Wikipedia is becoming harder for older browsers to visit successfully, anyway. I don't think I can even load Wikipedia in IE8-, possably due to pushing a kind of secure connection to anonymous users that was not used when the browsers were made. ("Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage") Many other secure sites have that issue, since the older security was found to be flawed. —PC-XT+ 08:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PC-XT: That's actually a good point. Those browsers statistics are from before we required HTTPS. I think IE6 users won't be able to view Wikipedia anyway today (ssllabs.com). —Ruud 10:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm... That's interesting data, but I'll need to think about it. I'm not sure someone who is still using XP but not using IE would necessarily use Firefox, though if they cared about this issue, they would be more likely to. Some just don't seem to get along with Firefox. Many XP users change the user agent string, especially for older browser versions, to something more common. If they pretend to be a different OS, however, these corrections would be disabled, anyway. Wikimedia sites get a lot of traffic, so a small percentage can still be a lot. The HTML page percentage is 1.75% for the two older browser versions. I expect these include more annonymous usage. I certainly don't mind removing this from any characters that don't need to use it. I might go through some transclusions to see if they are needed, myself... —PC-XT+ 07:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 08:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Something else to think about... inaccessibility creep: Wikipedia is becoming harder for older browsers to visit successfully, anyway. I don't think I can even load Wikipedia in IE8-, possably due to pushing a kind of secure connection to anonymous users that was not used when the browsers were made. ("Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage") Many other secure sites have that issue, since the older security was found to be flawed. —PC-XT+ 08:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alright. I edited my !vote. This workaround is losing its need as time goes on. It has almost been de facto deprecated by disuse. There are still "many" of us XP users. (I don't use it exclusively, but prefer it for many things. I tend to collect and use old OSes, as my name implies, but I know some who use it almost exclusively.) As argued, most of us tend to have more important concerns than Unicode characters displaying properly. If we do care, we tend to use Firefox or, somewhat rarely, other local workarounds, because unlike wikis, most sites don't let us install such things on them. It is most often just a minor annoyance, now. I still lean towards keep, though probably not for long. Do we have any statistics on what browsers are used by XP visitors? If most are using Firefox, it would strengthen the deletion argument. —PC-XT+ 21:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PC-XT: Yes this is about completely removing this hack, so there is not going to be any raw HTML inserted instead of this template. —Ruud 09:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, are you proposing to remove the class, (and HTML wrapper,) as well? In that case, there would be no raw HTML concern —PC-XT+ 02:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep template still appears to have some uses Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that the template has already been disabled and no font is assigned anymore.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
10:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ruud Koot: Please undo your edit that disabled the functionality of this template prior to the TfD. If the TfD closed as delete, it would make sense to change it to pass through and substitute, but that needs consensus. ~ RobTalk 05:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment neutering of template reverted per Rob's request. It may be relevant to the discussion that nobody else seems to have noticed in the week it was neutered. Bazj (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Eh, there's a bit of selection bias going on there. The users that are likely to still be on IE6/Windows XP probably aren't the same users that would be able to find this TfD. ~ RobTalk 17:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- They would probably complain somewhere, most likely WP:VPT.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
18:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- I think it's incredibly likely the typical reader who is using IE6/Windows XP would not know about or be able to navigate to anything outside of the mainspace. At the risk of stereotyping, there's a significant overlap between people who are still using IE6 and people who type "Google" into a Google search bar. ~ RobTalk 18:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Let's not stereotype then. There is absolutely no rationale behind it and it just makes a very poor argument. The more likely reason for having no complaints is that the XP user base has simply become too small. We can't keep supporting obsolete platforms ad infinitum.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
20:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- There's absolutely a rationale for the stereotype; those who adopt new operating systems more slowly are also likely to adopt other technology (such as the MediaWiki platform) more slowly. We can objectively determine XP user base through various reports, and it's still substantial (over 10% worldwide). See here for the number as of February. ~ RobTalk 22:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Let's not stereotype then. There is absolutely no rationale behind it and it just makes a very poor argument. The more likely reason for having no complaints is that the XP user base has simply become too small. We can't keep supporting obsolete platforms ad infinitum.
- I think it's incredibly likely the typical reader who is using IE6/Windows XP would not know about or be able to navigate to anything outside of the mainspace. At the risk of stereotyping, there's a significant overlap between people who are still using IE6 and people who type "Google" into a Google search bar. ~ RobTalk 18:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- They would probably complain somewhere, most likely WP:VPT.
- Eh, there's a bit of selection bias going on there. The users that are likely to still be on IE6/Windows XP probably aren't the same users that would be able to find this TfD. ~ RobTalk 17:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. While I wasn't going to participate actively in the discussion originally, I've already got myself involved, so I might as well formally !vote. The cost of keeping this template is minimal in terms of page complexity, but it ensures 10% of potential users worldwide can see the unicode text contained within the template. That's clearly worth the cost. ~ RobTalk 22:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: While you have likely already made up your mind on this issue and—judging by you failure to read the conversation above—are not really interested in the facts, I find this statement to contain too many inaccuracies to stand unchallenged.
- As mentioned above, we know exactly what the usage share of Windows XP visors was on Wikimedia sites in June 2015: 3.88%. Those using IE6 cannot visit Wikipedia at all today (because of the switch to HTTPS). Those using IE7 are not served any Javascript, including the required piece that makes this template work. Those that use Firefox do not need this template at all. Those using IE8 or Chrome must still have Microsoft Office installed, otherwise the required font is not available. So deleting this template means that in all likelyhood less than 1% of visitors will no longer be able to see some uncommon Unicode characters on some articles. They will still be able to see most common Unicode characters on all articles. Even if we kept this template they will still not be able to see many Unicode characters on many other articles (either because of disuse of this template, or the lack of modern fonts with larger Unicode support).
- The use of this template has turned into a cargo cult science: it is used in many placed where it has no effect for anyone, and is neglected to be used in places where it could potentially be useful to some tiny minority of visitors. It's cluttering the wikitext of many articles with no discernible benefit.
- —Ruud 14:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Potential users =/= actual users, first of all. I believe potential users (people on the platform) is a better measure than actual users (people on the platform accessing Wikimedia currently), personally, but that's my opinion. I like to keep Wikipedia accessible even to those not actively using it yet in the hopes they'll choose to do so in the future. Second, the report you linked isn't a share of users. It's a share of web traffic, which is quite different. It doesn't surprise me at all that people on more modern platforms are more likely to frequently query WikiMedia sites (or actively edit on them, evenly). See above "stereotypes" on adoption of technology. Your 3.88% is likely diluted by larger numbers of page views per user on more modern platforms. Point taken on how IE6 and IE7 already can't access Unicode, even with this template, but as your report shows, IE8 is more common. Microsoft Office was frequently bundled with XP, so I'm not too concerned that eats into the percentage this is helping too much. I understand you don't think the benefits exceed the costs, but I weight the benefits of accessibility for users on older operating systems quite highly, even if their number is relatively small. If XP was a <1% share of total population, that would be a different story, but it's still at 10%. Let's say the amount we're potentially helping are a small fraction - 2%. That's still worth it to me. And I seriously struggle to think of 12 characters of mark-up as "clutter". ~ RobTalk 15:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's twisted logic. A user that views 100 articles is going to be impacted a 100 times more than a user that views 1 article. Page views is the right statistic here. The IE8 usage share also includes Vista and Win7 (as mentioned above), so we cannot directly draw conclusions about its popularity on XP. We're only talking about people that that use XP+IE8 or XP+Chrome. These are not people that are "stuck on an older platform". These are people that are capable of upgrading their browser. They can upgrade to Firefox if they care about Unicode. For people that are truly stuck on an older platform (XP+IE6) the ship has already sailed a few months ago, when we disabled Javascript for them and started requiring HTTPS. Inline template make it harder to edit Wikipedia, especially for new editors, independent of whether they're using the source editor or the visual editor. Readers are not the only people we have to think about, here. —Ruud 15:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Potential users =/= actual users, first of all. I believe potential users (people on the platform) is a better measure than actual users (people on the platform accessing Wikimedia currently), personally, but that's my opinion. I like to keep Wikipedia accessible even to those not actively using it yet in the hopes they'll choose to do so in the future. Second, the report you linked isn't a share of users. It's a share of web traffic, which is quite different. It doesn't surprise me at all that people on more modern platforms are more likely to frequently query WikiMedia sites (or actively edit on them, evenly). See above "stereotypes" on adoption of technology. Your 3.88% is likely diluted by larger numbers of page views per user on more modern platforms. Point taken on how IE6 and IE7 already can't access Unicode, even with this template, but as your report shows, IE8 is more common. Microsoft Office was frequently bundled with XP, so I'm not too concerned that eats into the percentage this is helping too much. I understand you don't think the benefits exceed the costs, but I weight the benefits of accessibility for users on older operating systems quite highly, even if their number is relatively small. If XP was a <1% share of total population, that would be a different story, but it's still at 10%. Let's say the amount we're potentially helping are a small fraction - 2%. That's still worth it to me. And I seriously struggle to think of 12 characters of mark-up as "clutter". ~ RobTalk 15:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Pittsburgh basketball
- Template:Pittsburgh basketball ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
should not have any current roster templates for college teams Joeykai (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments
- Template:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Also propose deleting
- Template:Virginia Slims of Albuquerque tournaments ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navboxes with just one or two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Virginia Slims of Boston template now contains a sufficient amount of links.--Wolbo (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Railway line header1
- Template:Railway line header1 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and unedited for over three years. ~ RobTalk 05:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Move the navbox to Template:BS/doc first, so that it's transcluded on most of the pages it links to. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
March 23
Template:Nfurd
- Template:Nfurd ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Nrd ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Nfurd with Template:Nrd.
These two templates are dupes of each other. One should be redirected to the other. Not sure which name we should make the default name. {{subst:nfurd}} looks more intuitive to me as a fair use rationale typically is abbreviated as 'FUR', but {{subst:nrd}} is more advertised as it appears on Wikidata and in the documentation for {{Di-no fair use rationale}}. Also, the templates have non-matching protection levels. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- {{nrd}} wasn't listed in the {{Di-no fair use rationale}} documentation back then, I assume I simply didn't find it under that name. Amalthea 10:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why do we have these substitution templates in the first place, by the way? By using Module:Unsubst in {{di-no fair use rationale}}, it would be possible to arrange so that {{subst:di-no fair use rationale}} returns a properly dated {{di-no fair use rationale}} template, and the short abbreviations could then be turned into redirects to {{di-no fair use rationale}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Safesubst or Lua modules weren't around back in the day so there was no better tech, I think. Amalthea 21:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why do we have these substitution templates in the first place, by the way? By using Module:Unsubst in {{di-no fair use rationale}}, it would be possible to arrange so that {{subst:di-no fair use rationale}} returns a properly dated {{di-no fair use rationale}} template, and the short abbreviations could then be turned into redirects to {{di-no fair use rationale}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:R from hashtag
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn for now. I'll probably revisit this later. Steel1943 (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:R from hashtag ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Besides the fact that Wikipedia is not social media, the fact of the matter is that since hashtags are used by several different means of social media, there are several cases where specific hashtags mean different things on different social media sites, mean something different when they are used several years later, or even used in a different method than their intended usage. (For example, there was some sort of hashtag that I cannot remember right now that was used when the attacks in Paris last year happened, but whatever that hashtag was, it was actually used for a completely unrelated non-profit organization before the attaches happened.) Since the subjects which these hashtags could refer are potentially ambiguous, I do not believe that marking these redirects as so serves a useful encyclopedic purpose since the subject which the hashtags refer could be ambiguous due to people using them erroneously. Steel1943 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled. (1) Are you advocating deleting the redirects, or just the template and category? Referring to "WP is not social media" is pretty meaningless if you're only looking at the internal workings of WP, not its content. If however you think that readers shouldn't be able to get to Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping from typing Bringbackourgirls into the search box then you're in the wrong place for that discussion. (2) If we take, for example, Bringbackourgirls which is templated as "R from hashtag": as Wikipedia categorises all redirects for maintenance purposes, how would you categorise this redirect within Category:All redirect categories? (3) If there is one hashtag that becomes associated with two different subjects, isn't that a question of where the redirect should be targeted, for discussion on a case-by-case basis (up to and including WP:RFD if necessary), not a question of whether the redirect should have a {{R from hashtag}} applied to it? BencherliteTalk 02:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I put it here, so the ultimate goal with the nomination is to invalidate hashtag redirects as notable via a redirect category for the reasons I presented above. Afterwards, if any such redirects are discovered, then they would probably have to undergo individual WP:RFD nominations. Another issue about the pages currently in the category is that since "#" is not a character that can be used in a title per WP:NCHASHTAG, any redirects in this category aren't true "hashtag tags" since # is not part of the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to delete a redirect, delete the redirect at RFD, if you can. As long as we have these redirects, we need a template and a category for them. Unless you can think of a better template and category for them, this seems fine to me. So I'm opposing because while I can understand what you're trying to do, I disagree with you and you're also trying to do it back to front and in the wrong venue. BencherliteTalk 02:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I put it here, so the ultimate goal with the nomination is to invalidate hashtag redirects as notable via a redirect category for the reasons I presented above. Afterwards, if any such redirects are discovered, then they would probably have to undergo individual WP:RFD nominations. Another issue about the pages currently in the category is that since "#" is not a character that can be used in a title per WP:NCHASHTAG, any redirects in this category aren't true "hashtag tags" since # is not part of the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
March 22
Template:BibISBN/0801857899
- Template:BibISBN/0801857899 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template is broken and not used in any articles. Also adding these other BibISBN templates as well for the same reason:
- Template:BibISBN/0881924393 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:BibISBN/3110171309 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment.
Strictly speaking those templates are not broken - they display perfectly well, they're just book references - I think the issue is that the parent template, Template:BibISBN ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete), isn't working as it should. The reason is that it is based on a German template which has since been updated and so the book references don't always display correctly or even at all. In particular the German version calls three utility programmes or modules called de:Modul:URIutil which I have no idea how to deal with. If someone could help with that, we may be able to create a useful template.All sorted, see below. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC) - Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Firm keep. The main template has now been updated and fixed; the new module works and all the linked pages display correctly. These sub-templates are now linked too. So all sorted.Bermicourt (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Withdraw Last time I talked with @Bermicourt:, these templates weren't working. Now it seems that have been fixed. I'm wondering how/why BibISBN is used instead of ISBN. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strong delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an ISBN database, low or single use templates should be substed into the articles that uses them. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The nom has withdrawn the TfD. In any case, you've misunderstood the purpose of the templates. They're not to create an ISBN database - that's hyperbole. But they are intended for multi-use (not single-use) ISBN refs. Of course in the early stages, they will only have a couple of refs, but over time that will grow. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's exactly the same as Cite DOI and Cite PMID, creating a database of citations with low use based on a product identifier (in this case ISBN, instead of DOI or PubMed) That's probably a worse method of identifying a publication than DOIs, especially since ISBNs are relatively recent, and many books have multiple ISBNs. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Forget Cite DOI, it's deprecated. BibISBN uses the preferred Cite Journal. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's exactly the same as Cite DOI and Cite PMID, creating a database of citations with low use based on a product identifier (in this case ISBN, instead of DOI or PubMed) That's probably a worse method of identifying a publication than DOIs, especially since ISBNs are relatively recent, and many books have multiple ISBNs. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The nom has withdrawn the TfD. In any case, you've misunderstood the purpose of the templates. They're not to create an ISBN database - that's hyperbole. But they are intended for multi-use (not single-use) ISBN refs. Of course in the early stages, they will only have a couple of refs, but over time that will grow. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Used successfully in our Echidna article and if it's not broken, don't delete it. BushelCandle (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- speedy delete per deletion of {{cite isbn}}, this is the same thing with a different name. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- What were the reasons (apart from sheer petulance) that {{cite isbn}} was deleted? Please provide a working link to the valid arguments or your rationale is not fathomable and should be discounted in any assessment of consensus... BushelCandle (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Substitute and delete as per the site-wide consensus developed regarding {{cite isbn}}, {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} (among others). There has repeatedly been consensus developed at large RfCs that these sorts of subtemplates that hide references away should be deprecated and removed. These sorts of templates make it harder for new editors to edit references, and they provide no significant value-added over a bot placing references directly in articles. WP:Local consensus almost certainly applies, although I wouldn't necessarily oppose a closure as "no consensus" to take this to a wider audience and see if this is really the same situation or somehow substantively different. See this RfC for one example of very recent consensus to deprecate for these sorts of templates. ~ RobTalk 19:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Old discussions
March 20
Template:Salvador Metro Map
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) sst? 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Salvador Metro Map ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single use wrapper. Clearly not complicated enough to warrant a template even if you're persuaded by "too complicated for the mainspace" arguments. ~ RobTalk 22:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep
Oppose– a second line is supposed to open in the next year or two. It's on my 'To do' list to add the second line to the template, but I'll need to do some research first – I was thinking of getting to that in the next couple of months. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC) - Keep. See discussions below. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per IJBall. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy or keep for now to allow for expansion, as more of a placeholder, with the option to renominate in a few months if kept and the issues are still present —PC-XT+ 06:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. See discussions below. Pldx1 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. Not interested in being involved in such an oddly contentious area. ~ RobTalk 15:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:NorthstarHiawathaCentral
- Template:NorthstarHiawathaCentral ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single-use wrapper, only used on a user page. ~ RobTalk 22:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy. It seems to be intended for a future article. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Move to user space. As noted by Useddenim, the main article is a red link which would suggest that this was made for a future article. Since the article doesn't exist, there's no reason for this to be in mainspace. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy as not yet ready for template space without article in mainspace (could perhaps be merged with draft, at least temporarily) —PC-XT+ 06:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep See discussions below. Pldx1 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as per existing comments r.e. separate of code from main article. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Line 1 (Budapest Metro)
- Template:Line 1 (Budapest Metro) ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Line 2 (Budapest Metro) ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Line 3 (Budapest Metro) ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Line 4 (Budapest Metro) ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Line 5 (Budapest Metro) ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Single transclusion wrappers. ~ RobTalk 20:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Discussions like this and this are why route diagrams are kept on a separate page! Useddenim (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Useddenim: Both of those discussions boil down to the fact that you appear to be trying to make this content more difficult for new editors to access due to the fear that they'll break something. That's a view that fundamentally contradicts Wikipedia's basic "Everyone can edit" philosophy. How are new editors to learn if we intentionally hide away bits of content? ~ RobTalk 22:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, yes. A single mis-typed character can easily break a template. WP:Sandboxes are for learning. There's no way I (or any other editor) can watch every single Route Diagram, and a broken diagram is not only useless, but if not transcluded can also affect content on the parent page. So unless you intend to patrol every single page that contains an RDT, I suggest you abandon this crusade against “Single use wrapper”s. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. I'm on no such crusade. I nominated some of the tiny templates that clearly do not overwhelm source page content. The dangers of someone breaking a route diagram are no larger than the dangers of someone breaking an infobox assuming editors use common sense and don't mess with the syntax they don't know anything about. Any sensible editor wouldn't mess with the codes themselves, but they absolutely should be able to edit the text (station names, etc) just like any other article content without an extra barrier. See WP:Protection policy for an actual policy that details how infrequently we should implement such barriers to editing. ~ RobTalk 01:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, yes. A single mis-typed character can easily break a template. WP:Sandboxes are for learning. There's no way I (or any other editor) can watch every single Route Diagram, and a broken diagram is not only useless, but if not transcluded can also affect content on the parent page. So unless you intend to patrol every single page that contains an RDT, I suggest you abandon this crusade against “Single use wrapper”s. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Keep. Using these as templates instead of keeping them on the main page helps keep the page uncluttered with BSicon syntax that most don't understand. It just makes the page so much easier to edit this way. I have made three templates today in use on Wilson station (CTA) for that very reason instead of dumping all of that code onto the page. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – as per the arguments above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – as per the arguments above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per above. oknazevad (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I can see both sides. While there is a strong precedent against most single-use templates, there are also exceptions. The line is rather gray, but if they are in use for a reason, we tend to apply WP:IAR. Eventually, the line often becomes more clear. Some templates naturally merge into the article. Others become clearly separate, as merge problems become more apparent. Due to the keeps here, I would probably say keep for now, and renominate later if there are still issues —PC-XT+ 02:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PC-XT: You may be interested to know the keeps came about largely after a canvassing message was placed on a few talk pages claiming that I was conducting a "crusade" against all single-use route maps. Actual volume of votes here will be unfortunately misleading due to the fairly blatant campaigning. I've since attempted to assure some people that I'm only nominating a few of the smaller and less obnoxious ones that I've come across, and not the monstrosities that clearly would overwhelm the source code if merged into the article, but I didn't get to do that prior to a bunch of pile-on keeps as a result of the campaigning. ~ RobTalk 02:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not in my case – I followed your Talk page notice back here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I didn't mean to lump you in there. You and Useddenim received notices as the creators for the two nominations. The rest I assume came via the canvassing. ~ RobTalk 02:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree that posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains is necessarily "canvasing" (though the notice there certainly could have been more neutrally worded) – but WikiProject Trains would naturally be interested in these kinds of discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The post to Trains isn't the issue. Characterizing me as a crusading deletionist is. As is the post he made at User talk:Lost on Belmont, which is undoubtably canvassing, not to mention blatantly uncivil. ~ RobTalk 02:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Useddenim or his motivations, however I don't see that notifying a few other editors in wikiproject BSicon is exactly canvassing, although I do see why it would certainly raise eyebrows on your part. The templates you've nominated bear certain similarities to a number of unused templates I've made for the Chicago "L" system. I will admit that it is entirely possible that he "raised the alarm" to help get votes to protect "his" stuff, but at the same time it could be that he is notifying users in case of a slippery slope situation and to be aware of the general situation with BSicons. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @IJBall: The post to Trains isn't the issue. Characterizing me as a crusading deletionist is. As is the post he made at User talk:Lost on Belmont, which is undoubtably canvassing, not to mention blatantly uncivil. ~ RobTalk 02:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree that posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains is necessarily "canvasing" (though the notice there certainly could have been more neutrally worded) – but WikiProject Trains would naturally be interested in these kinds of discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I didn't mean to lump you in there. You and Useddenim received notices as the creators for the two nominations. The rest I assume came via the canvassing. ~ RobTalk 02:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not in my case – I followed your Talk page notice back here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PC-XT: You may be interested to know the keeps came about largely after a canvassing message was placed on a few talk pages claiming that I was conducting a "crusade" against all single-use route maps. Actual volume of votes here will be unfortunately misleading due to the fairly blatant campaigning. I've since attempted to assure some people that I'm only nominating a few of the smaller and less obnoxious ones that I've come across, and not the monstrosities that clearly would overwhelm the source code if merged into the article, but I didn't get to do that prior to a bunch of pile-on keeps as a result of the campaigning. ~ RobTalk 02:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. Not only because the used code is easy to break and hard to fix or edit, but also because separate templates allow the RTD to be used in multiple articles. (Rob, if you care for Wikipedia’s basic "Everyone can edit" philosophy, for which I do, too, then better retarget your attcks on VisualEditor: That is digging a deep trench between a caste of editors who can use wiki codes and those who cannot, instead of elevating all.) Tuvalkin (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, maybe I was a bit strong in characterizing the nominations as “a crusade” (but {{Salvador Metro Map}} and {{NorthstarHiawathaCentral}} did show up within a few minutes of each other, and I thought it was the beginning of a wave, based on the previous nomination). However, I still feel strongly that RDTs should be kept separate for two main reasons:
- It’s (unfortunately) remarkable the number of editors who do not use the Preview button and then won’t undo their mistakes. And (IMHO) many of the small hard-coded diagrams seem to be on infrequently-viewed pages, making the likelihood of a more-experienced editor stumbling across them to fix the error much lower.
- Consistency. Need I say more?
Useddenim (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Here are my thoughts on those points:
- Editors not checking their edits is a problem. I'm not sure this is the best solution, but I'm willing to consider it, at least for certain cases.
- I am generally a fan of consistency, but it could be argued both ways, here: Consistency among single-use templates on the wiki in general is part of the reason for nomination. Consistency among this kind of project template is certainly desirable. I would like to avoid pitting global and local consensus against each other, if possible, meaning I would rather not consider consistency any further in this discussion.
- —PC-XT+ 06:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- When I was fairly new to deletion discussions, I tried to follow the guidelines, but still left some otherwise appropriate notices with WP:CANVASS#Campaigning wording. Luckily, they didn't seem to influence the discussion, and nobody complained, but I was still rather embarrassed when I realized it, later. A fairly large number of templates I created/used had been nominated at once, which tends to make such slips more likely. As a nominator, I have learned that notifying project talk pages myself helps to reduce sore feelings that may be present, and a welcoming notice makes it a little easier for others to assume good faith, (though it can still take a lot of patience from everyone.) Discussion of these templates as single-use may be a sore spot for this project, but it looks like we are coming to a more cooperative stance, here, which is a good sign. Hopefully, we'll all have a productive conversation, and come away with a good feeling and better understanding. Cheers! —PC-XT+ 06:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 06:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. These maps are not issued from a random generator. There were people who wrote these maps. Part of them using {{BS-map}}. Part of them using {{routemap}}. Once written, these maps have to be maintained. And keeping them as separate entities facilitates the maintenance. This is a key property since, in the long term, these maps have to be maintained in sync with the reality. Pldx1 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. Not interested in being involved in such an oddly contentious area. ~ RobTalk 15:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as per existing comments r.e. separate of code from main article. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Current events/revisedlayout
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 29. ~ RobTalk 19:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Current events/revisedlayout ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Like Portal:Current events/Calendar box (which is currently at MfD), this template is also unused. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment it looks like a skeleton? (ie. substed template) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. The original rationale for deletion no longer applies, as articles have been created for several other coaches. I see no reason to relist this. ~ RobTalk 18:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also propose deleting
Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
What is the reason for deletion. What makes this navbox different from numerous others associated with women's college basketball that are not. Articles exist for two of the coaches. That's one more article than several others that I looked at. I would think that if this navbox is flagged for deletion, the others should be also. Here's a quick list of others meeeting the same criteria of "just two pages". Boston College Eagles - two; Connecticut Huskies - one; Duke Blue Devils - one; Georgia Lady Bulldogs - two; Hofstra Pride - two; Iowa Hawkeyes - two; Iowas State Cyclones - one; Liberty Lady Flames - one; Michigan State Spartans - two; Mississippi State Lady Bulldogs - two; Nebraska Cornhuskers - one; North Dakota State Bisons - one; Notre Dame Fighting Irish - one; Ohio Bobcats - two; Oregon State Beavers - two; Sam Houston State Bearkats - two; San Diego State Aztecs - two; San Diego Toreros - one; St. Francis Brooklyn Terriers - one; Syracuse Orange - two
LUSportsFan (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument against deletion. The purpose of a Navbox is to navigate between multiple articles on a related topic. The conensus of multiple TFDs is that two links isn't enough and that templates shouldn't be created till the articles are created. Since you brought the other templates to my attention, I will go through them and see any should also be nominated. Right this minute, I don't have the time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- If that's the case and consensus, I have no problems with deleting the navbox for now as long as the WP:TOOSOON criteria is applied equitably. As a guideline, what would be considered enough articles to warrant creating a navbox? There are at least two other coaches for this particular navbox who I think would qualify for an article or at least an article with several coaches listed. One of those coaches (Al Barbre) took the team to the 1991 NCAA Division I Tournament Elite Eight. The team was pretty much a "Cinderella" team in that tournament with wins over the Texas, LSU, and Arkansas teams. Another coach on the list, Pat Park, was a very successful head coach for several women's sports in the early days of women's college sports. She's a member of the National Collegiate Golf Coaches Association Hall of Fame and received several other honors over her coaching career. Here's a link to a recent article about Coach Park.[1]
- I don't know whether or not the remaining coaches would warrant a standalone article. They would probably warrant being included in an article covering several coaches. I held off creating the two articles I thought met a materiality test (Park and Barbre) because sufficient citations aren't available over the internet. Those two coaches along with several others were before the internet. I will need to go to printed media or microfiches of that media from back in the day to provide supporting sources. I think lack of easily accessible electronic sources is most likely the challenge for a lot, if not all, of the coaches in the other navboxes listed above.
- Thanks for your help.LUSportsFan (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument against deletion. The purpose of a Navbox is to navigate between multiple articles on a related topic. The conensus of multiple TFDs is that two links isn't enough and that templates shouldn't be created till the articles are created. Since you brought the other templates to my attention, I will go through them and see any should also be nominated. Right this minute, I don't have the time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Former LU coach Pat Park to be honored". Lamar University Athletics. Retrieved March 12, 2016.
-
-
-
- Just an update: Eight articles are currently linked to the navbox following recent creation of articles for Leonard Davis, Liz Galloway McQuitter, David McKey, Al Barbre, Charlotte (Chickie) Mason, and Cindy Russo.
-
-
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 02:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @WilliamJE: Has your opinion on this changed at all now that there are more articles in the navbox? ~ RobTalk 14:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
March 15
Template:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ RobTalk 16:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template is an infobox that is only used on one article, and that infobox has now been substed, making this template redundant. epicgenius (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reason I created the template was because the information on the campaign page and the endorsements page remained woefully and perpetually out of sync. This template should not be substed. —LLarson (said & done) 01:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is already substed. It can be transcluded from one page to the other using section transclusion, which I have now done. This template is currently redundant, since it only used on two pages. Also, it is substed on one page, with the transclusion of the substed box to the other page. epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: I was just in the middle of getting it done—thanks for beating me to it! —LLarson (said & done) 02:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- No problem. LLarson do you still wish to keep that infobox template, since both instances of this infobox are now transcluded from the campaign article? epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: It’s time to pull the plug. Thank you again. —LLarson (said & done) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. LLarson do you still wish to keep that infobox template, since both instances of this infobox are now transcluded from the campaign article? epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Epicgenius: I was just in the middle of getting it done—thanks for beating me to it! —LLarson (said & done) 02:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is already substed. It can be transcluded from one page to the other using section transclusion, which I have now done. This template is currently redundant, since it only used on two pages. Also, it is substed on one page, with the transclusion of the substed box to the other page. epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:User Frasier
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Uncontroversial, given the deletion of the proposed WikiProject in userspace. See this MfD. ~ RobTalk 15:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:User Frasier ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Orphaned unused template for a non-existent WikiProject. Misleading to link to a userspace version of a project. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy the proposed WikiProject is currently in userspace, so this should be moved into a subpage of that proposal page User:Bernstein2291/WikiProject Frasier/Template: User WikiProject Frasier -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy per .39 (and WP:UM) —PC-XT+ 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- As a note to closers, let's wait on the close of the MfD for the "temporary project page" currently residing in userspace. I think it's clear that the outcome of this TfD depends upon that MfD. ~ RobTalk 17:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Venus & Mars tracks
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed after ensuring {{Jett Rebel}} is on all relevant articles. ~ RobTalk 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Venus & Mars tracks ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Links to only 2 song articles which probably should be redirected anyway. At the very least, the navigation box {{Jett Rebel}} is certainly simple enough to provide similar navigation without issue. Also, much precedent already set from nominations of similar track list templates because of this redundant navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Relisted here. ~ RobTalk 05:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Also propose deleting
- Template:Virginia Slims of Albuquerque tournaments ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navboxes with just one or two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Virginia Slims of Boston template now contains a sufficient amount of links.--Wolbo (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Split from and Template:Split to
- Template:Split from ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → Template:Split to
- Template:Split to ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → Template:Split from
Propose switching names of Template:Split from and Template:Split to.
After stumbling upon this for years, I'd really like to figure out now whether I'm right or wrong that these two templates are completely misnamed, and should basically switch names.
Procedurally, if there is consensus, we'll have to go through every single tranclusion and see whether the template was placed following the template's title or the actual wording. Don't worry, we'll figure out a way to get that done. PanchoS (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Find better names for both: I was tripped up like you the first time I found these. However, the crux is the names are ambiguous either way. It depends on how you're looking at it:
-
-
Template Current meaning Proposed meaning {{Split from|Article}}
Article was split from this page This page was split from Article {{Split to|Article}}
Article was split to this page This page was split to Article
-
- Rather than swapping the two names, which is only going to make the situation more confused, I'd come up with new, unambiguous names for both. Maybe Template:Split from here and Template:Split to here, but there are probably no dearth of better names.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 21:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment instead, how about {{was split from}} and {{was split to}} since "split" could indicate an active request, as it is also the present tense form (like {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} instead of {{merged to}} and {{merged from}} -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support I support switching "from" and "to" in these templates as they never made sense to me, they should match the usage of {{merged to }} and {{merged from}} and {{afd-merged-from}} which make more logical sense in my opinion and WP:CONSISTENCY -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- How about split source and split destination? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I take it the template "source" would be for the page where the information originated from and template "destination" for the page where information was placed into ? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Those are my intended meanings. I did not explain in detail as I wanted to see if they were obvious. They have passed a test of one user, which is a good start, but inconclusive. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I take it the template "source" would be for the page where the information originated from and template "destination" for the page where information was placed into ? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- How about split source and split destination? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support I support switching "from" and "to" in these templates as they never made sense to me, they should match the usage of {{merged to }} and {{merged from}} and {{afd-merged-from}} which make more logical sense in my opinion and WP:CONSISTENCY -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is an error in the above table. The actual meanings are:
Template | Meaning |
---|---|
{{Split from|Article}} |
Content was split from this page to Article |
{{Split to|Article}} |
Content was split to this page from Article |
- "Article was split from this page" and "Article was split to this page" don't make sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I always have to check the documentation whenever I use these. I would not support swapping them as it still leaves it ambiguous depending the editor's point of view. I support the proposed renaming of source and destination. --Whpq (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Support(see below; better alternative) renaming to {{Split from here}} and {{Split to here}} since those are unambiguous namings if and only if the redirects go from the current destination to the future destination of the template (i.e. don't swap the redirects). Editors who spent years trying to figure these poorly named templates out shouldn't have the rug pulled out from under them, and the clean-up work to swap redirects would be massive. ~ RobTalk 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- {{Split to here}} implies that the template is for splitting the article back to itself, which makes no sense at all. The reality is, whatever the templates are called, people will get them wrong unless they read the documentation. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? A reasonable reading of {{Split to here}} suggests content was split from somewhere else to the current location. Your reading makes no sense, as you identified. ~ RobTalk 06:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Others have indicated that {{Split from}} and {{Split to}} are confusing and this suggestion just adds "here", which is essentially the same. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that adding here isn't that different. Peter (Southwood) has made an excellent proposal that removes the from and to wording replacing it with much clearer wording of source and destination. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Or we could try {{Split to here from}} with the source article name as a parameter and {{Split from here to}} with destination article name as parameter. Typing a few extra words in an unambiguous template would take far less time than working out what they mean each time with the current names. Getting a bot to replace the old templates is less likely to go wrong if the new ones have clearly different names. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ideally a splitting wizard would do all the splitting, tagging and recording of diffs automatically and the user just has to mark the source text and the destination position and answer any necessary questions, but that is another proposal altogether. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- How do these extra words fix the perceived problem and how would this splitting wizard work? (code wise I mean). Can you put something in the template sandboxes to show how the wizard does all this? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps your perception differs, but to me if it says "split to here from 'Source article name'", I would know that "here" refers to the destination article talk page.
- I wish I could suggest some code. Unfortunately that is outside my current skill set. I don't even know what language a wizard would be coded in. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- How do these extra words fix the perceived problem and how would this splitting wizard work? (code wise I mean). Can you put something in the template sandboxes to show how the wizard does all this? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ideally a splitting wizard would do all the splitting, tagging and recording of diffs automatically and the user just has to mark the source text and the destination position and answer any necessary questions, but that is another proposal altogether. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Or we could try {{Split to here from}} with the source article name as a parameter and {{Split from here to}} with destination article name as parameter. Typing a few extra words in an unambiguous template would take far less time than working out what they mean each time with the current names. Getting a bot to replace the old templates is less likely to go wrong if the new ones have clearly different names. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that adding here isn't that different. Peter (Southwood) has made an excellent proposal that removes the from and to wording replacing it with much clearer wording of source and destination. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Others have indicated that {{Split from}} and {{Split to}} are confusing and this suggestion just adds "here", which is essentially the same. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Huh? A reasonable reading of {{Split to here}} suggests content was split from somewhere else to the current location. Your reading makes no sense, as you identified. ~ RobTalk 06:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- {{Split to here}} implies that the template is for splitting the article back to itself, which makes no sense at all. The reality is, whatever the templates are called, people will get them wrong unless they read the documentation. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Whpq: Which proposal is the "excellent proposal"? I'm not seeing anything other than the suggestion I supported. The "was split from"/"was split to" is clearly ambiguous still, since we don't know whether it was the source article that was split from or the current article. On the other hand, "here" refers directly to the current article to differentiate between names. We could also possibly go with the slightly longer {{Split to this article}}/{{Split from this article}} to be even more clear. ~ RobTalk 14:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- It was "How about split source and split destination?" By using {{split source}} and {{split destination}} wording, we avoid using "to and "from" in any form, and the phrases "source" and "destination" make it very obvious which is for the source article for the split, and which is the destination article for the split. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alternate proposal - So just to make things more confusing, I want to throw out a different proposal. All of the discussion has assumed we need different templates at the source and destination article talk pages. Why? Would it not be easier to have the same template at both the source and destination. The editor dong the split can place the same template in both locations. I suggest something like {{split article|source=source page|destination=destination page...}}>. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support merge as first choice. Sidesteps the issue nicely and reduces redundancy. ~ RobTalk 19:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PanchoS, Pbsouthwood, and AussieLegend: to get some eyes on this before someone comes along and closes the discussion. This proposal is worth discussion before the close. It seems like an obvious winner to me. If I missed any contributors at this TfD, please feel free to ping them as well. ~ RobTalk 21:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support merge as first choice. Sidesteps the issue nicely and reduces redundancy. ~ RobTalk 19:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Nice idea in principle. How would the diffs be handled? what would the display include/look like?• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @BU Rob13: Thanks for pinging me to finally return to this discussion.
I'd like to Reaffirm my original proposal. I don't think I agree with Ketiltrout's position that the naming would be ambiguous either way.{{Split from|that other page}}
IMHO clearly suggests the current page contains content split from that other page, which – while exactly not how it currently works – would be in line with{{merged from}}
and{{afd-merged-from}}
.
Ultimately, I also don't think that the alternate, merge proposal is the best solution – sorry Whpq – as it further complicates the template's usage, offering two mutually exclusive parameters to pick from. A (Twinkle) wizard, as suggested by Pbsouthwood would clearly be awesome, and something we should subsequently propose. It would just be the cherry on the cake, with another, second cherry being: allow rolling both templates into{{Article history}}
.
But even if these cherry toppings were ready by today, we'd still have to get the templates' basic syntax fixed. In the end, I stand by my original proposal to switch the names so they make obvious sense and are in line with{{merged from}}
and{{afd-merged-from}}
. --PanchoS (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- @PanchoS: I don't think I understand your position - what do you mean by "mutually exclusive" parameters? He was suggesting that all template uses contain both the source and destination pages in them, which would then generate text that looks something like "Content from XXXX was split to YYYY". This would display on both pages. Could you explain what part of that involves mutual exclusivity? ~ RobTalk 22:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Well, these templates are placed on the Talk page of the respective article, and we're usually not hardcoding the title of the corresponding page in a template, for the following reason: if the article (together with its Talk page) gets renamed at a later point, we don't unnecessarily want yet another place where the page mover has to correct a parameter. Actually, in order to ensure the attribution chain is never broken, we'd need to put in the page ID of the counterpart (see "Page information" in the Toolbox). But yeah, this doesn't mean the parameters were mutually exclusive. The template could match the given input with the current page name and show only the counterpart. So yes, maybe it's not all too bad, but still I fail to see how
{{Split from|that other page}}
may be considered ambiguous, especially not if the template's output reads "Material included in the associated article page was split from that other page". If I'm not completely mistaken, this is not ambiguous at all. --PanchoS (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Well, these templates are placed on the Talk page of the respective article, and we're usually not hardcoding the title of the corresponding page in a template, for the following reason: if the article (together with its Talk page) gets renamed at a later point, we don't unnecessarily want yet another place where the page mover has to correct a parameter. Actually, in order to ensure the attribution chain is never broken, we'd need to put in the page ID of the counterpart (see "Page information" in the Toolbox). But yeah, this doesn't mean the parameters were mutually exclusive. The template could match the given input with the current page name and show only the counterpart. So yes, maybe it's not all too bad, but still I fail to see how
- @PanchoS: I don't think I understand your position - what do you mean by "mutually exclusive" parameters? He was suggesting that all template uses contain both the source and destination pages in them, which would then generate text that looks something like "Content from XXXX was split to YYYY". This would display on both pages. Could you explain what part of that involves mutual exclusivity? ~ RobTalk 22:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't see any clear "winner" in all of the proposed names. They are either just as ambiguous as the existing names are claimed to be, or they are too long. As for merging the two, that does have some merit, but what would the resultant template be called? {{Split}}? um, no, that wouldn't work. The name still needs to be worked out, regardless of whether you rename or merge. A wizard is really outside the scope of this discussion. There are far too many variables when splitting content from one page to another, and somebody would have to write the code, which is not a 5 minute job, and you have to find someone willing to do it. "Hey Siri, {{split this page for me}}", just won't work.
- we're usually not hardcoding the title of the corresponding page in a template, for the following reason: if the article (together with its Talk page) gets renamed at a later point, we don't unnecessarily want yet another place where the page mover has to correct a parameter. Maybe I've misread you, but we do actually include the source or destination page names when splitting. Redirects mean nothing has to change unless somebody subsequently deletes the redirect. I split List of NCIS episodes 7 years ago and it hasn't been a problem yet.
- For the record, my preference, if there is a need to change (and I'm not yet convinced that there is), would be to set these templates up like {{refimprove}}. {{refimprove section}} is not a stand-alone template. It actually calls {{refimprove}} and needs that template to work, as all the functionality is there. For these templates, both {{split from}} and {{split to}} would call another template, like {{split article}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
March 12
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Relisted here. ~ RobTalk 02:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also propose deleting
Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
What is the reason for deletion. What makes this navbox different from numerous others associated with women's college basketball that are not. Articles exist for two of the coaches. That's one more article than several others that I looked at. I would think that if this navbox is flagged for deletion, the others should be also. Here's a quick list of others meeeting the same criteria of "just two pages". Boston College Eagles - two; Connecticut Huskies - one; Duke Blue Devils - one; Georgia Lady Bulldogs - two; Hofstra Pride - two; Iowa Hawkeyes - two; Iowas State Cyclones - one; Liberty Lady Flames - one; Michigan State Spartans - two; Mississippi State Lady Bulldogs - two; Nebraska Cornhuskers - one; North Dakota State Bisons - one; Notre Dame Fighting Irish - one; Ohio Bobcats - two; Oregon State Beavers - two; Sam Houston State Bearkats - two; San Diego State Aztecs - two; San Diego Toreros - one; St. Francis Brooklyn Terriers - one; Syracuse Orange - two
LUSportsFan (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument against deletion. The purpose of a Navbox is to navigate between multiple articles on a related topic. The conensus of multiple TFDs is that two links isn't enough and that templates shouldn't be created till the articles are created. Since you brought the other templates to my attention, I will go through them and see any should also be nominated. Right this minute, I don't have the time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- If that's the case and consensus, I have no problems with deleting the navbox for now as long as the WP:TOOSOON criteria is applied equitably. As a guideline, what would be considered enough articles to warrant creating a navbox? There are at least two other coaches for this particular navbox who I think would qualify for an article or at least an article with several coaches listed. One of those coaches (Al Barbre) took the team to the 1991 NCAA Division I Tournament Elite Eight. The team was pretty much a "Cinderella" team in that tournament with wins over the Texas, LSU, and Arkansas teams. Another coach on the list, Pat Park, was a very successful head coach for several women's sports in the early days of women's college sports. She's a member of the National Collegiate Golf Coaches Association Hall of Fame and received several other honors over her coaching career. Here's a link to a recent article about Coach Park.[1]
- I don't know whether or not the remaining coaches would warrant a standalone article. They would probably warrant being included in an article covering several coaches. I held off creating the two articles I thought met a materiality test (Park and Barbre) because sufficient citations aren't available over the internet. Those two coaches along with several others were before the internet. I will need to go to printed media or microfiches of that media from back in the day to provide supporting sources. I think lack of easily accessible electronic sources is most likely the challenge for a lot, if not all, of the coaches in the other navboxes listed above.
- Thanks for your help.LUSportsFan (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument against deletion. The purpose of a Navbox is to navigate between multiple articles on a related topic. The conensus of multiple TFDs is that two links isn't enough and that templates shouldn't be created till the articles are created. Since you brought the other templates to my attention, I will go through them and see any should also be nominated. Right this minute, I don't have the time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Former LU coach Pat Park to be honored". Lamar University Athletics. Retrieved March 12, 2016.
-
-
-
- Just an update: Eight articles are currently linked to the navbox following recent creation of articles for Leonard Davis, Liz Galloway McQuitter, David McKey, Al Barbre, Charlotte (Chickie) Mason, and Cindy Russo.
-
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. ~ RobTalk 01:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Navbox with just two links. It could get more in the future but this is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Miami FC (2016) squad
- Template:Miami FC (2016) squad ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Miami FC squad ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Miami FC (2016) squad with Template:Miami FC squad.
Article title is Miami FC, so squad navbox should be Template:Miami FC squad Joeykai (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete {{Miami FC squad}} and then move {{Miami FC (2016) squad}} there. These are unrelated pages, so the page history of Miami FC squad doesn't need to be preserved and there's no merging to be done. Clearly {{Miami FC squad}} is more useful as the home of the 2016 team's template than as a redirect. ~ RobTalk 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
March 11
Template:Hay and Stone
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ RobTalk 01:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Hay and Stone ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a nav box for a band that did not meet notability and the article was redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hay and Stone. As such, the template navigates a topic with no article. Whpq (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hay and Stone. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:NAVBOX requires an article —PC-XT+ 01:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:ColtsFirstPick
- Template:ColtsFirstPick ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I wonder if these and all the NFL first-round picks by team templates are excessive. There are also templates for first-round picks by draft year and separate templates for, in this case, all of the Colts picks by draft year so the same person comes up in three different templates. Categories would be different but it seems excessive that Don McCauley is in Template:1971 NFL Draft (1971 first round), Template:Colts1971DraftPicks (being on the far left, intuitively is the first pick which is generally first round) and in this template. Not every team has a template for each year of picks so I'm just starting with this one template and trying to see if there's a consensus on whether all three are appropriate. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Honestly a template for each draft year for a team seems the most obnoxious. Looking at it as a reader I can't imagine very many people would even care about which Colts were drafted in 1971, let alone use the template. Lizard (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I find these to be useful. Template:Colts1971DraftPicks and similar ones I don't have a strong opinion on and I don't really use, but the first round ones by team should stay.--Yankees10 23:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Yankees10. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't think of a situation in which someone would want to navigate to another first round draft pick only because they were a first round draft pick, and even if some obscure situations exist, they're not frequent enough to justify the navbox cruft. ~ RobTalk 01:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
March 3
Template:S-par/ie/oi
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep. The vast majority are in agreement that this TfD identified a legitimate problem and the problem was subsequently fixed. ~ RobTalk 22:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:S-par/ie/oi ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Nominator's rationale Only elections in the Republic of Ireland, Malta, to the Australian Senate and to the Northern Ireland Assembly use the STV variant of Proportional representation. The template should not be used for elections that take place using the Single transferable vote system with multi-seat constituencies. It is used in this way for elections to the Oireachtas (the parliament of Ireland). It is illogical for multi-seat constituencies to use the box as there is no such thing as a named person being the predecessor or the successor. Instead, there are potentially multiple predecessors and multiple successors. The Dáil does not recognise a person as being the first / second / third / fourth / fifth member of the constituency. All TDs have equal standing. The Prime Minister of Malta, Joseph Muscat, does not use the box. The First Minister of Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster, does not use the box. The President of the Australian Senate, Stephen Parry, does not use the box.
The situation gets even more ludicrous in the case of those TDs who switch party allegiances. The Progressive Democrats furnished us with many examples of political turncoats in their early years. Perhaps the most agile was Martin Cullen. He is supplied with three succession boxes corresponding to his three terms as a Teachta Dála in the Waterford (Dáil Éireann constituency). To anybody unfamiliar with the nuances of Irish elections, the presentation is baffling and the conclusions contradictory:
- “Progressive Democrats Teachta Dála for Waterford 1987–1989”. In this seat he was “Preceded by” Edward Collins, (Fine Gael) and “Succeeded by” Brian O'Shea, (Labour Party). How can a PD TD be preceded by anyone other than another PD TD? How can a PD TD be succeeded by anyone other than another PD TD?
- “Progressive Democrats Teachta Dála for Waterford 1992–1994”. In this seat he was “Preceded by” Jackie Fahey (Fianna Fáil) and “Succeeded by” – hilariously – Himself as Fianna Fáil TD. ).
- “Fianna Fáil Teachta Dála for Waterford 1994–2010”. In this seat he was “Preceded by” Himself as Progressive Democrats TD and “ Succeeded by” Paudie Coffey, (Fine Gael). How can a PD TD be succeeded by anyone other than another PD TD?
The template is only useful for single seat constituencies. For example, the box for David Cameron lists : “Member of Parliament for Witney 2001–present” where he was “Preceded by” Shaun Woodward and “Succeeded by” Incumbent. No mention is made of his party. Laurel Lodged . Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom.(Changed on 15 March, see below). I'd been wondering about this myself. The only possible way it could justifiably be used in Irish Dáil elections is in a by-elections, when a vacancy is effectively "single-seat". But although technically applicable in such cases, it defies common sense to use it there. Similarly - constituencies change. Who "succeeded" who when Dublin Bay North returned it's first five TDs following the abolition of Dublin North East and Dublin North Central (both three seats). What happens if more than one TD changes at an election? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭ?! 10:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Postpone. There needs to be some way of detailing, in a TD's infobox, the seat/s they represented. Many TD's pages (going right back to the foundation of the state) are marred by this infobox not being added and so it not being obvious which seat they represented and when. One alternative would be to take the approach adopted with 19th C UK MPs in multi-member seats - Preceded by <All the MPs> - MP for such and such a seat with <Other MPs> - Followed by <All the MPs>. That just about works with two-member seats in the 19th C UK (and even then it is hazy on this site). It seems impossible with five-member seats (and, pre-Emergency, sometimes eight- and nine-member seats. The existing infobox should not be deleted without an alternative being available.
- As for the point above from Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭ?! about who succeeded who in Dublin Bay North; just as with UK constituencies, it should read: "New constituency - <Party> TD for Dubin Bay North, 2016-". No predecessors. Marplesmustgo (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- "There needs to be some way of detailing, in a TD's infobox, the seat/s they represented." Yes - but doesn't the officeholder infobox do that perfectly well (when used)? This discussion is about the succession box, which is different. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭ?! 15:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- The TD's infobox is the place to store the seat/s they represented. This template is not that place. Why should Ireland, alone of all the countries that use STV, be the exception? How can a listing of 5 TDs be deemed to be a predecessor? There can only be 1 immediate predecessor. It is illogical to present it in a way that shows multiple immediate predecessors. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose - It should not be deleted without an alternative being offered. Agree with point above, the Preceded and Succeeded should list all TDs in the constituency. Spleodrach (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Please explain why it is necessary to offer an alternative. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- You should offer an alternative then mere deletion. Also it is used (or rather s-par|ni/ass) in Arelene Foster's article. Spleodrach (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please explain why it is necessary to offer an alternative. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- delete It is absolute nonsense to say the succession of these election is anything other than one collection of people to another collection. I find this particularly bad where this encyclopedia uses sectarianism to define succession in NI. Question why do we not take a holistic approach and delete ni/ass on the same basis? 82.18.177.13 (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
delete per nom. Impossible to identify a single predecessor/successor in multi-member constituencies, --NSH002 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)changed to Keep. I am persuaded by BHG's argument below. --NSH002 (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)-
delete Serves no useful function. Predecessors are all right with hereditaments as it is a one to one linear chain of succession but as constituencies change all the time (not just in name) it is too clunky as deployed on the wiki now.Wikimucker (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)- Changed stance to OPPOSE albeit with usage in future as detailed by BHG belowWikimucker (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- It would appear that @BrownHairedGirl: is attempting to subvert, or at the very least to render moot this discussion by doing a solo run of a load of the boxes for TDs. She is implementing the suggestion made by @Marplesmustgo: above even though it has attracted virtually no support. This is deplorable and she should know better. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strong procedural and substantive oppose. This nomination addresses a genuine problem, but it does so in the wrong forum, and proposes an action which cannot resolve the problem identified.
- The problem is real: the misuse of succession boxes to pretend that there is an office "Partyname TD for Foo", and to pretend that one TD out of a group succeeded one particular individual out of a set of predecessors. The nature of Irish STV elections is that TDs are elected as individuals, in contrast to list systems where they are elected to a party slot. Those succession boxes which try to claim that there is a defined slot for a party are simply wrong.
- However, using TFD to address this is procedurally wrong, because it cannot resolve the problem identified. If this template is deleted, only the header is removed; the succession boxes remain, and cannot be deleted without the consensus of a discussion which actually makes that proposal in the proper forum, i.e. WP:RFC. In short, this TFD puts the cart before the horse -- removing the label while leaving the claimed fault in place.
- The proposal is also substantively wrong, because it is based on the nominator's false assertion that the template is only useful for single seat constituencies. In fact, the succession box system has been designed for nearly a decade to work in multi-seat constituencies, and has been long used in the many multi-seat constituencies which existed in the United Kingdom until 1950 (2-seaters were the norm until 1832), and it can easily be used For Dail Eireann. See for example City of London, where there were 4 seats until 1885; and Weymouth & Melcombe Regis, where there were 4 seats until 1832. Look for example at MPs such as Christopher Idle and Sir John Murray, 8th Baronet.
- So there is a simple solution: to use succession boxes as designed, to present TDs in the context of all their contemporaries in that seat. To illustrate how this works with the Dail, I have implemented this style of succession box on:
- A TD re-elected in 2016: Finian McGrath
- A TD defeated in 2016 John Perry
- A former TD returned in 2016: Seán Haughey
- A few new TDs: Kate O'Connell, Jim O'Callaghan
- Some TDs for Dublin South-East: Kevin Humphreys, Lucinda Creighton, Chris Andrews, John Gormley, Michael McDowell, Frances Fitzgerald
- All TDs for Dublin Mid–West: John Curran, Mary Harney, Paul Gogarty, Joanna Tuffy, Frances Fitzgerald, Robert Dowds, Derek Keating, Eoin Ó Broin, John Curran, Gino Kenny.
- I know that's a big sample, but I wanted to test a variety of cases. And AFAICS, it works well, and avoids the inaccuracies identified by the nominator.
- This is not really a proper place to debate whether to have TD succession boxes, or how to present them. But it does illustrate that the current problem does not require deletion of {{S-par/ie/oi}} ... and that the header template can actually be part of a good solution.
- I am aware that there would be work involved in creating the new style of succession box, but it's not too onerous. I have created several thousand such boxes for UK MPs, but there have been only about 1300 TDs since 1919. So it's not a daunting task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging previous participants in this TFD to ask them to consider my points. @Wikimucker, NSH002, Spleodrach, Bastun, Laurel Lodged, and Marplesmustgo: hope I have not missed anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Great being an Admin around here, if a User edits articles to give an example of what they are talking about they get swarmed by nutters indiscriminately quoting WP:*.* at them on talk pages all the time.
- Anyway I highly commend User:BrownHairedGirl for the given examples of how to improve the antecede/succeed trail that they edited into some Dublin TD profiles and particularly like the Seán Haughey workup if one wants to look at only the one example. Seán was reelected to a new constituency that differed from the one that rejected him 5 years earlier...and yet it was not new. I think the layout is very good and captures the antecede/succeed meme perfectly. Naturally the data is perfect.
- I remain uncertain as to how this can be templated as such. But I do very much like the presentation of the information itself. :: Moved stance on template to neutral above. Wikimucker (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Wikimucker: the examples which I created all use the standard succession box templates: {{s-bef}}, {{s-ttl}}, {{s-aft}}. In fact, these are the same templates as were used before; it's just that the earlier uses were (as we all seem to agree) a misuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to others to comment from their point of view BrownHairedGirl I do like your presentation of the data like I said and moved stance to neutral on delete is all. Wikimucker (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Wikimucker: the examples which I created all use the standard succession box templates: {{s-bef}}, {{s-ttl}}, {{s-aft}}. In fact, these are the same templates as were used before; it's just that the earlier uses were (as we all seem to agree) a misuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per BHG. Laurel Lodged identified a genuine problem/misuse, but BrownHairedGirl's solution addresses all concerns. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭ?! 13:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Demonstration. The nominator rightly identified Waterford' PD/FF TD Martin Cullen as a particularly silly example of the current misuse of succession boxes. So I thought it might help to compare that model of box with the new one I am proposing. Here is
- I have self-reverted[5] my changes, so that while this discussion is underway, the nom's link to Martin Cullen appears as the nom intended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- In the 'Good' Martin Cullen Example I wonder if the boxes should really be formatted as (EG) Preceeded By [Members_of_the_24th_Dáil|24th Dáil] Succeeded By [Members_of_the_26th_Dáil|26th Dáil] Teachta Dála for Waterford
- 1987–1989 25th Dáil rather than Preceeded By (List) Member For Waterford 1987- Succeeded By (List) as in your 'Good' Example BHG it clarifies matters a tad better I feel. Wikimucker (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Wikimucker: I see where you are coming from, but your proposal would amount to a redesign of the succession box templates (creating a specialist fork), rather than using the existing templates. May I suggest that you take a little time to study how the succession box suite of templates works, and then to experiment in your sandbox?
- Even if the templates were modified, I see several problems with what you propose, e.g.
- Using "nth Dáil" as a header will be meaningless to most readers. I'm an obsessive political anorak with an unhealthily-detailed knowledge of Irish elections, but to correlate the Dáil number with a year even I have to count backwards from the current Dáil.
- The current left and right columns do not list the TDs in a particular Dáil. They list the TD's immediate predecessors, who may be in the same Dáil if the TD was elected at a by-election. Similarly, if there was a by-election in that constituency in the previous Dáil, then the TD's immediate predecessors will not be the same as the list of TDs elected at the start of the previous Dáil.
- --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Grand. Lets freeze best practice at last known Good Martin Cullen Your layouts to date BHG were broadly accepted so I doubt anyone changed their mind since. I have modified my stance above. Wikimucker (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It's difficult to know which vista is the more appaling:
- The subversion of the process by changing the nature of the template was still in discussion under the spurious guise of "examples"
- The work in involved in updating hundreds of politicians templates in order to give effect to BHD's decision
- The sheer ugliness of the solution
None of this matters of course. An Admin has spoken, causa finita est. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's a pity. When I posted on LL's talk page to seek a response, I hoped that there might be some attempt at an intelligent reply. Instead, we get a litany of petulant silliness:
- The TfD process was in no way subverted. The template was neither added to any article no removed from it, nor were any of its parameters changed. The articles whose succession boxes have been updated have all been transparently listed here, so if there had been a consensus to revert to the style LL deplores, it could be done easily. Similarly, if there is a consensus to remove the succession boxes, the removal of the modified ones will be no different: exactly the same regex parameters would work.
- This is not "BHG's decision"; whatever decision is made will be a consensus decision. Having identified a problem, work was going to be involved one way or another.
- If LL finds the solution "ugly", it's a pity that they didn't take the time to explain why and how they view it that way. The bare adjective doesn't identify any problems.
- The fact that I am an admin is irrelevant to this discussion. Everything I have done here could have been done by any editor, and my comments will be weighed the same as those of any other editor. It is sad that once again, LL has chosen to avoid any comment on the substance of the issues, and instead launch a series of unfounded personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:MaryJanice Davidson
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was procedural keep. The AfD is still awaiting a close, and this TfD clearly depends on its result. Feel free to open another TfD once the AfD closes. ~ RobTalk 01:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:MaryJanice Davidson ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navbox only serves to link articles which fail WP:BOOK and are all currently at Afd here. Since none of these books merit separate articles, a list on the author's page will suffice. —swpbT 19:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Postpone wait until the AfDs have been processed to see how many articles will remain afterwards -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Procedural close This is out of process: lets close it when there is nothing to navigate to, not before that discussion is concluded, Sadads (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:EUnum
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was no consensus, though this may be attributed to the TFD notice being wrapped in <noinclude> tags. Because of this, there is NPASR, especially if policy-based reasons at WP:TG are included. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:EUnum ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Doesn't seem particularly useful as the number of EU member states doesn't increase at the rate that it would be unreasonable to manually update the specific number on articles. There could potentially be a issues with the template rendering on some browsers or lower-end computers. Prisencolin (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep whether it would be reasonable to manually update or not, the fact is that it isn't manually updated. It's been nearly 3 years since the number last changed, and there are still out of date numbers. A quick search turned up: Nuclear power in France, Third-country economic relationships with the European Union. TDL (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:TempName2016
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:TempName2016 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Substituted the template to the pages in which it was transcluded, before realising the articles already had this information already, rendering this template unused. AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 14:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:USA2016REP
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:USA2016REP ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template is only used in one article (Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016) and is not likely to be used anywhere else. So this template is not needed as it can simply be replaced with a table in the article. Mlpearc (open channel) 06:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Subst and delete – sst? 10:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Subst and delete – Agreed. Use the info in the template for the table.DrFargi (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep—it's too beautiful....Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Egyptian Gods Genealogy
- Template:Egyptian Gods Genealogy ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
It is apparently unclear whether a single definite genealogy of Egyptian gods exists, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of the Egyptian gods. I declined speedy deletion, but it is probably worth thinking about whether this unsourced genealogy template should be used at all. —Kusma (t·c) 06:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I tagged the template for speedy deletion, but I can think of one circumstance in which it might not need to be. Large genealogies like this one inherently require synthesis, because Egyptian sources describe single relationships (parents, children, siblings, spouses) but not a coherent family tree. The only exception, or at least the only significant one, is the Ennead. If we want to include a genealogy in the articles on the gods who are members of the Ennead, this template might be reworked for that purpose and moved to a title like "Genealogy of the Ennead". If not, the template should simply be deleted. A. Parrot (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Suggest redirect to List of Egyptian deities. Goustien (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Keep: A family tree is just chart that summarizes family relationships. Many charts on Wikipedia summarize or show information from multiple sources (such as this one on Christianity by country). There is no Wikipedia policy against combining any material from multiple sources. That would be an unworkable policy. WP:Synth merely says not to combine material in a way that implies a conclusion that is not stated by any of the sources. Of course this implies that there are sources for the chart. It does seem to need some citations. tahc chat 02:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The problem is that there is no consistent genealogy for the Egyptian gods. The Greek pantheon, which does have a Wikipedia chart like this one, has a somewhat consistent genealogy thanks to the influence of the Theogony, which has no Egyptian equivalent. Countless relationships between the gods are mentioned in various Egyptian sources, but they are overlapping and contradictory, and they always depend on the context. In Ptolemaic times, for instance, practically every temple to a male deity included a female consort and a male child. The consort was usually Isis or Hathor, and the child was usually Horus the Child or a form of him, but the father varied depending on the location. Various texts give different versions of Anubis's parentage, and if you stick them all together, he has three fathers and three or four mothers. Constructing a single family tree from multiple sources rips the relationships out of their context and makes them meaningless. A chart containing all those relationships would be unreadable, so there's inherent synthesis in choosing which to include and which to leave out. The only extended family tree that appears consistently in multiple sources is that of the Ennead. A. Parrot (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per the AfD outcome. That discussion was conducted by individuals much more aware of the actual content of this template than us TfDers, and they decided the family tree was so indeterminate that it couldn't even be explained in an entire article. How can we possibly hope to convey in a single image what couldn't be conveyed using an entire article? ~ RobTalk 01:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Non-DCAU DC TV animation
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Non-DCAU DC TV animation ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant template. Template:DC Comics animated TV series covers all animated TV series based upon DC Comics, while this template lists those not part of the DC animated universe. Besides being unnecessary, it's reverse logic to have a template based upon something to which it doesn't belong. Soetermans. T / C 17:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as stated above based on "non-something." There are two universes that I am aware of (DCAU and DC Nation) which under the logic of this existing template means creating five templates total: two for shows within each of two universes, two covering the exact opposite, and one for shows that cover "no-universe" such as shows from the 1970s (Super Friends and The New Adventures of Batman, etc.) — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 01:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not a moderator or someone in charge on the site or whatever, I am also not the person who made that template, but I agree it is pretty redundant. However, could some kind of denotation be put in the Template:DC Comics animated TV series to differentiate between such things so that other editors dont feel the need to put something like this again or revert the edit or whatever? It is just a thought.
76.174.79.74 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
February 25
Article Feedback Tool templates
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Keep, but remove any uses from the mainspace. ~ RobTalk 15:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Leave feedback ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Feedback editintro ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Feedback preload ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Feedback page ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Has feedback page ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
See Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool: "AFT5 was removed from all Wikimedia wikis on March 3, 2014." Therefore, no need for these templates to be left on pages. See Category:Wikipedia feedback pages for pages that use it and see wasted posts made there in the last 30 days. Anything related to AFT is wasting time of any newbie who thinks it is still used. There are probably more useless pages related to AFT if anyone wants to weed them out. Rgrds. --64.85.216.192 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- It seems these should be removed from articles, (orphaned,) and maybe moved to one or more subpages of Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool and marked historical? —PC-XT+ 03:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with the Article Feedback Tool; it's a separate wiki-based feedback system. I don't have any opinion on the templates, but the nomination is wrong. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it did have something to do with AF; see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_76#Ratings poll a distraction?, etc. — SMcCandlish ? ? ¢?≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼? 23:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: It is presently being used at places like Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. As long as it's documented as only being for use outside of mainspace, it seems to serve a function. I'm skeptical of anything that is an "alternative talk page", but this actually seems to exist for polling on specific questions ("Is this new feature of our project useful?", etc.) to get quick feedback from users of a resource here, without bothering the community with RfCs. — SMcCandlish ? ? ¢?≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼? 23:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Bassets
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete; no opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Bassets ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose deletion. All dogs covered in this template are already covered in Template:Hounds, Template:Pastoral dogs or Template:Terriers along with their national breed templates (Template:British dogs, Template:French dogs and Template:German dogs etc). Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- My apologies, added proposed action above. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Swedish far-right
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep. BethNaught (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Swedish far-right ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose deletion - Far right politicians and parties of sweden, but it includes nazis too. I think its really wrong - some kind of guilty by association. (Alternatively it could be renamed to nazism in Sweden (e.g. remove everything but the nazis)) Christian75 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This template is about far-right, ie racist and nazi politics. These parties are to a large extent associated with each other and often share members and history. This proposal is based either on a misunderstanding, or possibly a desire to whitewash the history of some of these groups. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This is a useful navigation device for related groups and individuals in Sweden. It is not guilt by association, since these groups are connected, although there is an attempt for the far right today to distance itself from the pre-1945 far right. The Sweden Democrats for example banned the wearing of Nazi uniforms by its members in 1996, but the group's origins can be traced back to the pre-war National League of Sweden which was pro-Nazi. TFD (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Honda international timeline
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was relist at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 29. ~ RobTalk 19:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Honda international timeline ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Modern Honda vehicles ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Honda international timeline with Template:Modern Honda vehicles.
Redundant template, the latter has covered more models. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:2016 UCI World Championships
- Template:2016 UCI World Championships ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World championships in 2016 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:2016 UCI World Championships with Template:World championships in 2016.
The Cycling template is redundant with the other one with all world championships. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- sounds reasonable. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose there are many world championships in any year, the proposed target is missing many of them. Any comprehensive footer would be very large and unfocused. Further the proposed target even currently excludes world club championships, so isn't even meant to be comprehensive. At best, each sanctioning body should have a set index listing all their championships per year (such as creating one for 2016 UCI World Championships) and that should be what "Template:World championships in 2016" navigates between, and not individual championships unless the sanctioning body only sanctions one championship. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's clear that viewers of the UCI World Championship subpages would want to navigate to other UCI World Championship subpages, but it's not clear at all that someone looking at cycling world championship pages would care about other sport world championships. More importantly, these templates don't serve the same purpose. One navigates to other sports, while the other navigates among subpages of a single event. ~ RobTalk 15:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:2015 UCI World Championships
- Template:2015 UCI World Championships ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World championships in 2015 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:2015 UCI World Championships with Template:World championships in 2015.
The Cycling template is redundant with the other one with all world championships. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- sounds reasonable. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose there are many world championships in any year, the proposed target is missing many of them. Any comprehensive footer would be very large and unfocused. Further the proposed target even currently excludes world club championships, so isn't even meant to be comprehensive. At best, each sanctioning body should have a set index listing all their championships per year (such as the one for 2015 UCI World Championships) and that should be what "Template:World championships in 2015" navigates between, and not individual championships unless the sanctioning body only sanctions one championship -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's clear that viewers of the UCI World Championship subpages would want to navigate to other UCI World Championship subpages, but it's not clear at all that someone looking at cycling world championship pages would care about other sport world championships. More importantly, these templates don't serve the same purpose. One navigates to other sports, while the other navigates among subpages of a single event. ~ RobTalk 15:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:2014 UCI World Championships
- Template:2014 UCI World Championships ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:World championships in 2014 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:2014 UCI World Championships with Template:World championships in 2014.
The Cycling template is redundant with the other one with all world championships. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- sounds reasonable. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose there are many world championships in any year, the proposed target is missing most of them. Any comprehensive footer would be very large and unfocused. Further the proposed target even currently excludes world club championships, so isn't even meant to be comprehensive. At best, each sanctioning body should have a set index listing all their championships per year (such as creating one for 2014 UCI World Championships) and that should be what "Template:World championships in 2014" navigates between, and not individual championships unless the sanctioning body only sanctions one championship. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- 70.51.46.39, The footer will not become too larger. See for instance the 2016 footer Template:World championships in 2016 that includes almost all World Championships and can easily expanded with more, without becoming unfocused. Your 2nd point, cycling doesn't have club world championships. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 12:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- That 2016 template most definitely does not contain everything There are many world championships missing from that template. And it specifically excludes several world championships, so is a poor use of the pagename. Club championships exists in several sports, the target templates exclude them, which is not the same as all world championships, since they are excluded for seemingly arbitrariness. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- 70.51.46.39 can you give the many names of the world championships that are missing in the templates? Besides of that, adding the club world championships to that template is another discussion and should not be done here. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 16:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- The most famous world championship in the world is a club and individual championship, the Formula One World Championship which is completely missing from the template, as is the MotoGP World Championship. WJHC is also missing from that template. There are a multitude of world championships in the vein of WJHC that are missing from all these year templates. The year templates should not link to individual championships, but instead should link to topic area per year lists. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- So this is not a reason not to merge the templates: seperate templates for junior and club world championships can be made and the motor world championship can be added to the template.What you want is a whole (unnessary) new structure. What you can do is propose a new template, but that is off-topic for this discussion. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 07:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Formula One driver's championship is also an individual title that is not won by the team. As I said, the separation of the club championships makes no sense with a template under this title. And similarly for senior, junior, etc, since you already want to add disabled athletes, why single out oldtimers and the young? And we still are missing individual non-old non-young non-disabled world championships from that template. Further we have {{UCI World Championships}} -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Junior or Senior championships are separate events, and are as such already singled out and not by us. Having a "Junior world championships", a "Senior world championships" and a "World championships" template make perfect sense. That said I have no opinion on the merging, I think the World Championships template needs to be expanded first, to see how big it is. If it gets too big it makes sense to "spread out" over many templates. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Seniors and Juniors and Club ones are still world championships, there is no reason for a template called "World Championships" to exclude any of them if it is being used to list all "World Championships" instead of listing navigation pages to world championships (or if the sport/sanctioning body only has one, that particular one) If this template is meant to exclude them because tournaments have age restrictions (and several do have minimums) then the template should not be called "World Championships" without restriction, it should add a term to it to indicate it isn't clubs or the young, etc. like Template:2016 adult individual competitor world championships or somesuch, and leave "2016 world championships" for general navigation for all world championships (as I have already said for what it should be used for, sports/sanctioning body based navigation pages) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Junior or Senior championships are separate events, and are as such already singled out and not by us. Having a "Junior world championships", a "Senior world championships" and a "World championships" template make perfect sense. That said I have no opinion on the merging, I think the World Championships template needs to be expanded first, to see how big it is. If it gets too big it makes sense to "spread out" over many templates. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Formula One driver's championship is also an individual title that is not won by the team. As I said, the separation of the club championships makes no sense with a template under this title. And similarly for senior, junior, etc, since you already want to add disabled athletes, why single out oldtimers and the young? And we still are missing individual non-old non-young non-disabled world championships from that template. Further we have {{UCI World Championships}} -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- So this is not a reason not to merge the templates: seperate templates for junior and club world championships can be made and the motor world championship can be added to the template.What you want is a whole (unnessary) new structure. What you can do is propose a new template, but that is off-topic for this discussion. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 07:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- The most famous world championship in the world is a club and individual championship, the Formula One World Championship which is completely missing from the template, as is the MotoGP World Championship. WJHC is also missing from that template. There are a multitude of world championships in the vein of WJHC that are missing from all these year templates. The year templates should not link to individual championships, but instead should link to topic area per year lists. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- 70.51.46.39 can you give the many names of the world championships that are missing in the templates? Besides of that, adding the club world championships to that template is another discussion and should not be done here. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 16:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- That 2016 template most definitely does not contain everything There are many world championships missing from that template. And it specifically excludes several world championships, so is a poor use of the pagename. Club championships exists in several sports, the target templates exclude them, which is not the same as all world championships, since they are excluded for seemingly arbitrariness. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- 70.51.46.39, The footer will not become too larger. See for instance the 2016 footer Template:World championships in 2016 that includes almost all World Championships and can easily expanded with more, without becoming unfocused. Your 2nd point, cycling doesn't have club world championships. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 12:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's clear that viewers of the UCI World Championship subpages would want to navigate to other UCI World Championship subpages, but it's not clear at all that someone looking at cycling world championship pages would care about other sport world championships. More importantly, these templates don't serve the same purpose. One navigates to other sports, while the other navigates among subpages of a single event. ~ RobTalk 15:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:State leaders by year
- Template:State leaders by year ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template is ridiculously long; should rather be split between centuries, instead (as per Tavix). --Neve–selbert 07:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- delete as redundant to the navigation provided by Template:SLBY. if we need more links in Template:SLBY, we can add them, but we don't need a massive redundant chunk of navigation at the foot of the articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- keep and improve. Template useful when navigating lists (moving from one year to the other). Something not addressed Template:SLBY. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Too long to provide useful navigation. Better dealt with by categories. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The underlying prolem is the many many "List of state leaders in 0000" pages. The state leaders in 1960 is very nearly the same as state leaders in 1961. It is very combersome to verifiy, maintain, and navigate the hundereds of pages like this. For earlier times it should merged into lists of state leaders by century (e.g. List of state leaders in the 1st century) in a format like that of List of 20th-century religious leaders. For more recent centuries, they can split by either decade or by continent. tahc chat 17:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Please discuss my merge idea at Talk:List of state leaders in the 1st century. tahc chat 22:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since nobody seemed to discuss the topic there: I don't see the point of having these lists per year. Very few state leaders sit just a year or less, so most of these lists are just redundant information. It could easily be merged into lists per decade. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please discuss my merge idea at Talk:List of state leaders in the 1st century. tahc chat 22:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and improve the articles. This problem is caused by the horrible proliferation of articles for every year in history (even well into BC!) when state leaders don't actually change too much before 1800ish. If the articles were cut down to centuries up to 1800 and then decades thereafter, this would be a useful navbox. The purpose of the navbox - to navigate chronologically between state leader lists - is clearly useful. There's no reason to start a navbox from scratch in the future after these articles are fixed. I'll start working on some of the worst offenders (BC). ~ RobTalk 15:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and merge the articles per Rob (at least for now). I agree that it's a little ridiculous to have a list of world leaders for every year before 1800 or so. Once the merging is complete, it's possible that this template may still need splitting, but I'd like to hold off on that for now. -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- After the merges, we may want to look at having collapsible sections of the navbox. For instance, if we decide to keep yearly articles from 1800 forward (which I think excessive, but as a hypothetical), we could list all yearly articles for the 19th century but collapse the section by default so it doesn't take up an absurd amount of space. ~ RobTalk 17:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Weather box/quick
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was userfy to User:Wikid77/Weather box quick. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Weather box/quick ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
unused sandbox/fork of template:weather box. should be moved to userspace or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy so we don't need to relist again -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Better image needed
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Relisting here. ~ RobTalk 02:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Better image needed ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Please note that this template was created the day before the TFD nomination was made. Unused, yes, but for a brand-new template, that shouldn't be the criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment this can be accomplished with {{Cleanup-image}} specifying better quality -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete as unused/redundant—PC-XT+ 08:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)- Keep: Specific use case (although it could be updated to actually use the correct style of message). ViperSnake151 Talk 03:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Corruption in India
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete; no opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Corruption in India ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
You might wonder at this nomination, because it seems at first to be an entirely reasonable topic. However, if you dig a little deeper, you find that a) the main article covers little or none of the subjects in the template, b) the list of scandals and involved individuals is incredibly arbitrary and ad hoc, with no systematic inclusion criteria, and c) the creator and the other major editor have both been indeffed for socking, which strongly suggests that maintaining NPOV was not the highest priority of the folks who created this. Also see WP:TNT; this might be a legitimate topic, but if we need a navbox about it, we need to start over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Infobox monastery
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Keep. Several of the keep rationales are unconvincing (rewrite as wrapper first, not all religious buildings are monasteries, etc), but valid concerns over whether the monastery parameters can be covered by Infobox religious building have been raised. In this case, rewriting as a wrapper first may help in a future TfD. If it were shown that these can easily be merged, then there would be no valid reason to keep, at least not based on what was argued here. ~ RobTalk 02:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox monastery ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox religious building ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox monastery with Template:Infobox religious building.
Why have two separate templates for the same thing. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Monasteries are not just buildings but are comprised of religious communities of people. Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Parameters are quite similar. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Similar but different, monasteries have chains of authority as well as organic and legal ties to other monasteries which churches don't. Daniel the Monk (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose If they are not spoilt, don't fix them. 175.156.123.71 (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- rewrite as a wrapper then reconsider. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Not the same thing, a religious building Religious building is not necessarily a Monastery Monastery. A religious building is usually open to the public as a place of worship, or associated to some religious purpose. For instance, a Quaker hall is a religious building and is not in any way a monastery, similarly a synagogue, mosque. A monastery (and a Priory) is not the same as it is has religious in residence, thus taking it away from the description of 'religious building' moreover, it is usually home to a community with several buildings at their disposal - a place of worship, domestic and workplaces.
Religious buildings are just that, and the plain English meaning is that any building owned by a religion, is therefore a religious building, irrespective of its use. Monasteries have specific meanings and merging with religious building would inevitable cause confusion; religious foundations for charitable uses (e.g. free meals), hospitals provided by religions, Universities provided by religions, schools provided by religions, all of which could be denoted as religious buildings, and currently cannot be confused as a monastery. See also chapel of ease Chapel of ease which is a religious building and not a monastery.
This is not suitable for encyclopedic categorization, OPPOSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannis baptistae (talk • contribs) 11:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose These aren't synonyms, and the important information about monasteries isn't covered adequately in the religious building infobox, such as which order it belongs to, etc. RichG78 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Monasteries are more than a just a unique type of religious building. They have political, social, and economic aspects. Mannanan51 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Infobox Hindu leader
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Keep. ~ RobTalk 02:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Hindu leader ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox religious biography ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Hindu leader with Template:Infobox religious biography.
No need for a separate infobox. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The wrappers are not identical. One has "guru" for example, the other doesn't. I see no harm in keeping what is not broken. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Guru means Teacher / Āch?rya only. We can add the term if required. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Capankajsmilyo: Indeed. I know. But the purpose of this and other templates is to ease navigation, distill information or make contribution from various wikipedia contributors easier, faster. You need to justify the benefit of deleting/merging so many templates. What is motivating you in proposing these template-merger-proposals? what is the harm in keeping templates that are not broken, which have been tailored to regional users by other wikipedia contributors, and which are in wide use? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Guru means Teacher / Āch?rya only. We can add the term if required. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Additional Comment: Studying the tailored template further, I note that some of the items such as background color are pre-filled in it, which is time saving and useful. Merging/deleting the old template may increase work load and make contributing to wikipedia more cumbersome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I would have agreed to you if I had not seen {{Infobox officeholder}} or {{Infobox deity}} before.
I wonder why all these templates have been merged to just one, if your argument is acceptable. Shouldn't they exist as separate ones?The logic behind my proposal is the same as used while merging all those templates. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC) - Further comment: The issue of regionalisation / customisation / work load can be very well addressed with the documentation as maintained in {{Infobox deity}} -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Capankajsmilyo: Documentation helps, but it adds work, and does not reduce work or eliminate unnecessary repetition of work. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ms Sarah Welch Cinosaur (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ms Sarah Welch and it needs a separate infobox, IMO. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose the title hindu leader is too narrow to blanket down many personnely under one roof firmly oppose Shrikanthv (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Apples and oranges, and per Ms Sarah Welch. Randy Kryn 15:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
February 24
Template:Brain limitation
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Brain limitation ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Vague concept (no clear criteria), no reasonable wikipedia subject (no article) - üser:Altenmann >t 15:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Sonshine Radio
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Sonshine Radio ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Delete. Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion 4. The subject of the template does not have an article. Sixth of March 07:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- delete per nom, no parent article and the navigation is already covered by region templates like Template:Laguna Radio. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:YouTube most subbed
- Template:YouTube most subbed ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant template, does not particularly suffice any navigational purpose —IB [ Poke ] 20:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. No proper rationale for deletion. Not redundant to Template:YouTube navbox, useful for navigation among top subscribed channels (I was looking at Lonelygirl15 and was interested to see the other channels). Most subscribed YouTube channels is something that has received significant outside attention and is not just an invention of Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 20:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet criteria 3 and 5 of WP:NAVBOX.--JacktheHarry (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Has no purpose the Template:YouTube navigation already covers this, there is no need for more than one navbox. As above, it does not meet criteria 3 and 5. Kyle1278 (talk) (Ctb) (log) 09:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- comment, not really covered by Template:YouTube navbox, since the main navbox only has the link to the top article, and not to the subarticles. However, I see nothing wrong with deleting this and adding a link to the list article in the see also sections. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant to Template:YouTube navigation. If someone wants to look up most subbed there is a link right there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It is not redundant to Template:YouTube navigation. It contains many more links than Template:YouTube navigation. It is not redundant to List of the most subscribed users on YouTube, it has historical number ones, with links to Judson Laipply and Lonelygirl15. It is more than a navbox, it is succession boxes for both the current rankings, and the history of the holder of the number one spot, that can easily be edited to update. I believe it does meet criteria 3, but WP:NAVBOX says "some of these guidelines". Navboxes like 10 deadliest US tornadoes, Princes of Wales, and German elections don't meet criteria 5. 117Avenue (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- You are honestly comparing the amount of deaths from a natural disaster, a royal blood line, political elections, with youtube subscribers....? How inane.--JacktheHarry (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge the list of #1s to the list of most-subscribed and subsequently delete. OTOH, there may be some room for a general "YouTube personalities" navbox. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- keep No proper rationale for deletion. 178.140.89.185 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Ojinaga TV
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Ojinaga TV ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
No transclusions. There are just two TV stations in Ojinaga, neither of which have full articles, and the other items on this navbox do not make use of this template. Raymie (t • c) 08:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Lautoka F.C.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete; no opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Lautoka F.C. ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Only two links. Not useful as a template. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Infobox Buddhist temple
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Delete. No opposition, and generally these have been merged as noted by Frietjes. ~ RobTalk 02:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Buddhist temple ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox religious building ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Buddhist temple with Template:Infobox religious building.
There is no need for a separate template. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- sounds reasonable, considering that other templates like {{infobox Jain temple}} and {{infobox mosque}} were merged there. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
February 23
Orphaned cite doi templates
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete all. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Cite doi/10.1001.2F2012.jama.11869 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cite doi/10.1001.2F2012.jama.11913 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cite doi/10.1001.2Farchdermatol.2010.42 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cite doi/10.1111.2Fj.1468-2362.2009.01250.x ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cite doi/10.1126.2Fscience.282.5392.1276 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cite_doi/10.1021.2Fop900059x ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cite_doi/10.1671.2F0272-4634.282005.29025.5B0236:ROADTF.5D2.0.CO.3B2 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cite_doi/10.4169.2F193009709X470218 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cite_doi/10.1046.2Fj.1365-2230.2002.01143.x ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Cite_doi/10.1007.2F978-3-540-71677-8_11 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I'm listing just the first ten completed orphaned subpages of Template:cite doi for deletion. These were all just hard-coded instance of cite journal (but T3 was rejected for them) but are orphaned and unused entirely now. There is no substitution needed, just deletion. There is no consensus that a CSD criteria would work so let me try this for now. The template has been deprecated. According to this google spreadsheet explained here, there are roughly 24.8k orphaned cite doi subpages (out of roughly 58.6k in total). It will be easier to go through and substitute and work on the 30k or so in use if all these completely orphaned pages could be deleted (a number of those are just not orphaned because of old cite pmid redirects as well). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Again, I note, why bother with these individual nominations? Just get a bot to do the work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've asked at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Orphaned_Category:Cite_doi_templates. No response so I assume, no? At CSD talk I was told to try this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database of citations. Not used, and hardcoded instances. Speedy deletion should be done -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unused —PC-XT+ 08:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, but as I said elsewhere, we do not need another deletionism campaign against source-specific templates that are liable to be reused (even if it looks like they're not being used; they're often substituted, and [with safesubst] we want them to be, so that cite template maintenance is more thorough). The problem with the above kind of jibberish is that no one's every likely to use them or even know what they are. — SMcCandlish ? ? ¢?≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼? 23:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Loaded term
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Loaded term ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
We have enough templates with approximately the same meaning, e.g. {{Peacock term}}, {{Weasel-word}}. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Could you elaborate your point? HeatIsCool (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: It's redundant, the parent non-inline template no longer exists, and neither does the "cleanup" category this was trying to sort into. This is looks like "fine, I'll get my way with templates" PoV-pushing by someone who is not getting what they want at WT:WTW. — SMcCandlish ? ? ¢?≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼? 23:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Infobox Hindu temple
- Template:Infobox Hindu temple ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox religious building ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Hindu temple with Template:Infobox religious building.
There is no need to have a separate template. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- What with all the parametres that Infobox religious building doesn't have, like devanagari, sanskrit_translit, tamil, marathi, oriya, malayalam, malay, bengali, chinese, pinyin? Debresser (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- since all those are just names in other languages, we could either (a) just use
|native_name=
and {{native name}} with a list of names, or (b) use something like {{Infobox name module}}. Frietjes (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- since all those are just names in other languages, we could either (a) just use
- merge, or rather just replace. the multi-language name issue can be addressed using a "name module" or a simple list in the
|native_name=
field. Frietjes (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC) merge/replace as largely redundant—PC-XT+ 08:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)- I would support leaving off the merge discussion until the Hindu template is improved. It might make things clearer. I'm not sure how easily all these things can be included in a merged template. —PC-XT+ 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The original proposal was to reduce redundancy, but now that more parameters are involved, I think we should try to rewrite the Hindu template as a wrapper of the generic one. If that fails, we should keep them separate. If the wrapper works, we can think about merging them. (This seems more appropriate due to historical reasons rather than due to the current states of templates, which do seem to be largely redundant.) —PC-XT+ 02:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PC-XT: Rewriting as a wrapper is generally the way a merge is conducted. If we decide to merge and a wrapper cannot be created, then the merge would not be completed (or additional parameters would be added to {{Infobox religious building}} to complete the merge). Rewriting as a wrapper without a merge decision is frowned upon since it influences future TfD discussions. How do you feel about the appropriateness of some of these parameters for an infobox? Many of the parameters in question either can be fit into {{Infobox religious building}} (i.e. Vimanam --> one of the tower parameters) or probably don't belong in an infobox at all (i.e. poets who praised the temple). I'm thinking a lot of this information should be handled in the article body, with the infobox restricted to info about the actual building (i.e. not religious specifics that are not relevant to a general readership). See precedent at this TfD. ~ RobTalk 08:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The original proposal was to reduce redundancy, but now that more parameters are involved, I think we should try to rewrite the Hindu template as a wrapper of the generic one. If that fails, we should keep them separate. If the wrapper works, we can think about merging them. (This seems more appropriate due to historical reasons rather than due to the current states of templates, which do seem to be largely redundant.) —PC-XT+ 02:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would support leaving off the merge discussion until the Hindu template is improved. It might make things clearer. I'm not sure how easily all these things can be included in a merged template. —PC-XT+ 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The current template religious building does not cover Primary deity (linked to the Hindu concept of Moolavar); Consort; poets; utsava_deity_God (festival god); Vimanam; Direction and posture; temple tank; appeared for etc. Some of them can be seen used in Pundarikakshan Perumal Temple, Srinivasa Perumal Temple, Kudavasal, Thillai Nataraja Temple, Chidambaram, Ucchi Pillayar Temple, Rockfort. These parameters exclusively pertain to Hinduism. The problem is when Infobox Hindu temple and Template:Infobox temple were merged; the complete documentation of these parameters from Infobox temple was not updated in the Template Hindu temple (known then as Infobox Mandir). Also, we retain {{Infobox church}} as a separate template due to the additional parameters. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Redtigerxyz's explanation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The Hindu temple has its own identity in many contexts as said by Redtigerxyz and which are missing in current template. The current Hindu Temple Template needs to be added with more info like Moolavar, Vimanam, Teertham(Tank), Pratyaksham, which Agama followed for its daily rituals. It would also be better to replace all regional names with |native_name=. agasthyathepirate (talk)agasthya 18:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't merge/oppose. I went back and forth on this one. I generally support adding additional parameters to a broad template to cut down on the number of different infobox templates we have in the project, but these parameters are very specific to Hinduism, and we have to balance the other problem - cluttering the documentation of Infobox religious building with niche parameters that are rarely used. Also, the argument for how we handle Infobox church is a good one. If we keep church separate due to additional parameters, we should be consistent and keep this separate as well. ~ RobTalk 02:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)- Support merge. I changed my mind on this one. The information about native names can be handled as suggested above. The most specific parameters, such as poets who praised the temple, should be pruned from the infobox. Basically, it seems like the parameters that don't fit into {{Infobox religious building}} would all be better handled in the article body. ~ RobTalk 08:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per above views.--Vin09 (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
February 21
Template:IP range
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was redirect to {{IP range calculator}} after substituting current usage. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:IP range ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Suggest subst and delete. Little used template that never got off the ground; only allows for two values whereas a newer/more complex template (such as Template:IP range calculator) or set of links provide for more. Izno (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why not redirect to one of the newer better templates like Template:IP range calculator? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Subst and redirect subst existing uses, and then redirect per JV -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Diseases of RBCs and megakaryocytes
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was split per discussion. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Diseases of RBCs and megakaryocytes ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Split into {{Diseases of red blood cells}} and {{Diseases of megakaryocytes}} and delete - I see no reason why these blood components should be grouped together, to the exclusion of the white blood cells. And we should make RBC explicit - note that RBC is a disambiguation page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Split as per noms rationale. No reason to have them together. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Split, the template at first glance just doesn't integrate too well with each other. Heartwarming (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Split, totally agree this one is too bulky. JFW | T@lk 10:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Cathead Conservatists by nationality
- Template:Cathead Conservatists by nationality ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
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. UU (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support "Not used" isn't true, as the nominator changed, renamed and transcluded the template in Category:Conservatists in Hong Kong which has however been nominated for deletion. While I don't really understand the nominator's intentions, the template should be obviously deleted, depending on the CfD's outcome. --PanchoS (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Not used in the mainspace and completely useless in the one transclusion in the category space. That category might even be deleted. ~ RobTalk 02:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Completed discussions
-
The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell ()
If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.
Closing discussions
The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions.
To review
Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.
- 2014 December 29 – Infobox MTR station ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), replace as indicated in the discussion
- 2015 March 8 – Interlanguage link multi ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), {{Interlanguage link}}, {{Interlanguage link forced}}, {{Interlanguage link Wikidata}}, {{Link-interwiki}}, {{Red Wikidata link}} ... see discussion.
- Star systems within X-Y light years: move to article space, reformat as an article, replace template transclusions in transcluding articles with a see also or other appropriate link.
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 25–30 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 25-30 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 30–35 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 30-35 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 35–40 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 35-40 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 40–45 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 40-45 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 45–50 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 45-50 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 50–55 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 50-55 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 55–60 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 55-60 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 60–65 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 60-65 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 65–70 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 65-70 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 70–75 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 70-75 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 25–30 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2015 May 2 – Infobox TransAdelaide station ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), replace with {{Infobox station}}
- 2015 June 21 – SL bottom ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), {{SL br}}, {{SL div}}, {{SL file}}, {{SL head}}, {{SL multi}}, {{SL pic}}, {{SL row}}, {{SL sep}}, {{SL size}}, {{SL text}}, {{SL top}}, replace as indicated in the discussion.
- Last diagrams in mainspace (on List of New York City Subway terminals) being replaced slowly at User:Jc86035/sandbox. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
To merge
Templates to be merged into another template.
Arts
- 2015 August 31 – Doctor Who episode list ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - Merge with {{episode list}}, finding a way to avoid using rowspan but still conveying the information required.
Geography, politics and governance
- 2014 March 18 – Infobox Romanian legislature ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox legislative session}} if technically feasible
- 2015 August 2 – Infobox Ukrainian legislative office ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge into {{Infobox officeholder}}
- 2015 September 8 – Infobox historical American political party ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge into {{Infobox political party}} (already a wrapper, but some alterations need to be made before substituting)
- 2015 December 9 – Geologic Ages Inline ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge into {{Period start}}
- 2015 December 19 – Modi ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge {{Modi}} and {{Narendra Modi}}
- 2016 February 26 – Infobox Romanian political party ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Infobox political party}}
Religion
- 2016 February 27 – Infobox Jain deity ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Infobox deity}} per discussion
- Pending discussion at Template talk:Infobox deity on the best way to move forward with this. ~ RobTalk 08:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- 2016 February 24 – Infobox Buddhist temple ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Infobox religious building}} per discussion
- Pending discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism to confirm that User:BU Rob13/Buddhist temple merge is an appropriate way to conduct the merge. ~ RobTalk 08:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Sports
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox non Test cricket team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox cricket team}}
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox women's national cricket team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox cricket team}}
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox Test team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox cricket team}}
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox college inline hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox national roller hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox professional inline hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox Canadian Floorball Championships ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox college field hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 28 – Infobox rugby biography ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 28 – Infobox rugby union biography ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 28 – Infobox Rugby Union biography ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 March 16 – Infobox Country Mediterranean Games ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox country at games}} if technically feasible
- 2014 March 16 – Infobox Country Asian Games ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox country at games}} if technically feasible
- 2014 March 16 – Infobox Commonwealth Youth Games Country ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox country at games}} if technically feasible
- 2014 March 30 – Infobox ATP Challenger Tournament ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
- 2014 March 30 – Infobox ITF Women's Circuit Tournament ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
- 2014 March 30 – Infobox joint Tennis Tournament ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
- 2014 April 8 – Infobox FIM Motocross World Championship ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
- 2014 June 8 – Infobox domestic cricket season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{Infobox cricket season}}
- 2014 June 9 – Infobox Squash WSF Tournament ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{Infobox squash tournament}}
- 2014 June 9 – Infobox rugby football league season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox rugby league season}}
- 2014 June 9 – Infobox football club season2 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox rugby club season}}
- 2014 June 9 – Infobox NRL Team Season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox rugby league team season}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox Pro Bowl ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox NFL championship game ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox NFL single game ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox Belgian Bowl ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox ArenaFootballSingleGameHeader ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 May 11 – Infobox AFLChamp ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox Super Bowl}}
- 2015 August 2 – Infobox American championship car race report 2 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge into {{Infobox American championship car race report}}
- 2015 August 2 – Infobox VFA season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge with {{Infobox Australian rules football season}}
- 2015 September 13 – Infobox Afbn team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - replace with {{Infobox Afbn team}}
Transport
- 2014 December 15 – EuroRoute ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge with {{YellowRoute}} and {{RedRoute}} into {{Jct}}.
- 2015 March 15 – Infobox UK Bus Corridor ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge with {{Infobox bus line}}
- 2015 May 9 – China line ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge with {{Rail-interchange}} and {{Rail color box}}
- 2015 May 20 – NYCS-bull-small ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge with {{Rail-interchange}}
- 2015 April 26 – Infobox tram ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox train}}
- 2015 May 23 – Taiwan line ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2015 September 8 – Infobox Victorian rail line ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge into {{infobox rail line}} as indicated in the discussion
Other
- 2013 August 19 – HB Scotland header ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{HS listed building header}}
- 2013 August 19 – HB Scotland row ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{HS listed building row}}
- 2014 April 21 – Infobox dava ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox ancient site}}.
- Starting on a wrapper at {{Infobox dava/sandbox}}. ~ RobTalk 04:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Meta
- 2015 August 30 – Find sources 3 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), 2015 August 30 – Find sources 4 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) and 2015 August 30 – Find sources AFD ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) into {{Find sources}}
- 2015 August 20 – Admin request ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) into {{Admin help}}
- 2016 February 5 – Mission ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge text into appropriate cleanup template
To convert
Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.
- 2015 November 12 – ISO 3166 name DE-HB ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - Convert to Lua per the discussion
- I've started working on this in my sandbox this week, though where can the conversion be discussed? Template talk:ISO 3166 name? SiBr4 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
To substitute
Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.
- 2015 January 4 – IMSLP2 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - Merge with {{IMSLP}} as indicated in the discussion, with care for the possible technical issues brought up in the discussion
- 2014 March 30 – Tennis events 2 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
To orphan
These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).
- None currently
Ready for deletion
Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.
- None currently