Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closing instructions

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 you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. If it is an unused, hardcoded instance or duplication of another template, tag it with {{Db-t3|~~~~~|name of other template}}.
  • Policy or guideline templates
    Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
  • Template redirects
    List at Redirects for discussion.

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Listing a template

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

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

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

II List the template at Tfd.
Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

  • For deletion:
    {{subst:tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging:
    {{subst:tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

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

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

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

{{subst:tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
III Notify users.
Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

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

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that an template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets, such as "T3" for hardcoded instances.

Notifying related WikiProjects

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

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

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

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.

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


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.


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.


Current discussions

September 24

Template:Mr. Robot

Too early, not enough links, season articles are (now) redirects. -- AlexTW 13:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

September 23

Template:Khowar language

Navboxes that don't provide useful navigation. There are only three relevant links: Khowar language, Khowar alphabet and possibly Anjuman-e-Tarraqui-e-Khowar. The rest are either generic articles, or redlinks to articles that either have been deleted at AfD or are unlikely to ever be created. – Uanfala

Template:List of role-playing video games

LST-ify This is exactly the same type of template as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 30#.22List of killings.22 templates without significant_parameters (which was closed as LST-ify) and thus should be LST-ified for the same reason Pppery 18:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a separate discussion. Could you please explain your reasoning here? I'm not sure what policy supports deletion, especially considering the massive amount of history from SharkD and others. How does moving the text from the template to a linked section (and deleting the template) satisfy the attribution terms of GFDL and CC? Are you suggestion a cross-namespace redirect? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Dalai Lama and Template:Infobox religious biography

Propose merging Template:Infobox Dalai Lama with Template:Infobox religious biography.
per WP:INFOCOL and MOS:IB. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Propose renaming Template:Infobox religious biography to Template:Infobox religious figures.
    I find the design of "Infobox religious biography" to be suitable for folks like Samuel or Anna the Prophetess when not all editors agree if these are historical figures or merely literary figures. In many cases Wikipedia (or at least the infoboxes) doesn't need to specify (or cannot specify) who is of which type. Have an infobox that doesn't imply either way can save a lot of hassle and debate. Renaming will still make it suitable for historical figures and even more so for literary figures. Furthermore, many Wikipedia articles about historical figures are still not a "detailed description of that person's life"-- which what a biography is-- because it is just an encyclopedia article. tahc chat 15:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox LLWSQualifiers-Pre2001

Unused template Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: {{Infobox_LLWSQualifiers}} should probably have the same keep/delete fate as this template. It's also unused, and both templates are recommended for use at WikiProject Baseball/Little_League_task_force. The task force page has been inactive for a few years, but here's a ping to taskforce member User:JB82. JB82 is still actively editing, and active on this topic. Alsee (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's less arduous than creating a table (and probably less time-consuming, too). --JB82 (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
JB82, the template is unused. I pinged you and posted on the Little League wikiproject to see if there was any likelihood it was going to used in the foreseeable future. However looking more closely at the Little League wikiproject, I suddenly realize that it never actually existed. I couldn't find a single instance of dialog in the last 11 years. Out of the handful of edits there, several were bots or people passing through on maintenance tasks. Alsee (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Alright, then... --JB82 (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox carom billiards player

unused template Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I was asking on the talk page for help, but no one answered so far. If I want to use it in a right way, I will create it new. If you want, you can move it into my sandbox. Regards --Rafael Zink (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more input on the {{infobox snooker player}} angle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ontario crown corporations

Existence of this template is redundant since Template:ONGovDept already includes a comprehensive list of provincial Crown agencies and Crown corporations. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete (creator of template) Daylen (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Meta country at games navboxes

These templates (87 in total) are simply wrappers for {{country at games navbox}}. The main template updates automatically, meaning each of these templates are just shells. Another reason is to prevent the unnecessary creation of these templates, as demonstrated by the deletion of 20 similar unused templates. As a note, while I am advocating for deletion of these templates, obviously they should be subst'ed/replaced to keep the information itself on the page (which I'm happy to do). Primefac (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Red Star Belgrade squad 1991 European Cup Final

As per WP:FOOTY consensus, we only have historical squad navboxes for international tournaments, not for club competitions. Jellyman (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Spain Squad EuroBasket 1959

Per prior consensus we don't need roster boxes for teams that didn't medal in the competition. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Spain Squad 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup

Per prior consensus we don't need roster boxes for teams that didn't medal in the competition. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Spain Squad 1950 FIBA World Championship

Per prior consensus we don't need roster boxes for teams that didn't medal in the competition. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Most populous cities in the Republic of 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; deleted as G7 by Cyp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 13:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Duplicates the function of Template:Million-plus agglomerations in India. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2017 (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:Hull & Barnsley Railway (inline)

Unused. Use {{Hull & Barnsley Railway}} instead. Jc86035 (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

September 22


({{PRC admin/ref sgc}} intentionally excluded, though it maybe should be deleted for a different reason) Totally overcomplicated system for storing data, which is in net used on only one article. Pppery 23:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, only used in one article. Use Wikidata. Jc86035 (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Shooting at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics

Unused template that is nothing but redlinks Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The template was created with the idea that someone would create individual event pages. It's been three years since the event so I guess it should be deleted. JoshMartini007 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:NYCS time

This doesn't really do much other than add <sup> to {{NYCS SSI}}. It's only directly used in {{NYCS time 2}} AFAIK. Jc86035 (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • keep, 662 transclusions and nobody seems to know if it does anything (from the "AFAIK"). Christian75 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Christian75: My initial post was formatted incorrectly ({{tag}} didn't display due to incorrect parameter order). All the template does is add <sup>. It is mentioned directly using template syntax on only these five pages. It is not used on any of the discussion pages since all mentions are inside <nowiki>, which leaves {{NYCS time 2}} and its sandbox, where it can be replaced by <sup>{{NYCS SSI|{{{1}}}|text={{{text}}}}}</sup>. Jc86035 (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Athletics at the 1930 British Empire Games

Unused template. entirely red links except for 3 which all link to the same page. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox royal house

Propose merging Template:Infobox royal house with Template:Infobox noble house.
A few weeks ago it was decided to merge {{Infobox noble house}} with {{infobox family}}. Unfortunately, it seems only one person who is actually familiar with the usage of {{Infobox noble house}} commented. I'd like to counterpropose the obvious merge of these two instead - they are nearly identical and could much, much more easily be merged. The templates for Houses of Nobility and Royalty are nearly identical and their subjects overlap, and many times I have seen articles on noble houses using the {{infobox royal house}} instead. The majority of their fields are of no use on {{infobox family}} and vice versa, and this merge would just cause confusion (who is the "current head" of the Kennedy family? What is the "current region" of the House of Romanov?). While the subjects might seem to be the same, the templates do not actually correspond with each other. Merging noble house/family templates is going to create a lot of work for someone when the same purpose could much more easily be accomplished by merging it with Royal House. МандичкаYO 😜 22:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge per WP:INFOCOL and MOS:IB. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional merge, but merge with {{infobox family}} - it is ready for it, as suggested in Template_talk:Infobox_family#Merged_version by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). I partly disagree with the general comments here above. If the parametres are really an issue, I would say there are two solutions: 1) harmonise the terminology of the parametres for a broader application, and/or 2) for parametres that just won't work out that way, either a) make clear that not all parametres need to be filled, and b) employ a moduled ("aristocracy"?) solution - both a) and b) would be similar to the case of Template:Infobox person. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Parameters are "cheap". It's a trivial matter to support variant parameters, produce consistent output, and only "advertise" the currently desired parameters in the documentation. If some output is no longer desired, just disable the parameters in question.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not see why we should merge different social Classes and cultures in 1 box?? Noble houses and royal houses are completely different and could benefit from different seperate templates.--Carolus (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Because, as SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) has pointed out, all parametres are already overlapping. Furthermore, if new parametres need to be added, that's not a problem. This doesn't mean that all pages using the infobox need to employ every parameter. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Wel if you look at this you can see the mojority arent noble Families but Royal houses and even Dynasties that use this template, this is wrong. They should use Infobox royal house and not Noble Family.--Carolus (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
One should create a template + category for bastard branches like Nassau-Corroy. that would be correct.--Carolus (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You're not getting it. "This is wrong" doesn't logically apply. The template doesn't magically care whether the input is "noble", "royal", a "dynasty", or whatever. It takes input and produces consistent output. In all these cases the input is the same kind of information, in the same parameters, and the output should be displayed in the same way.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The template doesn't magically care (?), but i do! Why don't we make 1 Big gigantic template; let's call it Template:Wikipedia, and put EVERYTHING inside, then we do not need this discussion, and everyone will be happy, garantueed.--Carolus (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:CDUAN Basketball roster

old, non-notable roster Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

September 21

Template:Gymnastics at the 2017 Southeast Asian Games

Unused template that doesn't add value. All of these links redirect to the same page. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


This template has outlived its usefulness. Maybe we needed it in 2007, but these days, bots subst templates when it's required. I find it difficult to imagine an appropriate situation to give a templated user warning for something as technical and trivial as this. Much more likely that it's a tempting way to bite newbies. agtx 13:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


unused, not a standard license tag (there is no equivalent on Commons) FASTILY 00:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

September 20

Template:Bowling at the 2017 Southeast Asian Games

Unused template that is completely redlinks Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Rayo OKC squad

club is currently defunct so there is no current squad Joeykai (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Indianapolis Enforcers seasons

Only navigates three articles--all are interlinked. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dan Leno

Not enough links to provide useful navigation that cannot be achieved through normal linking within the articles. --woodensuperman 12:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:SM Department Store

Links are to locations where the department store exists, not to actual department stores (none are notable). Failure of WP:NOTDIRECTORY Ajf773 (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Only one blue link is a relevant store entry. This template is a list of locations that provides no useful navigation between Wikipedia articles. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Latest preview software release/iOS 10

There won’t be any previews, now that iOS 11 has released Darius robin (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: Let it burn. Guy Harris (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

September 19


unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 23:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Citation Avoiding stairs Tube guide

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 by nominator. I discovered Category:Specific-source templates. (non-admin closure) Triptothecottage (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Five transclusions. I can't find any policy to support maintaining a template for the sole purpose of citing one source across a small number of articles, and quite frankly I'm not sure what the point of it is. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2017 (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).

Borg- and Ferengi-story templates

As noted in a previous discussion about Klingons and Vulcans, these categories are not well-defined. How Borg does an episode need to be in order that it be considered a Borg story? Does the appearance of Seven of Nine sufice? A similar question can be considered for the Ferengi template - should Caretaker appear due to the scene in Quark's bar? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

September 18


Unused template full of redlinks Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


Unused template full of redlinks. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dundee Stars

A navigational template that only directs to redlinks that are unlikely to exist. Yosemiter (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, provides no useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bahraini uprising of 2011

This template is used in only one article, the active editing spree has calmed down, so we should merge it with the article (preserving history behind an article-space redirect) as a "single-use" template. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2009

Propose merging Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2009 with Template:ESC 2009.
Not sure which one is correct, but they are clearly the same template with different names. Frietjes (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong support: This looks like a mistake. Merging should be uncontroversial. Just make choose the correct one. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 20:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 photo only - not subject

Unused, replaceable by {{Cc-by-sa-3.0|dw=yes}} FASTILY 02:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

September 17


Similar to Template:Xfce and Template:LXDE, should be deleted per those discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • delete per precedent, navbox creep. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Soccer in New York City

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Looks useful. Perhaps it is unused, but I see no reason why it can't be used. Maybe the solution is to transclude it on relevant pages. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I find it Good , usable, I agree with user Mr Guye !. AlfaRocket (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only is it unused, but every blue link is already a part of {{NYC Metro sports}}, so even a merge seems pointless. Possibly just a template redirect to NYC Metro sports. Yosemiter (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox U.S. legislation

Propose merging Template:Infobox Oklahoma legislation, Template:Infobox California legislation and Template:Infobox New York legislation with Template:Infobox U.S. legislation.
These three state specific templates appear to me to be a subset of {{Infobox U.S. legislation}}. I see a couple of different solutions...

  1. Modify {{Infobox U.S. legislation}} to be more general so that the default is that it is federal legislation, but allow for options to be passed in that make it state specific.
  2. Leave {{Infobox U.S. legislation}} almost 100% as it is and make the state specific templates wrappers that in turn call the U.S. template. ({{Infobox U.S. legislation}} would have to have a few changes made that allow for custom images to be supplied).
  3. Leave the templates as they are (I.E. do not merge them at all), but convert the 3 state specific templates to use {{infobox}} as a base.

None of these are trivial... I'll happily tackle the work, but I want to make sure to get some input before I implement a long term solution.

-- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • My gut feeling is that it'd be difficult to shoehorn these into the U.S. legislation box. I'm a bit surprised there aren't infoboxes for every state, but I think that's because our state-level law coverage is pretty minimal compared to what it would ideally be. — RockMFR 17:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support merge per MOS:IB and WP:INFOCOL. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge - no need for separate templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - How are going to distinguish if it's a Federal law or State law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Pedro8790: so you voted to keep without getting an answer to your question?? There a whole host of ways. Add a parameter obviously.... But if it is a wrapper template that would be automatically done. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge the three state templates into the US legislation template. Extend the US template as neccessary. LK (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • do not merge, I could see creating a 'U.S. state' legislation box, but trying to combine federal-level with state-level seems like a bad idea, and there has been no demonstration of the merged template. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Frietjes, I know you are frustrated, but AlfaRocket is a good faith editor. I do not think they are just being disruptive. English is not his first language. AlfaRocket is just trying to participate. Please be patient.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And has anybody shown him WP:ATA? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and modify the resulting template as needed to accommodate state-specific needs. Renata (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge state-level templates into new 'U.S. state legislation box' per Frietjes. In my opinion, some state legislative processes are more similar to other countries' national legislative processes than the United States's federal legislation. Thus, I object to the solution that mixes federal with state. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to garner more thoughts regarding the merger/creation of a "state legislation" template per some of the most recent comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of SxG 77

A non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation; per recent discussion at Notability:People: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross recipients, the awarding of the Knight's Cross was deemed not to confer presumed notability on the recipients, and the template thus does not serve a useful navigational purpose and is indiscriminate. The appropriate Category:Recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross already exists and is sufficient for navigation.

Similar templates have been deleted in the past, such as TFD:KC recipients of the Fallschirmjäger (multi-TfD); TfD:KC recipients of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet; TfD:KC recipients of the 4th SS Division (multi-TfD), and more.

In addition, I'm nominating the following "KC recipient by X" templates; the nominating rationale applies equally to them as well:

  • Redirect to parent template. These serve no discernible purpose at the moment but the edit history may be of use to editors in the future. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Boston College Eagles athletic director navbox

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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Used in two articles... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Created two more articles. The majority of the BC ADs now have articles that use the template. Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Old discussions

September 16

Template:Cinema of Algeria

Hardly navigates anything. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 22:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • replace with see also links, and then delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Any qp

Propose merging Template:Any qp with Template:Wikidata.
Does exactly the same as {{wd}} with |property=. Only used in a small number of Philippines related articles, so easily replaced. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Is there actually anything to merge? You could replace it without merging any functionality. thayts💬 15:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I don’t think there is – I could have just made it into a wrapper then manually replaced its occurrences. I brought it here though in case there were any concerns, as it’s not new or unused and there may be a reason it exists other than pointless duplication. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      If you don't want to fix the about 30 transclusions you could tag it as Template:Deprecated. Something is different, {{wd}} has no formatnum: magic, {{any qp}} tries no safesubst:. – (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      {{wd}} (or actually Module:Wd) does do some basic number formatting by adding delimiters. thayts💬 20:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • note. It looks like it has been removed from the articles. Looking at a few for exactly how it is used I could not find it, and a null edit stopped the article thinking it was including it. The articles had not been changed so it was presumably being included by a template, which can take care of any formatting differences. Can’t find the relevant template/change, but as far as I can tell there will be no consequences if this is deleted or made into a wrapper.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Polish coat of arms

Propose merging Template:Infobox Polish coat of arms with Template:Infobox coat of arms.
No reason to a have a specifically national coat of arms infobox, when available general parametres should cover any nation just fine. What's more, possibly Template:Infobox emblem, which kind of seems to pertain to heraldry, could also be merged. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @AlfaRocket: The template is used on over 150 pages, it's not unused. The rest of your argument is a bit of a logical fallacy, on the order of "If he was innocent, why is he on trial?" The whole point of this page is to discuss whether or not a template is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia, but anyone can nominate any template for any reason. It being listed here is not a reason to delete. --Ahecht (TALK
      ) 16:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Yes, there is reason to have a specific template for Poland. This template has existed since 2004 for a reason. These are dedicated to separate topics, which should be obvious as there are no overlapping parameters in these two templates except image and caption! None of the fields in {{Infobox Polish coat of arms}} would make any sense in {{Infobox coat of arms}}. Likewise, almost all the fields in {{Infobox coat of arms}} are useless for {{Infobox Polish coat of arms}}. That's because Polish heraldry is different — this infobox is used for articles on heraldic clans, something unique to Poland, where a single coat of arms is shared by dozens of families, certain towns, etc. It's sort of similar to a Scottish clan (note this template includes a field for "battle cry"). Perhaps a better name could be {{Polish heraldic clan}}, but "clan" is not the best translation and the current title would never cause confusion for people working on heraldry articles. Templates should not be nominated for deletion simply because of their titles. МандичкаYO 😜 18:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
If that is the case, I suppose it should better be merged with Template:Infobox family, then? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
No, that would make even LESS sense. A heraldic clan is not a family. Did you even look at the template or look at it in use? There is no reason to merge this template with any other template. Also, when you propose a merger of a template, you are supposed to nominate the template creator. I see you did not do that in this case. Pinging @Halibutt: to alert him. МандичкаYO 😜 18:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, @Wikimandia and Chicbyaccident:. While I generally support merging infoboxes, this one indeed wouldn't make much sense. As Мандичка pointed out, the scope of this infobox is different from what the other proposed alternatives do. If anything, Polish heraldry resembles a little the Scottish clans, so perhaps the {{Infobox clan}} could do the trick? @Piotrus, Poeticbent, and Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin:, what do you guys think? //Halibutt 23:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there is any need to merge them at all. This is a very small template that has been around since almost the beginning of Wikipedia, and I think it serves its purpose well. There is no reason to get rid of it and merge it with another template. Clans are sort of similar, but are not actually an equivalent. I was trying to find an example to explain how this is not appropriate to merge with Infobox Coat of Arms. (Also it should be noted that {{Infobox clan}} appears to be used only for Scottish clans, and thus it is designed for their usage (Gaelic titles, etc.) and uses the blue of the Flag of Scotland.) МандичкаYO 😜 01:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Template:Infobox coat of arms was created on 20 January 2008 and expanded several times with repeat slots for images and repeat slots for captions ('middle', and 'lesser'?) as well as words and phrases in the syntax I cannot even grasp on first reading. I assume it meets its purpose, but it is also unique to western heraldry. Meanwhile, Template:Infobox Polish coat of arms was created over three years earlier, on 16 October 2004 for a similar but different purpose. There might still be room for improvement, for example, "herb" is a Polish word for the coat of arms and could be translated. Other slots are unique: i.e. battlecry, towns, and families in response to standards used in Polish historical documents. In my opinion, these two templates are not compatible with each other (at this time) and should not be merged. Poeticbent talk 02:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree with Poeticbent, mostly - I do think there could be a merge but it would need to allow addition of all Polish elements to the main coa template, and should ensure no empty fields are shown on Polish COA. If this is feasible, I'd not object to merge, but I don't know if the work needed for this would be worthwhile. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't see how it would be worthwhile. The size of the {{Infobox Polish coat of arms}} is 865 bytes, not even 1k. It's hardly overloading Wikipedia's servers, and there is no overlap at all between these two templates. The only common field is image/caption. I'm sure this nomination was done in good faith but based on the original post, it was created only after looking at the template titles and not the templates themselves. МандичкаYO 😜 21:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox heraldry

Propose merging Template:Infobox heraldry with Template:Infobox organization.
Variables/parametres pretty much pertain uniquely to the context of the United Kingdom. On a side note, pretty much only the United Kingdom does have such a public heraldic organisation. No clear reason to have specific template for that reason, when a customised version of Template:Infobox organization would be just fine. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. {{infobox heraldry}} is not concerning an organization but a herald, an officer of arms, which is an official post. For example, this template is used in the article Lord Lyon King of Arms, the title of the herald responsible for the Court of the Lord Lyon in Scotland. The Court of the Lord Lyon article does not use this template but uses {{infobox court}} (as it is not an organization but a court). Specific heralds have existed throughout history in many European countries, and were royal court officers in pre-Revolution France (office d'armes) and official roles still exist in other Commonwealth countries, even if not as prominent as the ones in the UK still are (who tend to all be knighted etc). Perhaps rename to {{infobox herald}}. МандичкаYO 😜 09:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I find it Good , usable !. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • what do you find Good , usable [sic]? Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • comment, yes, it appears as though most of the parameters could be mapped into {{Infobox organization}}, but the fine-grained leadership information would be lost. but, I'm not sure if that's significant enough of an issue to prevent the heraldry template from being replaced with the more generic organization template. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Frietjes: This template is NOT THE EQUIVALENT of an organization. This is not about an organization. It is an office that someone is appointed to. The heraldry organizations already use the court or organization template. МандичкаYO 😜 05:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Wikimandia, so merge it with {{Infobox official post}} instead? Frietjes (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't see the point given the uniqueness of heraldic authorities, and I especially don't see the point of people nominating templates for merging when they don't have the slightest concept what the templates are about. МандичкаYO 😜 14:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Historical coat of arms

Propose merging Template:Historical coat of arms with Template:Infobox coat of arms wide.
All heraldry has an historical background. No reason to have two different, wide templates. Proposed final name Template:Infobox coat of arms wide. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - I don't get the point of merging the templates. They look very different as well and I don't see why there would be a need to start a debate on which look to keep. Everything has a historical background, but we don't merge every template with a historical version available. "Historical coat of arms" has a very particularly use. МандичкаYO 😜 16:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I find it good for user of wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm glad to hear you think the templates are good for user [sic], but disappointed to see that you (yet again) have no substantive comments on the merger proposal. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • merge, they serve the same functional purpose. minor styling differences can be resolved with parameters, or with some additional discussion over which styling is the most useful. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hindu temples in Thailand

Navbox with unclear scope, listing unrelated topics and thus failing WP:NAVBOX. Devasathan is the only true Hindu temple listed here. The Erawan Shrine isn't a temple, nor is it really of the Hindu religion. (It's actually more of a glorified spirit house mixing elements of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Animist beliefs.) The rest have not been functioning as Hindu temples for close to a millennium; they are primarily archaeological sites, and are already covered by the Template:Angkorian sites navbox. Paul_012 (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • AlfaRocket, please stop! (1) this template is used, and (2) this isn't a "cancellation page", this is a discussion page, and you aren't providing any useful discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I've struck the irrelevant comment by AlfaRocket. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Terrorist organisations active in India

Nothing here that isn't conveyed on Template:India-designated terror outfits and this one is barely used. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • very unused, I agree with user Zackmann. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • AlfaRocket, "very unused" makes no sense, since there is no way it can be used less than zero. again, this is WP:NOTAVOTE, so just agreeing with someone else is not helpful. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Redundant Iranian templates

There already exists standardized templates for both the army and air force, now there are just more to be confused about. Skjoldbro (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to explain about these changes. Iran has a couple of Air Force. 1) Air Force and 2) Air Defense Force that both of them are separate forces and have different rank insignia. This is true about army of Iran. Iran has two kinds of Army. IRI Army and IRGC (Revolutionary Corps) that both of them have different rank insignia. As you know I have completed so many rank insignia of countries and because I'm Iranian, I know our military rank insignia much better than you. Please confirm these changes. Skjoldbro  MrInfo2012  Talk  05:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I have no doubt that you are much more knowable on Iran than I am. However, in order not to make the templates too confusing, the standard army, just use the standard template, and the other part will have a specialized template. Just like how the US navy template is called "Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/United States", while the Marines and Coast Guard are specialized with the additional (USMC) and (USCG) respectively. Therefore I don't see a problem with the new templates for Air Defense Force and IRGC, I however believe that the difference between the standard templates and the Air Defense Force and IRGC templates are enough, with no need for the (Army) and (Air Force) templates. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ankh series

This fails the soft requirement of WP:NENAN; and with the last game releasing a decade ago, there's probably no likelihood that this will be expanded in the foreseeable future. Articles can or should be suitably linked in the mainspace content. Izno (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment , Im not sure but I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As they all have the same name, and are not a long series, an infobox is unnecessary.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The series has a total of six games. The most recent game was made in 2010. The series was passed on from Deck13 to Legacy Interactive. Deltasim (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bowlers with career strike rate of 50 or less in Test matches

As per discussion, the template is based on arbitrary number. Greenbörg (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I agree the number is arbitrary, and in its current form the template does merit deletion. However, I wonder if it would be an option to replace this with some sort of template of the best strike rates for bowlers in tests (based on the lists in the Strike rate article)? For example, the fact that George Lohmann has the best test strike rate is highlighted in his article and such a template could be useful for navigation. Dunarc (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dunarc: Thanks for your suggestion. Could you please propose which form of template we should have? It was created by me 2 years back but now I think it is not useful. Any good suggestion could make it useful. Greenbörg (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Greenbörg: Thanks. I'll have a full think and get back to you. Dunarc (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dunarc:Okay. Greenbörg (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Greenbörg: My thoughts were something like the below. I am not sure whether it is more useful than your original version or not, but here it is anyway:

September 15

Template:Infobox Dalai Lama and Template:Infobox religious biography

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 on 2017 September 23. Primefac (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2017 (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:Cite Q

This template is a baffling thing when one comes across it while editing. It creates a properly formed citation. Turns out it is pulling data from Wikidata somehow. This is used in about 225 places which is unfortunate. But based on the deprecation of template:doi per Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should cite doi template be deprecated?, this should not have been implemented. Citation data should be in the article where the citation is used, not somewhere else, and not in another project altogether.

See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs#UNREADABLE_WIKIDATA_REFS which is what made me aware of this. -- Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - Just because you don't like it doesn't make it good enough for deletion. If you find it difficult to find get rid of <ref name="0:"> too. There's not much difference. Keeping that aside I believe it can be made easier to find. Further, I would like to again remind the need for consolidating references into Wikidata for which various editors and tech people are working on already. The way ahead is improving Cite Q not getting rid of it. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The existence of the template is one thing; the advocacy to use this systematically is another one altogether. Anybody seeking that kind of systematic, radical change in Wikipedia must get consensus for that in Wikipedia first. Being BOLD is fine but has its limits, and this kind of thing is one of them. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep As the nominator notes, this template "creates a properly formed citation". The DOI template discussion has no bearing on this one, which does not rely on DOIs and does not work in the manner of the previously deleted template. More sensible discussions of this template than the one given may be found at, for example, Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 33#Drawing citation metadata from Wikidata. If the nominator is "baffled", there are numerous venues, such as the template's talk page, where they can seek assistance, and where it appears that the nominator has never posted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I do not have a strong opinion about whether the template should be deleted, slighly leaning towards keep. The obvious problem is vamdalism on Wikidata, though items with citations are not really attractive to vandals and are not highly visible, and one still does not have a single example of such vandalism which would create damage on Wikipedia. Another argument is that sometimes data is not retrieved properly (in the example in the discussion, the name of the series changed, and the template retrieves the actual name rather than the name at the time of publication). It can be solved for example by having two separate items on Wikidata. A clear advantage is that the citations are centralized. I understand that most English Wikipedia participants do not care a fuck about other language editions (and this is the reason why info on some obscure subjects such as majors of minor Ukrainian cities remains vastly outdated, but this is unrelated to the current discussion). However, references are sometimes changed, and whereas there is some mechanism of propagation of these changes to Wikidata (bots), the changes do not propagate to Wikipedia. The changes specifically in the citations are rare though, and this is why I said I do not particularly care - we have minor advantages and minor disadvantages. I strongly oppose, however, the notion that all information should be in the code of the article. First, it should not be. This is exactly the idea why Wikidata was created. Information in the code is updated very slowly. Second, this is actually n0ot the case with our current articles. An example from my watchlist as of today: Kōtōdai-Kōen Station has a link to a dab in the infobox. I tried to correct it, but I can not figure out how it can be done, because it is hidden in some obscure template somewhere. And I am a rather advanced Wikipedia user with some experience. It is just not true, the info is not always in the Wikipedia article code, and often it is not at all trivial to retrieve or to correct it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Re "a clear advantage is that the citations are centralized", that is only true if Wikidata is used for all references. While it lives alongside references that exist as text in articles it fragments references. It would only centralise references if all references were moved to Wikidata. I think though this would be fiercely resisted by the majority of editors used to the current system, and will not be possible until it vastly easier to work with Wikidata. Until then this does not really centralise citations – quite the opposite.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Ymblanter, the plain text 'Izumi-Chūō' is easily found when you edit the page. It had a fairly pointless STN template around it, but so what? I'm sure you know how to make a basic piped link.[1] BTW, please check that diff link. I assumed the disambig target should be the Izumi-Chūō on the same rail line. Alsee (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      Thank you, this solves a problem for this particular article now, but generally this is a completely wrong way of dealing with data. It might be that the line is extended, and than in all articles about the stations of the line the end station must be changes. This is workload which scales with the number of stations. Instead, someone designed a template which keeps track of it and which you only need to change once. At the expence of the usability. Of course one can reject all these templates and remove them from the articles like you just did, but I am sure if you open an RfC there will be a vast majority for keeping the templates.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Note on this, citations are valuable targets for vandalism. WP:REFSPAM is one of the most insidious kinds of spamming there is - when someone changes the URL in a ref from a legit or dead one, to some spam site, or adds a URL to a spam site where there was no URL. I fix a couple of these a day. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      I do it as well, but what relation does it have to the usability issue we are discussing?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      I am reacting to the statement in your !vote, though items with citations are not really attractive to vandals and are not highly visible. This is not true in my experience - the citations themselves are targets for vandals. Or did I misunderstand? Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      I actually meant the Wikidata items which are user in the template. My apologies for being unclear.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata entries for citations include URLs that can be the subject of spammers. Like this Q29581753 has a field with the URL That could be easily changed to some spam link by vandalizing spammer. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It certainly can be vandalized, but I would like to see an actual evidence that any of these Wikidata items has been vandalized even once. Usually items on highly visible topics are vandalized, not on some obscure articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least remove all mainspace instances of it (directly or through templates). Not only for the reason described above, but also because often it creates incorrect references which are hard to correct. At Povl Riis, this created a reference where neearly everything had to be changed to make it correct. Like I said at WP:ANI[2] ":If I have to add parameters to change the editors' names, change the title, change the link to the pdf, change the journal name, add the volume number, add the page number, and change the publisher's name (assuming all of these are even possible with the current template), then what is the actual use of the cite Q template?"
For another example of problems with the template, see Regensburg. A long way down on that page, you have the infobox for a UNESCO World Heritage Site. "Area [7]". Reference 7 is "Bavarian State Office for Statistics and Data, ed. (1991), Amtliches Ortsverzeichnis für Bayern, Munich: Bavarian State Office for Statistics and Data, p. 242, Wikidata Q15707237". Great, we have a reference without anything it references. Furthermore, the source, if you succeed in eventually finding it, has no info on the area anyway[3]. Then again, how could a 1991 source have information of the area designed as world Heritage Site in 2006... Similarly, on Visby they use a 1961 reference for a 1995 world heritage site, resulting in "Location Gotland Municipality, Q10716061, Gotland[10][11], Sweden" (emphasis mine) in the text of the infobox.
And a third group of articles this is used on are telescopes. Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory has the location of the telescope, "Location Coquimbo Region, Chile[1]" with the source "GRID Release 2017-05-22, 22 May 2017, doi:10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.5032286, Wikidata Q30141628". Neither the doi nor the Wikidata link bring you any closer to the actual source, [4].
Some loose articles also use this, e.g. Moksha (Jainism) has a source: "Paul Dundas (2002, 1992), The Jains, London, New York: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-26605-X Check date values in: |date= (help), Wikidata Q36518532" (emphasis mine). Oops! Often, these pages have a Wikidata link to a general website, not an actual reference to the object in question (e.g. Bengtskär lighthouse links to this, not to this; Crucifixion with the Virgin Mary, St John and St Mary Magdalene links to this, not to this which as already present in the article anyway.
Basically, whether you believe we should have this template or not (I don't, hence my "delete"), it clearly isn't ready to be used in the mainspace and is added to articles and templates in a reckless, often WP:POINTY manner. Fram (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • It took just seconds to fix the dual date issue for the Dundas book's item at Wikidata (something Fra could have done, but choose not to). The issue there was the conflation of two editions, just as they are conflated on Wikipedia's article about the author. No doubt User:RexxS (whose Lua skills exceed mine) will be happy to kindly update Cite Q to handle the edge case of dual dates in Wikidata, and our project can take yet another a small step forwards, instead of the large step backwards that deletion of this template would involve. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Andy Mabbett, please be more cautious about selectively pinging allies into RFC or deletion discussions. It may be interpreted as canvassing. Alsee (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Please be more careful about failing to assume good faith. I know for a fact that RexxS has the template on his watchlist, not least as he's a major contributor to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Actually, it took you ten minutes, not two seconds[5], and since when do we have to edit other websites to fix error messages in Wikipedia? I don't see how having to correct references and errors there is somehow a sign of progress. You haven't really explained why deletion of this template would be "a large step backwards" though. By the way, don't edit my comments again. Fram (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
        • No, it took seconds to apply a fix that remedied the display in the Wikipedia article. I then decided to go back and make further improvements, *after making my post here* [during which time, incidentally, my Internet connection went down and I had to reconnect]. I have not "edited your comment"; I have fixed the list markup for accessibility reasons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Your initial "fix" kept the wrong year and removed the ISBN. It's easy to make a 2-second fix if it doesn't have to be in any way or shape correct of course. Fram (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
        • P.S. "since when do we have to edit other websites to fix error messages in Wikipedia?" Since we started transcluding media from Wikimedia Commons. When indeed was that, remind me? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
          • I can't really remember the last time that I saw an error message here generated by a Commons file though (apart from adding a commons file in a wrong location, which needs fixing in enwiki, not on Commons). But you are welcome to indicate some recent cases where this happened of course. Fram (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
            • Just as soon as you show me an error message "generated by Wikidata", and not (as in the case in hand) by a template on en.Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Fram has now Removed Cite Q from the Moksha article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The issue at Regensburg is with {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}, which appears not to handle a missing |area= parameter. That cannot be laid at Cite Q's door. Similarly, at Bengtskär lighthouse, and at Metrostav, the issue is what is being passed to Cite Q by the infobox, not what it is doing with it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • In the cases of Regensburg and Visby, the main problem here was that we had multiple infoboxes here on enwp, rather than using child templates to just show the WHS-specific information. The current code for area needs more work before it can be applied to complex cases such as cities (as opposed to World Heritage Site-specific articles), as it needs to cope with, e.g., changes in area over time. I'm not sure why we had multiple infoboxes on the same page, as we should never have more than one. I've now fixed this in these two cases, and I am slowly working through the other articles that use the WHS template to make sure this doesn't happen in other cases - but this is an enwp cleanup task that will take a while to complete (only another 532 articles to work through). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep a) the referred problem has no bearing as the nominator himself states and b) The solution to - real or imagined - problems with using wikidata is to work on those, and not by deleting templates here. Agathoclea (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • If there are fundamental problems with the template, and the supposed benefits seem to be missing from most or all examples actually in use now, then why keep it? I don't understand what you mean with "the referred problem has no bearing". Every time I look at actual uses of this template, I notice new problems. Metrostav has the first "reference": "annual report, Wikidata Q699735". The first link is to our article on "annual report", not to an actual annual report for this company. The second link, to Wikidata, goes to this, the Wikidata page for ... "annual report". The Wikidata link adds absolutely nothing here, only frustrates people wanting to find an actual source. How come? Well, an editor added here the "Infobox company/Wikidata", which calls the cite Q template, with this result. Uesful! Fram (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • But that is a problem of {{Infobox company/wikidata}} and not of the template we are discussing. Agathoclea (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
        • No, citeQ generates the actual text of the reference (it is supposedly its unique selling proposition). That CiteQ is used is the choice of the people maintaining that infobox version, but the end result is a reference which is nearly impossible to edit, improve or remove from the article. if CiteQ were deleted, we wouldn't see that "reference" and we would lose the link to the Wikidata item for "annual report", which would be a good thing. In general, no matter through what means the citeQ template is introduced in the article, there seem to be very few uses where the reference actually guides you to the right source, page, ..., the kind of things you would expect in a real, working cite template. Often it is simply wrong, in other instances it is somewhat, vaguely right if you ignore lots of small issues and defects. Fram (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    You're begging the question (Q219429). It's circular to say we should use it because→ wikidata should be improved because→ we should use it. Alsee (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • delete or mark as unusable. This is strongly reminiscent of the previous {{cite doi}} which although well meant was found to be detrimental to the project, because it broke one of the main tenet of WP, that it is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. References are part of the page content, and editors should be able to view, edit and copy them by viewing the page source. Putting them on other pages made them harder to find and edit, harder to monitor for vandalism, harder to re-use by copy and paste. {{cite doi}} was bad enough, but at least when an editor found the relevant page it was a recognisable citation, and could be examined, edited, copied as if it were in an article. Putting them on Wikidata is far worse, as it is a separate project and the way it works is completely unlike WP.
    Maybe one day we will be able to edit Wikidata content within WP pages, and watch it for changes with other page changes. At that point it might make sense to host content such as references on Wikidata. But right now it makes the editing experience significantly worse and so should not be used.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • delete. It's just about impossible to figure out which source is which while editing an article. Also, the template is self-described as experimental but is nevertheless finding its way into articles, so describing it as experimental in the documentation is insufficient to prevent it from being used in articles. Deleting it would be sufficient. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Nowhere in the template's documentation is it described as "experimental". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • That would appear to be a "letter of the law" response; the words "A prototype wrapper" appear in the very first sentence of the documentation. --Izno (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
        • No, it's a "don't describe things as 'self-described as experimental' when they are clearly not" response. Our own frequent use of the qualified phrase "experimental prototype", not to mention a third of a million Google hits, shows that "experimental" and "prototype" are not synonyms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow for use in small scale testing only. Requires a broad RfC before general use Was created against the consensus here. The WD property can be added to cite journal. We do not need another citation format to confuse editors. I have specifically said a few times that WP:CITE should not work like this. But I guess if this is just a step towards better things than okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • As noted above: "The DOI template discussion has no bearing on this one, which does not rely on DOIs and does not work in the manner of the previously deleted template. ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • The problem with Cite Q and Cite DOI are the same. They shuffle off the meta data to some other place out of Wikitext / Wikipedia. Much of the core editing community has previously opposed this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fram and Doc James and JohnBlackburne. Not an improvement and not needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete... OK, let me start by admitting that I do not have much tech experience... If I had come upon a citation that used this template before reading this thread, I would have had no idea what all the coding meant. It is simply gibberish too me. I would have figured out that it was a link to wikidata... but that is about it. Having read the thread, I have a bit more of a clue... so I followed the links and tried to figure out how I would edit citations that used this template. I very quickly gave it us as too confusing. That is a huge problem. Wikipedia is supposed to be something that just about anyone can edit... even those who don't have a lot of tech experience. Wikidata may be wonderful for those who understand how its database works, but it is confusing as hell for the rest of us. With this template, editors see a string of meaningless letters and numbers... and if we click on the links, we end up at a confusing and meaningless database, with no idea of how to edit it. If we try, we are very likely to make a mistake... and make the citation worse. Not acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    You should talk to someone who tries to edit Wikipedia for the first times.. There is nothing easy about it. Most people don't even dare to start. The frictionless experience you describe doesn't exist, our pages our filled with gibberish and people make MANY mistakes and then get stuck. It takes people lots of time to learn how to edit a reference. If your argument is that you don't want to learn twice, then ok, but lets not pretend that one is superior to the other. It isn't, both are shite for the true 'rest of us'. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I certainly remember how difficult it was for me to learn how to format a citation... and you are correct in saying that it wasn't easy. For a long time, I simply cut and pasted a citation from another part of the article (or some other article), and then simply rewrote the citation text. And I still use the old <ref>...</ref> format that I learned back then (All these "parameters" and "fields" and what not, are beyond me). But, that just reinforces my point... For a non tech-oriented Luddite like me, the template makes it even harder and more confusing to edit. I would be all for it if it actually made things easier... but it doesn't. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • DELETE. We encourage BOLD editing, but this Wikidata Crusade is getting disruptive. Worse than cite doi, with many of the same issues that established that consensus. Rather than hiding the actual ref outside of the article, this manages to hide the ref outside of wikipedia. I was confused as hell when I clicked edit on an article, and exactly NONE of the ref-text I was searching for was findable. Wow! Unreadable refs! BRILLIANT! This adds stupid layers of complexity and confusion for new editors, nevermind experienced editors. Or maybe I'm wrong, and eventually we'll just turn articles into one long string of Q-numbers:
    Welcome (Q299010) To (Q223817) The (Q2430521) Future (Q229748) Alsee (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Your slippery slope (Q876455) is a fallacy (Q186150) of logic (Q8078). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      I'm Sorry. It Was Hyperbole and a Half. Alsee (Talk) 21:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Centralised storage makes a lot of sense, rather than endless copy and paste (and propagated errors). If the citation already exists on Wikidata (bibliographic data is currently being bot-imported there by the shedload), what's the point in duplicating it ? If people want something they can tweak without leaving the wikitext screen, a good solution is local over-ride fields, that would over-ride whatever is on Wikidata for that citation field. These over-rides can then be examined by somebody confident about editing Wikidata, and the database there updated if appropriate. Jheald (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • "propagated errors"; yes, with this template you are at least reasonably certain that you get the same error in all copies. Where does this belief come from that what you will get from Wikidata is somehow magically better than what you get here? It certainly doesn't match the evidence collected here. Fram (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fram: In part because when it comes to copying and pasting I know that machines can do a better job with a lower error rate that I do as a human being. But the second factor is that it's easier to compare data in Wikidata to the original source, and much easier if you want to make such comparisons at scale. En-wp is very good at catching bad edits. But if a bad edit gets through that initial screen, you're never going to find it again. Suppose you wanted to check all the citations on en-wiki to a particular journal, to see whether the article titles were correct. You would have to scrape an enormous amount a material, simply to find those cites. Whereas on wikidata you could write a query that would retrieve all those article titles in under a minute. There are a lot of things that wikitext is good for, in particular its ease and speed of editing. But systematic at-scale data retrieval and data checking is not one of them. Jheald (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I have seen very little evidence so far that Wikidata at the moment does any such data checking (or does it well). I have also seen very little evidence, from the current 250 or so citations using citeQ, that Wikidata is in any way better to a) find the right source, b) display the right source, and c) correct when it is wrong. And of course, most sources don't get used in that many articles, most sources are used once or twice, making the benefit of this minimal. I just checked one of the articles using Cite Q, and noticed that the Wikidata source is a generic one, instead of a specific one. If I would change this source to point at the right item on Wikidata, I would break dozens of other articles which use the same generic source. On enwiki, I would change the reference for this article and I wouldn't break any other articles. Funny bit (well, not really, another very sad reminder of the true state of Wikidata: the article I checked was La Madeleine, Paris, a rather famous Paris landmark and World Heritage site. Since 28 February 2017 this item has the wrong English label at Wikidata (basically meaning that it has been page-moved vandalized and no one saw it or cared for more than 6 months), where it is called "La Madeleine ceosoner"[6]. And tragically matching another current Wikidata debate, the English description "Roman Catholic church occupying in the 8th arrondissement of Paris" could do with some copy-editing as well. That error has been there only since October 2013 though[7]. It's the first line our mobile- and app viewers (used to) see when visiting the article, not something buried deep in the body of it. And that's the kind of site we should trust to keep our references up-to-date and correct? Fram (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Well thank you for that vote of deep appreciation, Fram. And now, if you don't mind, I'll go back to the 1:1 matching of Wikidata's items on civil parishes in England to the identifiers and authoritative data from the UK national stats office, to facilitate just that kind of cross-checking. 10325 matched so far, closing in on the last 125. The kind of ongoing data matching and iterative improvement that is typical right across Wikidata. Jheald (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fram, JohnBlackburne, Doc James, and Blueboar. Articles are meant to be such that "anyone can edit" them, remember? SarahSV (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per JohnBlackburne's summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh joy... I have just discovered that a vandal will be able to simply go to wikidata, vandalize a citation, and have his vandalism appear on hundreds of pages on Wikipedia (wherever the Q template is used). Meanwhile, (to to really make this fun for vandals) the since changes made on wikidata will not show up on your watchlist here on wikipedia... which means that the chance that the vandalism will be noticed and fixed actually decreases. Brilliant! Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't understand why a few people on English Wikipedia hate Wikidata and tech people so much. Wikidata is a beautiful tool which make data readable to machines just as Wikipedia make it to humans. Also, you should not forget that Wikipedia itself is designed and maintained by a tech team. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Humans and machines do not read data the same way, and never have done. If they did, browser development would have stopped at Lynx as "a solved problem" and we'd all still be programming in assembly language. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Haphazardly sprinkling WD on everything does not make it "Great TM". I like the idea of WD actually. There however has been specific requests NOT to do this and yet here it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fram - it's clear the template makes Wikipedia harder for the average editor to fix mistakes, which is a big no-no. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Fram, Doc James and Blueboar make valid points; I see no benefits from the use of this template. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete If the information was actually kept in and synched to Wikidata as wikidata-enabled infoboxes work, that would be fine to catch for errors/vandals, but the way that it hides info from editing on is extremely problematic and we should not have this template until fixed. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least do not use in articles. I've already given some reasons in the recent ANI thread. I agree with Fram, Doc James and most others who have already commented in favour of deletion in this discussion. In addition, think of the newbies: they struggle with our plethora of extant cite formats without something that is as utter gibberish as this one. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, or at least userfy in some way so that this is not used in mainspace. I was initially enthusiastic about the idea of a cite template that pulled data from Wikidata, and suggested it myself over a year ago. I still like the benefits that we might get from this sort of integration, but there are too many problems.
    • Ease of modification. Currently it's much too hard to figure out how to modify the data that constitutes the citation. I don't mind a bit of a learning curve -- it was a while before I began using {{cite journal}} and its ilk -- but it took me a long time to figure out how to do the data entry for the citation data I built on Wikidata. Most users who run into {{Cite Q}} in mainspace are going to be stopped dead in their tracks; at least with {{cite journal}} one can see that "Jhonson" is spelt wrong, and just fix it in wikitext. This reason by itself is enough to keep Cite Q out of mainspace.
    • Visibility. I can't imagine any content editor wanting to add information to an article that they can't keep an eye on via their watchlist. It's true we don't do this with Commons, but the only changes on Commons that can affect our articles are uploads of revised versions of existing files that are already included in articles. This is not something that is likely to happen as drive-by vandalism; I don't think I've ever noticed it on any article I've ever worked on. Changes to data likely to show up in thousands of citations -- say, a journal title, or an author name -- require much better visibility from the wikipedia they're used in.
    • Vandalism. I don't think this is quite as big an issue as some other commenters above; I think if we had better visibility and easy reversion from WP screens this problem would largely go away. However, minor or major, it's a real issue, and a clear net negative at the moment.
    • BLP & V. Several people have commented here or elsewhere that there is no equivalent on Wikidata to WP:V and WP:BLP; I've not yet seen a link that proves them wrong, but perhaps there is one. Again I think this is a secondary issue -- if in practice their data complied with V and BLP then I would care much less about their policies. The real issue is whether the data quality is good; BLP and V would help, but wouldn't guarantee it.
--Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete – I have serious misgivings about this template, due to the problems at Wikidata that other editors have already mentioned. However, my concern is broader than that. If the intention is to have a database of references that the various Wikipedias can pluck sources from, (it sounds like that is the goal), I'd expect to see a major RFC before such a plan is implemented. A new host site for references is a change that would have more impact on the site than anything I've seen in almost a decade of editing. Everything from article maintenance to additions by inexperienced users would be affected, and this isn't the sort of thing that should be just be added one day as if it were a simple bug fix. A consensus of the entire editing community would be needed here. Until there is one, I don't think this template should exist yet. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Giants2008: A database of references is already there on Wikidata, and growing by the day. For one thing Wikidata needs it for its own citations. But the intention isn't to do away with existing citation mechanisms here, just to make it possible to cite the citations on Wikidata as well. Jheald (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • You just said that you supported centrally storing references, that keeping two sets of refs was unnecessary duplication, and that if Wikipedia editors don't like something they can locally override it. That sounds like a desire for a central reference database to me, and this would greatly alter our existing citation practices; taken to its logical conclusion, we'd be pushed to input new refs on Wikidata before using them on a given Wikipedia. My point about the need for an RFC for such big changes stands. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Centrally stored references have benefits for the citations that use them. Citations that don't use them don't get the benefits; but I wouldn't be pushing for conversion, or mandatory use of wikidata for referencing. I mean, I still typically reference here using freetext without even a citation template. But if the bibliographic data already exists on Wikidata (and eg was already supporting the fact in question there), then I'd be very happy just to be able to put in a {{cite_Q}} template -- especially knowing that it would automatically pick up any improvements to the reference, eg links to repositories or appropriate indexing services. Jheald (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
          • I agree there would be plenty of benefits if we had a reliable citation database such as you describe. The "delete" !votes above don't generally point to a disbelief in these benefits; they point to other issues, which outweigh the possible benefits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I can see that there might be benefits to a centralized database of sources... but this one definitely isn't the database we want. We want one that is internal to WP:en... subject our policies and guidelines... one where the text of the citation is readable when in edit mode (without going to some other project or page) ... and that alerts our watchlists if the citation is amended or changed. The citeQ templates are external .. not under our policies... without the text being visible in edit mode... and do not alert our waychlists if something gets changed. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per comments by many others above. --Andreas JN466 19:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete (and deprecate) for the multiple solid objections raised above, and also because this template seems to rely on "named-refs", which is a definite defect. Additional comment re "centrally stored references": not only do they distance the citation from the material cited (as mentioned above), they also force a "one style for all" in matters such as whether authors' first names should be full or initialized. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @J. Johnson: Not at all. Given the data stored in a structured way, it's easy to have a local 'style' parameter that controls which formatting template to send it to. That can include whether to use full first names or initials. Jheald (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • It's easy to have a local style parameter? Then why (at least for this template) isn't there such a parameter? Not only is the implementation lacking, so is the conception of how this might be done. Unless, and until, that is addressed it's one-style-for-all, but without any consideration of what that style should be. Isn't that rather like kindling waiting for a match? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
        • "Then why (at least for this template) isn't there such a parameter?" There is; it's documented at Template:Cite Q#Mode. You did read the template's documentation, before suggesting it be deleted, didn't you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • "this template seems to rely on 'named-refs'" It doesn't. Why are you calling for a template to be deleted, when you apparently don't know (and are clearly uncertain) how it works? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did read the template's documentation beforehand. Have you reviewed WP:civility any time recently? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone uninvolved should please place a neutral notification of this discussion, on Help talk:CS1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to note that @Nikkimaria: added a notification to that help page. I've tweaked it slightly so it mentions the template name. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep and Prohibit use in mainspace until there's a clear consensus to do so. We're not ready to export citations to Wikidata, per the many reasons outlined above. I'm fully in agreement with that. But given the increasingly meaningful roles Wikidata will play in Wikimedia projects, it's worth considering that with a range of technical fixes to Wikipedia and/or bots and/or templates, it's entirely plausible citations will one day be handled on Wikidata. Maybe it won't, but templates like this are the sort that are useful for experimentation for uses like this, and it doesn't seem like there's any benefit to outright deleting it. Why not allow it to be used in sandboxes, drafts, talk pages, etc.? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Rhododendrites I don't know what the future holds, but having this available for experimentation makes sense to me. An outcome that is "prohibit use in mainspace" is an entirely reasonable to me, with a big fat notice placed on the template doc, warning people not to use it in mainspace. I worry that Wikidata advocates won't abide by that but we would have this AfD to point back to at ANI or elsewhere, I reckon. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
That would be sufficient for me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Re: use in drafts: What happens when those drafts are moved into Mainspace? All the Cite Q refs get altered? What are the chances that everyone's going to remember that? I think the chances are pretty low, and we're going to end up with it in Mainspace by the backdoor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I am happy to see it tested. I guess the question is should we have a bot that converts for this to a normal citation when it occurs in mainspace? Such a bot would than keep it from getting into mainspace. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is an integral part of the Wikidata infobox ecosystem - it is one of the two templates that are being used to include references in the infoboxes when the info is drawn from Wikidata (along with Module:wd), and it is the only one that can currently handle the "stated in" references. If we want to include references in the infoboxes (which seems to be the case from past conversations I've had about this), then this is vital to keep.
The template works, mostly quite well, and is quite well documented (although the documentation doesn't already get read ;-) ). There are issues with the template, but it is under active development, and issues either get quickly fixed by tweaks to the template (just point them out on the template talk page) or to the information on Wikidata (which is also still under development/expansion!).
A lot of the arguments I hear about incomplete information could easily be said about Wikipedia in the past (and even currently)! And a lot of the arguments about 'it's difficult to edit the information on Wikidata' can equally be said about the standard citation templates here (we just have stockholm syndrome...)
As for 'you can't follow changes here', please go to Special:Preferences, go to the 'Watchlist' tab, and tick the check-box next to 'Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist'. Maybe this should be enabled by default... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This is how it goes. The community allows infoboxes to be drawn from Wikidata, which leads to citation templates drawing data from wikidata, which irresponsible editors start using more widely outside of infoboxes. This is the problem with working in an unstructured community like this. People are going to do irresponsible things, running well ahead of consensus.
Many many reasons have been given for deleting this citation template. If that makes things difficult with wikidata-driven infoboxes, then those will have to be redone, but that is an entirely different conversation. Not relevant here. It is not the en-WP community's problem, that Wikidata advocates are making problems for themselves. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Consensus without practical examples tends to lead to conservatism - "this can't be done", "this will break everything", "this will never happen". Everything I've been doing with Wikidata infoboxes so far has to prove that the concept works, within the bounds of existing consensus as I understand it, and to work through the technical and (mostly) social issues as best as I can. I have not yet seen a valid reason for deleting this template - restricting its usage to certain circumstances, maybe, but not deleting it. We can have Wikidata infoboxes that don't show references, but I worry that this will then be seen as a reason to delete the infoboxes ("they don't support references"/"you can't display references from Wikidata correctly"). Most of the problems I've seen so far with this work have been due to the en-WP community's ad-hoc approach to things... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I get it that you see nothing wrong with this; you wrote that the first time. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for listening. Mike Peel (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC
"This is how it goes. The community allows infoboxes to be drawn from Wikidata, which leads to citation templates drawing data from wikidata, which irresponsible editors start using more widely outside of infoboxes." In this case you are demonstrating a remarkable ignorance of the facts. That is most certainly not how it has gone, as just a few seconds reading of the links already posting this discussion would have shown you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to reply to this: "As for 'you can't follow changes here', please go to Special:Preferences, go to the 'Watchlist' tab, and tick the check-box next to 'Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist'.". I tried it for a couple of days and it does not work. Or at least it is badly broken in a number of ways. First with no edit summaries only automated ones you are often forced to guess what the edit is, certainly what its intent is. Second there is no 'diff' link, you have to go to the page, then view history, then view the last change. Third Navigation Popups don’t work. But fourth and worst it pulls in every change, not just ones to the items that correspond to the pages on your watchlist but every item used on them, filling the list with irrelevant changes, but which are not obviously irrelevant until you dive in and see what the change is. E.g. I saw reports of vandalism of the description at Argentina on Wikidata, not because I have that page watched but because there was something on my watchlist which is in Argentina, which has an infobox which gets the country name from the country’s Wikidata page. And this is only likely to get worse as infoboxes and templates pull data from multiple Wikidata pages.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@JohnBlackburne: It's not broken, although it's not as feature-complete as you (and I) would like. First, the automated edit summaries are because manual edit summaries aren't used when editing Wikidata as each edit is quite small (the sort of edits you'd make with summaries of 'tweak', 'ce', '+', '-' here) - although the display of these could be a lot better (property name, value changes), and for larger edit sets a summary would be useful. Second, the diff link works for me as usual (except it points to the wikidata edit diff rather than the wikipedia one), if it doesn't work for you then that's a bug that needs to be fixed. Third, yes, pop-ups don't work (which is a shame). Fourth, this is both a pro and a con - it's a pro because you need to see when things change in other entries that affect the page you're watching (which is particularly relevant for the template being discussed here!), but a con is it would be better if duplicate edits didn't show up (although maybe this shows up the important changes to check. ;-) ). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. No valid reason for deletion has been specified, and the goal of centralizing citation metadata in a single database entry per source rather than copying it as text in each article that uses it (in each different language of Wikipedia) is a very good one. That way, there is one place to correct any errors or add new detail to the citation, rather than having to track down each different copy of the citation and correct it separately in each one. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. One thing that I have learned in fixing a half million disambiguation links over the past ten years is that it is a very bad idea to separate the presentation of data from the location for editing that data, unless there is a crystal clear road map for finding the place where the edit needs to be done to fix an error. bd2412 T 02:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Every instance of this template includes a link to the Wikidata item where such an edit can be made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
      • This use of Cite Q, for example, included a link only to the Wikidata page, The Jains, not to the reference itself, and there's no indication on the Wikidata page which reference it is. SarahSV (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
        • No; that is flat out false. It also included a link to as is easily seen by visiting the version of the page to which you link. Likewise, viewing that page shows that the use of Cite Q also generated a link to the ISBN special page for the work. And in case anyone doubts this, here it is again: {{cite Q|Q36518532}} generates ‹See Tfd›Paul Dundas (2002), The Jains, London, New York: Routledge, ISBN 9780415266062 Wikidata Q36518532. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
          • In fact, it seems to be flat-out true. If an editor wanted to edit that citation, what would they have to do? First, go to The Jains page on Wikidata. Then what? SarahSV (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Doc James. Citations are a mystery to many editors, and this appears to make them even more mysterious and less functional. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The template is useful for discussions and as a sandbox, but remove from mainspace. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not ready for use on Wikipedia. I read through the documentation, and could not work out how to use it or fix it if something is wrong. I don't necessarily need to be able to use it from scratch, but if it breaks something on my watchlist I want to be able to fix it without a huge learning curve. This looks like the Visual Editor fiasco revisited, maybe a little less in your face. Most content creators are unlikely to look kindly on tech changes which confuse them or take them away from what they want to be doing to try to iron out someone else's bugs. Get it working, get it user friendly. This may be just a matter of good documentation, but from the comments above I think the problem is deeper. It may be potentially wonderful, but at present it is not. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for experimentation, with warning not to use in reference sections on articles. I feel partially responsible for this fiasco as I encouraged Andy Mabbett to create this as a proof of concept template, supplanting an earlier experimental template. I agree that it is not ready to be used in articles. For some historical context, we first started discussing this approach to storing citation data at 2014. After that discussion Wikidata WikiProject Source MetaData was started. And although I did not attend, I do know that this idea has been discussed at two conferences since, WikiCite 2016 and WikiCite 2017; the overarching project is at [8] Mvolz (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Blueboar, Doc James, Pbsouthwood, and JohnBlackburne. I understand the point of wikidata and tesnhis template, but the practice is close to hopeless. Happy days, LindsayHello 12:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and restrict out of mainspace, but not out of Wikidata-generated infoboxes—The objections cited are compelling. I would add another one—which cuts against the grains of Wikipedia community skepticism of VisualEditor: We should be moving the project in the direction of interactive Web operations, not obscure codes. This implementation of database-driven citation creation, which uses WorldCat to automatically generate editable citation templates, should be our model. (Even then, there are errors in WorldCat which need to fixed on the page.) But when Wikidata provides rich structured information, like in Infobox gene, (1) it's better if that material is referenced, and (2) we shouldn't begrudge Wikidata for using a Wikidata item to hold the reference. These processes generated the four infoboxes in Dihydrofolate reductase, and the first two references in the article. Using Cite Q within Infobox gene strikes me as unproblematic. What's more, it means that one reference is being actualized in multiple languages across Wikipedias, which is a kind of amazing feature. In the long term, I think both these applications (linked citations and cited multilingual infoboxes) require greater conversations across Wikipedias and Wikidata, but limiting the former while letting the latter go forward seems optimal until then.--Carwil (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • But that still leaves the problem that, when using a citeQ template, the text of the citation Is not visible when in edit mode. Centralized storage of data is all well and good, but citations are more than bits of data... they also need to be thought of as text ... and text requires ease of editing at an article level. Users should not have to go to external pages to edit an article's text. Even in infoboxes, the text should be editable by simply clicking on "edit" and typing. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I want that too… but we have some tools to build for that to be true. For example on Dihydrofolate reductase, someone added its position on Chromosone 5 on Wikidata and cited it. That citation now appears inside the infobox, but aren't editable. We should fix that (so that the citation is visible in Wikitext, editable in Wikitext and VisualEditor, and so that changes to the citation propagate to infoboxes in the other eight languages with Infobox gene), but it sounds like it will take some time. My point is that until we do fix such things, the least astonishing path for rich templates generated from Wikidata is to keep having the cites generated by Wikidata. And by "rich templates," I mean things like Infobox gene that reveal complex data, but not like Infobox company which gets a plain text field—the company's official URL—from Wikidata. Under the circumstances, I'd rather keep rich citations in such templates, not suspend them. (And not having access to the source of Infobox gene etc., I'm not sure if they depend on Cite Q at all.)--Carwil (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
That would definitely be a step in the right direction. Ok... I can see allowing it on a user page for testing... but don't roll it out to mainspace until fully vetted and approved by the WP:en community. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
template:infobox gene is used in Dihydrofolate reductase; it is one of the very few infoboxes that is drawn completely from Wikidata. It does not rely on the template we are discussing and is not relevant to this discussion. (i had an extended discussion about excluding health information from that infobox at Module talk:Infobox gene). Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog:, you're technically right in this case. I figured out how to look under the hood (at the Lua code that underlies Infobox gene) and it uses cite web for all footnotes it generates, not Cite Q. But, (1) those references are also invisible in wikitext (which just shows {{Infobox gene}}, and (2) it would be better if it did provide more fully elaborate references, such as journal articles.--Carwil (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the few instances we have where we can experiment with using Wikidata for storage of non-interwiki data. Also per Mike Peel and Agathoclea. —Kusma (t·c) 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This sort of experimentation should not be happening in live articles. Keep it for testing in sandboxes etc, fine, but no more. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We regularly test things on live articles (bot runs etc.) and then monitor what happens and revert when things go wrong. Being afraid of change or innovation is not how we became what we are now. —Kusma (t·c) 19:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If I was afraid of change or innovation, I wouldn't be doing the job that I do. However, being sensible is rarely a bad thing: this thing is nowhere near ready for articles, for a bundle of reasons already noted in this discussion. Sandboxes are for testing. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I've been experimenting with using {{cite Q}} after adding references to Wikidata to provide sources for data items there. The template itself is experimental, with a cryptic name. Among other projects Wikidata is being used as a database for thousands of scholarly articles (the goal is 4 million to start). This is changing the way Wikidata editors are viewing sources, which is all to the good. We have several hundred templates that use Wikidata in mainspace and most started out there. I am confused by the level of animosity towards this one. There have been objections to the use of some of the other templates, including by me, but they are still here. Even {{Wikidata list}}, which overwrites article entries periodically, hasn't been deleted. This one should be kept and improved. It should be usable in mainspace. If you are unhappy with its use in a particular article object there, but don't stop experimentation in this reference area.
Main issues with using Wikidata in order that they bother me, others' concerns will vary:
  • not properly referenced by standards - however these ARE references
  • hard to see what the reference is (the cite doi problem) - this can be improved, I've tried using named references and comments, but there can be other ways
  • hard to see vandalism - with thousands and thousands of references in Wikidata it is less likely that those we use here would be randomly hit
  • hard to edit references in Wikidata - painfully true, but only a few editors are using cite Q at the moment, just ask us to fix it
StarryGrandma (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The module Cite Q is a possibility to use the same bibliographic data in various articles of en-wiki but also in various wikipedias of different languages. This is certainly an improvement compared to the state before when you had to copy and paste the same information in some wikitext-format in several articles or just enter it again. Moreover, we can share the bibliographic data with others as for example refernce management systems. This is IMO the same idea as we have WikiCommons for images and more. Further progress or improvements cannot come by just deleting such modules at an early stage. Zuphilip (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I endorse the importance of this feature without changing my !vote above. As someone who occasionally translates Wikipedia articles and frequently draws on material written in other languages, it's incredibly valuable to have a simple way for a reference to appear in a different Wikipedia without having to learn a new set of citation formats.--Carwil (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
That is an excellent reason to keep this template (and to make sure it is rolled out everywhere). Translations should be able to share the same citation database. —Kusma (t·c) 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The content translation tool takes care of references during translation and we have "cite journal" and "cite book" installed in nearly all languages. As someone who manages a large translation project yes it would be nice to have centralized references, but this should not come at the loss of metadata within wikitext. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fram, JohnBlackburne, Doc James, Blueboar and SlimVirgin. I don't think anything from wikidata belongs on en-WP because it is crud.Smeat75 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is frustrating to see waste of good will among Wikipedia editors which seems to come with strident advocacy for wikidata and various template-related arguments. Honestly a huge part of this is the personalities and/or attitudes and/or the ways of speaking of some of the advocates. Whatever they want to accomplish is not worth it; shutting down any initiative like this is the best policy by far. --doncram 03:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • "Whatever they want to accomplish is not worth it" I trust that the closing admin will note this egregious failure to AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but keep it out of BLPs. (Seems something we can easily do with a bot?). —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Arbitray break 1
  • Comment/Proactive suggestion: Clearly, there's been a lot of intelligent discussion around the WikiCite theme about using Wikidata as a repository for citation material. {{cite Q}} is one small piece of implementation of that vision. Right now, it only a prototype (as the Template page says). If further development is to go forward…
    1. Restricted use is the appropriate way to test a prototype.
    2. One thing putting forward a prototype does is create useful feedback, including much of what's on this page.
    3. WikiCite is in bad need of central, accessible discussion space to process concerns, receive bug reports, reformulate proposals, and question core assumptions. Right now, that seems to only happen through crisis-driven shouting matches, which are poor spaces to learn. If you want to tinker on Wikipedia in a way that changes things, start a WikiProject already and be open to conversation.
    4. The largest element of feedback on this page is this: citations must continue to be readable in Wikitext and editable on Wikipedia. So, find a way to use Wikipedia:Substitution to generate a non-live citation from Wikidata. Second, include a Wikidata link in those citations. Third, create a bot that scans such citations for changes and alerts Wikidata editors.
    5. Curb your ambitions about replacing the entire citation system for now. (The Cite Q template's documentation reads: "Once robust the functionality should be merged into {{Citation}}.") Wikipedia's citation system isn't perfect, but it has been greatly perfected by many incremental improvements (including ability to auto-generate citations from many sources and to edit citation fields in the Visual Editor, both of which run circles around the Wikidata process). Whatever the virtues of a new system, it will get rightly shouted down until it becomes as usable and functional as the current system. Expect to spend a long time in development before thinking about widespread implementation.
    6. Start broad, cross-project conversations with Wikipedians about the benefits, risks, possibilities, and challenges of making citations smart. Be open to the risks and challenges, which you may not be thinking through clearly yet.
    7. Also, be open to the notion that Wikidata may not be the space to implement a universal citation system, or that citations should not auto-update. Consult with people for whom citations are their lifeblood (e.g., research scientists, social scientists in book disciplines, historians) about what dose and doesn't work. Conceptual questions about "a card catalog that anyone can edit, but whose data appears instantly in thousands of articles, e-books, and websites" are real. Perhaps greater protections for source data (each of which becomes a high-use template in Wikipedia terms) and greater skills training for catalog data entry (which is done in the rest of the world by librarians knowledgeable of complex data structures) will be needed.
    8. But, a Wikimedia-wide citation system that facilitates cross-language knowledge sharing would be a precious thing of great value to the Wikipedia mission. Don't be daunted by the difficulties, but don't assume that technology will instantly answer them. And diplomacy and sensitivity to people who do the hard work of maintaining the existing Wikipedias is going to be essential.--Carwil (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • You seem to conflate the template documentation text that you quote in your fifth point "Once robust the functionality should be merged into {{Citation}}.") with "replacing the entire citation system". The former in no way means the latter. As for your seventh point, "Consult with people for whom citations are their lifeblood..." that is already being done, extensively and openly. The assumptions you allude to in your final point are not being made by anyone that I have encountered, here, on Wikidata, or in the WikCite part of our community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I like the idea of using Wikidata as a "BibTeX for Wikipedia". I haven't looked at the specific implementation to have an opinion on whether the current attempt is worth keeping or needs to be scrapped and redone, but I do see that most of the !votes above seem to be complaining "Wikidata is horrible and too hard to edit" rather than complaining about the template itself. Anomie 19:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Zuphilip expresses my feelings well: The English Wikipedia is the flagship project of a family of projects, and when we create something that has the potential to benefit many other language Wikipedias, it makes sense to face problems as they arise here and solve them. We need to have functionality that scales across multiple projects, and the ability to quickly and simply re-use citations from English Wikipedia into another language is a goal worth striving for. Does this template do the job perfectly? Of course not: it is in its infancy and needs work to adress some of the issues raised here. But nobody ever made progress by giving up as soon as they encountered difficulties. --RexxS (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • User:RexxS The Content Translation tool already handles the current major citation styles. Why not simply add this id to the existing cite journal template? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @James: The Content Translation tool would be able to do a better job if the citations were a central resource that automatically applied localisation - just as Wikidata's own interface does. You might understand the reason why adding this id to the existing cite journal template is anything but simple if you tried it. All of the CS1/2 templates are candidates for fetching their information from a central resource, but that's a big job and fraught with complications that really need to be explored and solved before such a major undertaking is attempted. This template represents the first steps in confronting problems like how to deal with multiple editions of a book, etc. and we need to find solutions before attempting changes to major templates like cite journal which has over 175,000 transclusions. Let's get something working on a small scale and iron out the wrinkles on this template first. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
        • As long as the template is not used in main space I am okay with its existence for testing purposes. Not happy with losing metadata from within wikitext. We already had a couple of templates that did this and we had a bot convert these templates to hosting the meta data within wikitext. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
          • I agree that having all data within wikitext is easier in the short term, and for a single article. However, if links break or additional URLs for a reference become available, having the metadata in each article's wikitext is suddenly worse than storing them centrally (then you have to update many articles on many wikipedias). I think looking at this from the perspective of a single article isn't the right way forward. We might be able to get rid of a lot of bot editing if we can get our metadata storage right. —Kusma (t·c) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
          • I have created at least half of the template's current transclusions - I don't think that, in doing so, I've removed citation metadata from Wikipedia more than once, as a test, if that; they are all new citations, mostly on new articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I gave it a try to see whether the {{Cite Q}} template could be used in mainspace with a subst:. The result was a bit disappointing (see Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#Mainspace use: subst?), so: Question: could the code of the template be rewritten thus that it would result in a clean user-friendly output in mainspace when used with a subst:? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, although it would probably require edits to some of the templates it calls as well. Pppery 02:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm still divided between "delete" and "keep for experimentation, with implementation restricted to a limited set of sandboxes and/or talk pages until if and when a beta-version (probably with "subst:") can be approved, or until all experimentation is ultimately deemed unsuccessful resulting in a delete of the template". Another suggestion for a way forward is inspired by German-language ADB pages at Wikisource: such pages, e.g. wikisource:de:ADB:Gesenius, Wilhelm, contain at the bottom of the page a "Suggested citation format" (German: "Empfohlene Zitierweise"). Other reliable websites suggest similar pre-formatted citations (see e.g. "Cite This Item" at the bottom of this LOC page). So, Question (#2): can pre-formatted citations be stored (or "generated on the fly" by request) in Wikidata items, easier to "call" (with a "subst:" template or whatever), or, possibly in a first step, transferable with old-fashioned copy-paste? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that exactly what the current template, if it were made to subst cleanly, would do? Pppery 02:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
No, the proposal is to generate/store the formatted citation at Wikidata (so that it could be visualised there, i.e. as a proposed reference format, without visiting Wikipedia); The Cite Q template only visualises the formatted citation at en.Wikipedia, thus needing similar templates, each of them calling and arranging Wikidata properties in a similar procedure, i.e. doing the same work, when other WikiMedia projects want to use formatted citations: this question is about whether the code that performs the formatting can be run centrally, at Wikidata, instead of on each WikiMedia project separately: seems like an economy of resources for doing essentially the same job (and less endless discussion about the template at en.Wikipedia). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for limited use, as Carwil and Zuphilip put well. WD as a sort of BibTeX for all wikis would be great; allowing painless reuse across wikis is an extraordinary benefit; polishing this will take time. We should encourage small, focused experiments with this template, both in and out of main space; and should make it work with subst. I agree for instance that there are mainspace contexts that already require going to WD to edit data, where something like Cite Q makes sense now. – SJ + 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    A specific idea for converting Cite Q (changing when WD changes, uneditable data) to a static Cite would be a bot that extracts the cite data as of [date], and includes the WD link and the date in a traditional cite. Someone could copy that to a new wiki again using Cite Q if that were available on the second wiki; where it could be again substed to a static, traditional cite [or whatever the equivalents are on the second wiki]. – SJ +
  • Keep but clarify to ensure that the prototype does not creep into general mainspace use until ready. Some sort of error message could go far to reducing this anxiety. We might do better to have, for each cited work item Q, a FirstCitedAt property P so that each such bibliographic item can readily be traced back to the lang-wp mainspace article in wikitext from whence the information is derived. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Carwil, Zuphilip, and others, but with a limited scope. This template is very useful for prototyping the ability of connecting reference metadata – which belong to the body of a Wikipedia article – to source metadata – which many people, including myself, have argued would be much better served by a centralized bibliographic repository as structured, reusable data. I fully understand the concerns brought up in this thread, from editors supporting the deletion decision, and they boil down to something fairly straightforward: replacing an already complex template with an obscure reference to a Q-item is likely to make it much harder for contributors (particularly newbies) to add, modify, or correct a reference to a source. It's hard to overstate the technical barriers that markup creates for new contributors, and I'd personally oppose any broad adoption of a template pulling data from Wikidata without strong community consensus. This concern is absolutely legitimate and should be respected. This being said, the existence of this template is critical for the experiments I mentioned above that cross-link references and source metadata. The goal of the WikiCite initiative is to create a rich, well-curated, structured repository of metadata on every source cited across Wikimedia projects. Many of the people involved believe the existence of such a centralized database of sources will create value, regardless of how it is reused (and whether it is reused at all) by other Wikimedia projects. The problem of reuse of content or structured data across projects, in a way that is graceful, transparent and respectful of different norms, policies and expectations in these projects, is a much bigger one, and it applies to bibliographic data as well as any type of data or resource reused across projects. For this reason, I'd support keeping this template but limiting its scope to a small set of articles allowing testing without giving the impression that this is meant to replace and deprecate any existing template. (full disclosure: I have been on the WikiCite organizing committee for the past 2 years) --DarTar (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Since it is probably lost in the noise above, I'll say it again: sandboxes are the place for testing. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • That's certainly true, and the template was tested in a sandbox before being used in articles, and each new change is also tested in its sandbox. However, once such testing has been undertaken, and for something as complex as citations, with an uncountable and unpredictable number of edge cases, there also has to be some trial use in article space, which is where we are now: just 225 transclusions in 5.5 million articles and goodness knows how many magnitudes more citations, which have already highlighted, and resulted in fixes to, some minor issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
        • So copy to a sandbox whatever article it may be that you want to use as a testbed? - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
          • I said "trial", not "test". In the cases to which I referred, the issues have been uncovered by other people. Sandbox testing would not have found (indeed, did not find) them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
            • Andy, your somewhat brusque manner throughout this discussion or in the recent ANI thread is probably not helping matters. A trial is a test, unless you are more specific as you now have been. As I see it, no amount of trials/tests are going to resolve the key issue of obscurity that affects this template in its current form, ie: a letter followed by a series of numbers. I'm indulging those that fancy pursuing what appears to be a fatally flawed design concept by suggesting that they can continue to experiment outside of article space but I'm not prepared to see it used in that space until that seemingly fatal flaw is addressed. And don't point me to ISBN numbers as an analogy, please: I add those things to citations but rarely use them, nor need to do so. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
              • I'm amused to be lectured on my "manner" by someone who recently referred to the work of our fellow WMF volunteers as "some distant project that has bugger-all control over what happens there". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
                • You may be amused, Andy. It alters nothing: I've have never denied being sometimes brusque in manner, and it is no secret that I have a very ambivalent attitude towards people who have been paid in any form by the WMF. However, all I said was that a brusque approach may not be particularly helpful in this discussion. Mike Peel's approach seems to be much more likely to evoke reasonableness in this context. I note that your last response completely ignores the relevant point I made about the template itself, ie: it was merely sniping. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
                  • The problem with attempting to do all the testing in a sandbox is that calls to fetch information from Wikidata are different when you are working with the Wikidata item linked to the article where the call is being made. It's been possible to fetch from the linked item for almost five years now, but getting information from other Wikidata items was only made possible two years ago. So at some point, we really need to do trialling in actual articles. The point at which that happens, and the size and scope of any trials are judgement calls, but I'd tend to rely on the developer's judgement in such cases. I accept that not everyone will share my view on that. --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
                    • This is a fair point, and I'd have no object to a handful of instances in article space for testing purposes. A handful would need to be less than ten, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
                      • At the time of writing, we have 5,481,060 articles; and 225 transclusions of this template (on fewer than 225 articles, but let's call it that, for convenience). Your suggested ten articles (a figure for which you offer no rationale) is 0.000182%. 225 articles is 0.004105%. Are you really suggesting that the difference - amounting to well under a half of one thousandth of one percent of our articles - causes significant problems? On what evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
                    • For this template, this shouldn't be true: it is not dependent on the article you are using it on, only on the source call you put through (the Q number). The idea is that you could use the same template in multiple articles. If it doesn't work in your sandbox or in draft space, then it again is an argument against using this. Fram (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
                      • Andy, my preference would be to keep it out of mainspace completely until the problems I listed above are fixed. RexxS's point is that some testing needs to be done in mainspace; I picked ten articles since I could imagine there might be multiple scenarios to test, which might require different types of article (lists, BLPs, ...) to test. The specific number is arbitrary but I see no reason for it to be more than a handful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment on use of this forum. This forum is suitable for what amounts to code review? I think not. I suggest that the community needs to step back here. We have a sprawling if passionate discussion. I think crafting a sensible outcome is difficult in a forum where "keep" and "delete" are the typical outcomes. There are usability, correctness and data integrity issues being raised and mingled. If I read things correctly, the correctness issues are manageable. That is typical of discussions around use of Wikidata; which I believe should be piecemeal, incremental and addressed in a problem-solving spirit. So ... I suggest the community bites the bullet and admits that the introduction of Lua has raised the stakes in talking about templates, which are not the simple macros they once could be considered. Wikidata is not going away, and we do need discussion that generates more light than heat. How best should that be done? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless recoded to require substitution in mainspace. If the data is no longer being pulled from off-site, in our live encyclopedia content, then the editability and confusion problems go away.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The entire point of this template is to connect to citations from an external database. Subst'ing it is about as useful as subst'ing {{Latest stable software release/Linux}}. —Kusma (t·c) 08:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • keep (with caveats) – A new-ish idea seldom survives first contact with implementation (or with real-life). {{cite Q}} fetches data from wikidata and assigns those data to standard cs1|2 parameters if the template call does not already assign local override values. It then calls {{citation}} to render the final citation. Some problems that I see with this template's implementation are:
    • reliance on poorly curated data which, I think, is due in part, to a lack of standards that define the minimal requirements for what constitutes a proper bibliographic entry in wikidata – that is a wikidata problem and not necessarily a problem of this template but I can see that people will blame this template for the failings of wikidata
    • as it is implemented now, for some parameters, |title= in particular (a required parameter), {{cite Q}} will fetch an alternate 'title' from some place other than a 'title' property in the wikidata record (the wikidata page label); the alternate may or may not accurately reflect the source's actual title – this was a 'fix' made to the template when the better fix would have been to the wikidata
    • it needs improved author/editor name handling (human names being what they are, this seems to me to be difficult issue to 'fix')
      • support for |lastn=, |firstn=, |editor-lastn= and |editor-firstn= perhaps using family name (P734) and given name (P735)
      • what to do with author name string (P2093)?
    • it needs to be able to use the whole suite of cs1|2 templates for rendering and not just {{citation}}
    So, the caveats for my keep !vote are, at minimum:
    • revise the template so that it shall only pull information for a specific parameter from the specific wikidata properties that match the cs1|2 parameter: for example, |title= shall only be filled from {{#property:P1476}} or from a local |title= override. When there is no local override and when there is no property defined in the wikidata, then for required parameters, the template shall show an error message, perhaps akin to the error messages shown by the cs1|2 templates and shall add the article to an appropriate error category; again much like cs1|2 so that editors can make appropriate fixes. Showing error messages is not enough; the error message must link to a help document that explains the meaning of the error message and how to fix it; perhaps something akin to Help:CS1 errors.
    • add a hidden maintenance category to articles when {{cite Q}} uses local override parameters. Here again, editors can use this information to apply fixes to the wikidata, if appropriate. Just adding a maintenance category to such pages is not enough. At the top of the override-parameter-category there shall be explanatory text that describes why the pages are listed there and what to do about them. Taking a queue from cs1|2, perhaps the template should render a message similar to the cs1|2 maintenance category messages with display controlled in the same way (see Category:CS1 maintenance).
    small things matter:
    • error and maintenance messages might include something that looks like the template call as a finding aid (it can't be exact because templates cannot see how they were called)
      {{Cite Q|Q12345}}: missing or empty title property P1476 (Help)
    • to be consistent with other uses of wikidata, replace the wikidata link at the end of a {{cite Q}} rendering:
      [[Wikidata]] [[:d:Q21707170|Q21707170]]
      Wikidata Q21707170
      with the standard pencil icon:
      {{EditAtWikidata|qid=Q21707170 }}
    The intent of these caveats is to use {{cite Q}}:
    • to drive quality into the wikidata upon which it relies. We cannot 'hope' that one day the quality of wikidata will improve. The data will never self-correct. Editors here must take an active part in making the data correct. If we want quality data, we must use the tools that we have to coerce the data into being correct.
    • as a learning experience and test-bed for developers and editors alike. Here is an opportunity for us to learn to control and use the data and tools available from wikidata by implementing a single, highly correct, template.
    Some here have suggested that we should keep this template but prohibit its use in main space. I don't think that we should do that. Occasional use in talk, sandbox, and other non-main namespaces won't expose the template, its developers, its users, to the diverse variety of real-life data that are a consequence of use in main space. Such restrictions will stifle its ongoing development because there are no 'rewards' for doing that development – why should any developer put any effort into anything when the resulting work would never be used? Would you have authored that FA if you knew it would never get out of Draft?
    Others have suggested that it isn't time for this template. If not now, when? Why wait? Here we have a single template with relatively few, human inserted, transclusions. From this we can learn what to do to make best use of the wikidata resource and we can learn what not to do. We are in the early days of wikidata; it is not going to go away, the idea of using wikidata to store citation metadata is not going to go away. It seems to me that railing against the future is a fruitless endeavor so we should use our influence to direct that future rather than reject it because: the data are not perfect; because the template is not perfect; because the wikidata user interface is not perfect; ...
    Yeah, to a newby, {{cite Q}} in wikisource will be inscrutable. But, to a newby, a lot of wikisource is inscrutable. Learning how to edit at wikipedia is not easy and it took all of you a bit of time, a bit of success, a bit of failure, to become the competent editors that you have become.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Userfy and let the editing community decide when, and under which conditions, an improved version of the template may be ready for mainspace trials. I don't think it inappropriate to give suggestions regarding the template in this TfD thread, but there are too many to have a short-time effect on sustainability of the current template. WP:VPT seems appropriate to notify the community on future development (e.g. whether a decent "subst:" output can be generated by the template or whether another, more promising, route is followed, etc.), and that also seems a suitable place to propose, and find consensus for, possible future mainspace trials. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • For an example why moving citation data to Wikidata might be a good idea, see for example this edit. Archiving the references and storing them is in principle a good idea, but adding 90k to the article source isn't worth it. There are limits to the cherished model of storing all information in one wikitext page. —Kusma (t·c) 13:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • What would be gained and what would be lost by using "Cite Q" in this example a) for the reader and b) for the enwiki editor? Fram (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      • a) no change b) crazy citation metadata would be moved out of the wikitext and replaced by a references to strange Q numbers. A mixed blessing: the wikitext becomes quite a lot shorter and a bit easier to read, as it isn't interrupted by very long template calls, but the direct connection to the citation data is lost, especially for the first instance a citation is used, and further clicks are necessary (unless UI improvements are made; for example, the references imported from Wikidata could be listed under the edit window together with their Q numbers). Probably more programmer creativity is necessary here before one could recommend a large scale conversion of citation data to Wikidata items. —Kusma (t·c) 20:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
        • "unless UI improvements are made" That is, of course, planned. But we need to show that the template is workable, first. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


Given some of the alarmist comments above, one wonders how on Earth editors cope with the myriad current citation templates that work with a single ID parameter:

  • {{cite AHD|16274}}
  • {{cite amis|id=03777}}
  • {{cite DANAS |volume=2}}
  • {{Cite EWD|1000}}
  • {{Images of England|200575}}
  • {{cite rcn |id=9909}}

or indeed those with no ID parameter, such as:

  • {{Cite brooklyn}}
  • {{Cite citygrid}}
  • {{cite dps}}
  • {{Cite enc-nyc}}

and the very many others listed under Category:Specific-source templates, some of which have been in regular use for years, it seems that claims that such templates are a "fatally flawed design concept", or that there is consensus that "Citation data should be in the article where the citation is used, not somewhere else" are, in fact, bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Classic Tu quoque fallacious argument. We are discussing this template. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Nice try at dismissing my argument, but as can be seen above, we are discussing editing behaviour, claims of consensus, precedence, and more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett, if you look on the Category:Specific-source templates page it states They are intended to be substituted. That seriously nukes your argument. As for the cite(thing)|id=#, citing a named collection by an actual id number is vastly more reasonable than a completely unreadable citeQ template filled with an utterly random number. Alsee (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I created {{cite DANAS}} – one of the templates that Editor Pigsonthewing mentioned – in February 2014. The subst: text was added to the category with this edit in March 2016; apparently without discussion but also apparently because of frustration with the TfD system. I never intended {{cite DANAS}} to be substed because periodically (probably because some new squeaker ensign needs to show his boss that work is being done) the source website gets rearranged and breaks all of the links to DANAS.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
"Nukes my argument"? It doesn't even tickle it with a feather. Some of these templates have four-figure transclusion counts (I haven't checked them all; some may be far higher still), and nothing in their documentation to say they should be Subst'd. Incidentally, a Wikidata QID very much is an "actual id number" - and they are used as such by many external bodies.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I have three simple queries relevant to the discussion above:

  1. Is there a list which shows the most popular citations? I mean by number of pages on which it is being used. If not, can such a list be prepared? How?
  2. Can someone please refer me to the list of explicitly non-RS like I was told that Gyan publications are non-RS for history articles. If such a list is not there, how can we get such a list? Also how to get a list of pages on which such refs are cited??
  3. How does wikipedia (in current regime) rank / rate references? How can a new editor know about the reliability of a random source for a particular article?

These questions, if answered, might help in bringing clarity to the above discussion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

To 1: There was some work at the hackathon with Crossref Event data, and they analyze the DOIs most referenced in Wikipedia (this does neglect publications without a (Crossref) DOI etc.). The most referenced DOI found is used more than 500.000 times across Wikipedia, mainly as a source for some climate data. Other DOIs are also used often (thousands or hundreds times) in Wikipedia. Etherpad with some notes is here: --Zuphilip (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Maratha Rulers Infobox

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Unused template Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unused because the content is redundant to {{MarathaEmpire}}. Alsee (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alsee. Please note that a lot of Indian history articles dealing with the pre-Raj era tend to attract multiple sidebar templates, which actually makes the page pretty ugly. Where possible, as here with {{MarathaEmpire}}, a horizontal navbox at the bottom of the article is much, much the clearer, cleaner option. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2017 (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 LLWSQualifiers-Pre2001

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 on 2017 September 23. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2017 (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 carom billiards player

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 on 2017 September 23. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2017 (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 bbl season

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) 13:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Unused template Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:44, 15 September 2017 (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:NLP sidebar

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) 13:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

unused template Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:38, 15 September 2017 (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).

September 10

Template:Paraphilia-related support groups

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) 20:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

unused and blanked Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • unused I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I put the template back in use again. Disk space is cheap. Please, let's wait a few months. If, by the end of the few months, the template is again unused, please feel free to nominate it again; but, for now, let's keep it. TealHill (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is unused, Wikipedia is not for redundancies being kept around for the sake of it. The cost of disk space is meaningless, it has do with keeping Wikipedia focused as an encyclopedia. If there is a potential future use, then transpose this to a sandbox, find actual uses, and then apply to recreate. At the moment, this is serving no purpose. Sport and politics (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: TealHill restored it, but the same issues from last time exist. This is not the way that templates should be created. TealHill also likes to create sections with nothing but this template in it, like he recently did, which is not how we are supposed to create sections. Sections are not supposed to consist of nothing but a template (unless it's something like an External links section consisting solely of a template). Ideally, per MOS:Paragraphs, sections also should not consist of a single sentence. I will alert WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per Flyer22 Reborn rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a suitable template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, whatever this is (article content?), or whatever its intended use, this is not a suitable template. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. From the documentation: "This template is meant to be transcluded into the relevant section of various articles." As we don't write the content of encyclopedia articles by cobbling together identical pre-written chunks of text into multiple articles, this template is not useful on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2017 (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:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40

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. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

As per discussion, this template is no more useful with deletion of the page List of cricket batting averages. Also, 40 number is arbitrary. Greenbörg (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. Arbitrary inclusion criteria (why 40?, why 20?, why include the Netherlands/not other countries?), too large and cluttered for a navigation box. Would make more sense as a list you could sort, navigation wise, but as that’s already been deleted no point keeping this.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The size can be changed by raising the inclusion threshold from 40 to 45. I don't understand what you mean by the the inclusion of the Netherlands. It lists ODI players by country - the Netherlands has had a couple who qualify, but is no longer an ODI country. StAnselm (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • delete I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
It will be useful if you show some coverage in WP:RS for this benchmark. Greenbörg (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
As I've said in the past, I would be happy to raise it to 45. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, the parent article is now List of One Day International cricket records, which lists the top five averages. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (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:Myeloid blood tests

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. Go ahead! (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose splitting Template:Myeloid blood tests.
Proposing to SPLIT the template into 2 templates, one relating to clotting, and one relating to RBCs and Hb. It's unusual to have these two topics grouped together, and I don't think the fact that RBCs and platelets are of myeloid lineage justifies this. Thoughts? Tom (LT) (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • sure, why not. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2017 (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:8TeamBracket-with third-fifth-seventh

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 merge to Template:8TeamBracket-with third-fifth-seventh per the rather thorough breakdown of the differences in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:8TeamBracket-with third-fifth-seventh and Template:Round8-with play-offs.
Nearly the same, only excluding the seedings. 333-blue 10:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Template:8TeamBracket-with third-fifth-seventh (A) has advantages over Template:Round8-with play-offs (B) in my opinion. A calls the 5th to 8th place semi finals exactly what they are but B calls this round the "crossover" round. This is not very specific and a strange choice of name for the round – I've never seen "crossover" used as the name of this round in this form of tournament outside of this template. A also uses red and green lines to show which way the winners and losers proceeded in the bracket but B only uses red lines for the losers. And finally A uses thicker borders around the main rounds (quarter finals, semi finals and final) to make it clear to the reader which rounds were the focus of the tournament. B uses the same border thickness for all rounds, be it a main round or a consolation round, which makes it less visually prominent to readers which rounds are the main ones. TurboGUY (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 10 September 2017 (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:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

This template is highly selective and relies on individual points of view as to what is and is not included in this. This template will also easily and unstoppably fall foul of the rules on original research due to the very nature of what is and is not terrorism. The template will also fall foul of recent-ism and pure news coverage, due to the nature of this topic. Finally and fatally in my opinion for this template, there is no need for this unnecessary duplication of information which is already included in list format on the page which this article takes all of its information on. This is a redundant template of duplication. Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as it provides navigation between articles. I don't agree it is based on original research. Check its article and give suggestions rather asking for deletion. Greenbörg (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The navigation is provided by the main article, linking these articles together in this manner is a form of WP:synthesis. which is part of the WP:OR policy, and not allowed. Sport and politics (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete, Over and above the "what is included" question mentioned by 'Sport', the start date (2014) is postulated on a piece of WP:OR, namely that in early 2014 a call was issued by ISIS for it's followers to 'attack at home' and that all subsequent attacks in Europe are a result of that call .... even those where no connection to ISIS exists, or a known connection to another org is demonstrable. I have long argued that the whole category, template and main article are riddled with OR and SYNTH. If a category, template or article exists, they should be based on agreed, objective rational criteria. This should be merged or deleted. Did Islamic terrorism start in Europe in 2014 (in France perhaps, elsewhere in Europe there was not even an increase at that time). Is there the remotest connection between the mainly 'home grown' attacks in Western Europe and the attacks in Russia? Where do the distinct attacks in Turkey, (one part of which is in Europe and therefore within this template), fit into that picture? Pincrete (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pincrete. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - provides useful navigation between articles and seems to be standard practice on Wikipedia for militant campaigns, for example we have Template:Campaignbox Syrian Civil War and Template:Syrian Civil War. Obviously, on these articles themselves there are always going to be a certain demography of white North-Western European/North American middle-class people, of liberal political persuasion, absolutely desperate to remove the word "terrorism" from these articles (as has happen on 2017 Stockholm attack, June 2017 London Bridge attack and more recently 2017 Catalonia attacks), but such content debates should probably be on specific articles rather than templates. Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Elementary my Dear Watson! I won't bother to ask how you divined the skin-colour, social class, political affiliation and geo-location, of those who disagree with you. Can you not see the difference between an actual war and largely random phenomena? What exactly unites Kurdish terrorist acts in Turkey, seperatist acts in Russia and lone wolves in western Europe? At the very least criteria should be coherent. This is almost as silly as "robberies committed by left-handed people". Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. In addition to the points brought up above, I'd like to point out that an RfC on the main article failed to clarify the scope and inclusion criteria. In response to the argument that this is standard practice for militant campaigns, I'll refer you to this lengthy discussion at List of ongoing armed conflicts which resulted in it being removed from that list for reasons of WP:Original research with regards to the parameters by which the entry was defined (timeframe, geographic location, and the individuals committing the acts of violence). TompaDompa (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as is pure WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. 1) The 2014 start date is arbitrary. 2) The geographical scope (Europe) is arbitrary. 3) The incidents featured are arbitrary and not necessarily WP:RS confirmed as Islamic terrorism and per WP:YESPOV we should not be asserting opinion as fact in what is effecively Wikipedia's voice. -- de Facto (talk). 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
WP: SYNTHNOT. That only applies to original research by synthesis, not just any synthesis. Calicodragon (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
You're comparing a template to categories, which is an entirely different subject. We're not discussing Category:Islamic terrorism in Europe here.
While it is in theory true that European security and legal authorities designate which acts are Islamic terrorism (we could, and sometimes do, use Europol as a source), what counts as "Europe" is neither obvious nor uncontroversial (should Russia and Turkey be included? Should it perhaps be limited to the EU or Western Europe?) – and more to the point does not really reflect WP:Reliable sources, which as I pointed out in the RfC mentioned above refer to terrorist activity in the West.
The start year, 2014, is also not supported by the sources. Looking at the main article, it seems to have been chosen based on the Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting. That's textbook WP:Original research.
As it stands, the scope is a compromise between several possible but irreconcilable scopes. For example, the infobox describes it as part of the spillover of the Syrian Civil War, but the list isn't limited to attacks that are related to it. Apart from being WP:Synthesis, it also runs afoul of WP:LISTCRITERIA, which says Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. That is simply not the case here. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep - Useful for navigating between related events. Reaper7 (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Reaper7: Are these events related though, or has a relationship been created through synthesis? I smell the latter here like flies do to horse manure. Sport and politics (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This is highly subjective and extremely arbitary. Why would you start things in 2014 as the Madrid and London bombings started earlier? To what extent are all the events in the box genuinely "Islamic" as opposed to political. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment As long as the article is on WP, I can see no argument of deleting this template. It's been used for navigation purposes based on the article Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). Discussion should move to the article first. Greenbörg (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unused, I find it not good and not important for wikipedia.,if it was the opposite it would not be here on the cancellation page. AlfaRocket (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is a useful template for quick navigation between political Islamic terrorist attack pages, It is hardly subjective, it is quite easy to spot an Islamic terrorist attack. TBrandley (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @TBrandley:I invite you to demonstrate this simplicity on the talk page of the main article. I have a strong feeling the sweeping claim will be ripped apart on the talk page. Sport and politics (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: A template not only useful but critical for navigating between articles that are related and linked to the same phenomena by a ton of sources across virtually all news agencies and sources. If the scope of time is the main problem, it should be no problem to make it a general template of Islamic terrorism in Europe regardless of time, thus also including earlier events. User2534 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @User2534: Critical. Wow! That's amazing. What have we been doing all this time. Stuck with orphan articles we would never have been able to find. We would never have realised our errors until you came along and pointed out this magic. Oh wait, in-article links and categories exist. Sport and politics (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not all Muslims who commit crime are terrorists, reading a comment which states or implies that that is the case, or even potentially is the case, is just incredible. Sport and politics (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Obviously there is also non-terrorist crime performed by Muslims. You parsed my comment the wrong way - I meant that if the alleged perp of a terrorist attack was Muslim - we should (with perhaps few exceptions - e.g. a clear other motive) classify it as an Islamic terror attack - which is a simple, non-POV, criteria. Regarding separating between crime and terror - well - that is typically done as per the motivations or inferred motivations of the attacker. Terrorism is violence to achieve political goals and may be classified either via the statements of the attacker (or his known affiliation) or via the lack of any criminal gain from the act (i.e. no plausible other reason for the attack) - however as editors we usually do not have to classify terror vs. crime - as investigators/other sources will typically state this is treated as a terror attack - editorial classification is usually only an issue in breaking recent news articles (which have a whole raft of issues) - and not a few months (and all the more so few years) from the event.Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is more a discussion on the scope of the main article. A discussion on that was recently had and I invite you to take a look at how complicated that ended up being. It may sound simple but its implementation is like squeezing toothpaste out of a crowbar. Sport and politics (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that objective criteria are possible, however I disagree strongly with those Icewhiz proposes, which are irrational as well as being WP:OR. The idea that every possibly terrorist event allegedly committed by a muslim (how would we know? name looks muslim? ancestry is middle eastern?) bypasses normal WP:V and WP:BLP to become presumed 'Islamic terrorist' until proved otherwise, would be laughable, if it were not precisely what is happening in this topic area daily. I say possibly terrorist event because at an early stage, often all we know is that police authorities say that they are launching a terrorist enquiry. Editors are happy to treat that as proof that the event WAS terrorist, rather than "may well have been". Fairly obviously, one of the first jobs of any enquiry - fraud enquiry, murder enquiry, Yeti enquiry is to establish whether the fraud/murder/Yeti is real. Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
When Basque terror was "live", or the British/Irish troubles - such assumed triage based on the perp's identity was routine. Ascertaining the ethnicity or religious background (e.g. the Protestent/Catholic proxy during the troubles - or in this case - Muslim identity) is typically readily available and widely published. Usually, live perps (BLPs) are less of a problem (classification wise) as they are charged, brought to trial, etc. - so you usually have quite detailed sources (possibly not right after the event - but a few months later - definitely). Where you typically have a problem is when the perp dies - in which case one doesn't always have a detailed investigation into the motivations of the dead Muslim who shouted "Allahu Akbar" before carrying out the attack (you typically get his social media activities, what he said to neighbors, etcs.). In any event, in the strict literal sense a Muslim carrying out an act of terror meets "Islamic Terrorism" (just as a Basque by ethnicity would meet "Basque Terrorism").Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about ETA, but I know that who had perpetrated a particular bombing etc. during the Irish 'troubles' was almost never dependent on what you call 'triage' since reliable lines of communications between paramilitaries and the press existed. What would be the point of perpetrating an act designed to 'send a political message' and failing to 'sign' that message? Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. These collection templates play a useful role orienting readers to a topic. That role is distinct from list pages, and from main articles. The template and lists can evolve seperately, and list pages can't be embedded in template format. i.e., I can't see an argument against this template that wouldn't apply to many other templates, which readers find useful. If the start-date aspect is a weakness, then I think the template will just not get much use, which would be a cause for re-openning the discussion. In general, I think navigation templates can be used more, not less widely than they are across wikipedia. They'll all run into the criticism that 'this could be a page': Be they "Forms of Political Organization" or "Periods in art history" or this one. Tim bates (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- the template comes across as OR which moreover lacks necessary context that may be present if it were an article. Some included items do not appear to be described as "islamic terrorism" in the relevant pages. For example, Louvre machete attack does not contain the word "Islamic" in its body, except in a quote from the U.S. president. Not good. This is better off deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The above comment was about the footer. Separately, "Delete" the campaignbox for sure; the events included in the campaign box are not a single, coordinated campaign. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Definitely delete the campaignbox, since many of the attacks are not directly linked (aside from Islamic State claiming responsibility without definite proof) and don't constitute an actual war. Leaning delete on the navbox, although if it is kept it should probably include all terrorist attacks and not just those committed by Muslims in Europe (like e.g. {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2015}}). Jc86035 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason to delete if some attacks doesn't belong then the template should be removed from relevant article.--Shrike (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - template highly useful for navigating among all articles to which it applies. If anyone objects to usage of an article using the template, edit article to remove template from it. Don't throw baby out with bathwater! XavierItzm (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - This re-listing is unnecessary. Delete consensus based in policy is clear. Remember this is not a vote. The keep arguments simply amount to WP:LIKE therefore keep, with statements which are. It's convenient, or It's helpful, all of which is hogwash. The delete arguments are policy based. There is no counter to the policy that this is WP:OR WP:SYNTH and WP:YESPOV. I personally think the re-lister was having a TL:DR moment, and that is why this was re-listed. The arguments for keep are nothing more that simply, votes and preferences. To all the users who are going to go mad at me for pointing out this, my talk page can be found here, replies anywhere else shall not be responded to. Sport and politics (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment to the comment: Agree that the re-listing is unnecessary, since this is clearly a Keep, as the policy-based arguments against keeping are quite unfounded. For instance: WP:OR? Since when is a mere template, useful for navigating, OR?. Jeez, talk about grasping at straws! XavierItzm (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The above reply is baiting. The comments on the comment are simply spouting the same opinions regarding keep through WP:LIKE. The reply has made an inversion of the arguments, and has portrayed Wikipedia policy backwards. WP:OR because it is OR as to what is and is not included, there is no objective standard, it is all inference and subjectivity. It is WP:SYNTH because stating these collection of distinct events as a campaign is portraying them as something which is only found by taking friendly cherries from selective sources. This is WP:YESPOV because the inclusion in the template does nothing but portray opinion of a campaign as fact. This is unsupported conjecture and inference. The baiting comments are not helpful. Delete and is based in clear policy. I wish editors would thoroughly read Wikipedia policies before trying to ridicule editors who are trying to ensure they are maintained. This is a very clear policy based delete, compared to a synthetic and opinion riddled opposing side, of inclusionism. Sport and politics (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. A template based on a main article that still doesn't know its own scope after over a year, 1,500 edits, and 340KB of discussion including archives cannot be of encyclopaedic value. As stated by others, "Islamic", "terrorism", "Europe" and "2014–present" are all problematic. Scolaire (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep since this is just another wp:point edit by the nominator, who did not succeed in deleting the article, so now seeks to get the related template deleted. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I did not nominate the main article for deletion, and gave arguments to keep the main article. I am unaware what is being referred to in the policy free vote from @El cid, el campeador:, I do wish users would fact check their personal attack, and wild claims. Sport and politics (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - As multiple people have said already, the template is useful for navigating between articles in [the category|Category:Islamic terrorism in Europe], and also, your initial arguments are wrong because the placement of articles in the category are based on news reports from reliable sources that A: state that the attacks are considered terrorism by police, B: state that the attacks were motivated by radical Islamists, and C: still say that, so, yeah. Calicodragon (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, Delete campaignbox, also. We have the template. Calicodragon (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


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) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

unused, needlessly wordy/confusing, replaceable by {{PD-old-70}} FASTILY 06:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems that this is not exactly the same as {{PD-old-70}}, in that this one clarifies that an additional tag is needed for the photograph itself? CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The second part of {{PD-art-70-3d}} is a reminder about specifying a license for the photograph (derivative work); note that photographer attribution should be done regardless of whether a template calls for it or not. -FASTILY 08:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
That's true, but it seems good for the template to clarify that not just attribution but also additional licensing information is required. The usual PD templates make it seem like they are the end of the story with regard to licensing. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. But this *is* still both a non-standard tag and unused template, hence the reason for this nom. -FASTILY 22:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:27, 10 September 2017 (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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

unused template Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:20, 10 September 2017 (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:Medical colleges 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

With 348 medical colleges in India, a navbox is not a useful navigation tool for such a list. For this we have List of medical colleges in India and Category:Schools of medicine in India as well as other lists, categories and navigation templates for sub-groups of this huge list. This one is always going to be pointless, partial, and as such, misleading. Muhandes (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, better to use categories and the list article for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2017 (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:It Stephen King

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) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Navigates too little content--all of which is well inter-linked. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed, unnecessary, articles mostly all link each other anyways. -- AlexTW 13:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary template Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2017 (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).

Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell (edit)

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.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.


Geography, politics and governance






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.

That sounds like a good place to hold the conversation. Primefac (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey SiBr4, just a ping to see how/if this is coming along. If not, that's fine, but now that 2015 is the oldest year I'm hoping to clear these out soon. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Finishing it has been on my virtual to-do list for a long time, but I obviously haven't been on WP a lot anymore recently. Basically, the module works, and about half of the data pages have been created. I have the remainder mostly readily formatted locally, so it actually shouldn't be too much work to get it into beta. SiBr4 (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2017 (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.

  • None currently

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.

Archive and Indices

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA