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]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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

Twinkle

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussions

July 20

Template:The Hill School

Unnecessary, most pages nominated for deletion. Pretentious, and created for the sole purpose of promoting the school's prestige, along with the splintering of all the contained articles. Peapod21 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • delete if the articles are deleted, and keep if the articles are kept. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • keepNot sure how a template is supposed to make a school more prestigious. But here is a good example of a template for a school that increases accessibility, which should be a example to emulate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:The_Doon_School Hyungjoo98 (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: All articles except for non Hill School related and routine alumni/head of school pages have been deleted. alphalfalfa(talk) 01:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hungary bids for the Olympic Games

Useless. Only one valid link. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Turkey bids for the Olympic Games

Only one valid link. useless. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Czech Republic bids for the Olympic Games

Useless. Only one valid link. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bids for the 1960 Winter Olympics

Useless. All redlinks. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dangerous

Unused, overly vague name Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that meant to be substed? – Uanfala 13:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:W3C-valid

Unused, unclear purpose Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This template is intended to provide a badge and link to W3C validator to validate wiki article for HTML errors. This template could be used especially on portals and talk pages (to place there th result of HTML validation and what can be fixed). See: Help:Markup validation. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 07:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Canada bids for the Olympic Games

Unused, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only one valid link. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bids for the 2026 Winter Olympics

There is no substance to this template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Leslye Headland

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. See WP:NENAN Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. it appears the articles are already well-connected where it's useful. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete for now since this template used to have writing credits, which the guidelines are against. Two directing credits are not enough to sustain an article. I find three preferable because there is less chance of each individual article mentioning the other two (as opposed to two films mentioning their respective predecessor or successor). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Martha Elizabeth Burchfield Richter

Now that the entries which were not closely enough related to the subject have been removed, there are not enough links to provide meaningful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. it appears the articles are already well-connected where it's useful. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:The Royal Collection Department

A mess of a navbox. There are over 7000 works of art in the Royal Collection, so picking a few to include here is selective and subjective. Things such as the Crown Jewels are better handled with their own navbox {{Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom}}, etc. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Robert Antoine Pinchon

Template was a mass of external and tangential links. Now these have been trimmed, there is nothing left. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. it appears the articles are already well-connected where it's useful. unlinked entries, and external links can be included in the parent list article as they do not aid navigation but are generally useful otherwise. Frietjes (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Théodore Chassériau

Not enough active links to warrant a navbox. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, but make sure the list of works is in the parent article before deleting. Frietjes (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic

The template fails basic Wikipedia policies such WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOTNEWS, and others. Rowan03 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0

Unused, replaceable by {{Cc-by-3.0}} {{Cc-by-2.5}} {{Cc-by-2.0}} {{Cc-by-1.0}} FASTILY 05:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Geographic location

Useless and horrible.

  1. Is a navbox that serves no necessary navigation function, since all this information would (or should) already be in the article text.
  2. Is abused as a non-navbox and inserted in mid-article. [1]
  3. There is no consensus to use this; it only appears on a tiny fraction of geographical articles, and editors frequently delete it when a "decorator" tries to add it.
  4. It's abusing tables for layout, an MOS:Accessibility problem.
  5. It's against MOS:ICONS, using icons as pure decoration.
  6. It takes up a tremendous amount of room for very little information.
  7. It is confusing and misleading, assigning absolute compass points that do not correspond to actual direction in many cases.
  8. Encourages a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE problem, of trying to add something to every direction even if nothing notable is there, or close.
  9. There's no limit to the the abusability of it; nothing constrains to to use only for contiguous places, opening it to PoV use to point toward subjectively "important" places that aren't actually juxtaposed.
  10. It is not coded properly to collapse like other navboxes.

In general, this has a WP:NOT#WEBHOST problem, similar to various decorative quotation-formatting templates that were deleted a few years ago. WP doesn't exist for people's design experiments.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be redesigned, not deleted. This is used on thousands of pages. KMF (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It's awful. Tony (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
And spoiler templates were also used in thousands of places. So were decorative icons before we said "enough" and instituted MOS:ICONS. "Used on thousands of pages" amounts to a "STUFFEXISTS" argument when there's not clear rationale for the use. What we need to address here is whether this actually serves a useful purpose. I've laid out a strong case that it does not.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I edited the template sandbox. Is my version better, since it removes the icons (which are the main thing you're complaining about)? KMF (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
note that there is already an option for suppressing the compass icons. I would not be opposed to making that the default. Frietjes (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, this is misapplying MOS:ICONS. The compass roses are not icons in that sense. Decoration in itself is not against policy. -- P 1 9 9   13:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to admit a certain guilt here, as I added it to nearly 1,000 articles three years ago. But I do agree that infoboxes and navboxes are often overused. And this one is of very limited use, violating many of the principles in WP:NAVBOX; notable neighbours should be described in prose in the text, and maybe with a map, and usually are. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per all previous keep arguments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 5#Template:Geographic Location. It is used extensively and consistently for municipalities in Ontario, Quebec, all of the Philippines and Benelux. These "good" examples show that if the suggestions at Template:Geographic location/doc are followed, most of the issues would be resolved. Moreover, most of the problems listed above are not unique to this template. In fact, every template is open to abuse and misuse, but that is not a deletion reason.
The usefulness of this template is as a navigational tool, linking the articles of the subject's adjacent settlements, it's not meant to be a detailed map. I have added this template to 1000s of articles because I want to be able to navigate to adjacent places in a specific direction. Yes, prose can do this too (to a point), but the template simplifies and facilitates this in the same way that we use other navigational templates. -- P 1 9 9   13:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

July 19

Template:Taxonomy/"Palaeornis"

Unused, misnamed taxonomy template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment It's not a straightforward issue. There are two ways to handle genus names that are in use but are invalid under the nomenclature codes. One is to put the taxonomy template at the invalid name, here Template:Taxonomy/Palaeornis, but then fix the displayed text for the genus name to show "...", which is what I've done (but this doesn't display the quotes at the species name line nor in the binomial name box). The other, which I think is more transparent, is to put the taxonomy template at the quoted name, i.e. Template:Taxonomy/"Palaeornis", and then make the automated taxobox pick up this template. I'd like to know what others think, but it's not correct to say that it's a "misnamed" taxonomy template; it's correctly named but currently not used in favour of the taxonomy template using the invalid name. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 11 July 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, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Kosovo (UNMIK)

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Audio-pipe

Hardly used template for the purpose which other templates such as {{Audio}}, {{Audio-IPA}} and {{IPA-all}} fulfill. Nardog (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not clear how the mentioned templates can replace this one, which takes a symbol, a link to a defining article, and a link to a sound file. −Woodstone (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 4th SS PD

An excessive cross categorisation. The corresponding list articles have been deleted for failing WP:LISTN; pls see sample AfD:

Additionally, I'm nominating the following templates; the concerns listed above apply equally to them as well. Likewise, the corresponding lists have been deleted where they existed. Please see the AfD above on the lists for: 1st SS Division; 2nd SS Division; 3rd SS Division; 5th SS Division, etc:

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since, it's a batch nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:WP Gambia

Unused and deprecated Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is it "deprecated" please explain? This is supposed to be a shortcut to the Africa/Gambia template. Every country should have a { WP CountryX } shortcut for Talk pages. If it's not reproducing the correct Africa/Gambia Talk page result then needs fixing, not deleting. WP Gambia is a reasonable shortcut for anyone to type on a Gambia article, like WP France shortcut. etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tram in Algeria

WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • weak keep, connects several articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Townsville Crocodiles roster

Townsville Crocodiles is defunct Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tourist attractions in Thrissur District

unused, some of it could probably be merged with Template:Thrissur district Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Toronto hospitals

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Todd Field awards

fork of awards already listed in Todd Field Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-SSA

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 07:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-SEC

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 07:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-PHS

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 07:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-NEA

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 07:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment; there's a few dozen templates that seem all to be replaceable by {{PD-USGov}}. I see you've nominated four of them. Should we perhaps consider them as a group? (Unlike {{PD-USGov-NEA}}, many of them are in use; but that can be cleaned up by bot.) TJRC (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:USTop20s

Following the deletion of the list articles in this template, it no longer serves any navigational or functional purpose. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:German World War II jet aces

Template redundant to List of German World War II jet aces, which contains the same information. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:List of Great powers by date

Only has one mainspace transclusion (viz. in Great power). As there is no reason for it to be in the template namespace, can easily be substituted and deleted. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Letran Knights current roster

out-of-date and almost all redlinks and generally duplicates the roster in the article. Frietjes (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:BC Prienai

unused, out-of-date, and duplicates BC Prienai#Current roster Frietjes (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Wisconsin

Only three links, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • keep or rename as "Template:Rock Radio Stations in Wisconsin" if there are other Wisconsin rock stations which are not modern rock. Frietjes (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Louisiana

Only three links, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • keep or rename as "Template:Rock Radio Stations in Louisiana" if there are other Louisiana rock stations which are not modern rock. Frietjes (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Gender-neutral

Promotes neologisms. Can be substed, then deleted. KMF (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • weak keep. Was and may still be useful and does no harm. "Promotes" is a bit tendentious; I would agree with a wording like "facilitates [the use of certain] neologisms". Since this template is only used in talk space, I see nothing wrong with that. To my knowledge there is no policy against neologisms in talk space. But maybe policies have changed, in which case I'd agree with subst+del. It may also make sense to check who used it; if it turns out that it was hardly used by others than me, then I'd agree with subst+del, too. — Sebastian 02:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Chad

Unused, deprecated since 2008 Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as a standard subst-only wrapper template that aids in the project tagging of articles. – Uanfala 13:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • keep, but mark as substitute only. Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Daytime Emmy Award Outstanding Entertainment News Program

Precedent of {{Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Musical Performance in a Talk Show/Morning Program}} that we should delete these Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only two programs have ever won the award, so the navigation is negligible. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:East German Republic Day Parades

Unused, mostly redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • keep, clearly being used. try using "what links here". Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Famines in India

Unused, redundant to Timeline of major famines in India during British rule Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Revise and include at Famine in India. The collapsed segments need to be amplified and combined but a one glance look across the long historical sweep of time is appropriate. There have been reasonable debates about structure and completeness at Talk:Famine in India but this can be salvaged. --Carwil (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:HighDefMediaComparison

Unused since 2008, no foreseeable use, no reason to keep historically Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Page was protected with log message No longer used in mainspace. Marked as historical to preserve GFDL and page history. DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE! by inactive admin User:RyanGerbil10. — xaosflux Talk 15:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per admin note. —Locke Coletc 15:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:TNA Albums

connects two articles, the rest are redirects Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Agricultural Universities in India

There are 73 official Agricultural Universities in India, (see List of agricultural universities in India) and this does not list them all, nor is it feasible to list them all. It does list many which are not official. In other words, it is pointless as a nav template. Muhandes (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Tanzania

Unused, replaced by other templates Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as a useful wrapper template (that appears to be meant to be substed). – Uanfala 10:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • keep, but mark as substitute only. Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:NSF institutes

This template duplicates the content of the 'American mathematics' template, which is more general and provides more information about mathematics organizations in the US. Blueclaw (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Surrealism

Subjective and selective navbox. Best left for category navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep important information about an important subject. Useful in research...Modernist (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
There are over 200 artists in Category:Surrealist artists. Unless this navbox includes all of these, then it is subjective and selective. However, including all surrealist artists in a navbox like this is impractical. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? By what logic would you have us remove blue linked surrealist artists? Your premise is essentially wrong...Modernist (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for removing the red links by the way...Modernist (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Inclusion isn't subjective; most qualify in a very widely known and long lived artistic movement that encompasses visual art, cinema, literature, theater and other forms of communication...Modernist (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    so everyone in Category:Surrealist artists? Frietjes (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Frankly most inclusions in Template:Surrealists that I worked on about 6 years ago were indeed artists, be they poets, writers, painters, cinematographers, etc....Modernist (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. All are well-known by art historians, and many to the general public. Definitely better now without the redlinks. However, I would tend to add sections to the template, much as Template:Cubism, e.g., Leaders of the movements (i.e., Dalí, de Chirico, Ernst, Magritte, Masson, Klee, Miró), important works, influences, major writings. Coldcreation (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as something similar to Coldcreation's proposal is implemented. This template should not be just an index of surrealist artists. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I added some sections per Coldcreation's proposal...Modernist (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
      • These additions are subjective and WP:OR. Who defines who the "leaders" are? Why only include two paintings? --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Reasonable, thanks for removing those...Modernist (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Mountains of Montana

given that there are "at least 2991" named mountains in Montana, and that List of mountains in Montana is split into multiple articles, it's not a great idea to have a potentially massive navbox with 2991 entries. much better to simply link to List of mountains in Montana or one of the subpages, and to use the existing category system. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July 18

Template:¬

I can't imagine when this could be useful and there are no uses in the wild now (and that has evidently been the case for over a month). If someone can justify this template, then that should definitely be added to the documentation and some real-life use cases. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The template is subst-only, which would explain why there are no uses to be seen. Its purpose is to assist in the creation of redirects to titles that end with a full stop, and I'm not sure these are anywhere near common enough to justify a template. And certainly not one with such a generic and counterintuitive name. – Uanfala 09:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's short and quick to type. As for the number I can't give you an exact figure or ratio, but it is likely to increase rather than decrease. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC).

Template:Thirtysomething

Not enough links to be useful. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete It doesn't interlink anything. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:MTV Video Music Awards Hosts

As a list of presenters of an awards program, this fails WP:PERFNAV. See precedent in similar discussions for Grammy Award hosts, Latin Grammy Award hosts, Guldbagge Awards hosts, International Emmy hosts and Primetime Emmy hosts. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pappas TV

Navbox with one link. Pretty much unnecessary for a template. Csworldwide1 (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:White Knight Broadcasting

This template has three links. These links are already listed under the Nexstar template since it operates the stations, making this template redundant. Csworldwide1 (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Hawaii

WP:NENAN, only 3 links Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Conservative Party of Canada position

Unused, unnecessary Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Communes and rural communities of Senegal

Enormously sprawling template, too open ended Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep Disagree, it's very convenient to have them all linked in one place.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ordinarily there would be a template for every region. I'd be happy to break it down to that level. Regions already have their articles and there is a template linking the regions. Agathoclea (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Add to that that the template is not in use so it can definitively be broken up. The only possible advantage I can see that the standalone template has, would be for a specific watchlist. Have a look at the setup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Cities and Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Cities/Bavaria for an alternative. Agathoclea (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:IPA notice in IPA

Only used on one page. Userfy. (This technically isn't an userbox, so please don't tell me to put this on MFD.) KMF (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

July 17

Template:List of chemical elements

LST-ify Template that is just used to share text between articles. No reason to move it into a template instead of just having the other articles do {{#section-h::List of chemical elements|List}} Pppery 13:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

LST-ify Yep, this template can easily be substituted onto the list of chemical elements and LST'd from there since it takes no parameters. Only three uses on articles. Parcly Taxel 02:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:The Hill School alumni box

I merged this with The Hill School so it's no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

CFA2 group team list templates

Following the rename and reorganisation of the Championnat de France Amateur 2 to Championnat National 3 for the 2017–18 season, these team list templates are now redundant. They have been replaced by team list templates for the new competition. Gricehead (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, it appears these are no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Side Pocket series

Only navigates three articles related directly to the primary topic. The other links are not highly-relevant. Izno (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:BaseballAt1912SummerOlympics

Unused, only one link Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bad font

Unused, unlikely to happen Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:BSE Sensex Constituents

Unused and outdated Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Arellano University Chiefs current roster

Unused, almost all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Anterior view of human female and male - ImageMap

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • move to project space (perhaps WP:MED wants it?) if there is any potential use for it in the future. Frietjes (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Airports in Northern Cyprus

Unused, WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:2017–18 in Danish football

Unused, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:2018 NFL season by team

Unused, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:2018–19 Dutch European competition play-offs

Unused, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, too soon. Frietjes (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:2018 WWE Network events

Unused, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, too soon. Frietjes (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:2018–19 Eredivisie promotion/relegation play-offs table

Unused, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, too soon. Frietjes (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:2018–19 NBA season by team

Unused, all redlinks, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, too soon. Frietjes (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:2018–19 Premier League table

Unused, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:2008 in Malaysian football

Unused, all redlinks, no parent article Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

July 16


July 15

Template:Infobox historic site

Propose merging Template:Infobox historic site with Template:Infobox ancient site.

The distinction between these two seems to be unclear (the former is described as being for "sites which have been deemed worthy of protection by local, state, provincial, national, or other governmental bodies.", the latter for "historical and cultural locations"), and many of the parameters are similar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, long overdue. – Joe (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Historic sites and ancient sites have different needs entirely. This is a solution looking for a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. If there is consensus to merge, I would prefer Infobox ancient site merged into Infobox historic site, not the other way around. Something "ancient" can also be "historic". I do not believe most editors think that that the Palace of Westminster, Statue of Liberty, and many other sites are old enough to be considered "ancient". Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Whatever their descriptions, a look at the fields and the articles which use them demonstrates why they are different. Infobox historic site is really all about heritage listings of extant (or recently lost) specific buildings (possibly including gardens and outbuildings) generally with well-defined boundaries (as there is usually some associated legal protection); the fields are all about the designations (and loss of designation) for the heritage listing and the architecture-related fields. Whereas Infobox ancient site is much more about far older sites usually with a large archeological component (my random sampling has most of the articles using the term archelogical site in their first sentence), which tend to be over larger areas (and under other things) with less well-defined boundaries and not really about a specific building as a centrepoint (although obviously some do) and may not have any framework of legal protection. Generally if something is less than 1,000 years old, it turns up as a historic site and it's older, it tends to turn up as an ancient site. Certainly if we did merge them, I agree with Zzyzx11 that the name should be historic site rather than ancient site, since I don't think any of the 1700-ish articles I've done on the Queensland Heritage Register properties could be regarded as "ancient" (typically built 1820-1970). I agree there are a few articles that could be regarded as both and that merging would simplify the need to choose between the infoboxes. But all in all, I am not seeing how we benefit from a merge. Kerry (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Kerry has stated the difference well. Infobox historic site is geared toward present-day preservation status, which is not an inherent feature of ancient sites. Came here from Babylon, an ancient city to which few of the historic site parameters apply and some of those that might are not known with infobox-factoid precision. Maybe add other parameters to I.h.s. if needed for explaining hill forts with historic preservation status. groupuscule (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It appears from its use on the article that equally, few of the parameters of the ancient site template apply to Bablyon also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Very fair point. My main concern is that (within the infobox, which of course tends to occupy prominent real estate within the overall article) information about historic preservation status will unduly (disproportionately) overwhelm information abut the place itself. Perhaps this outcome is avoidable.
        Or perhaps it is inevitable, or, more optimistically, not related to the template merger. In fact it's already occurring; for example at articles like Xochicalco the infobox (ancient site, not historical site) tells me a lot about historic preservation and not a lot about architecture or history. So maybe my complaint belongs in another forum. groupuscule (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The two templates aren't similar at all. I agree with above comments the infobox ancient site is geared towards archaeology (excavation date, period, archaeologists etc.) - not architect/architecture. Many of these sites are prehistoric (Neolithic etc.), I'm working on an article now for a site the dates back to 6000BC, it's a cave with pottery and shell beads and a flint arrowheads. We shouldn't call it a historic site because it is way out of the scope of anything historians would reasonably study. I don't see any benefit to merging these. Seraphim System (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • "not architect/architecture" No; the "Ancient site" template (which, as noted baove, is described as being for "historical and cultural locations"; emboldening added) has |architectural_details= and |architectural_styles=. As also noted above: The general benefits of merging are explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Some of the specific benefits are addressed by Rod. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Enough legitimate reasons for keeping separate templates have been articulated above. Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both templates serve very different purposes as mentioned in the above comments. Merging would create a very unwieldy template with many, many parameters. It'd even complex to come up with a list of most used parameters since it would depend on the whether the site is a building, an archeological site, a protected site, etc. If the problem is how to reference 2 different sources on hillforts, then just add a section into the appropriate template. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Tobyc75 (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I admit that I am new to these templates, but don't understand why a historic site should not also have room for ownership, and don't understand what "ancient site" is supposed to mean, anyway. - Where I come from, I'd often wish I could describe a theatre or a church in an infobox with detailed parameters for both an organization and a building. Not all parameters need to be filled. In {{infobox musical composition}}, we have (after a merge with infobox hymn) a subset with the few parameters for hymns in the documentation, and the merged template accepts the parameter names from both former templates, so no major changes to articles were necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Discussion of parameters

A comparison of the parameters in the two templates suggests that a number of the above objections are based on a false premise, regarding the supposed difference between the two templates. Furthermore, of those parameters in one template, but not the other, many are applicable to both types of site; are simply the same parameters with extra ordinal numbers (e.g. |designation3= to |designation5=), or are synonyms (e.g. |architecture = vs. |architectural_styles=; |built= vs. |founded=; |elevation= vs. |; |owner= vs |ownership=; |governing_body = vs. |management=; the map and native name parameters).

Parameters only in Infobox historic site
  • |architect =
  • |architects =
  • |architecture =
  • |beginning_date =
  • |beginning_label =
  • |coord_ref =
  • |current_use =
  • |demolished =
  • |elevation =
  • |embed =
  • |end_date =
  • |end_label =
  • |etymology =
  • |events =
  • |formed =
  • |founded =
  • |founder =
  • |gbgridref =
  • |governing_body =
  • |height =
  • |image_map =
  • |image_map_alt =
  • |image_map_caption =
  • |image_map_size =
  • |image_size =
  • |map_dot_mark =
  • |map_relief =
  • |map_width =
  • |native_language =
  • |native_language2 =
  • |native_language3 =
  • |native_name2 =
  • |native_name3 =
  • |nearest_city =
  • |original_use =
  • |other_name =
  • |owner =
  • |pushpin_label =
  • |rebuilt =
  • |restored =
  • |restored_by =
  • |sculptor =
  • |visitation_num =
  • |visitation_ref =
  • |visitation_year =
  • |visitors_num =
  • |visitors_ref =
  • |visitors_year =
  • |year of event=

(excluding numbered parameters such as |designation5=)

Parameters only in Infobox ancient site
  • |abandoned =
  • |alt =
  • |alternate_name=
  • |altitude_m=
  • |altitude_ref=
  • |archaeologists=
  • |architectural_details =
  • |architectural_styles =
  • |circumference =
  • |condition =
  • |cultures=
  • |dependency_of =
  • |diameter=
  • |discovered=
  • |epochs =
  • |excavations =
  • |hillfort =
  • |management=
  • |map_size=
  • |map_type=
  • |material=
  • |native_name_lang =
  • |nhle =
  • |notes =
  • |occupants =
  • |other_designation =
  • |ownership =
  • |part_of =
  • |public_access =
  • |region=
  • |relief=
  • |volume=
  • |width=

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Partial support: I suggest keeping the "Historic site" name and creating a "wrapper" for the content that is primarily useful for "ancient" sites, however defined. While we are at it, there may be a need to consider wrappers for different nations too... not sure. But "historic" and "ancient" aren't the same thing, so some ability to tweak parameters is needed. Montanabw(talk) 21:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Multi-channel network

Delete as articles have no direct relation, as per WP:NAV. Category:Multi-channel networks and List of multi-channel networks already covers this. Alizaa2 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:PDNM

Not enough articles to justify such a template. This is someones YouTube channels, not News Corporation. Alizaa2 (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, simple "see also" or "in article" linking works fine for connecting three articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:San Beda Red Cubs 2013-2014 NCAA Junior Basketball Champions

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymiss fortune 05:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep These templates are being used as records for their season/championship pages (Ranbill Tongco and Javee Mocon) Linsanity (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, navbox cruft. junior squad templates have been deemed not notable in prior TfD threads. Frietjes (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:San Beda Red Cubs 2011-2012 NCAA Junior Basketball Champions

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymissfortune 05:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep These templates are being used as records for their season/championship pages (Ranbill Tongco and Javee Mocon) Linsanity (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, navbox cruft. junior squad templates have been deemed not notable in prior TfD threads. Frietjes (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:San Beda Red Cubs 2012-2013 NCAA Junior Basketball Champions

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymissfortune 05:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep These templates are being used as records for their season/championship pages (Ranbill Tongco and Javee Mocon) Linsanity (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, junior squad templates have been deemed not-notable in prior TFD discussions. Frietjes (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Season 92 juniors' volleyball match-up results

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymissfortune 05:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Season 92 juniors' basketball

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymissfortune 05:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Season 91 juniors' basketball

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymissfortune 05:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

July 14

Template:2017–18 Danish Superliga table

this is an unused template, having been superseded by Template:2017–18 Danish Superliga Regular Season table (same naming style as in the previous season) ⇒ Chris0282 (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, or history merge if the history is important. Frietjes (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Barbara Gaehling W40 Heptathlon World Record

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As the creator of these, it does not appear these records are still on the books, so their templates are no longer needed. In the case of Janvrin, the record is still valid but has been replaced by a format template, the more efficient way to present this information. For those of you in search of more brownie points for deleting more templates, all it takes is the labor to convert the information into the appropriate format template. Trackinfo (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Trackinfo, some of the other records templates are being used in more than one article, like List of world records in masters athletics and List of United States records in masters athletics. I see that you have substituted some of these two-use templates in the "United States" page, like {{Gary Miller M50 World Record Score}}. is the general consensus that we should not worry about the duplication, and substitute these templates even if they are used in more than one article (assuming they have been converted to one of the {{Decathlon score}} or related templates)? Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
These templates, if still valid, can be replaced by copying the data into the appropriate template, for example Template:Masters Heptathlon Score. Certain templates require the appropriate age range. These were created for layout efficiency rather than necessarily the microscopic server efficiency. Gaehling for example is deprecated because her 2005 record was surpassed as both World and European records by the 2010 record of Template:Sonia Del Prete W40 Heptathlon World Record. Del Prete's record can be expressed in the Masters Heptathlon Score, then copied and pasted into both articles but since I had already created the individual template I haven't bothered to do the labor to take that additional step after I created the universal score display template. The ones that are no longer in any of the three mainspace masters records articles are likely to have been surpassed, verifiable (sourced) by checking the appropriate governing body records pages. You can also save time in most cases by looking at the world site first and the appropriate national based site only after the world record is deprecated. Trackinfo (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Kalamazoo class monitors

unused and all the links go to the same page (Kalamazoo-class monitor) Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete unused and won't be useful in the future. Brad 05:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:KFÍ Basketball roster

unused, out-of-date, and all red links Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Jim Stafford

unused and the three singles are already connected through the succession links in the infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

    • While the template may not be essential at this point, not even half of this artist's singles have articles so far. However, interest in the artist's work continues to mount, as reflected in the view counts of all existing articles. Therefore, other song articles may follow, as well as at least one album. The template should be left in place for this reason, as the work to create it would only have to be repeated later as more is written. - JGabbard (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Jeunesse Esch squad

unused and out-of-date (Jeunesse Esch#Current squad has a more recent squad, but even that is a year old) Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Jet engine

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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

unused, duplicates navigation found in Template:Aircraft gas turbine engine components Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete the scope of the other template was expanded to cover the same ground, this one is redundant.GliderMaven (talk) 16:59, 14 July 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:Institut Teknologi Bandung faculties

unused and duplicates Bandung_Institute_of_Technology#Faculties_and_Programs Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Initial succession box

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:DSM-IV Codes

unused and from "what links here", it looks like it hasn't been used for a long time Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Default

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 01:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 14 July 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:Dell non-standard power connector

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 03:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

not used Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 14 July 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:Dell monitors table header row

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:DemogOfOttoman

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:SportsCenter

As a list of presenters of TV programming, it fails WP:PERFNAV. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, all anchors and reporters. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee

Only two useful links. Host should not be included per WP:PERFNAV and the "related" shows are tangential at best. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: a WP:3O is open about this template's content (which could potentially have, and in some revisions does have, more links) and about the template's relationship to the Samantha Bee article, and the relationship of both to Category:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. Comments on this TfD might be best deferred until after the 3O is completed, hopefully today. I'm awaiting responses from the two disputators (or whatever real word belongs there) that the questions to address are correctly identified.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Done [2]. I ended up needing to do both 1) a nearly top-to-bottom analysis of wording problems (conflicts, inconsistencies, confusions, unintended consequences, and likely intent) in WP:PERFCAT, WP:PERFNAV, and WP:FILMNAV; and 2) a cat.-by-cat., article-by-article review of the de facto consensus on how to handle talk/variety shows and presenters who are integrally associated in the public mind with certain of them. I hope this will be used to improve the guidelines' wording and help prevent many future flamey editwars like the one that preceded this TfD and the 3O.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Template is utterly essential for navigation. As mentioned in the note above me - the template had several links, which the user requesting to delete this template removed without reaching consensus. For comparison, please see Template:Last Week Tonight. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, but make it a combined bio/show navbox. This should be done the same way as Template:Howard Stern Show. It's an exactly parallel case, will prevent any attempt to create two infoboxes, and will make the protracted, multi-page edit-war over this template, category, and articles evaporate as moot.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a good idea. To make it a {{Samantha Bee}} template would address my concerns, and allow for inclusion of The Detour (TV series) which she also created, making it a much more useful navbox. Thanks also for your lengthy WP:3O consideration. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Midland Metro Line One and Two

Unused; contradictory information to other templates. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
05:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, looks like a proposed route, not an in-service route. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Midland-Metro-Key

Unused and orphaned. Redundant to {{Railway line legend}}. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
05:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Metro ring

Unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
05:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete as possible WP:OR - I'm not aware that this layout has ever been proposed, and certainly isn't the current route. Optimist on the run (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-VOA

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 03:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Courts

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 03:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

July 13

Template:Askiisoft

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.  Salvidrim! ·  06:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template has only one link. Therefore it does not satisfy the purpose of a navbox, which is to hold links for multiple related articles. The1337gamer (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I think you jumped the gun a little here, I had just created the other article in question. I would ask you to please retract this now that the article has been created.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you jumped the gun in creating this template... Two articles is still small for a navigation template to be necessary. Just add a wikilink in a See Also section. The subject of the template, Askiisoft, doesn't have an article either (WP:NAVBOX). --The1337gamer (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of indie game developers that have nav boxes for all their games and no articles. I don't see what harm it is doing by existing. A "see also" link would not make it clear that the games have the same developer.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, the WP:NAVBOX guidelines you mentioned are suggested guidelines and only some of them need to apply. Something does not have to have an article about it to have a navbox.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of navigation boxes is to provide navigation between multiple related articles. If an article has one other related article, then a template really isn't necessary. A link in the See Also section is sufficient. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, no parent article. connecting two articles can be accomplished with standard "see also" and "in article" linking. Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete nav template with two links is pointless. --Muhandes (talk) 16:52, 14 July 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:Notin

Not used and not necessary. Can be replaced by the real character ∉. Golopotw (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Might become useeful. The argument that it can be replaced by a character applies to {{In}}, {{All}}, {{Exist}} and everything in {{Logic symbol templates}}. These template provide easy access. --Muhandes (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Kyūshū Collegiate American Football Association navbox

The template mostly links universities not the teams. Actual football links are just two and that isn't enough. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "That isn't enough"? For what? I don't see the need to delete it at this time. What harm is it doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Does not provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • comment, looks like there are many more like this one, if you look at the bottom of 2016 JAFA Division I football season. may be useful to merge some of these. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- the red links could feasibly be created, and it's not an unuseful navbox in principle. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If more real articles are created, which will make it useful, it can be recreated. --Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Comparison electric car efficiency

We have several articles that go in to extreme detail on the costs of electric cars, often repeating the same arguments several times. This is fine to a point, especially when it is focused on generalities, with one or (at most!) two carefully chosen examples. But we do not list a catalog of the street prices of every single product in a market. This table is nothing but a shopper's price comparison guide.

The policy WP:NOTSALES says: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention... Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products"

This was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Operating costs for electric cars? and the consensus is to remove these prices. We could remove the columns with the dollar values alone and keep the EPA economy estimates, but it would remain a thinly veiled shopper's guide. Sketching out the trends in total cost of ownership is more than sufficient, and Electric car does that in extreme and repetitive detail. Electric-vehicle battery rehashes the same arguments, and then many more articles like Tesla Powerwall, Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles, Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States, Plug-in electric vehicle, Chevrolet Volt, Tesla Model S, etc. beat away at the same dead horse with near-identical cost-benefit comparisons.

There has to be a limit to this, and it needs to stop addressing the reader as a prospective car buyer. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete price info - I participated in that discussion and it is pretty much unanimous that price info should be removed, instead providing only efficiency information (ie: km/kw), same as we do for gasoline vehicles. Adding costs per year is definitely against our guidelines. As for why, I will just say per nom, who covers the details well enough. Dennis Brown - 17:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete running costs See below It's not strictly against the guidelines so far as I can tell, but it's against the spirit, also the table becomes unduly US-specific when you do that. Not sure why you went down this procedural route, you could have just done it.GliderMaven (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • There was already consensus to remove the price columns, and I understand the thinking behind that. But now I am seeking consensus to go beyond that because the efficiency and fuel economy comparison columns also constitute a shopping guide. This is why the Chevrolet Volt was removed and replaced with the Chevrolet Volt (second generation). The focus is on stuff you can buy today. An encyclopedic goal would be to aggregate or average the kW·h/km efficiency of all cars by year and illustrate the change over time from the 1990s (or earlier) to the present year. A data point in isolation changes when you turn it into big data. It is both interesting and encyclopedic to compare how the technology has improved and become cheaper. Fuel economy in automobiles does this, as well as making comparisons between countries and other factors. But not a comparison across the latest car models. It's fine to include mpg or km/kw on an individual car model's article, but whether or how you aggregate that data can run afoul of WP:SYNTH, WP:FRANKIE, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTSALES. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleting the whole thing is fine. I"m just saying I'm not against a template that did something else useful that didn't estimate costs or look like a shopping guide. Dennis Brown - 23:17, 5 July 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, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Immediate Speedy keep This is a template for deletion discussion, not an 'edit template discussion'. Literally, nobody is even suggesting the template be deleted, so I !vote this charade go no further. This is dumb.GliderMaven (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    This is templates for discussion not templates for deletion. Pppery 22:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Spam5i

Unused, untouched since 2010 Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

* Keep — As explained above, too many existing transclusions. Consider substituting them with a bot job before renominating. —PaleoNeonate - 05:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Did I check incorrectly or these were quickly fixed since the 5th Face-smile.svg; I also see that the above poster said "substituted" not "transcluded", so I may have misread. In any case, if a new template now replaces this one, or this one is really no longer used, by humans, bots or tools, the substituted uses don't matter and will not be affeted by the deletion. I find only one transclusion in the search but when I visit it it's not there, so it seems irrelevant. —PaleoNeonate - 18:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • DeleteIf no longer used by tools, bots, humans or other templates. I would be interested to know which template replaced it, if any. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 18:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • can anyone prove that this is "no longer used by tools, bots, humans or other templates"? if not, we should keep it. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:N-VR

This information is not specific to any of the pages it appears on. It should be linked from the relevant pages instead. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I came across this template and I wholeheartedly agree with the nom that the information is not specific. I posted on the talk page of the template editor but they did not seem willing to engage following my constructive criticism. Issues of passport validity make the template seem as if it's just a travel guide (which violates policy). However, I do see the merit in including information on Israeli passport stamps as they are often a barrier to entry to some Arab League countries. I don't see the point, however, in including this template to every page because the information is just 'generalised' and it needs to be adapted to that particular article. The template does specify Armenian citizens -- what use is that information on an article relating to Irish, Australian, US or British citizens? I think further consensus and discussion needs to be had before I make my mind up on this template.
One suggestion I would have for the Israeli stamps is to include information on it beside the country that forbids them, i.e. For Visa requirements for British citizens, add beside Iran - Evidence of Israeli travel prohibits entry to the country because of the Arab League boycott of Israel. This would help streamline information and would allow the template to be made redundant.
Similarly, for the Azerbaijan related information, include that under Azerbaijan's section on the article.
We are trying to build an encyclopaedia but I'm not convinced that the template is essential for the Visa requirements articles. st170e 20:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Twofortnights who would have a particular interest in this area of work. st170e 20:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I supported the information on Israeli stamps to be standardized as there was a user claiming there is a conspiracy in the fact that the information was not included in all articles the same way. As for the other info such as that concerning Armenian citizens, I think those need to be thoroughly examined. Anything that is not actually relevant for all the articles where the template is used should be removed.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The template in its current form is specific and relevant to every page on which it appears - and should not be placed on pages where the information it transcludes is either irrelevant or inaccurate.

The alternative is to have very many articles of the form "Visa requirements for Ezamplish citizens" either out of date, lacking important information or grossly misleading. Don't we have a duty to our readers to provide accurate information?

We may not be a travel guide, but the volunteer editors are just not forthcoming to keep more than 200 pages current with the passport validity needed on entry and vaccination requirements changing frequently.

Please note that the restriction on folk with Armenian ethnicity entering Azerbaijan applies to all nationalities (with the possible exception of Armenians who have been naturalized) and is independent of the passport or passports they carry.
Any "Irish, Australian, US or British citizen" with an Armenian name or ancestry (and regardless of what passports they're using) needs to be aware of relevant non-visa restrictions.
Any "Irish, Australian, US or British citizen" with a passport validity of less than 90 days (and regardless of what passports they're using) visiting a country that they are not a national of needs to be aware of relevant non-visa restrictions.
Any "Irish, Australian, US or British citizen" with a passport stamp from Israel visiting many Muslim- majority countries that they are not nationals of needs to be aware of relevant non-visa restrictions.

When any of this changes (eg, in the case of Azerbaijan, after a state of war with Armenia ceases), wouldn't it be better to update one template accurately and promptly rather than 200+ pages slowly and laboriously?

I have no quarrel with the notion that "Anything that is not actually relevant for all the articles where the template is used should be removed." However, I have asked for precise details of that type of information and they have not been forthcoming. In the same way that all humans must breathe air to live, all travellers on a practical level need to comply with the non-visa restrictions summarised accurately in the nominated template.

This economy and efficiency of editor effort is one of the reasons that we have templates. BushelCandle (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: I see the merit in a template for non-visa restrictions -- in fact I support the idea. The information regarding Israeli stamps in passports vary from article to article, so one template is needed to ensure conformity and consistency. Also, please remember I specified Armenian citizens and not Armenian ethnicity - I see the point in including that, but the template should strictly stick to Armenian ethnicity. Nevertheless, I'll vote to keep the template. st170e 14:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is important to highlight that the restrictions are not just towards Armenian citizens. (That's the only real justification for including it in so many pages.) The Armenian ethnicity information in Template:N-VR is included in the subsidiary template Template:Armenian-ethn. The current information included there is
Armenian-ethnicity
Due to a state of war existing between the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan, the government of Azerbaijan not only bans entry of citizens from Armenia, but also all citizens and nationals of any other country who are of Armenian descent, to the Republic of Azerbaijan (although there have been exceptions, notably for Armenia's participation at the 2015 European Games held in Azerbaijan).
Azerbaijan also strictly bans any visit by foreign citizens to the separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh (the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic), its surrounding territories and the Azerbaijani exclaves of Karki, Yuxarı Əskipara, Barxudarlı and Sofulu which are de jure part of Azerbaijan but under control of Armenia, without the prior consent of the government of Azerbaijan. Foreign citizens who enter these occupied territories, will be permanently banned from entering the Republic of Azerbaijan and will be included in their "list of personae non gratae".
Upon request, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic authorities may attach their visa and/or stamps to a separate piece of paper in order to avoid detection of travel to their country.(citations removed)
Do you think the emphasis in the information about Armenian ethnicity is wrong and/or the emphasis misleading? BushelCandle (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@BushelCandle: Transcluding huge chunks of prose onto many pages gives the reader the impression that there is something special to read on each page, when in fact they are just reading boilerplate. Material that is common to many pages should be linked, so the reader knows to read that material only once. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm most terribly sorry, CapitalSasha! I thought I had replied to you on American Independence Day, but I assume that there was some sort of cacheing error which I did not notice at the time... I probably can't reconstruct all of my reply that was lost then, but perhaps I can convey some of the gist:
I think it important that we don't lose sight of the needs of our readers. I doubt that many of our readers would deliberately sit down to read our more than two hundred separate articles about visa requirements, beginning with Visa requirements for Abkhaz citizens and breathing an enormous sigh of relief many hours later when they have ploughed through to the last citation listed at Visa requirements for Zimbabwean citizens.
I suggest that the vast majority of readers of any of the articles into which this template is transcluded just wish to quickly and accurately find out what hoops they have to jump through to visit particular countries. Visas are one obstacle, but they also should be made aware of other, non-Visa restrictions such as having a certain length of time remainiing on their passport. Why on earth should they have to jump from one page to another to find out very pertinent restrictions? Why make it more difficult for our readers to print out all the relevant requirements by having to print more than one page if they want a hard copy? BushelCandle (talk) 10:59, 13 July 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, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In summary, this template is of considerable utility in ensuring that even the little-edited pages of small countries' visa requirements are accurate, up-to-date, and comprehensive while diminishing laborious and repetitive editor effort.

By contrast, none of the usual arguments to delete templates have been advanced, since

  1. The template does not violate some part of the template namespace guidelines
  2. The template is not redundant to a better-designed template
  3. The template is used extensively
  4. The template does not violate a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility

BushelCandle (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines state that "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.", and this template appears to be in conflict with that guideline. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
At the relevant rfc there was discussion about including the modifier "normally". Consensus there indicated that "the second wording (Templates should not normally be used to store article text.) is more preferable due to there being situations that merit exception to the first wording." Relevant comments at the rfc included "... can think of several cases where we've put "text" into templates when we didn't want to needlessly duplicate something across several main space articles - something that wasn't strictly formatting or navigation. The other phrasing sounds like someone wants to use this guideline as a stick to beat people with if they happen to do this."
Deletion of this template would make it more likely that we'll have first and second class articles with relevant information on the non-visa restrictions for various passports being out of date and/or incomplete. BushelCandle (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Educational institutions in India

There are 47 central universities and 364 state universities in India. Not to speak of hundreds more universities and countles "educational institutes". Clearly, a nav box isn't going to include them all. That's why we have List of state universities in India and various other lists. This makes this navbox misleading and pointless, especially in it's current form. Muhandes (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, better to use list articles and categories for navigating between entries in very large lists. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:NCAAHS player statistics start

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 G5 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly a duplicated template. Also, HS stats are not shown in a table in practice. Babymissfortune 11:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, almost certainly not needed. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 13 July 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:2016 2nd All-Pro Team

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 Speedy delete per the request of the creator at the discussion linked below. Hut 8.5 20:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#2nd_All-Pro_team_template, this template sets a bad precedent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:46, 13 July 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

July 12

Template:2015 Caribbean Premier League group stage

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

unused and would duplicate 2015_Caribbean_Premier_League#Group_Stage if it were used Frietjes (talk) 23:18, 12 July 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:2015 FIFA Women's World Cup finalists

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, now used. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

unused, and it's not clear where it would be used since the links aren't to 2015 season articles. Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 12 July 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:2016EUGMV-PO

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

unused copy of Volleyball at the 2016 European Universities Games#Championship bracket, Volleyball at the 2016 European Universities Games#9th-12th bracket, Volleyball at the 2016 European Universities Games#Championship bracket 2, Volleyball at the 2016 European Universities Games#9th–16th bracket Frietjes (talk) 23:09, 12 July 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:2015–16 I-League clubs

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

unused and basically duplicates 2015–16 I-League#Stadiums and locations Frietjes (talk) 23:02, 12 July 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:2016 Capital One cup standings

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

unused. I suppose it could be included in Capital One Cup (college sports), but we could do that without having a stand-alone template. Frietjes (talk) 23:00, 12 July 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:2016 FAFL standings

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

empty and unused Frietjes (talk) 22:54, 12 July 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:Cascadia Wikimedians edit-a-thon in progress

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 Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused and outdated Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I'll just move this into my own user space until we need to use it again. Peaceray (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it's obviously going to be unused if there's not an ongoing edit-a-thon, right? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Moved to the creator's sandbox & the resulting redirect tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-g6}}. Peaceray (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Subsequently Deleted by Administrator Athaenara. Thank you, Athaenara! This discussion can now be archived. Peaceray (talk) 17:54, 14 July 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:1939 shipwrecks

Unused, only links other templates Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If you review the shipwreck templates for 1914 through 1918 and for 1939 through 1945, you will see that during the two world wars, shipwreck templates are by month unless the month of the shipwreck is unknown, in which case it goes into a template for the entire year. The template for the entire year also includes links to shipwreck templates for each month of the year. The only year that does not yet have any shipwrecks with unknown months is 1939, which is why the shipwreck template for 1939 is constructed the way it is. If you delete this template, you destroy the consistent pattern established for all other World War I and World War II yearly shipwreck templates without gaining anything worthwhile. You also make it impossible to navigate easily from one month to another within 1939, something possible in all other wartime years. I request that you retract this nomination for deletion and instead bring up the matter with WikiProject Shipwrecks on their discussion page. They could do a better job of discussing options there than this deletion discussion could. Better yet, improve Wikipedia by writing an article or two on 1939 shipwrecks with unknown dates and solve the "problem" – if it really is a problem – that way. Mdnavman (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)mdnavman
Another issue to consider that would arise from deletion: If this template is deleted, it will make 1939 the only year between 1862 (currently; I continued to push the date back) and 2017 that does not have its own annual navigation template. This will be confusing for Wikipedia users, make quick navigation from 1938 to 1939 to 1940 much harder, and require resurrection of the 1939 template when ships with unknown dates have articles created. All without gaining anything for Wikipedia or its users.Mdnavman (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)mdnavman
  • keep, part of a series, and there are a few links which could be added when the articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    • changing the links to link to articles is a great idea as well. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. We should not be linking to templates from within templates in this way. The point is to keep the reader in mainspace, they wouldn't expect to and shouldn't end up in template space. If they were reading SS Castillo de Olite and clicked on the "1940" link at the bottom, they'd end up at Template:1940 shipwrecks which is a pretty much useless place to be. Maybe a {{Shipwrecks by month}} template should be created, similar to {{WWII shipwrecks}} which provides better navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, the links in this template could be replaced with links to relevant articles, not the templates. That might work. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • delete User:Robsindens suggestion is most functional and convincing. templates should be nested from bottom up: from the most granular to the least.68.151.25.115 (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep at least in the interim. It seems like this template is one of an entire series that should be discussed (at WT:SHIPS?), rather than nominated for deletion one by one. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Latest stable software release/TrueCrypt

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not in use anymore.

Subpages of Template:Latest stable software release are transcluded by {{Infobox software}} into an article whose subject is the same as the subpage name. Doing so keeps the version number updating edits off the main article. But because of the discontinuation of its subject, this template will never be updated again. As such, I've transcluded its contents into the main article. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 13 July 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:Cameroon squad - 2007 FIBA Africa Championship for Women

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:47, 12 July 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:Bishop controversy SSPX

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused boilerplate. No reason for this to be boilerplated Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • There was a reason, but no objection to deleting the template at this point. Since others have edited the page, I'll let another admin decide if this is a db-author. Gimmetrow 14:35, 14 July 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:Best Footballer in Asia recipients

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, WP:NENAN, not navigation worthy Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:52, 12 July 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:Beauty pageants in Malta

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NENAN, only 2 links Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:02, 13 July 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:Baking and confectionery techniques

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, no clear navigational purpose Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:38, 12 July 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:Balti people

Unused, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:BUS-table

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Tagged as a work in progress upon 2009 creation, but seems to have been unused ever since. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:18, 12 July 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:WikiProject Systems/rater-data.js

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused template with only one edit to it in 2012. It looks corrupt.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:55, 12 July 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:Astoria Bydgoszcz

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, no notable historic roster. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete useless for navigation. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Staszek Lem....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:35, 13 July 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:Article Indonesian collaboration

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, redundant to {{Indonesian collaboration notice}} Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:17, 12 July 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:Angola Men's Handball League

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:47, 12 July 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:Alpes-de-Haute-Provence Senators

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, only one link anyway Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:31, 12 July 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:All-India-Interest

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:25, 12 July 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:Administrative organization in the United States

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:05, 12 July 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:WikiProject University of California/Riverside

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 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Entirely unused template with none of the necessary categories created, no edits to it since 2015, better frame­work for the same function at its parent template, and only one link to it at all‍—‍an 'unused templates' report. Strong delete.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:22, 12 July 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).

July 10

Template:Agricultural Universities 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 relisted on 2017 July 19. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 10:45, 19 July 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:Lewis derivatives

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 Godric 10:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Past WP:OR and into WP:MADEUP. The Type 92 is a Lewis derivative. The others are not, and are not even influenced by it. As usual, unsourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The articles don't provide any sources for this to be a real thing. --Muhandes (talk) 22:47, 10 July 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).

Cyprus football templates

Each of these only link two articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So what is the rule? To link at least three articles? Xaris333 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NENAN, five is a good rule of thumb. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Really Frietjes? Most still only have links to one or two relevant articles, a couple now have three at most. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
They all will have at least three articles. I am creating them. Xaris333 (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
my threshold for a navbox is lower than the number provided in the NENAN essay, and the removal of the related European competitions is controversial per the discussion at 1958–59 in Cypriot football. Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is at all controversial. These are incredibly tangential inclusions. See my comments below.  :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

That was the actual template before User:Robsinden change it. Xaris333 (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

At the time of nomination, 1969–70 Cypriot Cup had not been created. Also, note that 1969–70 European Cup and 1969–70 European Cup Winners' Cup are tangential to Cypriot football and should not be included in navboxes of this kind. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This is your opinion, not a rule. For example, 1969–70 European Cup also is at Template:1969–70 in English football, Template:1969–70 in Spanish football, Template:1969–70 in Scottish football. We can have a discussion about all the templates with this "problem" and not just to delete it for Cypriot template while all the other templates still can have it. Xaris333 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It is a rule not to have tangentially related articles linked in navboxes. It's not even the national team, it's a club side that was knocked out in the first round. 1969–70 European Cup wouldn't even belong in the template {{Olympiakos Nicosia}} although an article such as Olympiakos Nicosia at the 1969–70 European Cup would. An article such as Cyprus at the 1970 World Cup would belong here, but anything else is clearly too tangential. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you have the same opinion about Template:1969–70 in English football, Template:1969–70 in Spanish football, Template:1969–70 in Scottish football. Because you didn't remove the links of them. You only remove it from Cypriot templates! We need a discussion about it. Not here. Somewhere were many users, familiar with sports articles and users familiar with templates to say their opinion. Meanwhile, pls stop remove the links. Xaris333 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely I have the same opinion about these navboxes too. The links should be removed from these also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
And why your and not doing it? I am sure you will only remove them from Cypriot template. Xaris333 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There is so much wrong with those other navboxes, it's difficult to know where to start! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
As I have said, you will not do it... Xaris333 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sheffield Shield

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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Per concerns/consensus reached at the Cricket Project not to have them for each team, due to template clutter and WP:OR. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom and note also that there were no squads in team cricket before the 21st century so the very creation of these templates is WP:OR and the allocation of squad numbers is false. Sheffield Shield teams in the 20th century were selected per match from eligible players in the state's grade cricket structure. The selectors picked eleven players and one reserve (known as the "twelfth man") from the various grade cricket teams: there was no squad and there were no player numbers. The players were not contracted to their state association in the same way that current Test players are contracted to their national teams. Really, these should be speedy deleted per WP:HOAX. Jack | talk page 10:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@BlackJack: I agree with what you said. But whats the problem with squads which were selected in 21st century and are not WP:OR and are still nominated?Greenbörg (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional For transparency, I added all the West Australian templates to the group-nom shortly after Jack's comment. Hopefully this doesn't see me up against the match referee and face missing the next Test... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all. "Squad" is an anachronism for cricket teams of these dates; the squad numbers allocated inside the templates are an invention. In addition, they create unnecessary clutter. Johnlp (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - As well as being an anachronism, the existence of these templates will no doubt lead to template "bloat" for players who were involved in multiple title-winning squads, and this competition just isn't important enough to warrant that. – PeeJay 11:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, navbox bloat. Frietjes (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete for all the reasons given above, plus the fact that they are yet another sad reminder of the few Sheffield Shields South Australia have won compare to NSW. --Roisterer (talk) 00:22, 14 July 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:Isambard Kingdom Brunel timeline

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:15, 10 July 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:Ireland in the European Union

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 02:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, navigates nothing Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:12, 10 July 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:Ir-MoneyCard

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 02:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, very unlikely to happen Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:08, 10 July 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 Zoroastrianism

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 02:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, not an infobox anyway Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:58, 10 July 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:Image-license

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 02:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, untouched since 2009, no clear use Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:02, 10 July 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet

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 notability on the recipients, and the template thus does not serve a useful navigational purpose and is indiscriminate. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 26th PD

Insufficient navigation -- only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Fear the Walking Dead ratings and related templates

Full list of templates

Per these two discussions in June and April, these templates are unrepresentative, repetition and get easily crammed. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 00:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all -- excessive. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per previous discussions. -- AlexTW 05:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Given that the keep !votes are all based on the same reasoning (or lack thereof), after not reading the past discussions that fully support the deletion, I'd say that the consensus is pretty clear here. -- AlexTW 07:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - All is useful to have. Can't see no problems with these. - AffeL (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Naturally. The above editor opposes anything Game of Thrones-related that's listed for deletion, and apparently has not read any of the previous discussions linked. Also, another discussion. -- AlexTW 08:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It's the other way around for you. I mean, what's the point with deleting such a good template that gives these informations to the readers? I'm not just talking about Game of Thrones, but all of the shows mentioned above. - AffeL (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. If something important got GoT was requested for deletion, I would oppose it. Again, you've clearly not read the discussions. All of this information is available in the episode tables, especially ones where the season articles are transcluded and they're all in a nice unbroken line. It has the GoT template in it, that's why you're opposed. Something crowded like {{The Walking Dead ratings}} is more detrimental to an article than it is helpful, especially with a full season coming up, and possibly more in the future. -- AlexTW 08:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
That's why you where the only person that was for the deleting of the article of Carly Wray. But moving past that, i'm not talking about the season articles, but the main articles of these shows. So if these templates get deleted, will it instead be used just once in the main page of these shows? - AffeL (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't important. Nice you remember old our dates, though. These templates aren't typically used on the main articles of series', but rather on the list-of-episodes articles, where the information already exists. -- AlexTW 09:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
But for many they are, for Game of Thrones it is used in the Viewer numbers section. I do not care if it gets removed from the other Game of Thrones pages, But it should still be on the main page, where it's not repetitive. - AffeL (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The basis argument for not requiring any of these templates applies to all articles. But now that you are WP:HOUNDing me, I'm sure that no valid contribution will come out of this. -- AlexTW 09:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Stop accusing me of something you are doing. - AffeL (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Not related to discussion. -- AlexTW 10:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Just replying to the comment you made. I still think a template like this is good to have for some shows. - AffeL (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "I think a template is good" is not an argument and has no basis or support. -- AlexTW 11:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I am reiterating Alex's above comment. AffeL, please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 21:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I said, try to read the comments I have made above. - AffeL (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
And then read the guideline and see how it applies to your situation. It's exactly what you're saying. -- AlexTW 22:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It's exactly what you said. It's written right in the WP:IDONTLIKEIT#It's useful section: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it should include useful encyclopedic content. But many useful things do not belong in an encyclopedia and are excluded. Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. You need to say why content is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies." Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, excessive stats, and per prior discussions. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete excessive and crowded. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all excessive statistics. --Muhandes (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In case the discussion results in the deletion of the templates, shouldn't {{Television ratings graph‎}} be deleted as well? Else, we might end up having the same discussion in the future. -- Radiphus 23:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Callmemirela: Please add tfd tags to every template nominated. Pppery 23:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pppery:  Done I am the one who added most of them and i forgot to do that, sorry. -- Radiphus 00:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Radiphus: Except that you put them in noinclude tags. Tfd tags for templates of this size shouldn't be noincluded. Pppery 00:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pppery: Does it matter? I am really asking. Should i remove 'noinclude', and why? -- Radiphus 00:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Radiphus: So people who don't happen to look at the template page notice it has been proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 23. In that case, the argument was primarily about small inline formatting templates like {{braket}}. For larger templates, the disadvantages pointed out there don't apply as much whereas the advantages still do. Pppery 00:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't follow this discussion very much. I just noticed more templates were added. Also, I included noinclide tags because Twinkle said that the tags don't interfere with the article, so that's what I did. Should they be removed? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 00:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, for the reasons I stated in my previous post. <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags should only be used for substed templates (per Wp:Tfd#Listing a template step 1, or (in practice) for templates that produce output that isn't interpreted as wikicode (for example {{CURRENTSECOND}}) or displays something very small (like {{braket}}). None of the above properties apply to any of the nominated templates. Pppery 00:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I probably didn't properly read what Twinkle said. I've removed all of the noinclude tags. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 14:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pppery: Thanks for letting me know of this discussion, though i see no consensus was reached on this issue. I personally believe the tfd tags would be disruptive to all those "List of ... episodes" articles. The 'noinclude' tags have been removed. I thought that big red box would be placed inside the articles, but the notification that was added is quite discreet. -- Radiphus 14:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought that too, but it's not showing up. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 14:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Radiphus and Callmemirela. One large set of templates struck off User:Pppery/noinclude list ... Pppery 14:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see a reason for deletion. Ratings information is important to assess the popularity of a TV series, and the template format is just a convenient method of keeping data consistent across articles.  Sandstein  14:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I strongly recommend reading the three previous discussions. Ratings information is already available through the episode list, and the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes, and given that there's no guidelines to curb this, it has become more detrimental than useful. -- AlexTW 14:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. What are the reasons to delete it, ratings is a huge part of television.

Judor92 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The most important reason why these templates should be deleted or replaced is that they do not fit the needs of all the TV series in which they are used. A typical example is the series The Office (a template i created myself) consisting of 201 episodes. In order for all the episodes' ratings to fit into the graph, I had to position the bars right next to each other, being limited by the maximum allowed width of 1600px. If the series consisted of more episodes, I would not have been able to do even that. And if the graph can not be used everywhere in a way that fulfills its purpose, then it is better not to be used anywhere. A graph like this could be a design alternative, provided that it will not contain data for a single season, but for all seasons of a TV series, but it does not solve the problem of data repetition. -- Radiphus 14:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why not usong these template french wikipedia [3]? Judor92 (talk) 11:23 am, Today (UTC−4)
    • Although this is the English Wikipedia, the templates used on the French Wikipedia are just as bad. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (especially template:television ratings graph) as useful and informational for readers.

    Nominator claims that each and every template nominated here is "unrepresentative, repetition and get easily crammed." However, she provides no explanation for these claims. How are they unrepresentative? Are they using unsourced data? Are they inherently incorrect in some way? That the graphs use data from elsewhere in the article doesn't make them repetitive; seeing easily in one place the relational highs and lows over the course of seasons is more beneficial to readers' understanding than trying to remember an entire season's (or series') ratings as they scroll by and mentally do what these graphs are doing for them. As for "getting easily crammed", that would depend on a lot of individual articles' factors and cannot be used to paint all these templates equally (especially the originating template). — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

    I quote myself again. I strongly recommend reading the three previous discussions. Ratings information is already available through the episode list, and the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes, and given that there's no guidelines to curb this, it has become more detrimental than useful. -- AlexTW 08:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    "Ratings information is already available through the episode list" I addressed that in my comment.

    "the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes" I don't know what you mean by "gotten way out of hand", and I don't know how many episodes is "too many" for you, but {{Mr. Robot ratings}} doesn't look "out of hand" nor does 22 episodes seem like it should be "too many".

    "given that there's no guidelines to curb this" Given there are no guidelines curbing this, it doesn't strike me as needing curbing.

    "it has become more detrimental than useful." I addressed these templates' usefulness in my comment, and I do not see any evidence of them having detrimental effects on readers. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

    @Fourthords: Please take a look at the graphs I've created below: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 10/TV Graphs Examples

    As you can see, attempting to create a graph containing anything more than 200 episodes produces a mess. There are examples of shows with that many episodes, like The Office (201), Law & Order (456), The Simpsons (618) and most late-night talk shows like Conan (1053). So, i believe we agree that this graph can not be used in every television series article on Wikipedia. However, as Alex said, there are no guidelines to curb the excessive use of this template. Therefore, there should be a discussion on how to deal with this potentially harmful template. Users like me, who think that a graph showing the ratings and trends of a TV show is not redundant, are likely to suggest the replacement of the template or the imposition of restrictions in its use. Users who think that this is a case of data repetition and that the episodes table is sufficient, are likely to suggest the deletion of the template. What you can't do, is say that everything is fine and no action should be taken. -- Radiphus 22:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

    First of all, please don't take offense to my minor reformatting of your comment. I couldn't find any possible way to keep your reply (and mine, and all below ours) in line with MOS:LISTGAP while keeping the subpage transcluded here. So I turned the transclusion into a basic link and brought everything into a single bullet (I could've prefixed your second paragraph with a "*:::" too, but I didn't know which you'd prefer, so I used my own default).

    You said that graphing "more than 200 episodes produces a mess." Obviously, a "mess" is subjective, but with the browser and monitor I'm using right now, all of your examples below "4 seasons - 100 episodes - 800 width" simply add a horizontal scrollbar for the content that can't be seen initially. Are you saying that such a scrollbar is inherently "messy", or are you seeing something else?

    "So, i believe we agree that this graph can not be used in every television series article on Wikipedia." I don't know whether a 1053-episode-wide graph would be beneficial to readers of a given article; that would be up to the editors of that article to decide. Can these graphs be used for every TV series with an article? Since they obviously can be (given I've seen no limitations to the template design, and I assume the resulting horizontal scrollbar would be functional), I don't agree with this claim.

    "[T]here are no guidelines to curb the excessive use of this template. Therefore, there should be a discussion on how to deal with this potentially harmful template." Define excessive use in this instance. I'd define it as implementing it without regards for its pertinence and relevance to the specific article at hand—a decision to be determined by the editors of that article. Whether {{Prison Break ratings}} (to choose one at random) is "excessive" for the article its in (apparently Prison Break) is up to the readers and editors at Talk:Prison Break. As for "harmful", that definitely needs an explanation as for how it actually harms the wiki or the reader.

    "What you can't do, is say that everything is fine and no action should be taken." There is no systematic or conceptual problem with these graphs that warrants deleting all 45–47 of them, and that's what's being discussed. I haven't looked at every single one of these templates' implementation (and I'd wager most editors discussing them haven't either) to know whether "everything is fine", but the fact of the matter is that "everything isn't wrong", and that's the premise from which this discussion is based. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. They're not really "ratings", just a regurgitation of the viewership columns in episode list tables above them. There was a time in multi-season main television articles that an overview table contained premiere and finale viewership columns with an additional "average" column. This was much more effective and simpler. Another thing to factor in are the screenload times. While I'm all for a nice bar graph, these tables at the bottoms of list articles add to their loadtimes, while also extending past the margins for some series pages, shrinking some tables above them, and stretching the pages on some devices. — Wyliepedia 19:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Having read the previous discussions, I will say I still have no idea what Alex means when they say that these templates are "unrepresentative" of the show, but I nevertheless can see the other substantial issues here. To begin with, I question their basic utility. For the most part, the ratings info contained within them is only going to be truly germane to one article (the main article for the show), and those details can (and almost certainly will) be included in that article already. Sshoehorning the ratings info for the entire run of a show (via the template) into the auxiliary articles (be they for a given season, episode, or subtopic) is almost always going to be excessive and inappropriate. When you combine this lack of realistic function with the clutter and other technical and pragmatic complications inherent in these templates, the matter approaches a WP:SNOW determination with regard to how obvious the call is here. Snow let's rap 23:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all excessive statistics. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - They are one of the main reasons I visit the episode pages. Probably for some others as well. - seismologist76 (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    That's not a reason to keep them. It's essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 03:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep {{Television ratings graph}} and establish guidelines such as:
  1. Only for multi-season programs (should not be used for programs with only one season)
  2. Only used for programs with less than 20 episodes per season
  3. Only used for programs with less than 100 total episodes (after which should be converted to alternative graph)
  4. Should only be included in parent television series articles (not in list of episodes or season articles)
While I do agree that the majority of these templates are detrimental and that another graphical representation should be created for the series that do not fit some established guidelines (along the lines of this [4], possibly using something like Wikimedia SVG Chart), I personally feel this is an amazing and a very useful template for TV series. There is no reason to delete something like {{Game of Thrones ratings}}, which we know for a fact will have a total of 73 episodes and the graph helps visually show the growth of the series, which is in itself rare since the majority of series decrease in ratings and not grow. A graph like this is far more effective than writing in prose the season premieres, finales and spikes in ratings to explain the growth/decline in viewership for a series. However, something like {{The Walking Dead ratings}} will become far more detrimental to an article than helpful, especially with the showrunners having confirmed their desire to have 20 seasons. - Brojam (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's put aside the idiosyncratic nature of your proposed guidelines and the fact that many of the editors who would want to implement these templates would disagree on where you want to draw the line. Even if you could get these editors all on the same page, it would be virtually impossible to constrain templates to these standards thereafter; per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:Advice pages, the editors of each individual template would not be compelled to follow suit. Are you going to use the WP:PROPOSAL process to create a WP:Guideline on this incredibly niche issue? Seems unlikely.
You say that a simple graphical representation of the ebb and flow of ratings can be much more effective in representing that aspect of a shows popularity than a long section of prose, and that's fair enough. I personally don't know that it does much for examination of a show as an encyclopedic topic, but no doubt some readers will value it. Which is why any graphic that might appear in one of these templates is probably a reasonable addition to a show's main article. But crammed into every article remotely connected to the show, it becomes a kind of WP:FANCRUFT, and one that creates potential technical and viewing issues for readers on certain platforms (see WP:CHOKING), which are not justified by the return they give to our readers.
If a reader really wants this highly particular data, it will always be available to them in the main article (I don't know of an article for a single major television series of the last couple of decades that doesn't have a ratings section, and if these graphs can be created for a template, they can be created in those sections, and in most cases already have been). But the templates themselves are an ill-conceived means of trying to plaster a detail that a niche group of viewers fixate on across a mass of articles where they are not particularly germane or useful, creating clutter and headaches. Snow let's rap 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me, Brojam, when I wrote the above, I had somehow missed the last qualifier on your list, of only adding these templates to the main articles for a series. But I am now confused: if you want these details only in those main articles, why not just add said content into such articles? (Or more accurately, I think you will find they are already there, in the vast majority of cases). The entire point of this discussion is that the duplication of this content into a template inevitably leads to it being plastered across scores of articles where it doesn't really belong. So why have the template at all, if you're in agreement that this should only be in the main article for a show? Snow let's rap 20:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: The same could be said for {{Television Rotten Tomatoes scores}} that only goes on season articles like Game of Thrones (season 7). I've since added a bar_width parameter to the template to make it less of a "mess" and made it possible to display more than 20 columns of episodes in the table. This would eliminate many of the restrictions that I had originally proposed. See here for examples using it. - Brojam (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep provides useful information to the reader. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You don't represent every Wikipedia reader out there. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep they provide easy to digest information about tv series. Individual templates that have gotten too big could be nominated for deletion in a case by case basis. --Freddy eduardo (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems ludicrous to keep the charts for some articles and not others. Either they're all gone or they all stay. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 21:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The graph is the easiest and most convenient way of providing useful information to readers. Readers can understand in a simple glance the trajectory and extent of the show popularity all through the entire series. Rating is an important part of the TV shows and is of interest to many readers, therefore an easy to read format should be kept. Hzh (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    I quote myself again. I strongly recommend reading the three previous discussions. Ratings information is already available through the episode list, and the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes, and given that there's no guidelines to curb this, it has become more detrimental than useful. And also the rest of this discussion - all of your pointers have already been addressed. -- AlexTW 09:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    I do understand the issue with too many episodes (I mentioned it myself in the Walking Dead template here), but that is a problem with how to represent data rather than the graph itself. For example you have graphs like these - [5] (a few thousand data points), now the issue would be how to implement something like this in Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    If people are so insistent on these types of graph, it is best to start from scratch, no? There are obviously issues with the templates per the last two discussions. If Grey's Anatomy, Criminal Minds, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, etc., we're looking at a large template because of their overall episodes. It's best if we establish consensus first (following a deletion, if you ask me) and then implementing the templates as the community has requested. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    Seems like adding a bar width parameter may resolve some of the issues - with narrower bars you can add more episodes, 2-300 episodes may well fit a single graph. I don't know how easy it is do to that since I have only ever made minor adjustments to template, but if that can be done, there is no need to start anything anew. Hzh (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    The more narrower the bars, the more difficult it is too read. At that point, it wouldn't even be a bar chart anymore. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not really sure if I understand the argument. I can certainly make them out even if the bars touches each other. If you look at The Office (U.S. TV series) ratings with over 200 episode, if I reduce it to 67% (by zooming out) it is still perfectly readable (that'll be the equivalent of around 300 episodes), it's only when you get to 33% when you think it might be difficult. Appearing as discrete bars in any case should not be an issue, it would simply be like the example I gave above (that solved the problem by giving info when you hover over the data point, but I should think implementing it would require quite a bit of rewriting). Alternatively you can split the graph or simply scroll it, which requires no rewriting of template at all. Hzh (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Hzh: I've added a bar_width parameter to the template as suggested. See here for examples using it. - Brojam (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all I note that these templates are included in Featured Content (e.g. Game of Thrones (season 1)), and, as such, define the current optimum presentation of information. This deletion discussion is too broad in scope, and too many of the delete !voters are asking new folks to see the previous discussions--when, in fact, a broader advertisement has brought in editors who disagree with those WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussions. This is an ongoing problem with TV-related style issues, and I note several familiar faces who would prefer small discussions apply broadly to all TV on Wikipedia and have taken stances that appear to be disdainful of the editors who actually edit the articles in question, or the readers who actually benefit from the articles in question. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep For reasons already stated above. Calibrador (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's excessive and unnecessary to show the data in a graph. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July 8

Template:FL Congress 07

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 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, no reason to hardcode this Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 8 July 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:Events at the 2022 Winter Olympics

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 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Way too soon for this template to exist Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:04, 9 July 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:EventsAt1993SouthAsianGames

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 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:19, 8 July 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:EurosonicCountries

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 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused and never used. Since it only ever had one link, there is no need to retain it for historical purposes Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:08, 8 July 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:EngvarMP

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 Fox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 08:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

G7'd. — fox 06:10, 9 July 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:England women's national football team results

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 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, only one link that's red Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:04, 8 July 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 DVD notes/old

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 11:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, no clear purpose Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • keep: cs1|2 keeps /old versions of templates more-or-less as they were used before they were all migrated to the suite of Lua modules that make up Module:Citation/CS1. These /old templates have been useful for historical reference purposes: as something to compare present cs1|2 output against; to settle the arguments that arise from the assertions that the templates "used to do this or that". The /old versions of the templates work with {{cite compare}} to show how the current compares to the /old:
Cite DVD notes compare
{{ cite DVD notes | title=Title }}
Old Title (Liner notes). 
Live Title (Media notes). 
  • Trappist the monk (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reason cited above. Perhaps the documentation should be updated to reflect this and to discourage the template's use in articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 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:Egyptian Air Force

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 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, fails WP:EXISTING/WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 08:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, navigates between two articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 8 July 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:Economy of Asia

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 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 08:04, 8 July 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:Economy of East Timor

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 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:58, 8 July 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:East German Republic Day Parades

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 July 19. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 11:02, 19 July 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:Draftspace move notice

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 G7. Sole author, template unused. czar 07:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:34, 8 July 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:Dominican Summer League Red Sox 2 roster

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 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, navigates nothing Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:31, 8 July 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:Desportivo do Maculusso Basketball roster

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 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:25, 8 July 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:Daytime Emmy Award Outstanding Entertainment News Program

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 July 19. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 11:02, 19 July 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:Danish parliamentary election, 2005

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 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)