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.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

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

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

Notifying related WikiProjects

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

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

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

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

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

Twinkle

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

November 21

Template:Double First-Class University project

Non-English template WOSlinker (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cao and Xiahou family

Unused template with inaccuracies. Repetition of similar templates such as Template:People of Cao Wei and Template:People of the end of Han dynasty. LDS contact me 06:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

November 20

Template:Monstercat

Record label rosters and catalogues unsuitable for navbox inclusion per longstanding consensus and precedent. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates and many other discussions. --woodensuperman 09:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

November 19

Template:SCV

This template is part of the WP:SCV complex which has been marked as historical after a MFD discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Asia Professional Baseball Championship

Unused, replaceable by {{Infobox international baseball tournament}}. Sawol (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

November 18

Template:Norio Osada

Norio Osada has only ever directed one single film. There is no need for a template. Not even a category would be necessary. Nicholas0 (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. The subject doesn't even have an article. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom. Although Osada has written for several other films, there is no article or content in the film articles to establish notability of his writing. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 09:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, only one film and no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:KoreanText

Same reason as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 7#Template:Contains_Chinese_text . Timmyshin (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not everyone has CJK fonts. KMF (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: We should make this decision based on facts. According to Help:Multilingual support (East Asian), CJKV fonts come pre-installed in Windows beginning with Windows Vista. This leaves users of Windows XP and older with the need to install fonts and, hence, instructions to do so. You can see which OSs are used to access Wikimedia sites here. XP (Windows NT 5.1 and 5.2) has a share of 3.95%, which is not negligible. Older systems are less common. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 19:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • But that report is from 2015. Notice also Windows XP from Asia all had CJK pre-installed. Timmyshin (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • True, Timmyshin. One would expect that these figures are somewhat lower as of 2017, but not dramatically so. Unfortunately the reports have been discontinued since. In any case, the question is: how small a percentage of users is enough to justify this accessibility feature. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 19:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Quite dramatically so: a more up to date browser breakdown is here, and gives Windows XP a 1.3% share, of which an unknown number already have CJK fonts installed. The dramatic drop probably has something to do with Mediawikil limiting support for older browsers; older versions of IE still work but have Javascript disabled for a much worse experience - see mw: Compatibility.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - CJK fonts are pre-installed in probably a vast majority of computers. Both my 5-year-old Canadian iMac and newer MacBook came with them pre-installed, as did all the Android phones and iPhones I've had in the last ten years. -Zanhe (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - All major desktop (Win, Mac) and mobile (iOS, Android) operating systems have had Korean/Japanese font support for ages. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 08:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - As Finnusertop pointed out, as of the last report, a small but significant number of users have systems old enough to potentially face trouble. As the report was only 2 years old, it seems best to err on the side of caution and avoid inconveniencing so many users who probably aren't extremely technically literate in the first place. Jwuthe2 (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, if you see a bunch of boxes you know you are missing fonts. no need to tell everyone who has the fonts installed about this issue. if anything, these sorts of font notices should be automatically handled by the backend server. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per Axisixa, all consumer desktop and mobile OSes include Korean support and have done for a decade or so. Anyone still on an older OS, not installing support manually is not going to do so now.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per JohnBlackburne yoyo (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why does the template about Arabic still remain then? Does this stem from the East Asian bias on Wikipedia?--Adûnâi (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just beacuse some may have problem, not everybody has. No reason to delete. Rmir2 (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per JohnBlackburne CrayFishBob (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:JapaneseText

Same reason as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 7#Template:Contains_Chinese_text . Timmyshin (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Obsolete text. Template created back when support for UTF-8 and other non-Unicode languages were bad. TheInfernoX (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Assuming that every Wikipedia user has a CJK font installed is a bad idea. KMF (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: See my comment above regarding user statistics. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 19:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete see my comment above. -Zanhe (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per my vote at § Template:KoreanText. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 09:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, if you see a bunch of boxes you know you are missing fonts. no need to tell everyone who has the fonts installed about this issue. if anything, these sorts of font notices should be automatically handled by the backend server. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per my vote at § Template:KoreanText. yoyo (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete for the same reasons as above and previously: all consumer OSes for a decade or so have included support. Anyone who is confused by what they are seeing is better served by a link to Japanese language which should always be there in some form.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just beacuse some may have problem, not everybody has. No reason to delete. Rmir2 (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per JohnBlackburne CrayFishBob (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:TGIF (ABC)

Not a suitable topic for a navigation template. The only thing they have in common is a network timeslot, so this fails most of the points at WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 12:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • weak keep, there is a parent article and the scope is now limited since the programming block is now defunct. there was cross-promotion between the shows in the same block "with the goal of encouraging young viewers to watch the entire lineup, instead of just a particular show". Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Empire RT scores S1

fortunately, these templates are not being used Frietjes (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep They have been re-added to Empire (season 1) and Empire (season 2), respectively, and these types of templates are used on over 60 other articles. [1] - Brojam (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    • there is no reason to keep it a separate template, and you are double counting, if you want the number in articles, try this search which shows under 30. Frietjes (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor

Propose merging Template:Infobox Chinese-language singer and actor with Template:Infobox person.
Unnecessarily ethnocentric, and nothing that cannot be accommodated by Infobox person. Please refer to the relevant discussions Template:Infobox actor, Template:Infobox_entertainer, Template:Infobox_Indian_actor, Template:Infobox_Indian_TV_actor, etc.

As far as I can see, the only differences are 1) romanizations: this information can be easily embedded using Template:Infobox name module or Template:Infobox Chinese; 2) a parameter called "ethnicity" that links to List of ethnic groups in China: this parameter shouldn't be in infoboxes per RfC: Ethnicity in infobox; 3) a parameter called "ancestry" that links to ancestral home (Chinese): I would argue this outdated idea is even more controversial than ethnicity/religion in Infoboxes (a person may have never been to their ancestral home in their life), and 4) numerous Chinese/Asian awards: which shouldn't be in Infoboxes per Discussion: Awards_in_infobox, but if necessary, can be included using the "award" parameter in Infobox person. Timmyshin (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Neither is completely satisfactory, the solution is to migrate to both per User:Frietjes. I'm not sure how it's done technically, but musical artists can be identified by the occupation of parameters "genre" and "instrument". Timmyshin (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Timmyshin. No reason to have a whole new template just to add some translated and transliterated names. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 20:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-art-3d

unused, replaceable by {{PD-old-100}} and/or {{Photo of art}} FASTILY 01:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not easily replaceable by the proposed tags; provides more clarity given the dual copyright of a photo of 3D works in jurisdictions without FOP. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-AOC

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 01:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

November 17

Template:Tunisia squad - 2007 FIBA Africa Championship for Women

unused, squad membership is preserved in the squads article Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

unused, probably violates MOS:ICON Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tirana District

unused, redundant to Template:Tirana div Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tippett operas

unused, replaced by Template:Michael Tippett Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Timeline Essendon Football Club

unused, should be added to articles or deleted Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Aesthetically, I would prefer not to see it added to an article. Jenks24 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Thomas-NBR-Vol1

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

    • DELETE - It appears that these was removed from North British Railway at this edit when the source list was removed from the article. Previously there was a consolidated source list which is now scattered in the reference list. It appears that my attempt to make sources easy to identify with associated templates in this and other articles has been rejected. I had used the template elsewhere is other NBR related articles, however as they have been removed I cannot recall where they were located. So just delete these two and all the other railway book templates I have created to make life easier. --Stewart (talk | edits) 12:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Thomas-NB-Atlantics

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

    • DELETE - It appears that this was removed from the articles that I created it for. Previously there was a consolidated source list which are now scattered in reference lists. It appears that my attempt to make sources easy to identify with associated templates in articles has been rejected. I had used the template in NBR related articles, however as they have been removed I cannot recalled where they were located. So just delete these and all the other railway book templates I have created to make life easier. --Stewart (talk | edits) 12:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Texas party primaries, 2002

unused, duplicates tables in Texas gubernatorial election, 2002#Primaries, Texas gubernatorial election, 1998#Primaries, Texas gubernatorial election, 1994#Primaries Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Texas gubernatorial election, 2002

unused, duplicates tables in Texas gubernatorial election, 2002#Results, Texas gubernatorial election, 1998#Results, ... Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:10,000 rushing yards club

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. —Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

RoyalsLife 16:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@RoyalsLife: if you are suggesting this should be deleted, you should provide a reason for deletion. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Frietjes Never mind. Lizard said we should delete it, but I guess he changed his mind. RoyalsLife 16:44, 17 November 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:Minhaj-ul-Quran International

not a series. better served as navbox. Störm (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bayview Park Ferry colour

decommissioned (or replaced by other lines). Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Neutral Bay Ferry link

unused, replaced by simple article linking. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Taronga Zoo Ferry colour

replaced by {{Sydney Ferries color|Taronga Zoo}}, {{Sydney Ferries color|Neutral Bay}}, ... Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tajikistan presidential election, 1999

unused, duplicates the table in Tajik presidential election, 1999 Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Unnecessary. Number 57 23:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Taiwan Administrative Divisions

unused, administrative divisions of Taiwan are using {{Infobox Province of China (ROC)}} or {{Infobox settlement}} Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Taegeuk mark

unused, not clear where it would be used Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tableheadingparty

old and unused Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Miranda

I was horrified when I found out that this was actually a template: Miranda is a self-published author whose use in articles on cardinals and conclaves on Wikipedia is something that makes their content horrible, fancrufty, and next to unreadible in many cases. He is not a scholar in the field: he is a librarian who researches cardinals and conclave histories as a hobby, and his website is not peer reviewed. It is simply not a reliable source by any stretch of the term, and Wikipedia should not be encouraging doing our readers a disservice by making it easier to link to him. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep I think that's an over-reaction. Salvador Miranda's articles appear to be a good brief summary of information from the sources, which he lists, without embellishment. His site appears to be approved by the US Library of Congress and Encyclopedia Britannica, so presumably has been 'peer reviewed'. If the Wikipedia articles are poor, that is a reflection of their editors, not this source, and needs to be addressed on the article talk pages. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • No, that is not an overreaction. It is a self-published source that goes through zero peer-review. Brittanica and the LOC don't "approve" it. He does not even have a PhD in a related field or even at all: he has a masters of library science and does this as a hobby. Any usage of him in Wikipedia is contrary to our policy on citing reliable sources. A Google site-specific search also finds no mention of Miranda or links to his website from Britannica.TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
      • What Bermicourt refers to is the LOC’s archive, and the site's inclusion in a former Britannica feature, their iGuide. He is still currently linked to by EB. On this page, for example, specifically the external links section. While the author does not have a PhD, I find it very odd that you mention his M.S. in Library Science, but not his M.A. in Modern European History which is actually relevant to the subject. While I am not going to judge whether he makes for a suitable source or not, your portrayal of him seems quite unfair. Tom-L (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
        • The LOC is simply a web archive, not an assessment of the reliability. My portrayal of him is entirely fair: he has a terminal MA, which is not an academic qualification that makes one a scholar on the subject. I didn't think to mention it, because in academia it really wouldn't be considered worth mentioning: to my knowledge, he has never held a faculty appointment in this area, and the website is no more reliable than a blog that I would personally publish. The source is unreliable, and we should not be encouraging its use on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Since when did we require specific academic criteria, including what jobs people have held, for the authors of every Wikipedia source? Especially when they list the sources they themselves have used. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
          • I did not claim that the LOC is an assessment of reliability, though I do note you ignore the Britannica link. Your portrayal is entirely unfair. For some reason you have so far neglected to explain, you accuse him of somehow being responsible for "horrible, fancrufty, and next to unreadible" articles on the English Wikipedia. Now, his source may very well not be acceptable to Wikipedia standards, but your dismissive argument, e.g. that "in academia it really wouldn't be considered worth mentioning", goes completely against what I have been taught in the historiography course I took in university. Skimming his website, it seems to be a dry, consistent and too uncritical synthesis of properly sourced information. By that very reasoning, should we not also reject Wikipedia itself? Bah, never mind. Misplaced condescension is why I gave up on this project years ago… Tom-L (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
            • Yes, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we do not allow citing ourself. A terminal masters is not an academic qualification that would be taken seriously by most.WP:SELFPUBLISH requires that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The fact that Miranda only has a terminal MA means that he is most decidedly not an expert in the field, so you are correct that it is relevant in that sense, but it only further shows why he should not be cited by our guidelines.
              My portrayal is completely fair, and the tendency for Wikipedians to prefer to cite an unreliable self-published source rather than omit information that cannot be verified to reliable sources is one of the major negatives the project faces when writing on religious history: Miranda has no place on Wikipedia as a source unless it can be verified by other sourcing, and if it can be verified by other sourcing, there is no reason to cite him. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
              • Repeating that your portrayal is entirely fair is not an argument. Repeating your pseudo-academic condescension is also not an argument. And if this was merely about reliability per Wikipedia standards, you could have written something in the vein of "This source is not reliable per Wikipedia standards, so this template is not needed". Something I’d entirely agree with, Miranda’s bibliography should be used as a crutch and not a source. Still, I don't know what bone you have to pick with this guy, or what else caused your rant of hyperbole and condescension. If you don't actually have a bone to pick with this guy in particular, I would advise you to choose your language more carefully next time. Plenty of Wikipedia contributors I have encountered “only” have a Master’s at best. I see that you are an administrator, so I'll leave it at this. Tom-L (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 15:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep per my entries above. Bermicourt (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I have stricken the duplicate !vote above. You can't !vote twice in the same XfD. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable (does not have a Wikipedia article) self-published author, unreliable source. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, the only Salvador Miranda with an article is a middle distance runner. I see no WP articles verifying the importance or notability of this particular source. Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-Medical imaging

unused and broken, appears to be a cut-and-paste copy of commons:Template:PD-US-Medical_imaging, which means that images with this tag should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

How do we fix it so it works here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
you fix it by uploading the image directly to commons. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

November 16

Template:WSJ topic

Unused, and per the template's talk page it is apparently broken and unfixable. Alsee (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

WAIT, I need to check something! Alsee (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It was still in use on six articles, but I have now removed those six broken usages. The only "use" now is in the SeeAlso sections of Template:New York Times topic/doc, Template:Guardian topic/doc, Template:Aljazeera topic/doc, Template:Bloomberg_topic/doc, and some talk or user pages. Alsee (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Int

unused, duplicates {{Isnumeric}} with |boolean=true Frietjes (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Populated areas in Gampaha District of Sri Lanka

unused duplicate of Template:Divisional Secretariats of Gampaha District Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pool B Men's Rugby sevens at the 2015 Pan American Games

unused and empty Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Oceania

unused, articles are using {{Oceania in topic|Politics of}} instead Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Politics of North America

unused, articles are using {{Americas topic|Politics of}} instead Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Politics of East Germany

unused, many of the links are not East Germany-specific, but instead about Germany as a whole, and are hence covered by Template:Politics of Germany. the elections are in Template:East German elections. Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Not sure whether we're looking at the same template, but the vast majority of links I see in that template are East Germany-specific. The only three that aren't are the two links to Elections and Referendums, which are misleading and I have now delinked; the only outstanding one is to the CDU. Number 57 15:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Political Macedonia 3

unused, should be added to Macedonia or deleted Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Polish game shows

unused, the list of Polish game shows with articles is covered by Category:Polish game shows. should be refactored to match the contents of the category and used or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Better left to category navigation as there is little connecting these articles to one another except for genre. Per WP:NAVBOX, "the articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent". --woodensuperman 13:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:KML teams 2011–12

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

old and not needed Frietjes (talk) 13:15, 16 November 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:Tony Awards hosts

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_6#Template:Academy_Awards_hostsJustin (koavf)TCM 02:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:PERFNAV and per all the previous discussions resulting in similar templates being deleted. --woodensuperman 11:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:S-line-loc-alt

Nonstandard, only 29 transclusions. Replace page content with the following text and substitute. Jc86035 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

{{S-note|wide=yes|text=Former services}}
{{Rail line|previous={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#invoke:String|replace|{{{before}}}| station$||plain=false}}|route={{{line}}}|next={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#invoke:String|replace|{{{after}}}| station$||plain=false}}}}
  • Oppose. How is putting all that code in a page at all useful? --NE2 20:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @NE2: The code gets substituted so that the second line becomes {{Rail line|previous=[[Previous station|Previous]]|route=[[Line]]|next=[[Next station|Next]]}}, which is shorter than the original text. Module:String is there because someone added "station" after the link in a lot of uses, which is inconsistent with {{S-line}} and {{Rail line}} usage, so it automatically removes "station" from the end of the parameter values. Jc86035 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • replace/delete per nom, clearly the additional code is not that much since the suggestion is to substitute the string replacement expressions. this would also fix the inconsistent centering (see Locust Manor (LIRR station) for an example). Frietjes (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 01:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:S-line-loc

Nonstandard, only 144 transclusions. Replace page content with the following text and substitute (semi-automatic cleanup needed for articles using this more than once). Jc86035 (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

{{S-note|wide=yes|text=Former services}}
{{Rail line|previous={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#invoke:String|replace|{{{before}}}| station$||plain=false}}|route={{{line}}}|next={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#invoke:String|replace|{{{after}}}| station$||plain=false}}}}
  • Oppose. How is putting all that code in a page at all useful? --NE2 20:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • replace/delete per nom, clearly the additional code is not that much since the suggestion is to substitute the string replacement expressions. this would also fix the inconsistent centering (see East New York (LIRR station) for an example). Frietjes (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 01:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hamline Pipers football navbox

Only one season article exists, 1882 Hamline Pipers football season and it a perma-stub that is nominated for deletion. The template is used on only one other article, on Hamline Pipers football, and won't be used any more, since articles for single seasons of Piper football are very unlikely. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • "Permastub" is an argument that should be avoided in discussions, and is not relevant. Ditto, "articles are unlikely". Leaving that aside and looking at the actual template, according to Hamline Pipers, the school's football team has won five conference championships, so it's actually fairly plausible that additional articles will appear, and in some cases perhaps should. So, Keep. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the poor argumentation, but the content that could be written about Hamline's five football conference championships would be better placed in the general athletic team article, or at most an article about Hamline Pipers football. The issue is whether stand alone season articles are needed or best to carry the content. If not, then a template is not needed either. Wikilinks in the general articles would be just fine to link to a few single season articles (again, if there is sufficient content). I would think that the athletic page or the team page should be the first place content should be added before a single season article is created. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep we typically keep navigational templates during development of season articles for such programs. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not about a deadline. It is about whether this template for a small D3 school should exist. Templates like this one shouldn't exist. That there are some isn't an argument. Keep the program page for the future theoretical content. But there is no need for a navigational template that has nothing to navigate. If someone can find some coverage in RS and start working on improving the program article, then I might be persuaded to keep the template. Until then, delete. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looking for a more solid consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:IsNumber

We already have a template with this function (Template:Ifnumber), and this template does'nt add anything but more complexity Christian75 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. The template discerns third situatiion: "input=blank (null)". -DePiep (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Template:Ifnumber has no problem with blank statements. Blank equals "not a number" and therefore, not a third situation. Christian75 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
How to handle blank input is up to the calling teplate, I'd say. In logic, Null treatment is a vast topic, creating a third option. Not just "it's NaN". -DePiep (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
That could be merged (if necessary) to {{ifnumber}}} Christian75 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Your argument to keep it is that there is three different cases - Number (whennumber), NaN (whenfalse) and blank (whenblank) - but when I fixed your template so it only returned "whenfalse" when the input was non-empty and not a number, you reverted me with the reason it was a feature. Right now, if the input is a letter it will return "whenblank", but if that is undefined it will return whenblank. If the input to the template is blank, it will return whenblank. Why? Christian75 (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
We have established that this template has a three-way logic, and so is not the same as {{Ifnumber}} (as the OP incorrectly states). That's all there is to say. -DePiep (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
In matter of fact it doesn't because per default it prints the same value for what you call blank (empty paramter) and non-numbers, and you said (when I changed it) that thats was the design of your template. Thats exactly what {{ifnumber}} does. And the feature (the possiblity to print three different values) is unused and we do not keep templates just because it could be used. The only use of your teplate (AFAIK) is on one template, which could be substituted with {{ifnumber}} (but you reverted me). The documentation of your template suggest that your template can be used like ifnumber... If anybody wanted to check for empty parameters they could just use {{#if:{{{1|}}}||<text>}}. Christian75 (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
It has a three-way function, by design and as testcases and documentation supportingly show. (What you did was change the code into breaking that, and then claim "its the same"?!). So your nom OP was and is incorrect (not a duplicate). BTW, meanwhile I claim an actual need for this in mainspace (see my comment below). -DePiep (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Frietjes. No it's not a fork. It has three-way logic: it discerns null-input (aka blank or whitespace only), then can give different output for that. (Like {{yesno}} has five-way logic.) -DePiep (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
you don't seem to know the definition of fork. again, there is no need for it in Template:Periodic table (32 columns, micro) or anywhere else that I have seen. as Christian75 pointed out above, you can wrap the {{ifnumber}} call to have separate logic for blank input if you really need this feature. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I add: one can not blanket claim that that is 'unnecessary'. What when I do need that option for example in maintenance? -DePiep (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I do know the definition of fork, but it is not a fork so your argument is idle. Because it has different functionality. Did you mean to say "duplication" (as in: same functionality), and do you still maintain that now that I have pointed out explicitly the three-way logic that is present?
Yes one can solve it differently (handcrafting code in every situation, as you propose). But why would we have to, per your statement? Why would you forbid a template that does automate repeating code, as templates are intended for? I do not understand which viable alternative solution you seem to see.
Also, could you reply to my other statements made: 1. why can you claim that this new function is "unnecessary" ever? And still so after I have pointed out a RL mainspace need for it? -DePiep (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
from the fork article, creating a distinct and separate piece of software, distinct is the opposite of duplicate. I have seen no examples presented which necessitate a new version of ifnumber (and yes this includes your "RL mainspace need"). Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yep, here it is. For this set in periodic table data, especially the Group numbering, I need to be able to discern "number", "blank" or "textual" input. Aimed for mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note, related: we should take a look at {{Isnumeric}} vs. {{Ifnumber}}. Later on. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

November 15

Template:Liguilla Pre Libertadores

unused, clubs are now covered by different navboxes (e.g., Template:Uruguayan Primera División) Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Liga de Fútbol Profesional Boliviano Managers

unused, atypical to have a navbox connecting managers in the same football league Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Leinster League Division Two

unused, duplicates Template:Leinster League (rugby union) Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Leoncavallo operas

unused, duplicates navigation found in Template:Ruggero Leoncavallo Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Largest Combined Statistical Areas of the United States

unused, duplicates table in the main article. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Kuwait Squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship

unused and all redlinks, squad membership is saved in the squads article. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Kolkata city officials

unused and out-of-date, this sort of thing usually goes in the infobox Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:My American Heart

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 author request (G7). Hut 8.5 22:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a navbox that contains only one link and shows no significant likelihood of expansion. It is about a relatively obscure band that released only two albums, on a relatively obscure defunct label, and whose last release was about a decade ago. There is no evidence that any of the items listed without links in the navbox are sufficiently notable for articles to be created about them. Some items previously had articles (see this old version, which had five populated links); however, all but one of them eventually became redirects to the article about the band due to lack of evidence of notability. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, connects two articles, not enough for a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • comment: the template's principal author has concurred, by tagging the template for speedy deletion (WP:G7). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:18, 15 November 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:Weekday after Julianday

Nominated by an IP on talk page with rationale "This was a subroutine of an earlier implementation of Template:Weekday after date and of Template:Weekday before date but is not now used by any article or template." – Train2104 (t • c) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Elections in Moldova since 1917

unused. should be merged with Elections in Moldova or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Edgar Lungu Cabinet 2015

unused, should be merged with Edgar Lungu (or a related article) or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:The Simple Life

Most of the entries fail WP:PERFNAV, the others are all tangential. --woodensuperman 15:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Authority control

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. WP:SNOWCLOSE-ing, as there's clearly not gonna be any consensus to delete here. OwenBlacker (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


(second close/update) I have re-closed this discussion per the above reasons and the discussion at OwenBlacker's page, and request that if the nominator feels they have not presented a proper argument they should re-submit their proposal once this one has aged a bit rather than attempt to significantly re-write it after others have voted. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is typically something for which Wikidata exists. Connecting databases is a good thing, but this collection of links which are for the most part useless and meaningless for readers of enwiki doesn't belong on enwiki as it stands. Deletion of this template would reduce the visual clutter (and drastically reduce the number of hidden categories, which is getting unwieldy for people doing maintenance). As an example, let's look at Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  • Worldcat: okay
  • Viaf, okay, but doesn't add much
  • Library of Congress more of the same
  • ISNI: useless
  • DNB good for a German person, mainly useless for others (on enwiki that is)
  • Selibr useless
  • IDref useless as we have better similar sites
  • BNF probably good for French authors, but on enwiki for (like here) German authors it's more logical to have DNB and not this
  • Bibsys useless
  • ULAN not much use either
  • Switzerland: information in French on where Goethe stayed when he visited Schweiz? Seems a tad overspecialized. Probably a good source for Swiss people only.
  • Musicbrainz a wiki which gets its textual information from Wikipedia, and where the remainder is often dubious and incomplete.
  • Australia more of the same, seems useless
  • NDL (Japan): utterly useless for enwiki
  • NKP (Czech) useless
  • Leonore overspecialized, perhaps more useful for French subjects?
  • OPAc (Italy) useless for a German subject on enwiki
  • RSL (Russia) totally useless
  • IPNI ?
  • BNE (Espana): you guessed it
  • RKD indispensable for Dutch and Flemish artists, not so much otherwise
  • SNAC ?

These are all the ones present on this article, but other articles yield yet further "authorities", and new ones get added regularly. These were useful to have (well, some of them at least) when we didn't have Wikidata, but now they are superfluous information for the most part, in this generic form. Specific links from it are often good to have, but these should be added individually, instead of dumping (like here) 22 ugly links and letting the reader find the few good ones among them.

Basically, authority control is not user-friendly or reader-oriented, it is database information which has been introduced here because we didn't have a database people (and other databases) could access easily. Now that we have that (for five years already), we should get rid of the template here, and add specific links to the external links section, where needed, by bot (e.g. DNB links to all German subjects, BNF links to all French subjects) or manually. Fram (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep A good argument to have it trimmed, or redesigned, but not deleted. No one is required to read it, or use it, anymore than they are required to click on a particular category or read a particular reference. It is really designed to be machine readable so a search engine can correlate the identifier here and at an external source. --RAN (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • "It is really designed to be machine readable" I know, but that role has been taken over by Wikidata (just like Persondata has been removed because we have Wikidata). Fram (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per proposer's arguments. I always wondered what use it was; now I know! yoyo (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep – deleting it is absurd, overstated, and premature. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you explain your arguments please? Why is it e.g. premature? Fram (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
      • The Goethe article is 23 screens long on my laptop. The authority control band is one-inch. Geeze, Louise. Most articles only have a half dozen or less catalogs in their AC band. That is why it is overstated and premature. Why are you not complaining about the lack of bi-directional navboxes in the article, and the abundance of non-bi-directional navboxes? Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Being a large or a small box has little or nothing to do with being premature. Help:Authority control gives the example of Alexander Graham Bell and the five ACs in the box. However, the actual current article has 13 Acs, not 5. The template is used on more than 500,000 articles, and is some 7 years old. Wikidata is 5 years old. "Premature" would be if I didn't gave the template time to be developed and to show its potential. How much more time is needed before this would be mature in your view? I have no idea why you consider the deletion proposal "absurd" or "overstated", the growth of this template and the continuous inclusion of further Acs, usually not providing any useful info for enwiki readers, is happening. At the same time, the original use case for the template has been made invalid by the arrival of Wikidata. The article may have other issues, so what? If you so strongly want to keep this template, you should be able to make a good case of why it is needed, why it helps our readers, why we are better off with than without it. Fram (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep ChristianKl (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Because...?
  • Keep. Not willing to cede authority tagging to Wikidata at this time, especially since there are some questions currently being raised about how Wikidata should be pulled into EN. I'd hate to delete this template and then find out the mechanism that would have been used to replace it is not available. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep until the various issues and questions with the use of Wikidata on en.wiki are settled, we shouldn't be deleting this (and I am neutral on any and all Wikidata questions, I just think it doesn't make sense to delete this until such a time as we know what the policies and guideline will be for the use of Wikidata on en.wiki) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I am in favour of autogenerating the info in the templates based on Wikidata information instead of having to add it explicitelly to the wikicode. I suggest a soution similar to interwikis. If a Wikidata item exists with info suitable for Authority Control we should use Wikidata directly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete just like person data. Replacement is not necessary. Now that we have wikidata, wikipedia will become less relevant in providing meta information on topics. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 16:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep WP:POINT nomination. Part of the anti-Wikidata crusade. Multichill (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - time for a snow close? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Authority Control began being added to articles in 2009. Removing it from half a million articles is not a matter for a template discussion in a venue few people watch. Raise the issue with an RFC at the Village Pump. The uses of authority control can be discussed there. If the decision is that the encyclopedia no longer have these links then the template can be removed. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - the argument presented is an argument for improving/trimming down the template, not for deleting it. Issues with a particular database and its usefulness should be discussed one-by-one. Would support deleting tracking categories, though. Don't see the need for them. Renata (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Authority control provides a whole range of information which goes far beyond Wikidata. For example, via VIAF it provides variations on the name of the person in question, via WorldCat works created and held in libaries, and various links to international library authority files. Most of us who create biographies find it extremely useful and I'm sure our readers can access a wealth of pertinent information they would not be able to find in Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep because it collates pointers information about a single subject that disparately saved across multiple websites which are not subject to Wikipedia’s scope; they are thus indispensable for quick and easy research as well as for the the categorization of metadata. The fact that many databases now rely on Wikipedia (sometimes instead of Wikidata) to reflect the Wikimedia family’s authority control matrices, means that removing the template has the potential to harm data retention. Finally, the fact that there’s a template that appears at the bottom of the screen with links that are at worst redundant, but as even the nominator Fram states, are also “okay”, “good”, and even “indispensable”, doesn’t mean we shut it down. —LLarson (said & done) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • None of these links have ever felt strictly necessary to have in an encyclopedia article, and Wikidata clearly obviates their need from an authority control perspective, regardless of whether English Wikipedia continues to use Wikidata in any way [besides interwiki links]. I find it bizarre that I'm writing this, but per Fram, I am inclined to delete this template. Arguments of "it's used a lot" don't get a lot of traction here. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Have it trimmed or redesigned, but not deleted. WorldCat at least needs to be retained in a similar form to now. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The Goethe entry is not representative: for most entries it only throws up two or three links. Goethe was and is exceptional on so many levels! No one is forced to click on the links it throws up if they are in too much of a hurry, but that's no reason to make life more difficult for the few who have time to want all the help they can get. Charles01 (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Mostly per @Andy and Ian. Readers who click the VIAF and Worldcat links in Authority Control, for example, will get a lot of information, which may not be contained in the article itself. Forcing readers to go to Wikidata isn't the answer. Storing the Authority control information on Wikidata, and displaying it in Wikipedia articles is, IMO, the best choice. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - but possibly explain better what it does, since in my experience it's not well understood by most people (me included until recently). It's very important–and invaluable for serious research–to have a clearly discoverable and easy-to-understand link from a Wikipedia article to lists somebody's works on library catalogues and journals. For example, say I'm in an academic library-using the authcon link I can quickly go from a Wikipedia article to knowing what books by this person are in stock and finding their shelfmark. If people don't understand what it does, that's a sign that we should try to make it better-known, not giving up on it. It's clearly a lot more discoverable than "Wikidata item" off to the side.
    I do think there is a case for inserting authcon data automatically rather than requiring the page creator to specify that it should be included (e.g. just having the skin look up if there's authcon data for an article and just automatically displaying it, kind of like how we're moving to an automatic display of references in columns-how often if there's a VIAF record for someone would you specifically not want to see that?), and perhaps adding some kind of mouseover explanation of what it does. If the number of authorities seems to be expanding rapidly I'd be OK with considering making the box collapse past the first two or three lines, but I don't think we're generally at that point yet. Blythwood (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to reply to all keeps here, although I may address some ones later on. But many people argue that Goethe is a bad example, and that most pages only have a few links in the template. In my experience, this isn't true. Pieter van der Aa, not really a very famous or important figure, has 16 links. Bob Adelman has 14. Johannes Aagaard has 8. Laurentius Abstemius has 9... 8 or 9 links is the standard for unfamiliar names, more is fairly common as well. For household names, 15 seems to be a minimum. Non-biographies have less links, but the usefulness of the two links at e.g. Cretaceous is highly debatable. Why do we need this?
In general, the "one-size fits all" approach of this template is simply wrong. Add a separate worldcat template, sure, like we do for many types of external links where appropriate. I'm not arguing to not have links to Worldcat and the like. But not this way. Fram (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I didn't like the part about hidden categories being a problem. There must be a more important reason for deletion. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep critical data for scholarly work giving information not specifically required in an article. As only one example, knowing where references might exist and name variants is critical for scholarly research and is therefore a benefit to readers of WP articles. Wikidata at this time is difficult to edit and does not contain the information found in Authority Control in many cases. It also forces readers, who may not be editors, to utilize another platform rather than facilitating ease of access in one place. SusunW (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It is very compact, though I can see people asking who is this authority in control. Nessie (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obvious trolling is obvious. Gamaliel (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as a librarian, I can attest to the crucial need for authority control. While it may not be useful to you, it is useful to those of us who work professionally. Wikidata is not a replacement for authority control. People who are experts in their fields create authority records. This is not easy to do and there's a reason for that. Any of us can create a Wikidata entry. Wikidata is not authoritative. For scholars, librarians and curators, throwing out authority control means losing an authoritative link to crucial information about a person or entity. Wikidata is amazing, but again, I'm going to stress that it is not authoritative. This is important in scholarly fields and many scholars do use Wikipedia as a starting point for research, especially when they are looking for gaps in knowledge. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    👍 Like hit the nail on its head. Thank you! SusunW (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think the suggestion is exactly to use Wikidata in place of authority control, it's to store the authority control records in Wikidata instead of the article. I'm not sure I'm saying this right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per User:Multichill and User:Pigsonthewing . --Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, huh. If you need some more words, per Multichil or Thierry Caro. — regards, Revi 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Why do we have all this authority codes at wikidata? To maintain them hidden?--Ferran Mir (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per most of the keep rationales, but esp. those of SusunW and MLG. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove all Wikidata and make this purely an en.Wikipedia template, listing only authority numbers provided explicitly as parameters to the template. Given Wikidata's rejection of bringing their policies in line with BLP, any import of Wikidata into BLPs, even one as seemingly innocuous as magic numbers linking to other databases, is problematic. But deleting the template itself goes too far. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Not causing harm. Wikidata is not ready yet with respect to quality control to be the only repository. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Having these types of content centric postings is a method of targeted advertising to current Wikipedia readers and allowing an avenue for them to become Wikipedia editors.--Vwanweb (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Arbitrary break

(I have asked the closer to reopen this, as I was preparing this response while they closed it) It seems that many people here are !voting without really knowing the ins and outs, which is probably due to a bad presentation on my part. So here goes:

  1. Everything in this template comes from Wikidata, the template is simply {{Authority control}} without any of the values that get shown. All !votes which claim "this isn't in Wikidata yet", "Wikidata is not reliable", ... (or voting per someone who made this claim) should perhaps revisit their opinion in this light
  2. 'The proposal is not to remove all these links permanently from enwiki. The proposal is to replace the indiscriminate list of links, many of them totally irrelevant for enwiki (even for editors looking for further information), with individual, targeted templates (filled either by Wikidata or locally, that's a separate discussion). Worldcat (and perhaps VIAF) are useful for most articles they are on now; almost all of the others should only be on specific articles, where they actually provide extra info. NDL[2] may be useful for Japan-related topics, but is not useful on enwiki for any other articles. GND is good for German topics, but do we really need and want the GND identifier of 24 (TV series)[3]? The problems is not having authority records, is having a template that shows them all, indiscriminately, creating an overdose of links no one here can and will use (is a BibSYS link[4] ever useful on enwiki?). Fram (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

What you proposing is a clean up of the template and how it is used - many will agree that Authority control is bloated with useless stuff and can be streamlined. But deletion discussion is not the proper venue. Suggest opening RfC for that. Renata (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I call bullshit on Fram. You don't want to improve the template, if you wanted that you know damn well that this is not the right venue. You would have posted something on Template talk:Authority control or maybe an RFC if you really wanted to improve the template.
Here is what happened: You have being sabotaging anything Wikidata related and harassing Wikidata editors who are active here too. This is just another step in the pattern. You proposed the template for deletion, noticed the landslide oppose and now you're trying to save your skin by coming up with some lame excuse. Multichill (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't want to improve the template, where did I say that? I want to delete it, as it is fundamentally flawed (bringing in everything indiscriminately). I want to keep the best bits in the enwiki articles, but these best bits are different for each article. Please read what I wrote instead of making up stuff as an excuse to launch personal attacks. I want to replace with individual, targeted templates (just like we have a template for "official website", one for "IMDb", and so on); this is not cleanup, not some minor fix, this is deletion of this template and creation (or use if they already exist) of other templates to be used where appropriate, not everywhere indiscriminately. Fram (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that it probably needs an RfC of a better way forward, identifying the required data, the optional data, and the junk data. The template has bloated over the years. Alternatively there might also be a means to discuss a better way to display the data at the template's talk page, be it in another format, or as one line that can be expanded. It is quite provocative to ask for the deletion of an entrenched template as the first call without proposing a realistic solution. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: something like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control? Been there, done that, participation there was minimal. Fram (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Fram: when you don't get traction from the community, then at some point you need to recognise that you are in the minority. As a fellow admin, we have to accept consensus, even when it is contrary to our own opinion. I do believe that authority controls have value, though happy to discuss how much and which, that said I don't like template bloat and can see that we should constrain display as required. Where would you like to continue the conversation if you are looking constraint, instead of removal. If removal alone is your goal, I believe that argument is lost. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem to accept consensus when a fair discussion hsa been had. Here however this was impossible because of a bad explanation (if so many people misinterpret aspects of the issue and proposal, then the explanation was insufficient or confusing), bad blood (some of the votes were purely based on anti-Fram sentiments obviously), and then some genuine discussion (including opposition and support) which got lost in the melee. I don't really know how best to proceed, I see no reason why the same people wouldn't disrupt and distort an RfC in the same way. Anyway, I'm not looking for constraint (although that would be the second best solution), I'm also not looking for removal in itself, I was looking for replacement, but I clearly failed to communicate this. Every group of articles needs a different set of authority control links, not the full set which makes sense at Wikidata but not here. We would not accept [5] as an external link at American Physical Society, but when it appears in authority control, it is no problem? Applying WP:ELNO to this would be a good start. Fram (talk) 09:55, 16 November 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:Lexx

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --woodensuperman 13:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, navigates between only three articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete It has been stripped down from this version, in accordance with various guidelines. There isn't much point to it any more. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Award

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 06:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Best works

Well intended template, but it just doesn't have enough entries to justify its existence. There is nothing here that a "see also" section can't easily handle. It has been around a year now and hasn't evolved. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep – I don't know why this is an issue. This is making a mountain out of a molehole. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support / delete – this template is indeed too small. There's no reason to keep it. ~Mable (chat) 08:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 13:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep ChristianKl (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete – Fails WP:NAVBOX. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, navigates between only three articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, because I trim links out of See Also that appear in article text. This template would keep that from happening. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't believe a 'See also' link between "best video games" and "best films" is needed anyway. ~Mable (chat) 18:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete three uses, template's use is trivial and non-authoritative at best. Who decides what should be added? And on what basis is best? Not our task as editors of an encyclopaedia to make the call. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Billinghurst: This discussion is not about the content of the template, but about the template itself. Assuming these articles remain in place, should the navbox also stay? ~Mable (chat) 07:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    I clearly understand that. My point is that templates where users define "best" are PoV templates and contrary to our construction of an encyclopaedia. We should not host them full stop.— billinghurst sDrewth 09:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

November 14

Template:Lo-Fi-Fnk

One album with an article. Doesn't not provide additional navigational benefit. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing to navigate. --woodensuperman 11:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Metrolink web

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. Template now functions. Documentation of how it works now would be helpful. (non-admin closure) James (talk/contribs) 16:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This template is no longer functional due to a change in the linked website. James (talk/contribs) 21:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Metrolink still has individual station pages; see e.g. [6] for Tustin station. The template needs to be rewritten; instances will have to updated. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The new links at the website are convoluted; I don't see a way of rewriting the template that is useful to editors. Happy to be proven wrong. James (talk/contribs) 21:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • keep, I updated the code to automatically determine the new URL, and added support for using the new format as well. the automatic transformation doesn't work in some special cases, so we should eventually change the ca. 55 articles to use the new format. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 18 November 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:Dutch general election, 2003

unused and generally duplicates the table in Dutch general election, 2003#Results Frietjes (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:EQS 2016 riders

unused and duplicates List of 2016 UCI WorldTeams and riders#Etixx.E2.80.93Quick-Step Frietjes (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:EQS 2015 riders

unused and duplicates List of 2015 UCI WorldTeams and riders#Etixx.E2.80.93Quick-Step Frietjes (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:EUC 2014 riders

unused and duplicates list in List of 2014 UCI ProTeams and riders#Team Europcar Frietjes (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:EU apportionment per capita January 1 2007

unused and not clear where it would be used Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:EU directive

unused, directive articles are using template:Infobox EU legislation directly. Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:EU fprogrammes

unused and all the working links redirect to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development Frietjes (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Early NFL template list

unused and not clear where it would be used Frietjes (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:East London Localities

unused, not clear where it would be used since there are already maps in East London Frietjes (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Naked Ape

Nothing to navigate to. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, navigations nothing. Frietjes (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wow! Absolutely nothing to navigate! Useless! --woodensuperman 11:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Wan Light

No other articles to provide any navigational benefit. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, navigations nothing. Frietjes (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --woodensuperman 11:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Andrew Ridgeley

Both singles redirect to the album. Not enough other links to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 15:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, connects 3 articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bal Chandra Poudel sidebar

Author created a series of articles on one regional politician (provincial president of his party), which was overkill. Articles have been speedy deleted A10 as they duplicated info from the main article anyway, but the template is now unnecessary as there is no "series of articles" any more. Fram (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Nothing to navigate. --woodensuperman 15:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; template has zero transclusions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Selena Gomez songs

Propose merging Template:Selena Gomez songs with Template:Selena Gomez.
No justification for two navboxes. The main {{Selena Gomez}} navbox only has about six four additional articles that aren't linked in the "songs" navbox, so this can all be easily handled by a single navbox. THIS seems to be the last good version. --woodensuperman 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can claim that the standard layout for musical artist navboxes is incomprehensible! If you really need it explaining, the first group has a chronological list of albums, the next a chronological list of singles, etc, etc. It couldn't be clearer or simpler. I can't see how anyone could possibly find it difficult to understand. However, you're clearly just opposing this as a matter of misguided principle and haven't considered why we would possibly need an extra navbox for four additional links. --woodensuperman 15:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, your version is incomprehensible to a normal person cause it groups her songs into non-intuitive categories ("Singles", "Promotional singles", "Other songs") instead of grouping them by album. For example, your version has "Birthday" (from the album Stars Dance) in the "Other songs" section and "Me & the Rhythm" (from the 2015 album Revival) in the "Promotional singles" section. When everything is grouped by album, it is much more intuitive. A normal person is more likely to know that "Me & the Rhythm" is from Selena Gomez's latest album than that is was a promotional single. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I think a "normal person" may not know which album a song is from, having heard it on the radio, etc, etc. An unbroken chronological list of singles is the most intuitive grouping, as it assumes no prior knowledge of the artist. --woodensuperman 13:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The average person is much more likely looking to know what album a song is from so they can download/stream it or perhaps go buy a physical copy than whether it had a single release. It's easier to find that out when sorted into columns by album rather than scattering an album's tracks among multiple columns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Especially nowadays, when music consumption is not as album-centric as it was in the previous few decades. --woodensuperman 15:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
What I'm getting at is that by knowing what album a track is from, people have a better sense of what to search for when they'd like to buy or stream it even if only interested in that one song. Sorting by album is therefore not only more logically organized but also neater rather than scattered. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, I disagree. We are not a tool to aid purchasing. By splitting up the singles chronology in favour of grouping songs by album, you lose the career progression. If a song is a single, then this is a more defining characteristic than which album it was on. You would not break it up at Selena Gomez discography, you should not do that here. --woodensuperman 15:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You obviously didn't take into account the fact that navboxes aren't supposed to be singles discographies and shouldn't be treated as such, especially for cases like this when not all songs that warrant articles are singles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The fact a song is a single is far more important than what album it is on. By splitting it by album, it is very difficult to find the singles amid the less notable album tracks, and creates unnecessary clutter. This does our readers a disservice, especially as they are not necessarily aware of the album the single is from. As I state above, we should assume no prior knowledge of the artist. --woodensuperman 15:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Are you fucking kidding me!? Single release (or lack thereof) isn't pertinent to song navboxes unlike discography or album articles and you very well know it (particularly when not every song that warrants an article is a single). Calling certain tracks "notable" or "less notable" is blatantly biased, and personal opinions on tracks don't belong here. I seriously doubt the average person would be concerned with whether something had a single release when looking for song articles here. Calling album organization "unnecessary clutter" is also total bullshit when everything from an era/sub-era is in one place. Furthermore, it most certainly does NOT presume readers have any prior knowledge, contrary to what you've implied. *Shakes head in disappointment* Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Your descent into this kind of language yet again demonstrates again how unreasonable you are to deal with. I'm fed up with this, but I will add that no, I am not fucking kidding. A navbox should be chronological, and grouping the singles together makes 100% sense. THIS is intuitive, and THIS is how we best serve our readers. Look at how unhelpful {{Beastie Boys singles}} is. Their first three singles are lost in the "Other singles" section, when they should clearly be the first three entries, this is not split by era as you claim, and this will always be the case when non-album singles are around. Splitting down into albums has made us sacrifice an important piece of the chronology. --woodensuperman 16:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
No; my language if anything demonstrates my frustration with how flawed your reasoning is and refusal to listen to logic. I'm actually a reasonable person. Anyway, navboxes ≠ discography articles (even if the only songs that warrant articles are singles), therefore single chronology isn't a focus for them. The general viewing public isn't likely to care what order singles were released in unless they're looking a discography page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
If you're navigating between songs and/or albums, the assumption is that you would want to see where in someone's career these fall. You look at one single article, and then navigate to the single after that, and the single after that, etc, etc. The same logic applies for novels or films in navigation boxes dedicated to them. This is why we don't put navboxes in alphabetical order. For most musical artists, their singles are the way most people are introduced to the artist, so we should not be splitting these down. We've both said a lot on this subject now, I think that our respective points of view are clear. I'm done now. I'm not going to descend into your "flawed reasoning"/"refusal to listen to logic" bullshit. --woodensuperman 16:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
If someone is interested in career placement, the average person is more likely looking to know what album it came from, so they'll have a sense of which collection came out when. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • merge, no need for two navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Duplicative; it is not useful for navigation to have separate templates. James (talk/contribs) 21:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge per numerous precedents and the general common sense of consolidation of artist-specific stuff into a single navbox.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose when there's over 4 times the amount of song articles as any other type combined for Gomez, and the main one is supposed to be more of an overview in this case when songs have their own rather than a collective song listing. The organization in song navbox shown here also makes it easier to find certain tracks than what OP links above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also note this prior discussion. --woodensuperman 15:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Old discussions

November 13

Template:NLL Labelled Map

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Unused and outdated - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:35, 13 November 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:MLL Labelled Map

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Unused and outdated - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:34, 13 November 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:Grey's Anatomy ratings

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 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Unused template, and content should not be buried in a template. Whpq (talk) 18:17, 13 November 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:Katy Perry songs

Propose merging Template:Katy Perry songs with Template:Katy Perry.
No need for two navboxes. Can easily sit at this version without being remotely "bloated" as one editor seems to believe. By unnecessarily forcing this into two navboxes, you lose a dimension of navigability as you cannot navigate between the articles on the songs navbox and the articles on the main navbox, not to mention losing the full chronology of singles, etc. --woodensuperman 15:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose no navigability is lost at all by splitting. If anything, it's actually improved by helping people see which songs came from what album, and chronology of singles belongs in a discography article rather than a navbox when her singles aren't the only songs she's made that warrant pages. It also helps the main one from being inflated (which is supposed to be an overview instead of a song collection list). You obviously don't care at this point about whether something gets overfilled and are dismissing size concerns for no valid reason. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is. With the navbox split, you cannot navigate to (for example) Katy Perry videography from any of the singles articles. --woodensuperman 15:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
People are much more likely to navigate to a musician's biography or an album page from a song, so you're clearly just looking for far-fetched excuses to justify a needless bloat (and doing a poor job at defending it). Going from videography to singles pages isn't of much (if any) concern. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not "looking for far-fetched excuses". We serve our readers best by having a single navbox for each topic, so that they can navigate however they please with all the articles at hand. Only when a navbox really does get too big (and this is not remotely the case here) should we consider splitting into smaller navboxes. As for your comments regarding my "poor job at defending it", I would suggest you remain WP:CIVIL, this is completely unnecessary. --woodensuperman 16:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Criticizing one's actions as subpar isn't the same as being uncivil. Anyway, you most certainly ARE just making excuses to defend something that does much more bad than good; don't try to pretend like you don't know that. When over half of the 50+ pages pertaining to a subject are song articles, it's unquestionably enough to warrant a split. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe not exactly uncivil, but you're clearly trying to goad me. Please WP:AGF. I am most definitely NOT just making excuses. I sincerely believe that our readers are best served with all articles related to a topic contained in a single navbox. I also believe that the best way of presenting a list of singles in a navbox is as a clean single group chronology. I find the navboxes which have these chronologies destroyed by grouping the singles by album to be counter-intuitive and cluttered. --woodensuperman 16:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Even if you do have good intentions, what I'm trying to do above all else is demonstrate how your reasoning is flawed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with my reasoning. The issue is nothing more than a difference of opinion of how this information is best presented. I am certainly not alone in my opinion, just as you are not alone in yours. We'll just have to agree to disagree. --woodensuperman 16:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The purpose of templates is to facilitate navigation. In the proposed version it's very hard to find the song you need. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • merge, no need for two navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Duplicative and makes navigation more difficult to have separate navboxes. Established precedent. James (talk/contribs) 21:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a total crock of shit when A) it DOES NOT duplicate listings by having songs in their own navbox, B) One can much more easily see specific songs when not jumbled into ridiculously big groups, and C) there is no "established precedent" against song's having their own navbox (especially when there's a big collection taking up more than half of total pages pertaining to a subject), contrary to what you've implied. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Merging constitutes creating a bloated up navbox with undistinguishable songs. As SNUGGUMS said, there is and never was any precedent set for this kind of merge. Woodensuperman did basically act on his own accord and starting disrupting. —IB [ Poke ] 06:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Did you not look at the previous discussions I posted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 13#Template Taylor Swift songs, which demonstrates a clear precedent in other similar cases? --woodensuperman 09:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Calling it a "precedent" is a stretch; don't make exaggerations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Whenever this comes up at TFD it nearly always results in a merge or a delete. I wouldn't call it a stretch to call that a precedent. Here's a few more for you:
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#Template:Hilary Duff songs
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 19#Template:Meghan Trainor songs
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 22#Template:Nina Sky songs
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 21#Template:Sum 41 singles
--woodensuperman 16:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
You're obviously not taking into account the amount of articles that were/weren't songs. In Sum 41's case, they had more songs over time where it later got to the point that a separate navbox was warranted. As for the others, small amount of songs in comparison. You're incorrectly implying the notion is as simple as "always put songs in main navbox". Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge per numerous precedents and the general common sense of consolidation of artist-specific stuff into a single navbox.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Precedent" is an oversimplified notion, and "common sense" is meaningless as an argument when the so-called "common sense" isn't all that common. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:The Dreams

Unneeded. Only one related article and otherwise only redirects or nonexistent articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I did find an article for another album but it doesn't further navigation as it also links to and from the other articles anyway. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 12:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough links to provide meaningful navigation. --woodensuperman 12:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, connects 3 articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Motion of no confidence votes in the United Kingdom

Possibly misleading, as the majority of links are redirects to sections of List of successful votes of no confidence in British governments. --Nevéselbert 15:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 12:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. All but three are redirects to the same article. The alternative would be to strip the navbox of everything but these three links, but I don't think that's really enough to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per EXISTING and TG. James (talk/contribs) 21:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Taylor Swift songs

Propose merging Template:Taylor Swift songs with Template:Taylor Swift.
No need for two navboxes, as the information can easily be handled by a single navbox, which isn't too big. See this version. --woodensuperman 09:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The purpose of templates is to facilitate navigation. In the proposed version it's very hard to find the song you need.
    By the way, I would like to note that the nominator seems to feel very strongly against not only all the songs templates on Wiki, but against grouping songs by album in musician templates in general. And he has changed probably hundreds of templates on Wiki into his preferred format without any consensus.
    Also see the discussion "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 10#Template:Adele songs". The voters seemed to favor the merge, but it was because they liked the Adele template where the songs were grouped by albums. The next day after the discussion closed as "merge", the nominator came and merged all the songs into one section: [7]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Off topic, but re the Adele navbox, the majority of the editors favoured the version I suggested in the nom. Only one had a preference for breaking it down by albums. --woodensuperman 11:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Primefac said "merge if done like this", and then the next editor voted "per above". --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
"Per above" could mean either. --woodensuperman 11:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for every detail that Moscow Connection mentioned. Woodensuperman, stop grouping general and song templates like this and cause disruption. —IB [ Poke ] 11:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
These types of navbox are regularly merged. See the Adele example above, and many other discussions for precedent. Two navboxes when one would do just as well hinders navigation, as you cannot reach the articles in the main navbox from the song navboxes. A navbox should be unmanageable before a split is necessary. This is clearly not the case here. --woodensuperman 11:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
And what is your justification for a single navbox being mroe useful? Your edit virtually creates a clutter of a navbox. Swift already has so many releases as songs/singles/tracks apart from her main album releases, that it is indeed unmanageable. You acted against consensus or any kind of consensus, result being we are here. —IB [ Poke ] 13:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
With a single navbox all related articles are visible. See the point I make below regarding the inability to navigate from Fearless Tour to Fearless (Taylor Swift song) with the two navbox situation. This does not benefit our readers. And my edit isn't against general consensus. There is a precedent to merge navboxes like this. See the many different related merge discussions... Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 24#Template:Lionel Richie singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_8#Template:The_Cure_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_18#Template:Jamiroquai_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_11#Template:A_Day_to_Remember_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27#Template:Pink_Floyd_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_5#Template:R.E.M._singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_16#Template:Avicii_songs, etc, etc, etc. --woodensuperman 14:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Some of the template above are merged because it only have little song in a row (see before merged: Template:Avicii songs and Template:A Day to Remember singles, the other are deleted) while Swift's template has more than 5 songs per row. Also there are some templates that is not merged like {{Madonna songs}} and {{Queen singles}}. Hddty. (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose not only is it harder to find songs in the linked revision, but it bloats a navbox that is supposed to serve as more of an overview than song collection when a separate song navbox was made. Even though I personally disagreed with the Adele outcome, keep in mind it was done because people didn't feel there were enough songs to warrant a separate navbox, and never said anything against splitting out in the future when more songs come out. Taylor has many more song articles than Adele, and probably more than any other type of article she has here combined. It's much easier to sort through by album in a separate navbox in this case when she has so many; the other version as it doesnt have any ridiculously big columns compared to others, plus the linked edition is too singles-centric when it's not supposed to be a singles discography (especially when there are pages for non-singles). Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This still doesn't justify two navboxes. Two navboxes are clearly more difficult to navigate than one, as you're missing half the links wherever you are. The two navbox situation means that you cannot navigate between, say, Fearless Tour and Fearless (Taylor Swift song). With just one navbox this would be possible. A singles navbox should only be created when one navbox becomes impossible, not as a matter of course. Pink Floyd released a lot more songs and albums than either artist being discussed here, but note also this RfC: Template talk:Pink Floyd#RfC: Should the Pink Floyd singles template be restored?. --woodensuperman 13:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Please be reasonable; your logic is flawed and you obviously didn't take into account how bloated navboxes become in cases like that (which I'm not sure if you even care about). Also, while WP:OTHERSTUFF admittedly isn't that strong of a point, keep in mind that consensus can change over time and the reasons given in that RFC to have one navbox were flawed. On another note, when Taylor has a bunch of pages for non-singles, she would have a SONGS template rather than a SINGLES template (which would solely consist of singles). Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The point in this specific case is that the merge of the two navboxes would not be remotely bloated. Therefore we don't need to separate. --woodensuperman 14:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Surely you jest; it very needlessly clutters the main navbox to have all song pages listed, and we could avoid all of that by having separate navboxes. It looks so much cleaner and concise without all of them listed, which I've now counted as 57, over twice the total of everything else combined at 21. No valid reason not to split with totals like that. The negatives of having one navbox here easily outweigh any potential positives. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
No, of course I don't jest. There is no clutter whatsoever, this is a pretty standard number of links for navboxes of this kind. 57 articles is not a lot by any standards, and certainly not enough to necessitate a split! There are no negatives to having just one navbox for Taylor Swift. --woodensuperman 14:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That's fucking ridiculous; when over half of the pages listed are songs (roughly 73% in this case) and there's 50+ total pages, it's more than enough reason to split! The biggest negatives are bloating and faulty-at-best organization (especially when not sorted by album). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
It's "fucking ridiculous" to have two navboxes for a single artist with only 50+ articles to link. Oh and actually, the "by album" sorting is problematic, as you lose the opportunity for a properly chronological singles progression, which is a far better way to present the group to our readers. --woodensuperman 15:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
No, it's too singles-centric to group everything by singles and non-singles; the navbox isn't supposed to be a singles discography and those aren't the only types of songs that have articles. With album sorting, readers get a better sense of which songs came from where. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That sort of information is for a discography article, not a navbox. A chronological progression is the best way to present articles in a navbox. You're worried about bloating, yet there is nothing that causes bloat more than a lot of additional groups. Again, compare other navboxes, {{R.E.M.}} or {{Kate Bush}}, etc, etc, etc, where one navbox with a single group for singles does an excellent job. --woodensuperman 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, that just gives undue emphasis to singles over non-singles. Furthermore, the albums that songs come from isn't just discography detail; it's also pertinent to "List of songs recorded by _______" pages (which don't include things solely based on whether they had single releases). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Emphasis of singles over non-singles is not undue, as singles are usually more well known than album tracks. I agree that the information regarding which album a single comes from belongs in "List of songs by" articles as well as discographies, but this information is not needed in a navbox. --woodensuperman 15:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
You're obviously not getting the point; whether a song was released as a single isn't pertinent to a navbox the way it is to a discography page. Even if her singles were the only songs that warranted articles (which isn't the case), it would still bloat the navbox by listing those and would look even worse when not organized by album (creates a ridiculously huge listing compared to other groups). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • merge, no need for two navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Duplicative; it is not useful for navigation to have separate templates. Furthermore, I see no valid arguments above for overriding the consensus established by past precedent. James (talk/contribs) 21:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
TRUE per my comments HERE --woodensuperman 09:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge per numerous precedents and the general common sense of consolidation of artist-specific stuff into a single navbox.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What about the idea of keeping them separate but merged ala Template:Sarah Connor? See Unbelievable (Sarah Connor album) for how it's laid out in an article. It allows one to navigate between all things related to the artist while only expanding the area of which one may be most interested. Although, since singles and songs navboxes are simply split from the main {{Navbox musical artist}} template, it would follow that they should use the same background color as the artist navbox. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how having two navboxes under one name makes sense. The name suggests only one or a main navbox, and we shouldn't give viewers misleading ideas. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. There are four rows on the singles column on the merged version; it would be five rows taking into account that "Safe & Sound" and "I Don't Wanna Live Forever" actually must be on the singles column instead of the Collaborations section, besides that, having that many articles overloaded in one section makes the chronological singles progression really hard to follow. If your complain is that users won't be able to find the songs on the main template, then they can click on the list about Tay's songs that it's located just below Taylor's name and between her videography and live performances lists. Also, you can't compare Adele to Taylor because the latter has WAY MORE articles; the chronology of singles doesn't really matter for the songs template, and, like SNUGGUMS said, you can't just focus on the singles when there's many articles about Taylor's songs that were not singles. I agree with SNUGGUMS to keep the two templates splitted because it is needed to have one that offers an overview and another that compiles her songs, which are the 73% of her articles. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also note this prior discussion. --woodensuperman 15:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, those cases are different from Taylor. She has a lot of articles about songs thats were not singles, she has released so many singles that they would be overloaded on one section of the merged template. That's why is needed to keep splitted in two templates, one for the overview, and another one for the songs (the songs, where the chronology of the singles is not important). Every case you cite can't be compared to Taylor, because, like I said before, the amount of articles is just bigger, and not focused exclusively to the singles. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Not really. {{R.E.M.}} has a number of non-single songs and it is handled quite simply. No need to make a special case here. --woodensuperman 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The case you just mentioned above is way worse than this one; it has never been splitted, so there has never been a consensus to keep it as one template. It is necessary to open a votation there to split it into two templates, because it's hard to follow the singles chronology and having another template for the songs would be better. Paparazzzi (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
But there has been consensus. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 5#Template:R.E.M. singles. --woodensuperman 09:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Only used on one article epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, if needed we can add it to {{rint}}, if it's not there already. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 14 November 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:YC companies

The template is redundant to List of Y Combinator startups which contains the same list of companies. The template also strikes me a potentially promotional, as its only purpose is to cross-link all Y Combinator (company) articles to each other. The list article already exists and is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep (discolsure: I created the navbox) If a broad consensus is reached to delete the navbox, feel free to delete it. However, I still think that the navbox should be kept. Daylen (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant per nom. Daylen's Keep has no argument. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as there's no explicit cause for a different page; I understand if it was good faith here but there's also nothing substantial to argue on a second page. SwisterTwister talk 16:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NOTDUP, which states, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Also, this template enables users to functionally navigate related articles from article-to-article without having to utilize the list article. Furthermore, the template does not have a promotional tone. North America1000 10:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, just because companies got some venture capital funding from the same source doesn't mean we need to have a navbox connecting the companies. Frietjes (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although WP:NOTDUP applies, it does not change the fact that this navbox has no advantage over the list/category apart from slightly easier accessibility, which is not important given that it covers largely unrelated companies that only share a source of funding. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 09:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Very much useful for navigation between startups. We can address the promotional issue. Störm (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Gwalior Metropolitan Region

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 per this discussion and the AfD outcome Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As for Gwalior Metropolitan Region, it doesn't exist (other than every town has a notional commuter belt). Batternut (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename and trim down. Well, it's called an "urban agglomeration" and a "metropolitan region" in at least one source [8] so the title isn't completely off (though feel free to move to a better title, simply {{Gwalior}} would probably do). The template navigates between six existing articles, all of which appear to be either within the city, or closely associated with it. If there any concerns about the inclusion of specific individual entries, feel free to remove them. – Uanfala 11:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
comment - renaming and rewriting into something else => fails the TNT tipping point test. Better to start again following an more suitable pattern eg Template:Mumbai topics, Template:Kolkata topics. (In fact, I've just created Template:Gwalior topics. Batternut (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)) The census2011.co.in page Uanfala mentioned above is purely about the urban agglomeration - its talk of metropolitan regions is just index spamming. Batternut (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, if you want a different template, then write it. there is no reason to keep this one since almost none of it would be kept in a rewrite. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • comment - the Gwalior Metropolitan Region AfD has now been closed with result "redirect to Gwalior". Batternut (talk) 21:41, 15 November 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).

November 12

Template:Technology

This template is a gigantic (and continually growing) index of barely related articles. It doesn't conform with the navigation template guidelines, which specify that "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject" and "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." I could see justification for more specific templates like "Military technology" or "Biomedical technology", but just "technology" is much too broad for a useful navbox. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  • comment, I agree that it's probably too broad, but less problematic than say Template:Emerging technologies. perhaps this is the sort of thing that should be left to categories and list articles. Frietjes (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 18:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the template would be okay if there weren't a half dozen sub-navboxes stuffed in, which could reasonably be devolved to their own navboxes (and placed on the appropriate articles [which might have overlap with other existing navboxes]). --Izno (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, overly large and not a useful navigation tool. Subject is too broad. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 08:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and trim. High-level topic navbox. 46.200.29.26 (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:UNC-Chapel Hill landmarks

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. but feel free to create a redirect if you think it's needed Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Used on only a handful of articles. I'm not entirely sure if there is a suitable merge target for articles using this template, but I would guess that there is. Izno (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 06:44, 12 November 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:UNC-Chapel Hill programs

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. but feel free to create a redirect if you think it's needed Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Used on only a handful of articles. I'm not entirely sure if there is a suitable merge target for articles using this template, but I would guess that there is. Izno (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 06:44, 12 November 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).

November 11

Template:FIU Panthers quarterback navbox

Fails WP:EXISTING... one link + one article = not enough to navigate. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 23:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Women of Samoa

This is a relic from 2010: Wikipedia has many articles on Samoan women, which are correctly represented in the category system, rather than the 13(!) women randomly listed here. I've never seen a "Women of X" template before, and I suspect this was for good reason. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, selective list. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Wenner Media

Unnotable company. Template only contains links to itself, which redirects to Jann Wenner and to Rolling Stone magazine. BangJan1999 20:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC) While the company is of note, it no longer owns enough properties to have its own infobox. --Shortride (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not enough links to justify a navbox! --woodensuperman 16:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:AdjustNumber

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Unused and unlikely to be used. I have tested this template at my sandbox and it doesn't work properly. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete I created it from German Wikipedia, but couldn't get it to work either. Another kind editor fixed the article that used it for me. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:25, 13 November 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:Flipsyde

Vanity template for a scarcely-notable band with few charting albums or singles (none in the US or UK). Current members do not have individual articles. Link to a long-departed member of the group removed. One album, one EP and single have been redirected to main band article due to lack of notability. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 02:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Completed discussions

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

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts

Geography, politics and governance

Religion

Sports

Transport

  • None currently

Other

Meta

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.

  • None currently

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

Archive and Indices

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=811336517"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA