Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
  Jan Feb Mar Apr TOTAL
CfD 0 2 34 44 80
TfD 0 0 37 52 89
AfD   1
MfD   26

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, 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 and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a "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).

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • For deletion: {{subst:tfd}}
  • For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:tfd|type=sidebar}}
  • For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:tfd|type=inline}}
  • For deletion of a module: {{subst:tfd|type=module|page=name of module}} at the top of the module's /doc subpage.
  • For merging: {{subst:tfm|name of other template}}
  • For merging an inline template: {{subst:tfm|type=inline|name of other template}}
  • 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.)

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019_April_25#Template:template_name.css */
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 else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is 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. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion

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

April 25


April 24

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Propose merging Template:Friendly search suggestions with Template:Find sources notice 2.
These templates perform the same function, and I don't think there's a distinction to be made, beyond personal preference, for using one over the other. I think the best elements of each ought to be combined: friendly language, a curated set of links, and good parser functions. Bsherr (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • There is the Template:Find sources notice that was not cited here, but it surely falls into this discussion. Why? Well, if the idea is to merge, then merge them all. I do not object to the idea if the "best elements of each ought to be combined." Agente Rolf (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Premier Soccer League home venues in 2010-11

Not sure why we need a navbox for the venues for one season. Seems trivial. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Decade years navbox

Superseded by {{Navseasoncats}}   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Gangstar series

Navigates very-few topics, such that these could linked (or are already linked) in the articles-proper. Izno (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Boston Elevated Railway s-line templates

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/BERy. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

April 23

Template:MBTA two lines style

This template was effectively deprecated when {{MBTA infobox header}} was introduced after the January 2011 TfD. It's remained in mainspace but had no effect on article appearance. It's now fully superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/MBTA. Mackensen (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. What about {{MBTA infobox header}}? It seems it itself is also unused. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    It is, but given the past procedural history with this template I wanted to handle them separately. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lehigh Valley Railroad s-line templates

S-line subpages

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Lehigh Valley Railroad. All transclusions replaced. I've put the 16 S-line subpages within a collapsed section; they're wholly dependent on the three main templates and should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support deletion. We don't need to keep redundant, obsolete templates around.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge redundant notification templates

Propose merging Template:Deletion mention with Template:Notified.
Merge the former into the latter. They serve the same function, and the former really has nothing to do with deletion in particular. If we want some different wording options, that can be done with parameters. PS: {{Deletion sorting}} might also be mergeable, or convertible into a wrapper for the same codebase, but I wanted to just deal with these two first.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. Both do the same thing with a slight text difference. Not a reason for different templates. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There are some differences. One allows multiple pages. The other takes an optional reason parameter. How will these differences be resolved? --Bsherr (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I have no objection to merge templates that appear redundant, {{Deletion mention}} was designed to complement the more official {{Deletion sorting}}, specifically for use in deletion discussions, and indeed supports the additional |reason= parameter. Its documentation also matches this usage, pointing at relevant links about canvassing, etc. I am however uncertain if other editors (than myself) used this template (all instances are also expected to have been substituted). If I was the only user, another option could also be a deletion proposal. No consensus was assessed when I created it. I also have no objection to userfication if it is considered redundant and useless. —PaleoNeonate – 04:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Big Brother sidebar

The Big Brother sidebar and the twelve sub templates should be deleted and the articles should use {{Infobox television}} as a replacement.

The reason for this is all of the information can be handled by {{Infobox television}} and a list of contestants for that particular adaptation can be added in the |starring= parameter. For an example of how this looks in action see Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series).

Phasing out the old sidebars and transitioning articles like Celebrity Big Brother (UK TV series) to {{Infobox television}} would be a big improvement. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all and replace with {{Infobox television}} - these templates have a few issues:
    • They don't follow the television MoS. Specifically they don't follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Infobox which says to use {{Infobox television}} for the parent article.
    • Sidebars aren't view-able on mobile devices which means that a big section of our readers can't even see these, unlike infoboxes which do appear.
    • They contain a lot of irrelevant information for a high-level article. Each section of the sidebar is a mini-season infobox. The seasons have their own articles and use {{Infobox reality competition season}} which handles this information.
    • From looking at parts of the code, it seems that it uses code that doesn't follow MOS:ACCESS in that the rows aren't really rows but each row is just one giant cell with all the information inside it.
Replacing with the general infobox will fix all these issues and make the few BB articles that still use this template WP:CONSISTENT with all other series level articles on Wikipedia. --Gonnym (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the deletion/replacement. We absolutely do not need a zillion TV show templates (much less variants for every edition/season/whatever), especially if they're going to WP:TEMPLATEFORK in strange, guideline-noncompliant directions (which is a WP:CONLEVEL problem).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace per above. In addition as brought up by another editor in a previous discussion many of these sidebars (like the one at Big Brother (U.S. TV series)) hide text by default which shouldn't be done per MOS:DONTHIDE. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:S-par/item

This was a method of documenting the variants of {{s-par}} which was causing transclusion loops. I've removed it from the 4 variants (out of 200 or so) which actually used it. Cabayi (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as obsolete and replaced.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Brightline style

Brightline has been renamed to Virgin Trains USA, and Module:Adjacent stations makes the style templates unnecessary. Daybeers (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as obsolete two ways at once.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:IPAc-en/pronunciation

Deprecated in 2015 by Mr. Stradivarius in this edit, no longer used or needed. DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as obsolete and superseded by a more capable module.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 22

Module:OldEnglishToIPA

Unused module, completely orphaned, hardcoded version of Template:MultiReplace anyway. * Pppery * has returned 20:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It serves a useful purpose, and it could be really nifty to use its functionality in {{IPA-ang}} or other higher-level templates. I don't see how it can be compared to the module used by Template:MultiReplace: that is a generic string function module, this is a module that transcribes between Old English spelling and IPA. – Uanfala (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Provisional keep, per Unafala, but it would need to actually be used for that (or some other) purpose; we should not keep a template around for another decade just on the theory that it could be used.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nardog: Why did you remove use of the module from the template? * Pppery * has returned 22:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Pppery: Because it wasn't used and didn't work. If it does, {{#invoke:OldEnglishToIPA|convert|Ænglisc}} should return "ˈæŋliʃ", {{#invoke:OldEnglishToIPA|convert|Beowulf}} should return "ˈbeːo̯wulf", and so on. But they return "Ænɣɫisk" and "Beowuɫv".
    First of all, is Old English pronunciation completely predictable from spelling, even stress? Old English#Orthography only says it was "reasonably regular", and Old English Latin alphabet says "it had no standard orthography". Wiktionary has Lua-based templates that automatically convert spelling to IPA for languages whose orthography is phonemic such as Spanish, Italian, Polish, Finnish, and Japanese, but it doesn't have one for Old English. And even if such a template for Old English was feasible, I don't think it should be achieved through the existing template that accepts direct input. Perhaps such a template should—again, if feasible—replace Template:IPAc-ang, which is scarcely used (and I don't know if the transcriptions produced by it are accurate; they lack stress for one thing, which makes me doubt it). Nardog (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Seasonal rugby squad navboxes

This is navbox overkill. If a player had one of these navboxes for every season of their career, it would be an absolute mess at the bottom of their article. Squad navboxes should be for international tournaments like the Rugby World Cup and current international and club squads. – PeeJay 17:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; only the current season should have a navbox or this would really be an overkill. --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; serious overkill. noq (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've found some more of these that should probably be deleted, but instead of adding them to this nomination, I will use whatever consensus we come to here to inform whether or not I nominate them for deletion as well. – PeeJay 12:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Also Comment I think individual season ones are fine for title winning years (where there is an individual season article) for Premiership, Pro14, Top14, Champions Cup and Super Rugby, these are by default limited in number and worth recording.Skeene88 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I have to disagree about title-winning ones. We can have articles such as 2018 Crusaders season for that exact reason (I'm actually surprised that article doesn't already exist!) – PeeJay 11:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same rationale as the for the excessively detailed TV sub-series junk nominated April 23: we cannot have constant WP:TEMPLATEFORKs like this. Just a maintenance nightmare, a breeding ground for WP:CONLEVEL policy failures, and a confusing mess for readers.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:MUNI icon strip

Unused. Useddenim (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused and as unlikely to ever be used in a way that doesn't transgress MOS:ICONS.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:New Regime (American band)

This band's navigational template consists of two articles: the band's and one of its members' articles. These two articles already link to each other, so this navigational template has too few links, is unnecessary and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; two articles do not need a navigation template. --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. While the WP:NAVBOX guideline doesn't establish a hard limit, there's long-standing general consensus to not have navboxes for such a tiny number of articles. Hatnotes and "See also" and (better yet) just in-context linking in the article body are much more sensible. Call it a WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY matter: we don't need something complicated when something simple will do.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Unused article assessment class templates

All of these templates are unused. I will go into more detail below why they are unlikely to be used, but I will start by noting none of them are recognized on the tables on Template:Grading scheme.

{{AN-Class}} is the only place on Wikipedia that references an assessment class called "AN class"; see the search results for "AN-Class" (mainspace and filespace excluded because they're not discussion namespaces and they're full of unrelated content like AN class). Yes, I do know the hyphens between words in quotation marks make no difference in search results and could be replaced by spaces.

{{GAN-Class}} and {{FAC-Class}} are unlikely to be used because WP:GAN and WP:FAC are nominations to be assessed, not assessments of quality themselves simply by merit of being nominated.

{{FT-class}} has no use case because Featured topics are not applied to individual articles, but a designation given to collection of articles. Assessment classes are only relevant for individual articles. eπi (talk | contribs) 01:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • {{GAN-Class}} is used in cases such as User:Iazyges/Kriegsmarine Destroyers when creating worklists. It tends to only be used temporarily while the article is awaiting review, hence why it isn't used as much as others. I still think it's useful. No thoughts on the others. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    Your same argument would also apply to {{FAC-Class}}. I did forgot about the Iazyges subpage transclusion, though I'll note the one transclusion currently there is outdated. eπi (talk | contribs) 02:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Czar: I have removed {{GAN-Class}} and {{FAC-Class}} from the nomination based on you pointing out how they can be useful in other contexts I didn't consider. eπi (talk | contribs) 03:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete AN, FT, per nom. Keep GAN, FAC, per Czar and per E to the Pi times i.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:GAN link/core

It was deprecated in 2016 by Mr. Stradivarius in Special:Diff/755078860, and is no longer used or needed. DannyS712 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: Unused templates that have been replaced by a module do not need to be retained. eπi (talk | contribs) 03:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, as superseded by a more useful module.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 21

Template:Infobox fictional family/colour

Unused sub-template. Gonnym (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Module:Other uses2

Propose merging Module:Other uses2 with Module:Other uses.
If there really needs to two templates for this, then this module should be handled as another function inside Module:Other uses. Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Module:Other uses2 without merging; unnecessary lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 23#Module:Other uses2. (Trivia: I believe that this may be the first ever module merge that wasn't nominated by me). * Pppery * has returned 18:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete: the functionality of adding the disambiguation suffix is somewhat needless; I'd support deleting {{Template:Other uses2}} entirely, merging its uses to {{other uses}} with manual addition of "(disambiguation)" as necessary. The former saves some effort for power users, but it's otherwise needless maintenance bloat and extra confusion for newbies. If the template is to be kept, then yes, I've got no problem with simply merging the functionality into the other module—its separate nature is just an artifact of piecemeal Lua-fication of the templates. That said, I strongly oppose implementing the template as a wikitext injection to {{other uses}} in the way that Pppery proposed in the earlier TfD, with the same rationale as I mentioned there. As reference, I'm currently the sole author of both modules. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 03:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

SEPTA s-line templates

S-line subpages

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/SEPTA. All transclusions replaced. I've put the 73 S-line subpages within a collapsed section; they're wholly dependent on the four main templates and should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:ITunes

We shouldn't encourage links to a store for albums or apps (which seems to be the main purpose here). Why privilege iTunes over eMusic or Amazon or going to your local record store (which is the best of these options)? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 15:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Judging by the link appearing at Dose Your Dreams, this seems like a useful source of metadata, not some sales site. Am I missing something? Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Module:Admin tasks

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 WP:G7. Deleted by Materialscientist (log entry). (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hardcoded version of Template:String count, version using that template written at Template:Admin tasks/sandbox. * Pppery * has returned 15:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • support per nom Hhkohh (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as creator - I didn't know the String count template existed. Feel free to sync the sandbox and mark the module for speedy deletion as G7 --DannyS712 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2019 (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).

Module:Editnotice load

Unused module * Pppery * has returned 12:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox D&D deity

Propose merging Template:Infobox D&D deity with Template:Infobox character.
Similar to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 12#Template:Infobox D&D character, the deity of D&D should be merged into the general character infobox. image, caption, name, title, home, alignment and first are already present in {{Infobox character}}; setting, alias and myth are not used by any article (though the latter two are both are included in the general infobox, and if "setting" was meant as "series" or "franchise" then that is also available). This leaves |power=, |portfolio=, |domains= and |super=.

|portfolio= seems to be the abilities they use which can be used, similar to fighting styles and weapons for fighting games. Not quite sure if |super= is OR or not, as some of the articles that use it don't even mention the superior or when mentioning it don't reference it being "superior" but either as family or as someone they are affiliated with. If this is important, it can be added, but if it is misused, then both |family= and |affiliation= can be used instead. |domains= seem ripe for WP:OR as its a laundry list that is usually absent from the rest of the article and should probably not be merged. Likewise |power= should not be merged as too in-universe trivia. Gonnym (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Orphan and delete. Most of the items not already in Infobox character seem to be thoroughly in-universe topics that should be ignored as fancruft. I suppose "setting" would be useful to merge if it were in use, but since it's not being used now, I don't see the point of moving it to another infobox where it won't likely be used. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Infoboxes should not include trivial information.Susmuffin Talk 04:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per Gonnym.
  • The "Setting" line can be determined as follows, and become "Series" in the new infobox. Some articles use the version Template:Greyhawk Deity, in which case the series would be World of Greyhawk. Some use Template:Forgotten Realms Deity, which would become Forgotten Realms. Those that simply use Template:D&D Deity do not have a specific setting, so that can either be left blank or converted to something like Dungeons & Dragons.
  • Race should become "Deity" for all, as per Takhisis which was already converted. The rest of the entries (power, portfolio, domains, super) that are not currently used in the main character infobox can be moved to the article text as desired by interested parties by looking at the edit history, but can be ignored during the merging process. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Good comments. --Gonnym (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
      • But if they insist on just deleting the template instead, I suppose I'll have to convert them all myself to "Infobox character" manually. :P BOZ (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nyttend. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Miss Mundo de Puerto Rico

Nav template with 1 link and 1 redirect to the same article. Does not navigate between anything. Gonnym (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Useless. --woodensuperman 15:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

April 20

Template:A-Class-GA

A subst-only template to begin an A-class assessment process for a WikiProject currently marked as inactive.

Furthermore, even if the WikiProject were active, the template also uses the term 'GA' in its name, a common acronym for good articles. This is confusing and led to it erroneously being categorized with Category:Wikipedia GA templates. eπi (talk | contribs) 22:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:EdenCharacter

Unused character template (not quite sure if fictional or just Garden of Eden related), which was created in 2016 and only edited in the first 24 hours of creation. There are other infoboxes that are used either for fictional characters or real people. Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as unnecessary because other infoboxes are available and used instead. To comment on its purpose, it's Christianity-related, and was created by a sockpuppet of a user blocked for edit warring on Christianity-related pages. Note also that the similarly named template {{EdenCharacter2}} by the same user was deleted two years earlier. eπi (talk | contribs) 00:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1924

Navbox with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 20:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per Recycled. --Izno (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1925

Navbox with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete if this was not being discussed I would have removed the one link as it doesnt point to an accident article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment @MilborneOne: Even if it did have an independent article, one article is not sufficient for a NAVBOX. The primary task for a NAVBOX is for navigating between similar articles not lists. NAVBOX with two or less links get deleted around here routinely. I know, I have started many such TFDs....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment Thks William understood. MilborneOne (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1920 through Template:aviation accidents and incidents in 1929, inclusive, to Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in the 1920s or something like that. This and two other aviation accident year navboxes have been nominated for deletion (on different days) with the rationale that there aren't enough entries, apparently without considering the obvious solution of merging a decade of templates into one. There aren't many Wikipedia articles about notable aviation accidents in the 1920s, yet, but there are plenty as you progress through the later years of the navbox series. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. --Gonnym (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 20:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per Recycled. --Izno (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Grand Trunk Western s-line templates

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Grand Trunk Western Railroad. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: The last 9 are just data storage, with one city name each. The first one is also data storage, with only 000000. I will caveat by saying I haven't coded any LUA modules, but using a LUA dictionary for data storage seems like a more sustainable solution than a dozen disparate pages. eπi (talk | contribs) 12:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

NYSW s-line templates

S-line templates for the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad; superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad and Module:Adjacent stations/Erie Railroad. Mackensen (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. See also my comments on the other two adjacent nominations: 1, 2. eπi (talk | contribs) 13:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Erie Railroad s-line templates

S-line templates for the Erie Railroad; superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Erie Railroad. All article space transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Several merged tables (3)

no longer needed after being merged (with attribution) with 2014–15 NIFL Premiership, 2008–09 Iran Pro League, 2009–10 Iran Pro League, ... Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:2019/20 National League south table

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 08:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:2018 Road to the final1

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 G7. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes I created this template few months ago, but unused , without any further discussion I want to be Delete this template , thanks(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

@Mr.Mani Raj Paul: Based on your above comment, I've tagged it with {{db-g7}}. You can also tag pages where you're the only substantial contributor yourself using that template (see WP:G7). eπi (talk | contribs) 00:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WikiProject Kilkenny

WikiProject Kilkenny was userfied in April 2011 to User:Mrchris/WikiProject Kilkenny per this MFD which I started, and the title WP:WikiProject Kilkenny was redirected to WP:WikiProject Ireland. I dunno how the banner survived so long after the project was terminated, but it is absurd to have a project banner and associated category structure (see Category:WikiProject Kilkenny articles plus subcats) for a non-project.

NB Please do NOT redirect this banner to Template:WikiProject Ireland. The importance rating assigned in a Kilkenny-only context will be very differnet to those assigned in an all-Ireland context. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

PS I have checked that all the non-userspace pages tagged with this project banner are tagged with {{WikiProject Ireland}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Design-EU

Propose merging Template:Design-EU with Template:Intellectual property laws of the European Union.
Overlapping templates. {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}} was just recently merged with {{Trademark-EU}} per this TfD for the same reasons. Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't know much about the topic area, but since the intellectual property rights template has a section for design rights already, having a separate small design rights navbox seems superfluous. I did a spot-check and added the one missing link Hague Agreement from {{Design-EU}} to {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}}. eπi (talk | contribs) 00:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

April 19

Template:Stnd

This template creates disambiguated links to railway station articles in the format Name (Service station). This convention was generally used in North American articles, and deprecated by the WP:USSTATION guideline. Every link this template creates at present is a redirect. The template could be modified to use the format Name station (Service), but as articles are no longer preemptively disambiguated this will probably lead to broken links or further redirects. There are better alternatives such as {{station link}} or the various system-specific templates enumerated in this templates' documentation. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. This method is no longer needed. –Daybeers (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • {{Subst:}} with {{rws}} which will redirect to the correct page. Useddenim (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Useddenim: Out of curiosity, why do you prefer a redirect over a direct link? Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mackensen: Maybe redirect isn't the right word. But {{rws}} is a much more flexible template because it accommodates all five of the station disambiguation formats. Useddenim (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Sure, no disagreement there. I'm just saying that there's no need to guess when there's a template whose data module knows (in theory, anyway) the canonical link to an article. That's especially useful if the station article gets moved to a non-standard name, which does happen from time to time. {{rws}} isn't future-proof. Mackensen (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Are you suggesting a wrapper like has been done with {{Amtk}}? Not quite sure how that would work in this case. –Daybeers (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I was suggesting that having it invoke {{rws}} (which is actually a redirect to {{tl|stnlnk} }) would be much simpler than changing the multiple occurrences of the template on the 200+ pages it's transcluded on to. Useddenim (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't matter in the context of a TfD discussion. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Rochester Subway templates

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Rochester Subway. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Italian general election, 1994/Position/Deputy, Licata

Unused and no place to even place it. 1994 Italian general election does not list the elections per region and 1994 Italian general election in Sicily does not exist. Gonnym (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Italian general election, 2006-Senate-Unione

Unused template. The article 2006 Italian general election uses so many other tables that I'm not sure where this could even fit. Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Italian general election, 2006-House of Freedoms

Unused template. The article 2006 Italian general election#Main coalitions and parties uses a different table for the coalition parties. Gonnym (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Italian general election, 2006 – The Union

Unused template. The article 2006 Italian general election#Main coalitions and parties uses a different table for the coalition parties. Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Jersey election, 2005

Unused template but also very badly created. This doesn't just list the 2006 election results, but also previous election results which makes this very hard to understand. Gonnym (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:SunClock

This template has multiple inaccuracies. I think it should be deleted because there are other places like this one that show the same thing. Mstrojny (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't see any inaccuracies, the SunClock template has benefits above other versions because it not only shows the sun's position relative to time of day but also takes into account season, climate, distance from equator, and daylight savings effects. Plus, the example you link is offline and is relatively non-secure (according to check performed with my browser), not something we can or want to use. Kingsif (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: The template has the following inaccuracies. The times in Mexico, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Spain are all wrong. Are you saying the template can be improved upon rather than deleting it? Interstellarity (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you could easily improve it. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Case preserving encode

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 00:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

As noted in the documentation, this template was mostly used by {{sec link}}, {{sec link auto}} and {{sec link image}} which were deleted. At Template talk:Case preserving encode it was brought up by User:Anomie that it can be replaced by {{urlencode:{{{1|}}}|wiki}}. Its only usage left is at Template:Template sandbox notice, which can be replaced by the code above. Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I still fail to understand why people don't discuss stuff like this with the creator first. It saves everyone's time, since most are non-controversial deletes or keeps. I have labelled this {{G7}} as best I can. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC).
No point in pointing fingers, I could have asked why the creator doesn't comment on the talk page once in the 7 years the question was raised. --Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2019 (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:BillboardURL

Propose merging Template:BillboardURL with Template:BillboardURLbyName.
{{BillboardURL}} has been deprecated in favor of {{BillboardURLbyName}}. All remaining transclusions should be converted to the proper template. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I have wrapped the TfM notice at {{BillboardURLbyName}} because that notice breaks cs1|2 citations when this template is used in |url=. Edit: same done to {{BillboardURL}}.

Trappist the monk (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC) 14:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

BillboardURL existed primarily to handle some edge cases where Chartbot could not figure out the proper way to build a reference to BillboardURLByName. Since I'm no longer particularly welcome around here, I no longer run Chartbot, so there probably isn't any good reason to retain BillboardURL.—Kww(talk) 19:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. I marked {{BillboardURL}} as deprecated a while back, but nominating it for a merge is probably what I should have done. BillboardURLByName does everything BillboardURL does, but is easier to use (I think the "chartnum" thing is a relic of a previous URL structure at billboard.com). FWIW, it looks like there are only 11 pages that transclude BillboardURL directly. I'm pretty sure all the remaining transclusions are via {{Single chart}}. Colin M (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana character map

I don't think character maps like this should even exist. The reason of connecting the different remakes of the same film should be solved by a navbox. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete is reasonable here, but I'd like to see the navbox first I think. --Izno (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: This template has a table which connects the actors who played the same characters different remakes. This could be useful for a film researcher or enthusiast who wants to understand the casting pattern in different film industries. --Anoopkn (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    That can be gotten by the researcher researching as appropriate, and we certainly don't need this template for the sole purpose of convenience in a hypothetical use case. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Manichitrathazhu character map

If one intends to connect the various remakes of the same film, creating a character map is not the solution. Rather, one could consider creating a navbox. This film already has that. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A delete here is reasonable. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: This template has a table which connects the actors who played the same characters different remakes. This could be useful for a film researcher or enthusiast who wants to understand the casting pattern in different film industries.Anoopkn (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    That can also be gotten by a researcher researching as appropriate, and doesn't need a dedicated convenience template for a hypothetical use case. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox surname

Propose merging Template:Infobox surname with Template:Infobox given name.
Much overlapping variables, and for a reason. In fact in many if not in most cases historically and internationally, a surname is or was a given name. It might be time to finally merge this? PPEMES (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


Can't merge, because only one Infobox. It is Infobox surname. The "Infobox given name" is not available.125.161.129.177 (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No. It is can not to be merge. Because, the "Template:Infobox surname" is alone. The "Infobox given name" doesn't exist at the article. The article content is fine and good. 180.251.222.89 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Decline. Because, the "Template:Infobox surname" has not paired by "Template:Infobox given name" at the article code. The "Template:Infobox given name" is not exists.180.243.50.148 (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties

Propose merging Template:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties with Template:Assyrian people footer.
Might as well be merged? PPEMES (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Aramean political parties

Propose merging Template:Aramean political parties with Template:Assyrian people footer.
Might as well be merged? PPEMES (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:La Serena squad

unused navbox with numerous WP:REDLINKS Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and update to match Deportes La Serena#Current squad, and rename as {{Deportes La Serena squad}}. GiantSnowman 08:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if it were updated to match the article, we would be storing article content in an unused template. That doesn't make sense. The only reason to keep this is if it were going to be used in multiple articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: once it is updated we would then add it to the relevant articles, so it's no longer unused. Squad navboxes are common and established (see eg Category:Association football squad navigational boxes by country). GiantSnowman 15:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Liloa/Piilani/Moana Family Tree

Unused navbox with mostly plainlinks (WP:EXISTING) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep No plainlinks are used. These are explanatory notes/references. The family tree has sources so I have connected it to the intended page so that it is no longer orphaned. There are several other articles this is also intended for. Will fully reference the tree similar to the recently started Template:Kalaniʻōpuʻu, Kamehameha, Kānekapōlei and Peleuli family tree.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have a hard time understanding why this chart is inside a navbox and has a reference section (not a note section, as the head suggests). If this is to be kept, it should be changed to use normal tree chart syntax and not be a hybrid. Just to be clear - If this is the style that is to be kept, then I'm in the opinion that this should be deleted as it violates correct MoS sections, accessibility of font size and misuse of navbox that does not show up on mobile. --Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No longer unused
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Salem–Vriddhachalam–Cuddalore Port line

Unused rail route map. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Useddenim: Do you remember if this was used anywhere? Most of the diagram seems to be duplicated by {{Salem–Virudhachalam line}}, which is in use, but I don't think there's a route diagram for the rest of the line. It's not clear to me if the two apparently discontinuous segments are actually one line. Jc86035 (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@GoldenDragon2293Return and Chandan Guha: can you answer this question? Useddenim (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Balablitz: I was not associated with these templates. Balablitz may be able to say, if it was used or not. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim, Chandan Guha, and Jc86035: My apologies for the delay in reply. I just had a look at various pages of Southern Railway. It seems that part of the line i.e Salem-Vriddhachalam section is already covered under the Template:Salem–Virudhachalam line template used in Salem Junction railway station page and the part from Vriddhachalam-Cuddalore Port Jn is covered under Chennai Egmore–Thanjavur main line template. We can either create a new page and link this template to it and in pages where it exist, we remove the stations and just add a connecting arrow (What is the usual Wiki convention here ? Do we create separate pages for terminus to terminus connections ?) or we can discard the template. I prefer the first way here as it reduces the size of the template and makes it a bit neat. Also a point to note is that there is a new line planned in between the Salem-Vriddhachalam part. I am planning to work on the Southern Railways after I have finished work under the Eastern & NE Railways. Please let me know what is your decision in this regards. ---- GoldenDragon2293Return
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:32TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds

Folk of {{32TeamBracket-Compact|seeds=no}} Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment would the two work in the same way?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    UCO2009bluejay, the only difference is that one invoke module while the other do not. But both output and usage is the same Hhkohh (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Basketball in Israel

Unused and overly-broad navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - No idea why it would not be utilized but it seems to be a useful nav tool to me. I suggest keeping and populating the pages with it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge- Seems to be doing the same or very similar function as {{Israeli Basketball Super League}} does. No point in having both on the same set of articles. --Gonnym (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 00:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see articles here that are not included in and would not belong with the Super League template. Rlendog (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I've taken the liberty to fill in the missing links, so you'll see that {{Basketball in Israel}} already has all the sections for the links of {{Israeli Basketball Super League}}. It already had "teams", "seasons", "final four/finals" and "awards", so currently it already has the entire scope of the other template. What it didn't have, was a full set of links (some seasons missing, some awards missing), updated article names and a better order so sub-sections are actually placed near the parent topic. --Gonnym (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still has no transclusions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Strawberry Flower albums

Only one directly-related article (Ai no Uta (Strawberry Flower song)); offers no additional navigational benefit. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete There are not enough articles t o justify this navigational template. Aspects (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Disharmonic Orchestra

This band's navigational template consists of the band's articles, three albums that redirect to the band's article and a record label. The band's article is the only article where the template is located, so the navigational template navigates nowhere and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

April 18

Template:Resolution

Ancient template which has seen nearly-0 use. I thought actually there might be a different template at this spot ({{resolved}}), which might be a better target. Izno (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete I was the creator, and it may have been used back in 2006 but its fairly useless now. — xaosflux Talk 17:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:G7 and nom --DannyS712 (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    DannyS712, G7 not apply here, see this edit Hhkohh (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Hhkohh: I don't know if that is "substantive", but if its not eligible then just delete --DannyS712 (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    Think it's safe to say it doesn't apply, or I would have just deleted it :D I have no idea if anyone found this useful, but there is no need to rush the deletion - I have no objection though. — xaosflux Talk 16:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{resolved}}. I agree that there's no need to keep the current template, but deleting and recreating would be a bit pointless. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Orphan and delete. --Bsherr (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

separate patent cites from Template:Citation

This is not a deletion discussion. Rationale given below. Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

For many years {{citation}} has supported patent citations. It does this by looking for any of the various inventor-name parameters or for |country-code= or for {{{3|}}}. When any of these are present and have an assigned value, {{citation}} calls {{citation/patent}} to render the citation. {{citation}} (a cs2 template) itself plays no part in the rendering of patent citations (which are neither cs1 nor cs2 citation templates).

In 2013 with the advent of TemplateData it was noted that this mechanism could prove to be problematic. In June 2018, Editor Mvolz (WMF) added patent citation parameters to Template:Citation#TemplateData. That action allowed editors to use ve to add individual patent parameters to an otherwise proper {{citation}} template like this one:

{{Citation |title=Inhibition of amine oxide |url=https://patents.google.com/patent/CN102741310B/en |issue-date=2010-12-30 |access-date=2019-04-14}}
Inhibition of amine oxide, retrieved 2019-04-14 Unknown parameter |issue-date= ignored (help)

which produces the error message because |issue-date= is not a valid {{citation}} parameter. A few days ago I removed the patent parameters from TemplateData but that was an incomplete fix.

Patent citations are rendered by calls to three subtemplates: {{citation/patent}}, {{citation/authors}}, and {{citation/make link}}. These are all also called by {{cite patent}}. I had originally thought that the {{citation}} bypass version was intended to provide cs2-style vs cs1-style but that does not appear to be the case because patent citations rendered through the {{citation}} bypass have the same style as those rendered by {{cite patent}} (there are parameters that will allow editors to make that distinction).

The proposal:

  1. replace {{citation}} patent templates in article space with {{cite patent}} (~60 instances)
  2. remove patent support from {{citation}}
    1. delete currently unused {{cite patent/core}} [list of Template-space transclusions]
    2. move {{citation/patent}} to new {{cite patent/core}} [list of Template-space transclusions]
    3. move {{citation/authors}}{{cite patent/authors}} [list of Template-space transclusions]
    4. remove the patent bypass from {{citation}} (and its attendant documentation at Template:Citation/doc#Citing_patents)
The other template that {{cite patent}} uses, {{citation/make_link}} shall remain where it is because it is used by more than just {{cite patent}} [list of Template-space transclusions]

Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Agreed. Those are too different. However, no objection on redirecting {{cite patent/authors}} to {{citation/authors}} if it'll do the same things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've switched VE to use {{Cite patent}} instead of {{Citation}} for patents, diff Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Know No Better track listing

Only used in one article, plus only 3 of 6 songs have articles showing lack of need to provide full track list as it simply replicates info from Know No Better without improving navigational benefit over that article as well as Template:Major Lazer. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Old discussions

April 17

Template:Viking Invasion of England

Propose merging Template:Viking Invasion of England with Template:Scandinavian England.
Seems like much overlapping scope. Might as well merge? PPEMES (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment There is a bit of a cultural difference at the high level here, with one template suggesting That parts of England were once called "Scandinavian England" and is, or was, a place. "Viking Invasion" is "limited", in name, anyway, to an event (series of events). If I had to go with one name it would be the latter. I like the "Viking Invasion" structure a little better. I wonder if "Scandinavian England" might be split, with most merged into "Viking Invasion," the other maybe more cultural to "Danelaw England." Student7 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

April 16

Module:Join

Propose merging Module:Join with Module:String.
Consolidate string-related Lua functions under Module:String. * Pppery * has returned 20:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Module:Kill markers

Propose merging Module:Kill markers with Module:Unstrip.
Given that all three of these functions are located in the same mw.text library in the backend, they should be in the same module instead of split out into two. * Pppery * has returned 20:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • merge, seems reasonable. if I recall, the unstrip module was created to solve a problem with references no being parsed correctly in templates like {{wide image}}, {{panorama}}, etc. but, I seem to remember that the problem was "fixed" in the mediawiki software. so, it's possible we could just remove/delete the unstrip module. some testing would be helpful to determine if that module is still needed. Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. Also merge Module:Plain text? New more generic name Module:Strip? -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: overview of related modules etc.:
Module:Kill markers: does mw.text.killMarkers; ({{KillMarkers}})
Module:Unstrip: does mw.text.unstrip, mw.text.unstripNoWiki; Template:Unstrip(edit talk links history), Template:UnstripNoWiki(edit talk links history)
Module:Plain text: does mw.text.killMarkers and Lua patterns on wikitext; Template:Plain text(edit talk links history)
I propose we merge all these into one module, similar to Module:String. That is: all strip-related functions together. For the editor (=module & template user) the difference between straight "mw.text" function and "wikitext patttern handling" is not that relevant. To consider: move all into new module name Module:Strip (name nicely covers functions not techniques), use same parameter names throughout (not |text=, |s=, |1= apart); of course old parameter names should be kept. That is: one parameter set is available in all.
Maybe more strip-functions could be added, like mw.text.trim, mw.text.truncate, {{Delink}}, (more).
P.S. How to get this in the proposal formally? -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I like this proposal. --Gonnym (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Module:Cycling race

Deprecated templates without mainspace transclusions. * Pppery * has returned 18:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This en:Module:Cycling race is a pass-through of d:Module:Cycling race, a Wikidata (Lua-)module. Deletion proposal is for enwiki only, I understand. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You are correct that I am only planning to delete the module on enwiki. If this passes I will make an edit request to remove the customizations for enwiki from the central module, but will not attempt to delete the central module. * Pppery * has returned 20:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
planning to delete the module please: proposing to delete is language.
Then, pleasde explain which what you want to "remove". Already your proposal was incomplete (since I had to clarify), and now you again confuse us editors. (At least you could clarify which "customisations" are involved; or better reveal your whole hidden plan. That would help the discusison. I am not the only one mistified, clearly. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
By remove the customization ... I mean carrying out this edit to Module:Cycling race on Wikidata (which will then get copied to various wikis as they update their local copies). There is no plan beyond that. I said "make an edit request to ..." because I has erroneously assumed that the module on Wikidata was protected. * Pppery * has returned 21:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Aside from the fact that it is marked as deprecated, the way that the module is coded is atrocious to me: lots of dead code, global variables, a wiki variable that always returns the same thing, duplicate code everywhere, and i18n for other languages. I'm glad that the Cycling community decided to deprecate its use. * Pppery * has returned 19:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    ... and templates with names that technically meet G8. * Pppery * has returned 03:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    "technically meet G8" is bordering wikilawyering. Once the subtemplates are/were useful, G8 does not apply and so G8 does not add an argument here. -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    And it's not the core of my argument anyway. My argument is "deprecated stuff shouldn't be kept around", and then I take an opportunity to complain about the way the module is structured, and one of those complaints is "relies on templates that are subpages of a non-existent page". * Pppery * has returned 20:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Code and modules created by Molarius has been successfully used in ES-Wiki, FR-Wikis and others. Last year "Cycling race" has been improved a lot for some Danish (User:Dipsacus_fullonum) and French (User:Psemdel) programmers and today in my opinion their performance is good. For example, I data filled "list of winners" for all UWT, WWT, x.HC, and x.1 races due before the improvement if you wanted show those, they caused errors and now they are implemented in ES-Wiki, FR-Wiki, DA-Wiki and some at RU-wiki, AST-wiki and PT-wiki. Also you can see all races and its classifications are build using module "Cycling race" in wikies like ES or FR. About EN-wiki, it uses a different format for Winners (just winner and their team) but this format can be implemented in the main module (even with same color used at EN-Wiki). Some time ago I tried to update some lines for improve experience in EN-Wiki (creating a conversion from Km to Miles), may be it could be "atrocious" but if you program LUA-code you can join to the project ([:d:Module:Cycling race]) and collaborate to improve code (after that you have to copy the latest code and replace it at Module:Cycling race) and make it more attractive for EN-wiki because they have lot of benefits like gives uniformity to wikipedia and once one person update one database all wikis are updated.Repf72 (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I see again some users prefer to work in their own side instead working with everybody... keep and work to share datas. At least Repf72 and others take initiatives. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
        • We use it on WP:fr, if WP:en is happy with that (compared to that), it is fine. Psemdel (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @EP111: You added a note that this is deprecated, could you please explain to me what it is replaced with as I'm not quite sure I understand. --Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Gonnym: The templates are mostly deprecated in favour of the original format of wikitables, as mentioned in the links from the deprecation edit summary. As wikitables aren't templated, I saw no need to provide any replacement details in the deprecation notices. A wikidata template, which has a preferred existing template, is the one for the infobox; {{Infobox cycling race report}} provides the necessary functionality for WikiProject Cycling. Please note that the three links, in the deprecation edit summaries, should highlight sufficient reasons to delete the wikidata templates from en.wiki, as the wikidata templates are now not used in the mainspace. EP111 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    There are a few other standard templates, which are used: I've pointed the deprecation notice at Template:Cycling race/teamroster to {{Cycling squad start}}, the notice at Template:Cycling race/listofwinners to {{Cycling past winner start}}, and the notice at Template:Cycling race/listofteams to {{Cyclingteamlist}}, as those templates are commonly used, also. EP111 (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Overview. So this is the situation:
d:Module:Cycling race is a module on Wikidata, with language switch. It had several functions, each for a different table (Cycling race/infobox, Cycling race/listofwinners). Once given a QID for a race etc., it pulls all its data from Wikidata. Local wikis have a local template linking to that Wikidata module: fr:Modèle:Cycling race/infobox; the language is set automatically (using site lang). Examples: fr:Tour de France 2015, es:Tour_de_Francia_2015.
This enwiki uses local templates like Template:Infobox cycling race report(edit talk links history) (list).
This enwiki does not use this module nor its functions (umbrella en:Module:Cycling race & subtables), so it is TfD'ed here. A discussion was here.
Apparently, WP:CYCLING has chosen not to use these Wikidata module tables. -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Modernism

This navbox is a travesty. Inclusion here is completely selective and subjective in nature, and the whole thing is simply too large to function as a useful navigation aid. Who has decided what counts as a milestone? Who has decided which filmmakers are worthy of inclusion here? Where is the definitive list of who is or isn't a "modernist"? If this is kept, all the individual people and works of art need to be removed and only the section headings remain. Categories are clearly more appropriate for the individual entries here, where inclusion would not be so selective. A navbox is better suited to "a small, well-defined group of articles", or a "complete set", which is clearly not achievable here. --woodensuperman 13:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Although, the categories also need some work as well. There are a load of Category:Modernist architects categorised as Category:Modernist architecture! --woodensuperman 13:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - while I'm sure there are enough academic books which can be the basis for such a template, this template will be huge (it already is). If needed, a better approach here would be smaller scopes of film, Literature, etc., then this template. But as Woodensuperman pointed out, this can turn very quickly to be a subjective template as sources aren't used. --Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, baby out with bathwater. And an important baby at that. "Too large" is subjective and underestimating the intelligence of Wikipedia's readers, as people interested in visual arts will look at the visual arts section, music the music section, and overall 'Modernism' the entire package. Subjective additions or subtractions are also subjective, so the easy solution, as always: entries should mention 'Modernism' on their pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Here are around 500 articles on architects, most of which have will the word "modernism" or "modernist" mentioned on their pages (and if they don't, why are they in the category?). Here are a couple of hundred writers, etc, etc. It would be ridiculous to include all of these, along with all the other topics, and, as always, any selection of some of these is subjective. This is why it should be left to category navigation rather than this abomination. --woodensuperman 15:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Also note that there are already entries which do not mention "modernist" or "modernism" on their articles. John Osborne and Georges Méliès were two that I picked completely at random. --woodensuperman 15:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That baby still in bathwater. Inclusionists look for a solution without the nuclear option, and 'Modernism' is an important topic which should of course have a template. The form of that template should be under discussion, but 'delete' is not it, so I'll add a 'Strong' to my 'Keep' and ask that you list this deletion request on each of the relevant Wikiproject talk pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The subject may merit a navbox, but this is not it. A navbox that links to general "modernist" topics, such as Literary modernism, might be acceptable, but listing some modernists and some modernist works is not, and listing all of them is a simply ridiculous task for a navbox, which would not prove useful, given the size it would have to be. Navboxes are not for enormous lists of everyone related to a subject which will never be complete. WP:TNT is the only option. --woodensuperman 15:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment and request to notify, The overwhelmingly 'Keep' near-snow result of the nominators last attempt to delete this one, linked here in this July 2017 discussion, shows that favorability for Keeping this template is high. I requested above that the nominator notify the Wikiprojects involved with this template (which has not yet been done), and I add a request to ping all of the participants in that clear 2017 deletion discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I have some sympathies with the nominator (e.g. subjectivity, who to include and who to exclude). But considering the template was overhwelmingly 'keep' last time, consensus is that its merits outweigh its faults. As someone who only claims expertise in a couple of those fields, I think it's informative in some ways to compare, say, significant operators in different subject areas who are following a similar path. Sionk (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, Although the template would benefit by a complete discussion regarding all of its inclusions; it is a highly important and valuable asset to this encyclopedia...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

April 15

Template:Infobox UK place

Propose: Convert to a wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}}

What is possible and useful in the case of French commune (37000 transclusions), German location (13000 transclusions) [1] should also be possible and useful in the case of UK place.

No content will be lost, no code in the articles will change - just the back-end code in the template itself will be changed to use Infobox settlement.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". That is practice for over a decade, it is used on ~ 500000 articles. 77.13.54.209 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Underlying lk: You created several wrappers before. What do you think about feasibility here? 77.13.54.209 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. We've had this kind of discussion before, see for example Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 21#Template:Infobox UK place. Infobox UK place provides a number of features which are tailored specifically for the UK situation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    User:Redrose64, you claim
    1. We've had this kind of discussion before, see for example ... but the example does not talk about using Infobox settlement as backend
    2. Infobox UK place provides a number of features which are tailored specifically for the UK situation.. Is that being "tailored specifically for the UK situation" (btw. what is 'the UK situation'?) not true for
      1. Template:Infobox townlands
      2. Template:Infobox London Borough
      which use Infobox settlement? Or for
      1. Template:Infobox German location
      2. Template:Infobox French commune
      which also use Infobox settlement? Are they not tailored specifically for the item they are used on?
    What tailorisation for "the UK situation" prevents using Infobox settlement as a backend for this template?
    Is it really true that what works for ALL Africa, ALL Latin America, ALL Asia, ALL Europe (except UK) - does not work for the UK? Where is the evidence? 78.55.133.88 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    Can infobox settlement handle the OS grid reference? Will it automatically set items like the police force/fire brigade/ambulance service based on the postcode area? Can it handle the varied local government hierarchies neatly - what will it do if people fill in an inappropriate combination (such as unitary_scotland/community_wales)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    User:Redrose64
    1. "Can infobox settlement handle the OS grid reference?" What do you mean by "handle"? Currently Infobox UK place is using "Template:Infobox". Would you say that Template:Infobox can "handle the OS grid reference"?
    2. "Will it automatically set items like the police force/fire brigade/ambulance service based on the postcode area?" - Is Template:Infobox doing that? Why should Template:Infobox settlement do that?
    3. "Can it handle the varied local government hierarchies neatly" - what is "neatly"? Why should it? Is Template:Infobox doing that?
    4. "what will it do if people fill in an inappropriate combination" - it will display what Infobox UK place is giving to it. Like currently Template:Infobox is doing. That is stated in the proposal, in bold. 89.14.53.24 (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    If you need to ask those sort of questions it is clear to me that you don't understand how {{Infobox UK place}} works. Template:Infobox should have nothing to do with it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    User:Redrose64, I didn't "need to ask those sort of questions". I asked them because you made weird claims in the first place.
    "Template:Infobox should have nothing to do with it" - This is TfD, not "I dream of ...". Template code starts with "<includeonly>{{Infobox". 78.55.6.151 (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    Right. In accordance with WP:TESTCASES, here is the sandbox, which I have ensured is synchronised with the live template (apart from the TfD banner at the top). You may modify it in any way you see fit, in order to create a working template that incorporates your desired changes. Then I would like to see a demonstration here, and in that demonstration I would like to see evidence that no functionality will be lost. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral, While it's a lot of effort for limited benefit, I don't see any issues with making it into a wrapper template using infobox settlement as long as the changes are verified against some testcases before being deployed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral, I don't see a problem with this change as long as all of the infobox fields that are currently in use by UK places are not disrupted - providing nothing gets removed and all fields are still usable, I would not oppose this change. However I do agree with WOSlinker that it also seems like a lot of work for very little benefit and it seems like it's already working as is, thus I currently stand as neutral. JoshTilley (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Only places in four of the Five Eyes countries, namely in Australia, NZ, UK, US use a country-specific place infobox
    The Five Eyes countries : Canada, US, UK, AU , NZ. In all of Wikipedia only places in four countries have an article that uses a country-specific place infobox: US (2x), UK (3x), AU (2x), NZ (1).
    1. AU Template:Infobox Australian place (Transclusion count: 13,333)
    2. AU Template:Infobox Australia state or territory (Transclusion count: 14)
    3. GB Template:Infobox English county (Transclusion count: 63)
    4. GB Template:Infobox UK place (Transclusion count: 23,673)
    5. GB Template:Infobox UK postcode area (Transclusion count: 250)
    6. NZ Template:Infobox New Zealand suburbs (Transclusion count: 372)
    7. US Template:Infobox U.S. county (Transclusion count: 3,035)
    8. US Template:Infobox U.S. state (Transclusion count: 98)
    Does this extra-treatment fit with the stated goals of the English Wikipedia? 77.13.53.36 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, if it's not broke there's no need to fix it. As Redrose says, there are specific UK parameters which work perfectly well. More importantly shouldn't this roving IP editor (that's popped up from nowhere to propose this major change) at least give a lengthier more convincing rationale for this change? Sionk (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    Sionk, "if it's not broke there's no need to fix it" - is that true? If making the template code simpler, would qualify as fix, then would you call the current code bloat broken? 78.54.12.178 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Maybe the nominator (you?) needs to address the concerns expressed by Redrose about the UK local government parameters and other unique(?) attributes. Are you a UK editor? Sionk (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Sionk - which concerns about the "UK local government parameters and other unique(?) attributes"? - that is not included in the statement(s) by "Redrose". 89.14.53.24 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Get your reading glasses on and save me repeating it. Rather than ask questions, the nominator should be answering questions and attempting to reassure people. I've spent years of my life writing articles about UK (particularly Wales) villages, communities and electoral wards. I don't want to lose an Infobox that has ready-made, specific parameters which saves me from working out how to manipulate some sort of one-size-fits-all code. Sionk (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
          • FUD I don't want to lose an Infobox that has ready-made, specific parameters which saves me from working out how to manipulate some sort of one-size-fits-all code. - Did you read the proposal? The template will not be lost. .... "Get your reading glasses on" - if you need them, maybe you should get yours on?" 78.55.6.151 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the two templates look nothing alike. IB UK place uses lots of unique parameters that would be impractical to merge into IB settlement. I mostly find those parameters to be of dubious relevance, and wouldn't oppose excluding them in a future rewrite.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    eh bien mon prince, the proposal is not about merging code into Infobox settlement. 78.54.12.178 (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Change for the sake of change, and furthermore a deepening of blanket standardisation. Wikipedia's problem is too much standardisation that discourages people from editing - articles/templates become centrally managed and lose any sense that anyone can edit them - which is the core concept of what wikipedia is meant to be about. SFC9394 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    FUD
    "Change for the sake of change" - not true
    "furthermore a deepening of blanket standardisation" - increasing consistency, reducing code, yes
    "Wikipedia's problem is too much standardisation that discourages people from editing " - that might be true, but hardly can apply here, when for article authors nothing will change
    "articles/templates become centrally managed and lose any sense that anyone can edit them" - the proposal only affects a template and would make the template code simpler
    Now, after debunking your FUD, any other oppose reason? 78.54.12.178 (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and respect other's opinions, thanks. SFC9394 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
SFC9394??? 89.14.53.24 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, concurring with reasons given above. Mauls (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Mauls - Which "reasons"? There only seems to be misinformation. Do you see any reason? Which is it? 89.14.53.24 (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - there is no reason why there should be different codebases and styles used for the same topic for different countries. The UK is not anymore special than the other 100+ countries in the world, and as such, there is no nothing that can't be done with the base template. Changing it to a wrapper will make maintaining easier and will make the style consistent with other articles of the same topic. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_2#Template:Infobox_U.S._state for a similar discussion and result. --Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - as long as the functionality is fully replicated, this is a good change because it reduces redundancy. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sionk and others. It's a widely used template that works fine and is easily maintained as is. МандичкаYO 😜 22:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    User:Wikimandia, why would "widely used template" be any reason in this TfD? It will stay to be a widely used template. And what about "is easily maintained as is." - even easier later on. 78.55.6.151 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are some very specific things about this template, such as automatic ambulance/fire/police area detection based on postcode, OS grid handling code and other error checking code, which would be harder to keep and be more convoluted when using Template:Infobox settlement as a wrapper. What if a change to that template then caused errors with the UK template, which would most likely go unnoticed by the editor of the Template:Infobox settlement template. The template itself has not changed at all much recently (only 4 edits ago was in the middle of 2018), so I feel that the justification of standardisation is better for maintainability is not relevant here, as the template hardly needs changing anyway. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    For example, take the subpage of the template Template:Infobox UK place/local, which is then used in the template 59 different times. This would be a pain to implement and potentially also mess up the wrapper template by overextending it to handle this template. In short, it is best to keep a complicated template away from another complicated template, especially when they are not built to handle one another. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    User:Dreamy Jazz - there can still be specific code. Do you understand the concept of a Infobox settlement wrapper? All the wrappers have specific code. 78.55.6.151 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but I am saying that it would make the template more problematic due to the complications and extra code needed to make it possible. In short, it would make it harder to maintain. I suggest that if you (or any other editor) feels that they want this to happen, they create a mockup in a sandbox so that we can decide to implement a fully working solution (and not an idea). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    User:Dreamy Jazz - now you come up with the next unproven statement. Why would calling the specific template:Infobox settlement instead of template:Infobox "make the template more problematic due to the complications and extra code needed to make it possible"? Why would it "make it harder to maintain"? template:Infobox settlement provides code that will not be needed anymore in Template:Infobox UK place - making it smaller and easier to manage. 77.191.14.146 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    As I have said above, it is the automatic ambulance/fire/police area detection based on postcode, OS grid handling code and other error checking code and use of the subpage of the template Template:Infobox UK place/local 59 different times in different places in the code of the infobox. There is also a lot of code which would require extending the proposed wrapper template. This includes (but is not limited to) adding:
    • Shire information capabilities
    • Ceremonial counties information capabilities
    • Lieutenancy areas capabilities
    • Civil parishes capabilities
    • Distance to: London / Edinburgh / Dublin / Belfast / Cardiff / Douglas / Charing Cross capabilities
    • Fire / Ambulance / Police areas capabilities
    • Constituency information capabilities (multiple Constituencies could be defined, but not fully supported by the proposed wrapper and would require adding extra parameters)
    As you can see from the selection of changes needed to the wrapper template to be able to support parts of the infobox, this will cause problems no end. Also, if full moving to the wrapper template is needed (and would most likley be the case), a lot of subpages and code would need to be added to the wrapper template ontop of the bits listed above (code for automatic ambulance/fire/police area detection based on postcode, OS grid handling code and other error checking code). Also, having the template split will cause maintenance efforts to be directed to two templates. One change which does not affect the wrapper template may fully break the UK place template, without the changer noticing.
    In short, no, it won't make it easier to manage or even make the amount of code smaller. The proof is in reading the code of both templates, which you can do yourself if you feel like you want to. If you want me to explicitly give proof (although this will be just quoting both the templates code) I can. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    Also UK goverment is complicated and so an area may have multiple different post codes or no post code at all. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Redrose64, Sionk & Dreamy Jazz. There seems no advantage in standardisation. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I have used this template a fair few times over the last 15 years, and it is sophisticated. The arguments given for change are few and the arguments for the status quo are many. The tone of the responses to the reasoned objections are more akin to denial, and gives me no confidence that this has been thought through. As a way forward I should suggest that the proposers set up half a dozen /sandboxes where they can demonstrate the two templates side by side and show that nothing would be lost in the transfer. It must work for all difficult cases not just the simple place names on the tourist route.
I have had a look at the German Ort, French commune and comment that they were local government systems were set up logically- not like the evolved system in the UK.I think of Ilford and the IG postcode area. I think of the Boundary Estate (still not done) or Frindsbury Extra which share ME2 ME3 (parished) and Frindsbury which is not- and Higham, Kent which share ME2 ME3 postcodes. These things are of interest to UK place editors and readers. ClemRutter (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per Redrose, Dreamy Jazz, et al. I am unconvinced that the nominator actually understands that things like local government in the UK is complicated, inconsistent and unpredictable. I'm also unconvinced that merging a very complicated template into an already very complicated template will actually make maintenance easier - it seems more likely that changes will introduce accidental errors that are harder to detect and harder to identify. Thryduulf (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox premiership/presidency

Per WP:Infobox#Requirement: Can't be addressed by the existing infoboxes. There is no obvious reason as to why {{Infobox officeholder}} cannot be used to serve the same purpose in premiership/presidency articles. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep they have completely different purposes and aren't comparable in any way. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    None of the parameters used in either template are incompatible with {{Infobox officeholder}}. Indeed, most of them have been copied over from that particular template, e.g. |term_start= and |cabinet=. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep but Merge. {{Infobox officeholder}} is for persons, but {{Infobox premiership}} and {{Infobox presidency}} is for era of a presidency/premiership. Should the article of the Presidency of Ronald Reagan be deleted, because of existence of the article of the Ronald Reagan?! No. Benyamin-ln (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    It’s perfectly possible to use {{Infobox officeholder}} (as a module or otherwise) to convey the same information given using these two templates. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    I oppose. Benyamin-ln (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge {{Infobox premiership}} and {{Infobox presidency}}. While I can see the points made by Benyamin-ln above, that one is for an era and one is for the actual person, there is still no need for two different templates, which are basically the same apart a name variation and the monarch parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. Infobox officeholder doesn't work, but the two nominated templates can be merged with each other. What should the merged name be? Perhaps {{Infobox administration}}, which is currently a redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Can anyone at least make that page-wide announcement smaller? Thanks. --Bageense(disc.) 14:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge with {{infobox officeholder}}. EggRoll97 (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge between infobox officeholder and infobox presidency, but neutral on merging infobox presidency and infobox premiership. A presidency and a premiereship are not "officeholders" but rather "governments," and thus infobox officeholder seems inappropriate. Orser67 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the infobox presidency. Grant was not a prime minister. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 14

Template:Image hoax

If an image is being used to support a hoax, the article in question should be tagged. I don't see why we need a separate template for files alone. funplussmart (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. You can have an image without an article, negating your sole reason for deletion. MarkZusab (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox settlement wrappers

Propose: Replace and delete

City-specific wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Very uncommon practice, these seem to be the only city-specific Infobox settlement wrappers for neighbo(u)rhoods. All other cities in Wikipedia do without.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". That is practice for over a decade, it is used on ~ 500000 articles. 89.12.75.89 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete - Most countries don't even have a place-related infobox template on the country level. City-specific templates for the neighbourhood level are too much. TerraCyprus (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1922

Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Note. This is one of a whole string of "by year" templates for "Aviation accidents and incidents" and I couldn't find one with more than four linked articles in them. Now, I only had time to check five years on either side of this one so I don't know how many there are altogether. You may want to expand this to a group tfd WilliamJE if you have the time and patience. MarnetteD|Talk 19:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Part of a series, see Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1981. Hint: There was not that much aviation in 1922 as today. 89.12.75.89 (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment The purpose of NAVBOX is navigation, not lists. NAVBOX without links or with very few serve no navigation box purpose and have been routinely deleted at many TFDs....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the series has a navbox for every year from 1920-2019, and a pre-1920 one to catch the earlier ones. Perhaps it might need a think about these there is not an actual connection between the accidents other than the year it is a bit artificial, one using location or operator are more of use for navigation. Perhaps we should consider dumping the lot as we also have a category system and various list articles that can be used if you really need to know which accidents happened in the same year. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1920 through Template:aviation accidents and incidents in 1929, inclusive, to Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in the 1920s or something like that. This and two other aviation accident year navboxes have been nominated for deletion (on different days) with the rationale that there aren't enough entries, apparently without considering the obvious solution of merging a decade of templates into one. There aren't many Wikipedia articles about notable aviation accidents in the 1920s, yet, but there are plenty as you progress through the later years of the navbox series. RecycledPixels (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Dec to frac

Template has been deprecated since 2016 and is unused. Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Primeval creature

Propose merging Template:Infobox Primeval creature with Template:Infobox fictional race.
This template is used for semi-real life (groups of) creatures that appeared in Primeval (TV series) and is only used at List of creatures in Primeval. |number=, |humans_killed= and |returned= should not be kept as they are too in-universe specific. Gonnym (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep both as-is The two infoboxes are considerably different and serve different purposes. Infobox Primeval creature was created specifically as an in-universe infobox for use in only one article where it is used 80 times instead of using 80 hard-coded tables in the article which is impractical. As it stands now the article is 132kB. Replacing the infobox with tables would result in the article needing to be split. The instructions quite clearly explain the purpose and intent saying the infobox is "to create an infobox for any fictional creature from the series' :Primeval and Primeval: New World. It is only intended for use in List of creatures in Primeval where it is used 80 times." It should not be expanded outside the of Primeval universe because of its deliberate in-universe design. It shares no commonality with Infobox fictional race. Almost every field is irrelevant to Primeval. --AussieLegend () 07:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Some of your statements are just false so I need to correct them. The two infoboxes are considerably different and serve different purposes - both infoboxes are for races/species from a fictional setting. where it is used 80 times instead of using 80 hard-coded tables in the article which is impractical no idea where you read that the proposal said to have 80 hard-coded tables, as the proposal was to replace one infobox with another, or are you stretching that argument to say that including |franchise=Primeval is impractical? If that is the case that is completely silly. Replacing the infobox with tables would result in the article needing to be split - see previous point why this is false. It shares no commonality with Infobox fictional race - really? |name=, |image=, |first_x=, |last_x=, |species= (used as |type=). The only parameters not shared, are the 3 this proposal specifically said not to merge as they are rather pointless and very much fancruft, and even in that, it caters to a very limited group, as how many dinosaurs of a specific type appeared in the series or how many people they killed is very trivial and unimportant to the series as a whole. Also, do those figures have any sources? Could there possibly even be one? Obvious answer here. As a side note I'll say that I see no value in having infoboxes set up like this for a list of characters article, where the infoboxes take up more vertical space than the sections themselves and is a hallmark of a badly written list article. --Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
      • You didn't correct anything, just made some incorrect assumptions about a series you probably haven't even seen. One infobox is for fictional races while the other is for creatures. Creatures, more specifically dinosaurs, are not a race. We actually used to have {{Infobox fictional creature}}, this infobox was proposed to be merged with it back in 2014, but that infobox was deleted. Allowing expansion of Infobox fictional race to include creatures would be allowing recreation of a pseudo Infobox fictional creature and it would certainly get used for that. Infobox fictional race doesn't have fields that easily lend themselves to replacing the fields in Infobox Primeval creature so it would be far better to use individual tables. The fields that you mentioned lend themselves to a heap of problems. |name= has already been mentioned. We don't want to turn Infobox fictional race back into infobox fictional creature. The |first_x= and |last_x= fields are too unweildy to use for the two series and multiple books that form Primeval. That's why Infobox Primeval creature has specific fields for the two series and one to mention the related books. It doesn't use separate fields for major and minor works. While part of the same 2-TV series, multi-book franchise, each series and book is a separate, individual work. As it stands now we don't list only when it first appeared in one work and last appeared in another work, we list when it first and last appeared in each TV series and which book that it appeared in because there is little overlap between the individual works. To use Infobox fictional race you would need multiple first_major fields or the entire purpose of the infobox would be changed. The three fields that you are attempting to discard are very much part of the story in Primeval, which is primarily about incursion of dinosaurs into modern times and the effect that their appearances cause. For that reason the number of dinosaurs and how many humans were killed is significant. Also, do those figures have any sources? As you are well aware from having participated in the TV project, episodes are classed as reliable primary sources and like every other TV article on Wikipedia, the information is sourced from the aired episodes, which is why they are mentioned in the infobox. You know that the TV project supports this. Now lets look at the parameters that aren't common: |affiliation=, |alignment=, |base_of_operations=, |based_on=, |capital=, |caption=, |creator=, |currency=, |distinctions=, |franchise=, |home_world=, |iu_creator=, |iu_created_date=, |language=, |leader=, |leaders=, |members=, |name=, |other_names=, |quadrant=, |religion=, |series= and |sub_races=. I haven't included the redundant para_x fields but that's 23 fields. Compare that to Infobox Primeval creature which has 12 in total. The two infoboxes are like chalk and cheese.
      • Going back to an earlier attempt to make a point when you said no idea where you read that the proposal said to have 80 hard-coded tables, as the proposal was to replace one infobox with another (etc), if you actually read what I wrote instead of chopping apart what I said you will see that I said that creating an infobox for the 80 uses in that article was preferable to using individual tables in each section: Infobox Primeval creature was created specifically as an in-universe infobox for use in only one article where it is used 80 times instead of using 80 hard-coded tables in the article which is impractical. I wasn't specifically talking about your proposal as should have been obvious from "Infobox Primeval creature was created". This just happens to be why we make infoboxes in the first place. --AussieLegend () 11:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Wow. So much text. Just to comment quickly - I've seen the show and still think the parameters I discarded are pointless and as you've pointed out, as a member of the TV WP, I know what the discussions are about trivia information and how the community feels about them. Also, I indeed corrected your misdirection. When you comment and say that a table will cause the article to need to be split, it makes it seem as if that was a proposal on the table, which it wasn't. Not everyone reads your mind or knows of previous discussions. Regarding the parameters you think are pointless in the current template, some of them I totally agree with you, however they are all part of former mergers, which you could have voiced your opinion on. Also, stop with the "we" as it can be used both ways. "We" have {{Infobox fictional race}}. "We" have |type= that deals with species of a race. "We" are not against combining "race" and "species" in the same infobox. "We" didn't decide that {{Infobox fictional creature}} is not needed, "we" decided to merge it with {{Infobox character}} which is the correct thing to do when the infobox is about a specific creature and not a group of creatures. --Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
          • If the existing infobox was to be replaced with Infobox fictional race without significant changes meant to cater for a single article, it would be far better to replace the infobox with tables that actually meant something to the series. That would certainly result in a size blowout that I tested back in 2014. If Infobox fictional race were changed so that it catered for creatures it would need to be renamed and then it would be appropriate to either recreate infobox fictional creature as separate from infobox character, or more likely, infobox fictional race/creature for a merge with infobox character. Given that infobox fictional creature could be merged with into infobox character, why not infobox fictional creature/race? Much of what is in that infobox could be regarded as fancruft. --AussieLegend () 12:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Clear merge per proposal in the OP. --Izno (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Deo Block

Propose deletion As it stands it only links to two articles. Also there is no article for Deo, Block so I am not sure what the template creator is trying to accomplish. If there were articles for all the villages it becomes too large and unwieldy. Now if anyone can figure out how to make this work I will withdraw this nomination MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. At around 120 links, it's not going to be too large and there's no meaningful smaller-scale administrative division to use as the basis of a template. Still, only 3 of these villages appear to have articles at the moment. I've linked them in the template, so there's just about enough links for navigation. Deo Block doesn't exist because it hasn't been created yet. – Uanfala (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Note. It only has five links at the moment. MarnetteD|Talk 07:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Also can you explain what Deo Block is and how does it differ from Deo, Bihar. MarnetteD|Talk 07:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Deo, Bihar is a town in Aurangabad district, Bihar of Deo Block subdivision ex - Deo Block Link- [2] & Deo, Bihar Link- — Preceding unsigned comment added by PujaDeo (talkcontribs) 19:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Deo, Bihar is a town, Deo Block is an administrative unit centred on the town that includes a hundred or so villages. – Uanfala (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

April 13

Template:Non-free architectural work

Propose renaming

Ever since I repurposed this template in 2012, people are still constantly misusing it for architectural works that exist (which should be deleted as invalid fair use) or that used to exist (which may be kept under {{non-free historic image}} if appropriate). The new name would further emphasize the intent of the template. King of ♠ 05:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: I am choosing this venue per WP:IAR. These two need to be bundled together, but there is no way to do it in keeping with standard procedure, which would require the template to go on RM and the category to go on CfD. Since this is the typical place to bring bundled template/category noms, I am bringing it here. -- King of ♠ 16:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: WP:RM could have been used as it is used for template renames and the category would just be a speedy request WP:C2D. --Gonnym (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

April 12

Template:Weird Al Yankovic in 3-D tracks

Navigation of the linked songs is redundant to the {{"Weird Al" Yankovic}} template and the track listings are better covered within the articles on the albums themselves. This isn't common practice unless there are articles on all the songs, and there is numerous precedent for deletion of similar templates. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

April 10

Template:Cr-PSL

As per the ongoing discussions for IPL and BBL templates, clear consensus to delete these meaningless templates Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep unlike IPL and BBL ones these include flags. Human (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Astonishing as no noticed this despite the first BPL tournament being held back in 2012, and all the other followed. Human (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see anything in WP:FLAG that forbids us to use team colors. Many PSL related pages are relied on this template, see 2019 Pakistan Super League#Fixtures as an example. Though, this may go against WP:TOOMANY. This can be solved by reformatting the template, so that we can use lesser flag on the page, where needed. Thanks! M. Billoo 13:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly. It overall makes a mess where the templates are used now that the deletion tag is attached. Even if the template is deleted, reformatting the page will be a very difficult and time consuming job. Human (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
There was a TfD discussion in 2011 which removed the Flags from the IPL version of this template. There wasn't a huge amount of policy discussion, but editors said they were synthesis of new material. I don't see the need to show the team colours in match results and once they are gone, the templates just become an obfuscation of a simple link. Something taking time to fix is not a valid reason not to do it in my mind (though I think it would be better to do the changes before the template is deleted) Spike 'em (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Though the PSL one can be fixed, the BPL and CPL are the ones that are not given importance. There is a WikiProject about BPL but most of the members are inactive. It will be hard for just one editor to fix articles relating to two different cricket leagues. Human (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It just needs a BOTREQ or someone with AWB to do it. There are 36 pages transcluding {{Cr-BPL}} and 10 {{Cr-CPL}}. It will take longer to do the Search / replace terms than to actually run through these. Spike 'em (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, AWB allows a substitute template option and seems to substitute better than doing a {{subst}} via the browser editor, so this is even less of an issue. Only things stopping me doing this now is that it does subst in the TfD warning! Spike 'em (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete These are used as a transport for some WP:OR images which breach MOS:FLAG / MOS:ICON as they are for decorative purposes only. Spike 'em (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
And for the CPL ones, they use a national flag rather than team colours or emblem. These are not teams that represent those countries, they are multi-national teams that happen to be based there. Spike 'em (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - not needed, better served by standard links, the addition of graphics without suitable alt text to a page should always be avoided, the addition of multiple (in some cases, quite possibly, tens or hundreds) of additional templates to a page should be avoided in terms of page load times, particularly when using mobile networks. So many reasons for deleting them as opposed to the reasons for keeping them which seem to be "it's too much work to replace them". As Spike has already suggested, this is a really straightforward bot request to do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The Template:Cr-PSL has been fixed on my request by User:Frietjes, so now no need to delete. Similar to Template:Cr-IPL. Thanks! M. Billoo 16:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that we're using templates when it would be more effective to use plain text links. For example, on the 2019 PSL page the template is used over 100 times. Add that to other templates on the page (flagicon, cite etc...) there appear to be getting on to 400 templates used just on that page - there are tables and so on which cause issues with counting the brackets, but I reckon it's at least 350. From the point of view of load-time overheads, especially when on a mobile network, that's actually quite an issue that could be reduced by simply using regular links. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The result of the TfD for {{Cr-IPL}} was to delete, so saying PSL is more like does not encourage keeping it. Spike 'em (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cast list break

The template was deprecated unilaterally last year, and is used on about 100 articles. Functionally, the template currently just adds <br> to the start of the input, and could easily be replaced through substitution in a few minutes. I would support keeping the template and possibly improving it with TemplateStyles so that it can use <p>...</p> without causing a large gap between lines, but (as suggested by SMcCandlish) I am procedurally nominating it for deletion to assess whether there would be consensus for improving the template instead of replacing the template through substitution. (If the template is kept in its current state then I would support deletion.) Jc86035 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm leaning delete, absent a showing that we need to keep and refine it. I'm not opposed to it being kept if the need can be established and the coding for this gets done. I'm not sure what the use case(s) is/are for such a version, or I might just go do it myself.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: If it's perfectly acceptable to use the plain br tag for the specific purpose then I would probably lean towards deleting as well. On the other hand, in other situations (especially discussions) it would be nice to have a line break which inserts a <p> with less paragraph spacing. Jc86035 (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm, well, this doesn't really seem to be a discussion-page-oriented template, but intended for mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Template:Template for discussion is effecting its usage in articles. Is there a way we solve this while this discussion is taking place?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    Already resolved (someone <noinclude>'ed the TfD tag.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: The template is useful in organizing cast lists and was working fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete if kept in this original form per the discussion at Template talk:Cast list break#Deprecation as using the br tag is better in this situation than this template. --Gonnym (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - this template was introduced after significant discussion because it was the best option for making detailed cast lists more readable. None of the opposition here appears to have addressed this. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: per TriiipleThreat and adamstom97. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

April 9

Template:Antique Kings of Italy

Propose merging Template:Antique Kings of Italy with Template:Heads of State of Italy.
Per below. PPEMES (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Basically, oversimplification. See below. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Kings of Italy (1861–1946)

Propose merging Template:Kings of Italy (1861–1946) with Template:Heads of State of Italy.
Not sure. But following the precedent of the merged Template:Heads of state of France as well as Template:Former monarchies Italian peninsula, ought the same thing happen to the 'heads of state' of 'Italy'? PPEMES (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I think this oversimplifies the notion of "Italy". The name is applied—and misapplied—to different states of varying boundaries, societies, languages, etc. The economy of one single template may seem appealing, but I think it's misleading to casual readers. The encyclopedia should help people to see factual nuances more clearly. For the same reason, I don't think the bloated mega-merge of Template:Heads of state of France was decided correctly, and I don't think it's a viable precedent for anything. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism

Propose merging Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism with Template:Germanic pagan practices.
As below. PPEMES (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Like below, this template functions as a collection of items for a specialized topic. Not everything here is appropriate for a template called "Germanic pagan practices", and merging it would contribute to template bloat. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Death in Germanic mythology

Propose merging Template:Death in Germanic mythology with Template:Germanic pagan practices.
Do you think this one could be merge, for convenience? PPEMES (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Like above, this template functions as a collection of items for a specialized topic. Merging it would contribute to template bloat. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Anglo-Saxon metrical charms

Propose merging Template:Anglo-Saxon metrical charms with Template:Anglo-Saxon paganism.
Might as well keep it collected together? PPEMES (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Many of these poems are explicitly Christian with pagan elements. Merging the template to a template called "Anglo-Saxon paganism" is inappropriate. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles tree

WP:FANCRUFT. Misuse of navbox. Should probably be reformatted and included once at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters if at all. --woodensuperman 14:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Strong Keep, (??) no reason to get rid of an interesting and informative template like this. I can see putting some templates up for deletion, but not good ones. Thanks. (p.s. WP:FANCRUFT is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy) Randy Kryn (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a proper WP:NAVBOX. There is already a navbox at {{The Vampire Chronicles}} which contains all the characters. This one does not need to be transcluded on every article. If this information is kept it should appear once only (at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters) in a different format. --woodensuperman 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Although {{The Vampire Chronicles}} template lists the 13 individual character articles this one shows many more, as well as giving readers the interesting familial relationships and timeline. Readers (at least me) find it interesting and informative. It improves the encyclopedia, improves the pages it is (and can be) placed on, and is a fine addition to Wikipedia's Vampire Chronicles collection. There is nothing wrong with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is everything wrong with it. It's content masquerading as a navbox. It certainly does not belong along the bottom of multiple pages. If this was a single use template sitting at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters, I'd probably have left it alone, but what the hell is it doing sitting at the bottom of Anne Rice? This needs at the very least converted to a different format, and used sparingly on extremely relevant articles. Something like Aztec emperors family tree, or Noldor#House of Finwë. This is NOT a WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 12:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Anne Rice is linked in the title. The family tree helps the understanding of the linked pages, and provides the readers with a valuable visual aide concept map to the topic. And it improves rather than harms the encyclopedia (which is what all of these discussions are about). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
She may be linked in the title, but this isn't a navbox and the content is tangential to her biography. And cluttering up pages with family trees disguised as navboxes on irrelevant pages does harm the encyclopedia and certainly does not improve the experience for anyone. --woodensuperman 13:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
"for anyone" is incorrect, when I first saw the template it was interesting and informative to my mental-map of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You may find it "interesting", but that doesn't stop it from being in the wrong place. --woodensuperman 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Your link is to another opinion essay. Interesting is a good descriptor of one of the many attributes a good template can have. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The template should not be used as a navbox at the bottom of the page, but there are other family tree templates. There are appropriate uses for them. This is more a question of where it should be used and how the template should be formatted. The template should not be deleted just because of those things. If there are no other uses for it, it could be included just at the page mentioned in the nom, but it could be neater to keep the code as a separate template page. M.Clay1 (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason it is using the navbox markup? If this is changed, then editors might not mistake it for a navbox and use it as such. --woodensuperman 07:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
For whatever reason, family tree templates use navbox markup. I don't think many people would confuse it for a navbox. I've never seen one used as a navbox before. Its use as such seems like a unilateral decision by User:Randy Kryn. I think most editors will agree that it shouldn't be there. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems {{Downton Abbey family tree}} and {{Half-elven family tree}} manage to not use the navbox markup. I would suggest that this method be employed by all family tree templates. --woodensuperman 14:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

April 8

Template:New Testament prophets

Propose merging Template:New Testament prophets with Template:New Testament people.
Might as well keep it all together, could we? PPEMES (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge per WP:TG ( Templates that [...] substantially duplicate [...] the same functionality of established templates) - seems the only link missing is Prophets of Christianity, all other links are already in {{New Testament people}}. --Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both. This kind of thing is much better left for categories. --woodensuperman 12:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:History of Assyrian people

Propose merging Template:History of Assyrian people with Template:Assyrian people footer.
I'm afraid this concerns a rather contentious topic, which would be clear to any outsider taking a look into it. Possibly so in multiple dimensions: from ingroups perspectives as well outgroups, scientificially, geo-politically, religiously, and what not. Contents of both templates may be prone to be up for discussions, even recurringly. Keeping it all in one template, could that be a start? PPEMES (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge and use navbox (and later change the name of it) - Sidebar is intrusive and very under used (only 12 out of around 40 links have it). Seeing as how a lot of these articles overlap, it makes sense to merge what links aren't in the navbox. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

April 7

Template:Christian fraternity

Propose merging Template:Christian fraternity with Template:Fraternities and sororities.
Already largely included in destination templates, thus redundant. What is not include better ought to be, so it can all be dealt with in one and the same template Besides "Christian fraternity" for this specific scope is a verbiage that quite arguably fails WP:GLOBAL. PPEMES (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 23:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep but merge the two Christian templates. Why? The purpose of navigation templates is to aid navigation. A person reading about a Christian fraternity or sorority is highly likely to want to read about more Christian fraternities and sororities. The general template for fraternities and sororities is too inspecific and will likely "get in the way" more than aid navigation. What I would like to see is {{Christian fraternity}} merged with {{Christian sorority}} to have {{Christian fraternities and sororities}}. They are both short enough and related enough that they don't need to be separated. This would double the probability that information on them is up-to-date because roughly twice as many eyeballs would view them. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Christian sorority

Propose merging Template:Christian sorority with Template:Fraternities and sororities.
See above. PPEMES (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 23:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Copyright-EU

Propose merging Template:Copyright-EU with Template:Intellectual property laws of the European Union.
Overlapping templates. {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}} was just recently merged with {{Trademark-EU}} per this TfD for the same reasons. Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: Make it so, the navbox with red links clobbers Special:WantedPages with inflated numbers. –84.46.52.219 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sub judice

This template is a cross between a WP:legal threat and a WP:DISCLAIMER. I encountered it at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings where -- as you'd expect if Wikipedia's disclaimer policy had been revoked -- people didn't want to look for evidence that the case was definitely under sub judice or that sub judice applies to unpaid users discussing news stories already published, but put up this "important notice" at the top of the page just to be safe. Even if they did have a solid reason for fear, to put up a disclaimer here would be in sharp contrast to an article like Tiananmen Square protests or Fethullah Gulen where we give no Important Warning to Chinese or Turkish editors. I don't think there is any legitimate use for this kind of thing: if there really is a sub judice concern, then it is a general Wikipedia issue and having people put it on a few selected pages would only provide false sense of security for people on others. And so long as the template exists and is in use somewhere, it is taken as license -- and mandate -- that it be used on more. And the end of that social process is Wikipedians seeming to beg to be hit with regulations that I doubt apply to them anyway. This deletion proposal likely implies a similar process for Template:Sub judice UK, Template:Sub judice and Contempt Bermuda, Template:Sub judice and Contempt Gibraltar, Template:Sub judice and Contempt Hong Kong, Template:Sub judice and Contempt Ireland, and Template:Sub judice and Contempt New Zealand, but I am not actually very familiar with the process for deleting things so I'm not sure I should get into that yet. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all of them. It was a nice idea in theory, but in practice editors still conflate "maybe editors in XYZ should be cautious" with "XYZ's laws violate WP:NOTCENSORED blah blah blah all aboard the AE train" :( TheDragonFire (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - as an editor subject to a jurisdiction with no clear cut free speech protections similar to First Amendment (Australia in my case) I think that this template is a valuable warning for editors to consider legal implications of what they publish on Wikipedia. Australian justice system has shown substantial amount of zeal in prosecuting perceived breaches of the suppression orders and it is not obvious to me that an Australian Wikipedia editor could not be a subject of such prosecution if they contributed to Wikipedia in contravention of the suppression order. Wikipedia is a high profile website, and targeting of individual editors as a deterrent is not unimaginable. None of this is to say that Wikipedia should compromise on WP:NOTCENSORED, but reminding affected editors of implications of their actions seems like a positive thing. And yes, extending such warning to talk pages of other sensitive topics (such as Tiananmen Square protests or Fethullah Gulen) seems to me like a prudent course of action. Melmann (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Melmann: Don't forget to label articles with Muhammad images, prosecutions sensitive to Vladimir Putin, or American political measures offensive to the tyrant of Saudi Arabia. Your vision of Wikipedia is one full of many, many notices as it seeks to be the key paranoid legal advisor to the oppressed masses of all the nations of the world.
    I am aware of some of the extensive censorship in Australia, yet the story you cite describes prosecutions only of key employees at major news firms. It even says that "Since then some of the less egregious alleged breaches, including items on the ABC’s RN Breakfast show and in Crikey, which confined themselves to a mention of the newspaper coverage, have since received letters to say the charges have been dropped." Since Wikipedia only publishes second-hand reports, it is still not apparent to me that editors here would be at a level of risk comparable to that involved in, say, criticizing ISIS, whose edicts have precisely the same level of legitimacy as those commanding censorship from any other nation. Wnt (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

April 6

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality

Convert to use {{Infobox settlement}}. After looking into the code of this template, it appears that the only reason for a custom template is so that the data can be stored in templates. For example Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/land area stores the land area for every single Finnish municipality. This is NOT the convention for storing this data. Values should be stored directly on the page, not in some convoluted series of templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete per nom. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete after replacement; but if there is no consensus for that, at least make it a wrapper, per nom. The data should be stored on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The template was created in 2009 (when there was no Wikidata) to make it possible to update population, area and demographics etc. information automatically at once instead of manually updating each and every page. I agree that nowadays this information should be fetched from Wikidata. However, I still think that the information should not be stored directly on the page. ̣––Apalsola tc 15:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep until replacement Besides information like area, it has also demographics data that has been updated annually and doing this individually makes no sense. Unifying these templates is a good long-term goal, but it shouldn't be done until someone can actually produce the replacement without loss of function. --Pudeo (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Pudeo: you are missing the entire point of this discussion. The discussion is whether the template should be replaced or not. Under no circumstances is a template replaced if it results in a loss of function. So your argument is pretty pointless. We are discussing whether or not to replace with {{Infobox settlement}} and your comment is basically "don't do it until it can be replaced with something that works"...--Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • SPEEDY CLOSE: is a wrapper since creation 2009-01-01 more than 10 years ago [3] 15:04, 1 January 2009‎ Apalsola (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,961 bytes) +2,961‎ . . (←Created page with '{{Infobox Settlement |official_name = {{{official_name|}}} |native_name = {{{native_name|}}} |nickname = {{{nickname|}}} |motto ...') But it is proposed for substitution at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Infobox settlement wrappers. 77.183.12.176 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 22#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 21:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • In light of the DRV discussion, I think it's clear this template should be kept without prejudice to renomination if someone who's well acquainted with the intricate functionality of the template is willing to support change and is prepared to put it in the apparently high amount of effort needed to implement that change. – Uanfala (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

No-display English variant types

All non-displayed English variant tags are inferior to their edit notice alternatives (compare {{Use American English}} to {{American English}}). First off, these don't display so there is no indication that a certain variety of English is to be used unless you happen to be editing near where the template is in the body and that can be at the top or bottom of an article in practice--section editing would not give you any indication. Secondly, the only goal of a non-displaying template would be to do tracking which the edit notice versions do anyway. There is no incentive to have a parallel version of the same functionality that has less benefit. I propose deleting all instances of {{Use American English}}, {{Use Australian English}}, {{Use Bangladeshi English}}, {{Use British English}}, {{Use British English Oxford spelling}}, {{Use Canadian English}}, {{Use Commonwealth English}}, {{Use Hong Kong English}}, {{Use Indian English}}, {{Use Irish English}}, {{Use Jamaican English}}, {{Use New Zealand English}}, {{Use Nigerian English}}, {{Use Pakistani English}}, {{Use Singapore English}}, {{Use South African English}}, {{Use Trinidadian English}} and convert them all to editnotices that will actually display when it's useful: as someone tries to edit the article. I'm willing to help with conversion, which would be fairly straightforward if a little time-consuming. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep These are intentionally non-displaying; their main purpose is to give an indication to bots and scripts as to which variant is the preferred one for the article. They also categorise the page, which an editnotice cannot do. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Redrose64: Then why have templates at all instead of just a category? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
      It's something to do with the Engvar script, which isn't mine - someone like Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) will know exactly why it's coded that way. But in general, housekeeping categories like this are always applied via a template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Redrose64. I frequently check for the category these templates produce to determine correct variants for an article.-gadfium 22:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above rationale.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep - Wrong venue. If you want to propose replacing or integrating their functions into an edit notice, this isn't the place to do it. It might be a conversation worth having, but not here. A lot of work would need to be done first. - BilCat (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @BilCat: Where other than Templates for Discussion is the appropriate venue for discussing these templates? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Snow keep time saver. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC).
  • Question: Can a category really not be added to the edit notice version? If this is possible, this request gets a support from me. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    I wondered about that. The issue would still remain that the edit notice is not generally known about, that it is not read by the vast majority of tools, and that it is ignored by many editors as being part of the "noise" outside the edit box.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC).
    But if the templates are merged, then any bot that was able to read template A should be able to read template B. The only addition is the Edit notice part, which you can ignore or not, but that is the same with an invisible comment which is even less noticeable. --Gonnym (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Categories can be added to editnotices, but they categorise the editnotice itself, not the page that it's used on. Consider Category:Pages with Livescores editnotice: this contains a whole bunch of editnotices (for example Template:Editnotices/Page/2018 FIFA World Cup Group A); but the related articles (for example 2018 FIFA World Cup Group A) are not in the category. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure that is because how those are coded. If I take your example then inside Category:Pages with Livescores editnotice I checked Template:Editnotices/Page/2015 FIFA Club World Cup, which uses {{Livescores editnotice}}, which has an includeonly Category:Pages with Livescores editnotice. However, if you add a category to {{Editnotices/Page/2015 FIFA Club World Cup}}, then pages using it will be added to that category. See for example User:Gonnym/sandbox which is placed in {{Test}}. --Gonnym (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    No, that's one page (User:Gonnym/sandbox) transcluding another (User:Gonnym/sandbox/tests3) as if it were a template. No editnotice is involved. Put it another way: if you add a category to Template:Editnotices/Page/User:Gonnym/sandbox, it will not affect the categorisation of User:Gonnym/sandbox in any way whatsoever. Also, what does {{Test}} have to do with anything? It's a notice that is normally WP:SUBSTd to a user talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    I meant Category:Test (my sandbox has since changed so not relevant anymore). --Gonnym (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep While Koavf is correct that opening a section will ensure that you don't see the template I think that there is less change of seeing a notice tucked away on the talk page. I rarely look at the talk page before editing an article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @CambridgeBayWeather: No one is suggesting putting anything on talk pages. What are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
      • The template states that it can be used on the talk page. I hope you weren't thinking of putting it at the top of an article. Sticking it in an edit notice is the same as the hidden one at the top of the page. I doubt many people read edit notices based on the number of times that people don't notify someone after opening a section at WP:ANI. Also when I open a page with an edit notice and glance away as it opens the editing area forces the notice up where I can't see it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

April 5

Template:Mss

This template isn't really in use. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Implausible as it is for me to support keeping anything Neelix created, in this case I can see that even if it's not currently in use, it's a template with a legitimate use case that would be quite fiddly to recreate manually. If someone else has a claim for the name—as a three-character name it's quite valuable real estate—I'd have no issue with renaming it to something else. ‑ Iridescent 21:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I think any applications of this template can use {{tts}} instead as necessary. --Izno (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Rfam box

Propose merging Template:Rfam box with Template:Infobox rfam.
Overlapping scope; "infobox done wrong"; latter is more systemic. Artoria2e5 🌉 13:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Template arguments for migration
Rfam box Infobox rfam
acc Rfam
description Name
type RNA_type
image image
abbreviation Symbol
Length, identity, and seed are specific to alignment in one database. SS is... usually published? Not much point in indicating.
--Artoria2e5 🌉 21:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge - {{Rfam box}} has only 30 uses while the other has over 1k. {{Infobox rfam}} is lacking in documentation, but going by the title and articles, it seems they serve the same articles. --Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Hinduism in Africa

Navbox is redundant to just doing {{Africa in topic|Hinduism in}}. Was previously unused and all current transclusions used the above code. I attempted to CSD under T3, but a user replace the code above with this template. No reason for this template to be used at all. In my opinion this still is a WP:T3. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: mistake? Christian75 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(The TfD said template:example (or similar) in the original tfd Christian75 (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC))
  • Zackmann08, I think you might find it that people will be a bit less exasperated if you listened to what they'd said to you before bombarding them with the next deletion notice. Now, as I've explained on my talk page, {{Africa in topic}} is a quick and dirty way to create a variety of navboxes that might be suitable for some circumstances, but it doesn't really wor here. See for example how this template appears on Hinduism in Sierra Leone: you see quite a few redlinks (most of them permanently so: they were formerly blue but got deleted at AfD or RfD), and most of the blue links are actually redirects, usually to broad articles where Hinduism (or the country) are only mentioned in passing. If you want a navbox consisting mostly of redirects and redlinks, then yes, {{Africa in topic}} will do just fine. But if you want a navbox that does what navboxes are expected to do – navigate between articles, then you can't easily avoid having a dedicated template like {{Hinduism in Africa}}. The situation, however, gets complicated by the existence of {{Hinduism by country}}, which I've just noticed now. In a way, this makes {{Hinduism in Africa}} (+ {{Hinduism in Oceania}} and the like) redundant. Its downside is that it is a sidebar. So the question is, do we prefer a sidebar or navboxes at the bottom of the article. Personally, I'd opt for the less intrusive navboxes, but I'd rather leave the issue to others to decide. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Uanfala, way to Wp:AGF... I listened to what you said and I disagreed. Rather than leaving the WP:T3 template on the page, which I could have done as it is a hard-coded instance, I chose to move this to a TFD so that we could discuss the issue. Rather than doing so, you chose to accuse me of ignoring you and bombarding you with notices... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, the replacement gives a lot of red links and a lot of redirect to articles which barely mention the topic if at all. The red links will probably be (re)created. Christian75 (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Mosques in Lebanon

Unused navbox with only 4 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It can be expanded with the dozen or so articles in Category:Mosques in Lebanon. – Uanfala (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Use - I've added the links to the template, which Uanfala refereed to, This seems like a decent scope template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now has more links, but is still unused
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

April 4

Template:List of world's fairs in Nordic countries

Propose merging Template:List of world's fairs in Nordic countries with Template:List of world exhibitions.
Some duplicate entries. Seems like this could be merged? PPEMES (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Some history. Originally there was a clear split in templates with the second one containing List of world expositions (We) (plus 1) and the Nordic (and others) containing the List of world's fairs (wFs).
Then a lot of, (but far from all), wFs were added to the wE navbar.
If all wFs were added to the big cat I think it would be unusable. But I think the wF navbars are fully populated they fulfil a useful purpose.Icarusgeek (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Apostles

Propose merging Template:Apostles with Template:New Testament people.
Dublicate entries. Redundancy? PPEMES (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - redundant as all entries of {{Apostles}} are placed in {{New Testament people}}. No need for merging. --Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template delineates the single most important group of New Testament people and makes a simple, recognizable tool for navigation. There are many instances where we don't put full, general, and distracting templates in place of narrower, more specific ones. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    • You're missing the point that every single link in that template is also in the bigger one, which means that both templates appear on the same set of articles. That is not how we use navigation templates. --Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Your point is "redundancy": I saw. However, there is nothing in WP:TG that says that's a reason for deletion. Compare the redundancy between Template:WWII history by nation and the larger Template:World War II, for example. SteveStrummer (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Actually see WP:T3. After re-checking, it seems the last bullet point in WP:TG does in fact say it: Templates that misrepresent policy or substantially duplicate or hardcode the same functionality of established templates may fit the criteria for speedy deletion, "substantially duplicate" is what happens here. --Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Wrong venue for that argument. T3 is one of the criteria for speedy deletion: It's meant to get rid of obvious errors of template duplication. This is a unique template for a notable standalone topic. The actual TG rules are pretty inclusive of anything helpful to the reader. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep- I agree with SteveStrummer, both templates are useful to readers who are looking to find other articles. Apostles are distinct from the other people in the larger template. Again, why delete it? Best Regards, Barbara 21:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep especially since the Apostles are not just figures of the New Testament but of historical interest during the Apostolic Age which goes far beyond the New Testament. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:List of world's fairs in Nordic countries

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 4

Template:Kim Dong-ryool

This musical artist's navigational template consists of two English Wikipedia articles, their article and one album. There are not enough links to justify a template per WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Athletic program head coaches navboxes

These navboxes provide navigation between the current head coaches of various sports teams at a given school. The connection between coaches of different sports, even at the same school, is rather tenuous. Furthermore, footers of coach bio articles tend be very crowded already with other more meaningful navboxes. These navboxes seem like unnecessary clutter and should be deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep honestly, I think these are useful. I may be in the minority, but I think athletic programs should have navboxes like these.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree in principle on the athletic program navboxes but they have been suggested to merge in the past to the universities' navboxes because they typically link program articles anyway. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 24#Template:Rhode Island Rams navbox.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom unlikely to have each coach linked regardless of notability, most won't be properly maintained.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is a case of WP:Template creep....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Template creep - we don’t need another template that just reiterates their job (there usually is a sport-specific one already in place and I wouldn’t presume some Olympic sport coaches are even notable). Rikster2 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There are no articles about the head coaches at a particular college. Likely to get out of date very quickly. Better to restrict these sort of templates to one sport; templates like {{University of Kentucky}} already list sports. Nigej (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - we should add the template for Texas A&M as well Rikster2 (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Rikster2, yes, I've added the Texas A&M navbox to the nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I just can't see the encyclopedic navigational value of keeping these. We are not an almanac. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per navbox creep, and also the fact there's a 0% chance these will be actively maintained. SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:ŠKF Sereď squad

Propose merging Template:ŠKF Sereď squad with Template:ŠKF iClinic Sereď squad.
Duplicate templates. The "ŠKF iClinic Sereď squad" template uses the teams current name. DannyS712 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

April 3

Template:Scott Rudin

The navbox violates WP:FILMNAV, "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question." As simply a producer, Scott Rudin is almost never the primary creator of the material in question. Furthermore, producer navboxes in general are inappropriate because per WP:NAVBOX disadvantages, they "may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others" and "can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related" and "may not give the reader enough clues as to which links are most relevant". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Question: There are over 100 templates placed in Category:Film producer navigational boxes. Is there any previous discussion on the matter of producers somewhere? --Gonnym (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The language and interpretaion of WP:FILMNAV has been hotly debated several times. I am also kind of curious why these two of the 100+ were nominated. I think there should be a mass nomination of a whole slate rather than just isolating Rudin and Heyman now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I saw the Scott Heyman one at The Secret Garden (upcoming film), and the creator then suggested the Scott Rudin one. I didn't realize how many there were, but they should go per WP:FILMNAV and WP:NAVBOX. Maybe keep something like Spielberg? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm conflicted here. On the one part, the producer is the person winning the Academy Award for Best Picture, which points to a significance to it. However, in more recent years there is a trend where a lot of famous actors can negotiate a producer credit, but it isn't our (Wikipedia's) place to question that. --Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
          • The producers are always mentioned and linked in the film infobox at the very least. I don't mind them being part of "crew lists" in production sections (which I know is not a thing). It's a question of why we should insert the producer's whole filmography at the bottom of the article, especially when most films have multiple producers. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Commenting to Erik, but applies to Wood as well (don't want to duplicate it) - if this (and other TfDs) pass at deletion - how are producer credits handled in non-producer-only templates, such as {{Steven Spielberg}}? It would be very odd to remove production templates but leave production sections for other individuals, as the argument for removal or keep is valid for both. It seems to me that really the discussion should have been held first to determine if such lists should be included then brought to TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
              • I think if the case can be made that the individual is the "primary" creator of the works in the navbox then they can be kept, which may be appropriate when it comes to Spielberg. Other than that, they should be expunged. --woodensuperman 14:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Producers are problematic as the extent of their involvement is not always known, and they are not always the "primary" creator of material. For films such as Fantastic Mr. Fox and Frances Ha, he is just one of four producers, others he is the sole credited producer. But, more importantly, are people really using film producer chronology navboxes like this as a navigational aid? I doubt it, and besides, filmography lists and categories exist (or should do, if they don't), so this is unnecessary. --woodensuperman 12:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Producer mentions are fine in the article and as a category but they don;t need a navbox. MarnetteD|Talk 02:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep A producer is the main creator of a film. They're the ones who get the Best Picture Oscar.★Trekker (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Per the standard being established. There's multiple producers involved in a given film, and while they procure the Oscar for Best Picture, it still stands that unless they're a constantly solo producer, it's not just a one man show in regards to producing. He's one of five producers on the upcoming The French Dispatch. Rusted AutoParts 01:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-SVG

Propose merging Template:Cleanup-SVG with Template:Cleanup image.
Unused currently, and this template could easily be merged back into the other image cleanup template, by making that template accept a parameter as to the media-type. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Provisional keep. It's used by Twinkle, and (barring emergencies, which of course this isn't) we ought not make major changes to Twinkle templates without ensuring that we won't break anything. I agree with your point, so I can support merging once we know that everything's fine. I've left a note at WT:Twinkle asking for input here. Nyttend (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • No problem at all: right now, Twinkle just does the same thing for both. It's straightforward to remove {{Cleanup SVG}} if this is merged there. ~ Amory (utc) 17:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
      • OK, in that case, delete per my second sentence above. Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Interested in more comments re: wrapper vs straight deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:2016 NCAA Division I baseball independents standings

Unused standings template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It is used now.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Chinese aeroengines

unused navbox. About half redlinks and no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Could maybe be kept, but only 5 of the links are actually Chinese made parts, so that navbox has very inaccurate information. --Gonnym (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to get some more input on the "unused" aspect as well as the content issues mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or trim the navbox is a mess as Gonnym points out. I'm on the fence whether it should be pruned significantly or just deleted; I don't think any useful navigational value is provided at the moment and frankly can't see the utility of the navbox overall for the vast majority of readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Bengali desserts

unused navbox with no parent article. Mostly redlinks Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep and add to articles as it's viable navbox. No opinion if the redlinks should be trimmed, but there are about two dozen valid links. One potential problem is that some of the desserts listed are not specific to Bengal, so it might make sense to expand the scope to cover all desserts of the subcontinent (I'm surprised such a navbox doesn't seem to exist yet). – Uanfala (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is a category Category:Bengali desserts which notes Bengali cuisine#Desserts. The template under discussion is much more extensive than these, so is essentially entirely unreferenced. There needs to be some content first - then we can have a template linking things. Nigej (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and use serves an excellent navbox purpose. No reason to delete just because it's unfinished. Helps readers neavigate --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still unused, still mostly redlinks, so relisting for one more week to see if it can be improved to a suitable standard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox South African municipality

As anyone following TFDs know, there has been a LOT of contention about {{Infobox settlement}} wrappers. I want to discuss this one in particular with no prejudice towards the other wrappers...

{{Metadata South Africa}} upon which this template is largely based is already in the process of being deleted per this tfd. Additionally, {{Inofbox South African town}} has already been deleted per this tfd. I feel that these show a clear precedent for up-merging this specific infobox.

To be clear, NO INFORMATION will be deleted from the articles. Once the merge is done, from the reader's perspective, nothing will have changed. Any questions or concerns, please {{ping|zackmann08}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: South African articles, especially population and racial stats, are a magnet for vandalism. Including the figures directly in the article wikicode would make it harder to detect such changes, or to revert them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment: If data is in Wikidata then change detection can be done via a list updated by ListeriaBot. 78.55.28.200 (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep if there is a need to keep statistics in a single location for easy updating and to prevent tampering. Moving these statistics to wikidata, as suggested in the other TfD is laborious and it doesn't help with maintaining the long-term integrity of the data. Just a note that the outcome of that discussion might need to be revisited: these ramifications didn't seem to have been explored there, there's no reason I can see that two templates should have been nominated separately, and the other nomination was phrased in a way that implied that the deletion of the template we're discussion now has already been agreed on (and had that been the case, there would have been a much stronger case for the deletion of the other template). – Uanfala (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete. Per nom. Except for {{Infobox Cape Verde settlement}} and {{Infobox South African municipality}} all of Africa is free of wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}. Having one system for all of Africa makes editing much easier. Data can be stored in Wikidata, and imported there easily using the tool "QuickStatements". 77.11.129.17 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete using one standard for Africa seems to be the obvious choice, I visualized the claim of the IP. TerraCyprus (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    South Africa is the only country in continental Africa to not only use the Infobox settlement for places.

April 2

Template:CCNY Beavers football navbox

Defunct college football team with only 2 entries in the navbox. Unlikely to be expanded upon or used much. Natg 19 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment One of the sport's oldest teams, added a season. Cake (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Chronology of military events in the American Civil War

unused MASSIVE navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: First of all, this template is within the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Then, it is an extension at a chronological level of this template: Template:American Civil War wich it is linked: see navbox "Combatants Theaters Campaigns Battles States" in "Template:American Civil War". Furthermore, the number of its navbox is lower than that of "Template:American Civil War". It was more useful (for Wikipedia Community) "alive" than "dead": can, where appropriate, also be modified rather than deleted! Finally, this template is cleary designated to help the users to navigate in the American Civil War "in the timeframe" related to: "Campaigns", "Battles" plus one general "Appendix" >>> No valid reason for deletion: improve (it is possible) do not destroy! User talk:FDRMRZUSA (26 March 2019; 15,45 UTC+1).
  • Keep. The template is not unused but used subordinate to another template. However I agree that this is not optimal and could need some thoughts and work; e.g. usage on its own and the Appendix section being either deleted or replaced with a link to the aforementioned superior template. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – As GELongstreet says, it's not unused, it's linked through Template:American Civil War on 600 or so pages. But I agree it could use some rework, with the appendix surgically removed. Mojoworker (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    Mojoworker, GELongstreet, FDRMRZUSA thanks for the comments... for the record, when I said it was unused, I was talking about transclusions. As you can see here, the template is not transcluded on any articles. It is generally not acceptable to link from an Article to a template for reference purposes. The way it is currently being used essentially is treating the template as its own article. I would argue that this navbox really needs to be converted to an article titled Chronology of military events in the American Civil War. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The template is linked to repeatedly, but still has no transclusions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's not linked from those articles directly, but through another template (Template:American Civil War). And while it shouldn't be linked in that way, it should instead be transcluded as a nested template, but kept nonetheless. It's not really a candidate to be converted to an article, as it really is a template. Mojoworker (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD and made the transclusion. Mojoworker (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

April 1

2012 AFC Champions League group tables

Folk of Template:2012 AFC Champions League group tables and these templates uses non-standard format Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Popular Democratic Party (Puerto Rico)

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Use? seems to link subjects in a notable fashion, should this be used?--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pretty similar to Template:PRPPDnominees in terms of the people listed there, but it has a different scope. I guess it can be used. --Gonnym (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Module:Listify

Only used on several unused templates, redundant to Module:String {{#invoke:Listify|input|x|yyxyxyy}} -> <ul>{{#invoke:String|replace|yyxxyy|x|<li>%1</li>|plain=false}}</ul>. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Not sure Module:String is the correct location. This is not a simple string, but rather a list, so maybe Module:List can work with this better. --Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not suggesting a merge, I'm suggesting a deletion because the functionality in this module can already be implemented using Module:String. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not sure I agree. If instead of using the module directly, an editor now needs to surround it with a ul tag and then also add the logic for replace, that isn't helpful at all. If this is used, then the better solution would be to add this option to Module:List. --Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't remember why I created this module. I tend to agree with Gonnym that the "string" module isn't really the most obvious name. Shrug. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

March 30

Template:List of rivers of Tajikistan

Unused navbox with no parent article (redlink). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep and use - the template has enough links for a valid nav template and there are other country river nav templates. --Gonnym (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and use - Has 14 rivers, so enough to use now.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors support using it, but currently it still has no transclusions in articles
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and use per above. A topic worthy of a navbox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Warning antisemitism Arabs

Very few transclusions, doubtful its useful outside of those pages. Can be substituted and deleted. funplussmart (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not meet WP:TFD#REASONS. Few transclusions does not mean no transclusions, and it's quite useful on pages where the etymological fallacy is constantly being raised. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:GNF Protein box

Propose merging Template:GNF Protein box with Template:Infobox gene.
This template has been marked as deprecated and replaced by {{Infobox gene}} (which is used for proteins also) since august 2018 and has only 11 article transclusions left (and around 70 non-article ones). Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:TFD#REASONS. Few transclusions != no transclusions. VQuakr (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • So you're just saying "I cant be bothered to find a reason so read that section and pick something"? Because if that is the case, then #2 The template is redundant to a better-designed template is exactly my point. --Gonnym (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The template should be kept for historical reasons (it is transcluded in several talk page discussions). Boghog (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst & delete No reason at all to keep this template. Its use on talk pages should have been substituted from the beginning. There is no reason to have a centralized template to update all these. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst & delete Per Zackmann08. Article ones should be replaced with Wikidata entries. --Artoria2e5 🌉 04:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and redirect/merge per be all above rationales for deleting. The only reason I am saying redirect over delete is that the page history must be preserved for attribution if the template is merged. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 02:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete the protein box. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Odia language

Most of the links are red, so it's probably WP:TOOSOON to have this. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, make it a collapsed bottom navbox per uanfala. --Artoria2e5 🌉 20:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Gibraltar Football League

unused and very out of date navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the usefulness of a merge would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 00:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Form factors

Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 00:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

March 26

Template:Montreal municipal election, 2005/Position/Saint-Leonard borough Councillor, Saint-Leonard-Ouest

Unused election table. Results already present on parent article without use of this template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge in article and delete - I couldn't find this specific table in the article. It should be placed directly in the article, like all the other tables and then deleted. Gonnym (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Montreal's local borough councillors don't qualify for articles under WP:NPOL the way its citywide city councillors do, so there isn't and won't be a standalone BLP of Mario Battista to use this in. But since this is just the regular municipal election and not a followup by-election to replace a deceased or resigned predecessor, integrating it into 2005 Montreal municipal election means converting it to the main results table format rather than just adding this to the bottom as a "post-election changes" footnote. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Montreal municipal election, 2005/Position/Ville-Marie borough Councillor, Peter-McGill

Unused election table. Results already present on parent article without use of this template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge in article and delete - I couldn't find this specific table in the article. It should be placed directly in the article, like all the other tables and then deleted. Gonnym (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Montreal's local borough councillors don't qualify for articles under WP:NPOL the way its citywide city councillors do, so there isn't and won't be a standalone BLP of Karim Boulos to use this in. But since this is just the regular municipal election and not a followup by-election to replace a deceased or resigned predecessor, integrating it into 2005 Montreal municipal election means converting it to the main results table format rather than just adding this to the bottom as a "post-election changes" footnote. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Montreal municipal election, 2009/Position/Councillor, Peter-McGill

Unused election table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge in article and delete - a different table is already used in article, but it lacks the voting data, so if that is wanted, the data should be first merged, then the template deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Iranian legislative election, 2000

Unused Hhkohh (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Subst if needed then delete - 2000 Iranian legislative election has several tables of results, but none is this one. I have no idea difference is the result of new information presented in the article, or if the template table is actually missing from the article. If the template is missing, subst the actual table into the article then delete template. --Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Iranian legislative election, 1996

Unused Hhkohh (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Subst if needed then delete - 1996 Iranian legislative election has several tables of results, but none is this one. I have no idea if difference is the result of new information presented in the article, or if the template table is actually missing from the article. If the template is missing, subst the actual table into the article then delete template. --Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

March 21

Template:1500sProtestantwomen

More suitable to categorise this as Category:16th-century Protestant women. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep--I made this template for women who were a factor in the Reformation, either theological or political. You can't call them all "Reformers" because that would be only the theologians and would also exclude the ones whose role included influencing which type of Protestant church there would be. I went through the plausible 16th century women by nationality categories as well as the list on Women as theological figures to find possibilities. I did not include ones that were women who just happened to be Protestant because it was common in their area. The title of the template is now 16th century Protestant women in the Reformation and I have added four subcategories--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Just a seemingly random set of women from the 16th century. Either there should be article about whatever links them or, failing that, a category for them will suffice. Nigej (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:QMJHL trophies

Unused navbox with no parent article Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

My vote to merge has not changed. The parent article the league. Consensus at WikiProject Ice Hockey when these articles were created was not have separate articles. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: thats fine, but your statement I fail to understand the nominator's rationale that it is unused, when transcluded to 20+ articles. is just false... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 02:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not used, but there are 20+ articles where it easily and reasonably could be used. I'm perfectly fine with a merger, too, as removing "trophy" from each link would reduce the needed space by a significant amount. Wikiproject consensus notwithstanding, these articles exist, so there's no good reason to say that they mustn't be linked by a template; the only reason we should refuse to link them (as opposed to removing them from a template where they don't fit, or deleting a poorly made template) is if they get deleted in the future. Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per above, the guidelines for deletion says (emphasis theirs) "The template is not used [...] and has no likelihood of being used". I believe this template is likely to be used though I would support a merge as well. BLAIXX 15:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Steelers1946DraftPicks

Unused navbox with no navigational links Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unused and not a navbox that should be.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the navbox is not unused but is only listed on 2-3 pages at this time, at the time it fails for the amount of links.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Navbox is now fully used. As far as this entire class of navboxes as a concept, a broader discussion would have to take place at WT:NFL before we should be taking any action there. Additionally, any WP:ACCESS concerns that may exist here actually involve a different template, not this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ejgreen77: I opposed the rest of these TfDs but on this one (at the moment) he has a point as only 3 pages are linked to this one, I thought 5 was the minimum.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seconding Ejgreen77 with the fact that further discussion should take place at WT:NFL, for there are a large amount of templates of this style and category that will need to be taken into account if we delete a small portion of the templates but not all of the templates. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Rand Paul series

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Rand Paul and {{Rand Paul}}. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - duplicate of {{Rand Paul}}. --Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Further, as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. As for "NOTDUPE", actually read what it says. I wasn't against having a navigation template, just not a side bar. These navigation templates aren't different than any other bottom navbox and should be placed there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x10) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x11) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This one specifically. links to only 5 articles, plus one sub-section. All are easily and logically found on the original Rand Paul page, which also has {{Rand Paul}} Hydromania (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. As per TheSubmarine, this sidebar is beneficial to navigation. Although a separate Rand Paul category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE. I will change my comment to Keep if we can WP:IMPROVEIT. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Module:Headless TOC

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep This template was converted to Lua to allow for unlimited heading levels. The original only had a fixed/limited number of available heading levels. Only Lua can accomplish indefinite levels. —CodeHydro 15:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Codehydro: That can be done using Module:String, obviating the need for a separate Lua module. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Our Peak

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Use. Has a set of linked articles that don't have a current navbox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I set this up as a personal nav box, designed not to be published but just used in my sandbox. I'd forgotten it existed. No good to anyone else. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure if to delete or use - author says it doesn't help anyone else, and I don't know anything about that area. If the links actually belong to the same subject and are useful then it should be used, but if not, then deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ælfgifu theories

Unused chart template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete This template just presents one possible answer to a web of hypothetical relationships for which there is no scholarly consensus, with as many different versions as scholars who have published on it. I suspect this chart was prepared by someone who was entirely unaware of the century of medievalists who have produced alternative reconstructions of the same set of vague relational statements and possible associations. It is inherently POV, and there is no way to fix it - one can't present in a single chart the different mutually-exclusive permutations, nor would having the numerous charts necessary to summarize all the alternative solutions workable. When it comes down to it, this template can't help but produce more smoke than light. Agricolae (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Now linked again from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, as it was until November 2018 when User:Agricolae removed the svg of the chart and the link to the template it was based on. The section discussing these theories is well-referenced and notes that they are only tentative and not conclusive. They are not just some individual editor's flight of fancy. It is notable that Agricolae did not remove the text. Why then remove the diagram, which merely illustrates what is written in the text and makes it easier to follow? I have therefore restored the diagram to the text, and the link to this template which provides clickable links, and from which the svg diagram was created. Jheald (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The template was also similarly linked from Æthelstan Half-King, which Agricolae also removed (diff). I haven't yet restored the revision there, but it seems to me it would be similarly useful to illustrate Æthelstan's direct family, and it did state that the possible connections to the Anglo-Saxon royal family should be regarded as tentative. That seems to me an appropriate presentation, so I would be fully minded to restore it there too. Jheald (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I removed it, because it gives a misleading simplistic representation of what is a very complex issue, even with a caveat (that we both know will be ignored) about it being tentative. Agricolae (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Agricolae: And you also removed it from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, where it directly corresponds to what is written in the text there? Jheald (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I removed it. I thought I would have made this clear by saying in my previous response that "I removed it".
We do no favors by making a pretty chart template that hides the tenuous nature of these guesses (and completely ignores alternative reconstructions), a chart that can (and no doubt will) then be placed on other pages that lack even the context of the problematic discussion found on the Ælfgifu page. That one could select different sources and end up with a different chart with different relationships (e.g. with Æthelfrith the son of Æthelhelm and father-in-law of Æthelgifu via marriage to Eadric, thereby turning almost all the blue people green, or perhaps aqua) just demonstrates we shouldn't be memorializing any single set of hyper-speculative guesses in this way. Agricolae (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The chart has faults but I do not agree that it is worse than useless and should be deleted. It does show the two alternative lines which are discussed by modern historians and in the article and will help the reader. The fact that other versions, which are not mentioned in the article, have been discussed by scholars is not a reason to delete the chart. The main fault with the chart is that it is not referenced. It is not satisfactory to rely on referencing in the article on Ælgifu, which in any case is very unsatisfactory. Also the article does not cover all the (possible) relationships shown in the table. The descent from Æthelred I is supported by Yorke and Wormald, but not that the line went through through Æthelhelm, which is claimed by genealogists and rejected by historians. It should be removed. The alternative of descent from Ealhswith's parents is supported by Stafford but only discussed in detail by Hart so far as I am aware. I am not familiar with the details of this theory and they need to be fully referenced to Hart. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Agricolae's analysis. I'm not qualified to assess the details of that analysis but I trust it particularly since the events occurred over a thousand years ago. Given that the template is unused and that it probably presents a misleading picture, it should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The template is not transcluded, but it is not unused -- it is linked to in multiple places where the SVG version is shown -- on the Ælfgifu page, on the Ælfgifu talkpage, and on the description page of the SVG itself. The advantage of the SVG is that it can be thumbnailed. But the advantage of the template is that it contains active links which the SVG does not; it is also the raw material from which the SVG was created, and from which any modified version (presumably) would need to be created. Jheald (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
And the disadvantage is that it allows the such widespread distribution of material that fails to meet some of the most basic standards of Wikipedia - the argument that it is helpful on the original page to show this one scholar's pet theory as described in the text is completely invalidated when the same context-free chart is then transcluded onto other pages that lack any description or relevant context whatsoever about the level of guesswork involved. It is engineered to propagate a POV. Agricolae (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The chart was unused at the time of nomination as it had been deleted from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, but it is specifically intended to show the two lines of descent discussed in that article and in my view does help to explain them to readers, subject to the improvements I suggested above. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete if not used in article - a template is not an article. It should not be linked to from the article namespace, but should be transcluded. If it fails in this task, then there is no reason for it to be kept. --Gonnym (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Average temperature table

This seems totally redundant to Template:Weather Box/Module:Weather box. Also note that some of the subtemplates are making calls to a user's module sandbox. Only in use on 1 page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Replace uses with Template:Weather box if possible. @Johnuniq: can Weather Box handle this? --Gonnym (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks like an experiment as people tried different things to see what would work for {{weather box}}. Let's wait to hear from Erutuon who will know what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Huh? This is very different from Template:Weather box. It generates the basic table structure for the six tables in List of cities by average temperature: a table caption and set of table headers followed by rows, followed by the end-of-table syntax. It could be renamed if the name isn't clear. If it isn't kept, the basic table structure will have to be duplicated in the six tables in List of cities by average temperature, which is not ideal since it's laborious and prone to error. — Eru·tuon 23:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 20

Template:Jets AFL All-Time Team

Unused navbox with no specific parent article. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Aerospecs

Propose merging Template:Aerospecs and Template:Aircraft specifications with Template:Aircraft specs.
Templates have been marked as deprecated and should be replaced by {{Aircraft specs}}. See also Template talk:Aircraft specifications#Deprecation of this template. Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the following Opposes are not in favour of a Bot carrying out the task, but are generally in favour of the nomination, if handled manually!!--Petebutt (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose, over 4,000 pages still use these templates, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Aircraft_specifications, [5], Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Aerospecs, and [6]. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 14:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    You misunderstand. Of course they will not be deleted until the many pages that use them have all been transitioned to the new one, however long it takes.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    As Steelpillow said, the templates aren't going to be deleted with pages still using them. --Gonnym (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the templates differ significantly in their input parameters and conversion between them using bots is not feasible. {{Aircraft specifications}} does not specify a prime unit and conversion to {{Aircraft specs}} will require a human editor to look up the original source and identify the original units used to avoid loss of precision. —Gazoth (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    Nobody said it was going to be simple.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    First of all, it does not need to be a bot move if it can't. Some of the templates in the holding cell, like the football ones, are being converted manually, a few at a time. Secondly, looking at the specific example you gave, that actually can be done by a bot. While the template does not specify a prime unit, looking at North American B-25 Mitchell as an example, the values entered are |length main=52 ft 11 in and |length alt=16.13 m. By using "ft", "in" and "m" a bot can know which value is what. --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    To be fair, some of the partially filled entries will be less tractable. There is also the issue of accumulated rounding errors in converting from one unit to another and then back again. I think that a bot would be able to convert a good many successfully, but would also need to back off and flag up the ones it has problems with. It would have to be some sophisticated bot! But really, this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    Gazoth, just because you can't write a bot to do it, doesn't mean that someone else can't. It is a mistake to oppose just because you don't think it is possible. Discuss the merits of the merge, not the feasibility of making it happen. If you think it SHOULD happen, then let others worry about how to actually make it happen. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Zackmann08, a bot can't extrapolate data from nothing. There is nothing in the parameters of {{Aircraft specifications}} to identify the original unit used. It requires a human editor to look up the original source and input the correct unit into {{Aircraft specs}}. This is not a trivial task that can be figured out after a decision is made, this has to planned for beforehand. Technical feasibility is an important part of the merits of a proposal. What is the point of deciding to merge a template when the merge might not be feasible? —Gazoth (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Gazoth, could you give an example of a page which you think will be hard to convert? Also, remember, that no one promised a bot will do this and there are multiple examples of templates manually converted. --Gonnym (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Gazoth again you are missing the point. As Gonnym stated, how the conversion will take place is irrelevant... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Gonnym, are there examples of manually converting thousands of transclusions after looking up the original sources, a significant portion of which are offline and hard to find? —Gazoth (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    This really feels like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I've already answered that, several times here. If there is no source available then it fails WP:V. The merge is not a "also, while you do it, add new information" - it is a simple, take what template A has and move it to template B. Last time I'll explain that. --Gonnym (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? I never said that sources may not be available, I said that some sources will be hard to find. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it doesn't prevent them from being reliable. —Gazoth (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Neither of the old templates can be made to do what the Project team has agreed is needed. The new one can and does.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This will break hundreds of pages if you do it by bot, including many of the most important high visibility pages (as these tended to be written first) and will take years if it is done properly by hand, as doing it properly really needs access to the sources originally used, and many of the original editors have moved on. In the mean time thousands of pages have unsightly deletion notices plastered all over them, often conflicting with other page content.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Nigel Ish, For the love of... It won't be done if anything is going to break!!! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    If a bot cannot do it, it will happen manually. The notice will not be there when it happens, that notice is only for this discussion. Also, there is no need for the original sources for the replacement, if there was need and no source was available in the article now, then that content should be removed anyways as it fails WP:V. Can't believe I need to explain this in a TfD discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    One reason why ideally the person making the changes should have access to the original source is to avoid additional rounding errors - in filling out the original specs template, the editor will often have had to convert between imperial and metric units - potentially introducing rounding errors (or calculation errors - having access to the originals will help to minimse this.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    I'll repeat myself - if there is no source, then the information should be removed per WP:V. This is irrelevant to this discussion though. --Gonnym (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    You do not seem to understand my comment - having the original source will help to minimise un-necessary conversion errors - the units used in the original source aren't necessarily what we would choose as the primary units - for example a pre-metric British or American source may only list dimensions in feet and inches, even for a European aircraft where we would normally choose to display metric first (i.e. as primary units). By working from the source, we minimise errors introduced by these sort of things. Another issue is there may be some edge cases out there that may not work well with the auto-converting aircraft specs template - certainly the talk page for that template has a few examples where it recommds using the free field aircraft specifications template where aircraft specs doesn't work very well - It may be worth considering retaining the aircraft specifications template to cope with these cases. template:aerospecs is much less flexible, and I don't think there will be much using that template that can't be worked into aircraft specs by someone who understands how the templates work.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    I understand your comment, I just this it is irrelevant and off-topic. The merge is not a "also, while you do it, add new information" - it is a simple, take what template A has and move it to template B. If the current template is incomplete, then the new template will also be incomplete. If the old template has only one type of data (say only inches), then {{convert}} will handle the conversion per the template. This is an acceptable way of doing this in Wikipedia. If the original data was rounded and no source is used and no note was given, well, like I said, the current information is itself wrong/misleading, so you can't expect the merge to be different. --Gonnym (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the new template idea, but we should make sure that it includes all of the many missing data categories. SFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3230:ECD0:8C2B:C5E2:E2BB:A54A (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  • To whoever closes, please notice that the current opposes are not actually responding to the actual issue, but to whether a bot can or cannot do it, which is irrelevant. Remember that the number of votes does not matter, but the actual reasons behind it. --Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    I'll second that. Despite endless clarifications, many editors are still misunderstanding the TfD process. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge/Support {{Aerospecs}} is deprecated, so by definition it should be merged. As Gonnym has pointed out, the only objections so far are that merging them will break the page. This argument is completely invalid. When merging two templates, the merge is not valid unless all data is merged and no templates brake. So if the decision is to merge, that means we put it in the holding cell and figure out how to do the merge. It doesn't mean we just redirect the template and break thousands of pages. ZLEA, Steelpillow, Nigel Ish & Gazoth you seem to misunderstand the process regarding merging templates. I'm happy to provide more information but please rest assured that when we merge two templates, it is not just a matter of redirecting one template to the other. Some mergers are easy, some are complicated. This is one certainly looks to be more complicated but that is the responsibility of WP:TPEs to figure out. At the end of the day, a merge WILL NOT take place if it breaks anything. Nigel Ish your comment in particular that This will break hundreds of pages ... including many of the most important high visibility pages. ANY edits that break hundreds of pages would immediately be reverted. That is NOT a valid case. I would encourage you each to set aside the "it could break things" part of this. For the sake of this discussion, assume that any merge won't break anything. The point of this discussion is SHOULD it be merged. Then we talk about how to actually make it happen. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • A bot simply isn't going to cope with many examples unless it is hideously complicated - it will have to deal with things like fraction characters, notes and references embedded in date fields and all sorts of other work arounds that people came up with to fit things into the old templates.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      Nigel Ish, put aside the bot... No one said this has to be done by a bot... I've done hundreds of the these merges. Some are done with a bot, some are not and some are a combination. You continue to focus on how the merge will happen and not whether or not it should happen. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As too soon. Although both templates are deprecated and should be (in my opinion) deleted, they are each still in use on thousands of pages. The current request has come far too early in the removal process, which is likely the root cause of most of the discussion above. For now our efforts would be far better used by focusing on getting the articles switched over to the new template, rather than arguing in circles here about something that cannot and will not happen anytime soon. Sario528 (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    You misunderstand the TfD process. The whole point of the current proposal is to put more weight behind those thousands of page updates. As has been stated many times above, it is absolutely not the green light for immediate template removal. This is not too soon, it is years overdue.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Supportthe merge but oppose the bot, supporting conversion to Aircraft specs. This can only be done manually, but it would help if editors are unable to use the older templates for new articles.--Petebutt (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Petebutt: I think you mean "Support the proposed merge, but not the use of a bot that has been suggested in the discussion"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talkcontribs) 20:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As one of the users that has been converting the templates it takes time and care but is not difficult, we just need to make sure the old templates are no longer used but they still need to exist while the conversion process is done. If the deprecation means we need to offically "merge" them so be it but I cant see why we cant just leave them tagged as deprecated and be left to convert them in our own time. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As noted, the "old" templates are still used by many pages. The process of updating them is being done. There's nothing "broken" about letting depreciated templates be replaced through normal editing in editors' own time. There is no deadline. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Bushranger; the nomination is not that a bot do it. Just that they are replaced. It is widely accepted that this is only feasible if carried out manually. The issue of references is moot as there is no reason that a different, hopefully better, reference cannot be used!!--Petebutt (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you point out where I said anything about bots? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Old" templates are still being widely used. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

March 19

Template:La Ronge Radio

Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it. It's used now... just forgot to put the template into its articles... RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 07:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. La Ronge is a small market which only has one true radio station of its own, and literally everything else here is a rebroadcaster of a station from another market. But per WP:TCREEP, radio stations are not supposed to contain an explosion of market navboxes for every individual city or town where they have a rebroadcaster — they are only supposed to have the navbox for their originating market. For example, the Prince Albert radio market navbox is the only one that belongs on CHQX-FM, not three additional submarket navboxes for Big River and La Ronge and Waskesiu Lake. So the only page this template belongs on is CBKA-FM, and a navbox for one page is not needed. CBKA is already navboxed for its network anyway, so deleting this will not depopulate the article's inbound links. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Super Over

Template includes ball-by-ball detail which is excessive and no reliable source is providing for verification. SocietyBox (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Added the module, which should clearly suffer the same fate as the template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an overly esoteric way of essentially saying X team won in extra time. As the nom says, it fails WP:V. All the cricket scorecards will show that a team beat another team in the super over, and that's all we need to add to matches on WP when that applies. Adding the whole template for a single over for one match is a hugh distraction to the rest of the fixture. If someone wants a more detailed breakdown of what happened, ball by ball, they can find it elsewhere. There's no need to replicate it on WP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this is just WP:FANCRUFT, no need for such a detailed template on an over of cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see some very slight value in keeping it, but only for matches where there is detailed coverage of the match on the article page (including a full scorecard), which would typically only be tournament finals. Using alongside a standard {{Single-innings cricket match}} is completely disproportionate: the Super Over template is 10 lines long, a basic usage of the match template is 5 lines long. Spike 'em (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This is similar to penalties in football. However, I agree that it need not be that detailed. 117.198.112.144 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep , it's shows a special innings (Super Over) in T20 cricket. For a whole match we update the singl innings template, just like that super over is also should be shown. Nivas88 (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Keep, How can you are not getting source about Super over for the inngings. Super over Scorecard is available in the original link of that match. It's so funny Lol...
If super over template will delete then add another single innings template to show super over details... 2405:204:610F:AC6A:97F9:E182:439A:E12F (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is way too much detail and would be better served by a sentence of prose added as a note, if necessary, to the template dealing with the match scorecard. Even that is essentially a MIRROR of something that would be even better served by an external link to one of the many places that cricket scorecards are kept online. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessarily long and verbose. Also, what's the point of having a bowler column and putting the same name 6 times? sudhanva (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Navbox Province of Italy

And associated template Template:Navbox Province of Italy/testcases. For reasons stated at Template talk:Navbox Province of Italy - overly complicated and unnecessary template; can just have individual province templates. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • There appears to be a misunderstanding here; this is a metatemplate used by indivudal navboxes like Template:Province of Nuoro. Nevertheless, delete, as this template appears to exist only to call on templates used to store data which has no possibility of being changed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    And what will happen to {{Province of Nuoro}} if you do that, Pppery? – it's marked as under consideration for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Justlettersandnumbers: It will be converted to call Template:Navbox directly ({{Province of Nuoro}} itself isn't marked as under consideration, it's transcluding a notice from {{Navbox Province of Italy}}, as is standard for TfDs). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    I should’ve asked this question here instead of on the template in question:
    @Pppery: Deleting this meta template won't thereby delete the individual templates, right? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Vaselineeeeeeee: No, they'll get converted to call Template:Navbox directly. Also, we seem to be having a discussion fork here, and further discussion should take place at the TfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    So it's transcluding a message that doesn't concern it? Isn't that just a little misleading? I suggest that that should be fixed before we spend any more time deleting templates that appear to be working perfectly well. If someone wants {{Province of Nuoro}} to call {{Navbox}} directly, couldn't they just edit it so that it does so? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    That's just the way TfD works. As the message clearly states, "the template Navbox Province of Italy ...", which is the template it applies to. The arguments for converting {{Province of Nuoro}} apply just as well to all other uses of the template, which means a TfD is necessary, and the custom is to TfD first to avoid a fait accompli. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this template, and keep the individual province navboxes separately.--Darwinek (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    The fate of the individual province navboxes is not in dispute. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:If affirmed

Propose merging Template:If affirmed and Template:If declined with Template:Yesno.
Duplicate templates, it seems undesirable to me for there not to be a consistent definition of what values been "yes" and what values mean "no". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • If merged then do not call the template yesno. E.g. does "remove", "exclude", "include", "on", "off", "add", "none", means yes or no? Christian75 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Your proposal would affect a template transcluded on almost a quarter of all pages on Wikipedia. Such a huge change needs a much wider discussion than an ordinary TFD; please go to WP:VP/Pr or something of the sort, so that you can get a wider audience. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. I think the proposal makes sense. Care must be taken in its implementation, of course. TfD is the correct forum for this discussion, as that's exactly its purpose; posting notice of this discussion at other forums can resolve any concern this this discussion is not visible enough. --Bsherr (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. Makes sense. Extra care must be taken, and a better name may be needed. Rehman 12:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there does appear to be the beginnings of a consensus to merge these three templates, the (currently sole) opposition makes a valid point that a template family that affects 10 million pages should receive a little bit more discussion than is currently present. TFD is the proper location for this discussion to take place, but I will place notices at WT:WPT and WP:VPT in an effort to drum up more comments from potentially interested parties.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If this can be done without touching anything on yesno, then sure start replacing the others - but touching yesno is pretty much a no-no. — xaosflux Talk 01:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support merger; just don't break anything. @Pppery: Is Module:Yesno relevant to this discussion in any way? The only differences between the module and {{Yesno}} (as far as I can tell) are that "t" and "f" are accepted as true/false inputs in the module and not in {{Yesno}}, and that the module does not handle blank/¬ inputs specially. Jc86035 (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Samanid Provinces

Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's used in the Samanid Empire article, and will eventually be used more places in the future. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The links in this navbox appear to go to articles about modern cities in the region, not to articles about the provinces within the Samanid Empire. I looked at a few of the linked articles, and they do not mention this empire or the city's role in it. This linking may violate MOS:EGG or a similar guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Huh? The majority of the links don't. And if there are cities, that because the province was situated at those cities. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per HistoryofIran. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:HistoryofIran. Benyamin-ln (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

One Nation party templates

Propose merging Template:One Nation/meta/color and Template:One Nation (Australia)/meta/color with Template:Pauline Hanson's One Nation/meta/color
Propose merging Template:One Nation (Australia)/meta/shortname with Template:Pauline Hanson's One Nation/meta/shortname.
Outdated and duplicate color templates. All three represent the same political party, albeit one which changed its name in 2015. A mixture of all three templates are linked to in political articles spanning more than 20 years. --Heyitsstevo (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)