Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 0 0 0 0
TfD 0 0 0 4 4
MfD 0 0 5 1 6
FfD 0 0 0 2 2
RfD 0 0 0 36 36
AfD 0 0 0 3 3
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed.

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

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 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}}.
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.
Moving and renaming
Use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

[edit]
Shortcut
  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

[edit]
Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. 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:

Note:

  • 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 or Template editors.
  • 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).

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/2024_October_16#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.

Add this text to the top of the list:

  • 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 |text= before the why (or alternatively, after the }} of the Tfd2/Catfd2).

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 in the |text= field of 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. Deletion sorting lists are a possible way of doing that.

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

[edit]

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 a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

[edit]

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 {{subst:Tfd notice}} 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

[edit]

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 successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

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

[edit]

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. 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

[edit]

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.

Closing discussion

[edit]

Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.

Current discussions

[edit]

October 16

[edit]

Template:Conrail Crusader

[edit]

Was reverted here citing duplication of Template:Reading Crusader. Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Australia Open

[edit]

Unused template for an entity that is not a country and has no flag (the image used in the template is a logo). S.A. Julio (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 15

[edit]

Template:Eric Gilbertson Country Highpoints: Order Climbed

[edit]

No transclusions. Article content created in template space by mistake. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete, looks like a copy of content already in Eric Gilbertson. Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kolai-Palas-Union-Councils

[edit]

No main article for this navbox. Just one blue link in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kozani F.C.

[edit]

Navbox whose main article is unreferenced. All links in the navbox lead to the main article or to category pages. Not usable for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Singapore-lang-mcphot

[edit]

Unused language related template. Probably replaced with one of the various other language templates. Gonnym (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Year in Korea

[edit]

Unused navigation template. Pages use other templates like {{Year in North Korea}}, {{Year in South Korea}}, and {{Korea year nav}}. Gonnym (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ksw

[edit]

Language wrapper of {{lang|ksw}}. We are moving away from language wrappers per recent TfD. Replace with {{lang|ksw}} and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFL starting quarterback default box

[edit]

Unused NFL table template. Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Bangladesh/back to main page

[edit]

Unused project template. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-sa2

[edit]

Template is just a wrapper for the lang template. May as well use it directly. WOSlinker (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with {{lang|sa}} and delete per nom. We are moving away from various lang wrappers. Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Android version table

[edit]

Similar to Template:iOS version table (prior to its discontinuation on the article), this template is only used on one article, and adds unnecessary complexity compared to just merely creating a table with Wikipedia's standard wikitable syntax. I do not know of any reasons that could warrant this template's existence over just using regular table syntax, and the template existing violates the guideline of only being used on one page as well. Therefore, the usages of this template and its subpage templates on Android version history should be substituted with regular table syntax and these templates should be deleted. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 02:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ram Kumar (director)

[edit]

The subject has only directed two films, and his article is deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 14

[edit]

Template:Vertical header/styles.css

[edit]

Unused as Module:Vertical header/styles.css is used. Gonnym (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox dim/core

[edit]

Unused as the infobox has been converted to Lua here. Gonnym (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-en-XX usage

[edit]

Not used anymore after the templates that used it were deleted. Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-zh/editintro

[edit]

This doesn't seem to be in use and can't find it in a insource search. Gonnym (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MBTI Instrument

[edit]

Procedural nomination following the closure of this RfD. These templates were blanked and redirected to mainspace in 2019 by Beland. None of these have any transclusions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These were chunks of article text and tables rather than content normally kept in templates. It looks like I merged some material from Template:MBTI Archetypes into Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, and Template:MBTI Cognitive Functions into ISTJ which was itself merged into Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Presumably the history of those would need to be kept in some form for copyright reasons. It looks like nothing was merged from Template:MBTI Instrument, so that could be deleted. -- Beland (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We subst content from templates to articles all the time, nothing special here. Gonnym (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I created these templates because the same content was being used across 16 articles. Those articles have all been deleted/merged with the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Placeholder text

[edit]

Not seriously used, redundant to Template:Courtesy blanked. —Alalch E. 13:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Chile

[edit]

Pointless to have nav box with only 2 English links. The Ottawa link is a redirect. LibStar (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent changes header

[edit]

No transclusions. It looks like this project didn't get off the ground back in 2010. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 01:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 13

[edit]

Template:British legislation lists

[edit]

Propose merging Template:British legislation lists with Template:UK legislation.
Template:British legislation lists is a sidebar being used for the purposes of a navbox. There are certain things that it has that Template:UK legislation lacks, but that's why what I am suggesting is a merger. Pages that have the template such as

all have an extremely bulky page that actually makes navigation harder and makes the pages harder to edit. For these pages, the sidebar is actually distracting and reduces readability. For these purposes, a navbox would be perfect, because it would go at the bottom. Devolved legislation lists are not in Template:British legislation lists and are in Template:British legislation lists but that is why this is a merger. DotCoder (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R tagged automatically

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. There are two incoming links from discussions; one says that the template is a draft, and the other says that it does not appear to be finished. The category that is intended to be used by this template does not exist. It appears to be an abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jonesey95, essentially, the idea was that Rcat shell could automatically detect and place rcats such as protection level etc. Implementing this would means removing them from the rcat shell, leaving it empty - therefore, I made this template to be placed when there are no manual rcats. It would also be useful for tracking rcats that don't have any helpful rcats that describe its purpose. Unfortunately, discussion stalled so I never went ahead with creating the associated category. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RPF enlisted ranks

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in January 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. The {{QuickStatements link/s}} subpage has one nonfunctional transclusion. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prestige Communications

[edit]

Navbox for a company that no longer exists. There is no main article, and no reason to navigate among these articles any longer. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pitsiturnaus labelled map

[edit]

No transclusions. The template was used in Pitsiturnaus until this edit by Poriman55, who did not leave an edit summary but possibly removed the map because it is outdated. This template is article content; if some version of it is still desired, it should live in the article, where it can be updated easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pavlov's RfA reward

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Does not appear to have been used. Created in 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AUADBRG Ribbon

[edit]

No transclusions, incoming links, or substitutions. The image used in this template, File:Assistant-under-acting-deputy_banana_republic_general_ribbon.png appears to be unused, except on this page. I am not against humor templates, as long as there is a use for them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creator here. Sysop didn't like it, so I removed it where it was being used. It can be deleted. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interwiki exists and other templates used by Template:CUU

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. These templates appear to have been removed from use by edits to Template:CUU in 2011. Xeno might have some record from way back then of why this was done. There are a few transclusions left that may be the result of substing Template:CUU instead of transcluding it. Either restore the CUU template to those pages or subst and delete these templates where they are used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interlinear arrow

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in January 2024. Possibly an abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created it as a subpage of {{interlinear}} because the arrow thing is used so often, but then it had some issues and I just kinda forgot about it. Eievie (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Huggle/speedy-club and similar Huggle templates

[edit]

No transclusions. These templates appear to have been part of the Huggle system a long time ago, but they appear to have been replaced in 2009. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DLRexits2018

[edit]

No transclusions. This template has apparently aged out. As far as I know, the infobox template that uses these templates is periodically updated to add a new year of data and drop the oldest year of data. The project is welcome to move this page to project space if it wants to keep the data around. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nvbt

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one transclusion of these two templates. {{National volleyball team}} and {{National women's volleyball team}} appear to be preferred. Replace with a normal link or the preferred template, depending on the context of the single usage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nb-2ptgoal

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYPD Vehicle

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2013. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Created in 2013 and in use until 6 days ago. It was deleted because of sloppy editing by Mikeyspeed7, and will be restored shortly. Useddenim (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBL season

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MultiLicenseWithCC-BySA-2

[edit]

No transclusions. Other templates in this family, such as {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-to-3.0}}, appear to be preferred. Since we are beyond CC 2.0 and 2.5, it is probably safe to delete this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Molecular formula Hill key

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in January 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move it into my userspace. Yet another nearly-usable project I haven't gotten back to lately. DMacks (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Iowa

[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions. The three linked stations have all changed their formats away from "modern rock", according to the articles, so the navbox is no longer usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MexSen

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in 2017. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FA pass

[edit]

Used in just one or two editors' user pages. Created in 2008, apparently not adopted. Subst and delete, or merge with a more commonly used template, if there is one. I do note that this template is technically used, so this may be slightly controversial. I won't die on this hill. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FLC nom

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2008. This template, if it was ever used, was probably superseded by a different template or process. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DualLicenseWithFAL

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. The category it assigns does not exist, and does not appear to have existed (I am not an admin, so I can't know for sure). Created in 2007. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deprod-template

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. Created in 2023. It appears to have been used just one time by its creator. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYK message

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2013 This template contains {{tracking category}} by default, which appears to make no sense. That makes me think that this template was an experiment that never got off the ground. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cycling data Cynisca

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Wrestling

[edit]

I created this template long time ago, not in use anymore. Sports2021 (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The 70 Greatest Redskins

[edit]

Redundant and superseded by Template:Washington Commanders 90 Greatest. For context, the team adds 10 players to the list (originally introduced in 2002) every decade. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kidz Bop albums

[edit]

This template just links to Redirect pages, not articles. Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 12

[edit]

Template:YG Entertainment artist

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Lithuania

[edit]

Pointless to have a nav box with only 2 English entries. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 11

[edit]

Template:Chatbot message

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CPT

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2019. All edits since the day of its creation have been maintenance edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speedway race format - p7

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in 2008. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historical race concepts sidebar

[edit]
  1. The template doesn’t meet the threshold of WP:SERIES („very broad subjects“).
  2. It is redundant, because we already have Template:Historical definitions of race.
  3. The template seems an arbitrary selection of articles, mostly from the template mentioned in point 2. The POV character of this template has been discussed at WP:FT/N#"Historical_race_concepts"_sidebar
  4. The template is not used by any article. It had recently been added to some, but I removed it from there because I see no constructive reason for adding it.
  5. All historical race concepts have been debunked and are pseudo-scientific according to modern biology. We should not give those concepts extra prominence by this template.
  6. The picture in the template is clearly racist, being a scan from an old book containing three pictures of an ape, a Black and a White person, the text claiming the superiority of the latter. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I think this should be procedurally closed on account of OP's very strange conduct in the last few days. Some highlights:
    • They have been formally invited by me to simply remove individual entries they find to be POV; they could, of course, also provide an alternate illustration if they knew one. This has not happened. Instead, they remove every single transclusion of the template for being POV (*including in the very article for historical race concepts[1][2]), and then simultaneously ask for it to be deleted on grounds of not being in use (cf. also their FT/N thread). I have harshly criticized this practice on one of the various redundant discussions they have opened;[3] they have not responded.
    • OP failed to point out that there was already a massive POV shift with the inclusion of "Racism, Scientific Racism and Pseudoscience" via an "above" parameter (i.e. of greatest relative prominence within the template).[4][5][6]
    • Of course the illustration is racist; though not in some kind of infectious sense, as this is a now more comical than legitimate illustration from a 1898 textbook.
    • The selection is not arbitrary, as has been pointed out to OP on multiple occasions.
    • OP has - for frankly irrelevant reasons he could have quickly fixed himself - reverted my expansions of the footer with new entries I originally included only in this new sidebar. So the two are, in fact, not even redundant with each other. But even if they were, this would not, in itself, be grounds for deletion.
    Don't misunderstand me: I am not seeking sanctions in this thread, simply asking for a procedural close so that this discussion may continue in some more appropriate venue, e.g. the template's talk page. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that Biohistorian15 didn't answer to my points no. 1 and 5. The redundancy (no. 2) is already given by the similar names and by the obviously identical scopes. It is not true that I removed the transclusions for "being POV", as can be seen from the very diffs Biohistorian15 gave. I'd really like to know what rationale the selection (no. 3) is based on since I can't remember that that "has been pointed out to" me. No. 4: I don't see why I shouldn't revert an addition which IMHO is reducing the article's quality. No. 6: I'm not sure that all our readers will regard the picture as "comical". Some might say, "Ah, formerly they were allowed free speech, and nowadays leftists cancel those results of science." Rsk6400 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose (*just in case my comment above wasn't clear enough)
    (1.) is a mere essay. (5.) This is fully accounted for by our, presently, stating with a lot of prominence in the template, that these concepts are, in fact, racist and pseudoscientific. Besides, left-wing scholarship has engaged critically with these concepts a fair lot; you don't have to be right-wing to find this content area worthy of a navigational sidebar.
    I would also recommend that you no longer remove the sidebar wherever you find it, @Rsk6400; especially when it is under discussion. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bystanders may also want to note that I've (a) now been able to come up with a more neutral illustration,[7] and (b) did a careful revert of Rsk6400's strange activities at the footer template.[8] Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indefinite-vandalism-block

[edit]

This new template appears to be redundant to {{Uw-voablock}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indefinite-impersonation-block

[edit]

This new template appears to be redundant to {{Uw-uhblock-double}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Diplomatic missions of Tajikistan

[edit]

Pointless to have a nav box with just 2 English entries. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 10

[edit]

Template:Main Page history generic calendar

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. Created in 2019 as a proposal, but it was not adopted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countdown2

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. Created in April 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a work in progress still. I don't think simply being unused is a valid justification for deletion. If the template has no prospective use then yeah. Awesome Aasim 20:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now that this is mostly finished I don't think there is a good reason for deletion. The template is dependent on another module Module:Countdown2 for functionality. I created it because the first countdown module is a bit complicated. This one you can spit in any date and it will give the appropriate countdown (or hide it) for that module. Awesome Aasim 01:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lux Style Awards hosts

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:PERFNAV. Hosting an award show is not notable enough to be transcluded through navbox space. And not very defining for these people who have an article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English cricket venues to 1725

[edit]

No article, so navbox not verifiable. Also, it is mostly just a list of towns, not actual cricket venues, so inclusion of this navbox onto the town articles is WP:UNDUE. --woodensuperman 15:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Road to episodes

[edit]

Duplication, already included in {{Family Guy}} --woodensuperman 11:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IOS version table

[edit]

This template is used on one page and makes editing a table harder for no real value, as the tables has only 3 columns and the template is only used on one page. Additionally, this template either violates the MoS or makes semantically wrong syntax.

  • The top part of the table which lists the the devices has no semantic connection to any cell and shouldn't be part of the table.
  • The header columns mid table violate MOS:COLHEAD.
  • The autohide violates MOS:DONTHIDE.

The template creator does not seem to care about MoS guidelines and I don't see what value this template has even if fixed as the amount of time it might save, isn't worth the complete new style that editors need to learn to edit these tables. Gonnym (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template has worked adequately well for years. The reason this was moved to a template was to reduce duplication of having to recreate the same table over and over again, which is a pain in the ass for editors. Deleting this would also break a significant number of inclusions. Just because a template is used on only one article doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist? And this is how these tables have worked as far back as the early 2010s even prior to being converted to a template. You are nominating a template for deletion that actually has a valid purpose, and are targeting me with not wanting to respect the MOS which is downright not true. And saying that it’s difficult for editors to work with this template is also very obviously untrue, as it is very clearly documented. The reason the template is collapsed by default is to mark a distinct difference between the current iOS version, and past versions. You seem to have a bias against me because I reverted your edit removing the auto hide, despite it being the status quo of the template. You do not make disruptive changes to the way the template works without first discussing them on the talk page.
The Manual of Style is an important guideline, but at the end of the day it’s not policy, and it can be bypassed when necessary if the table calls for it, such as to indicate supported iOS devices for a given version. I don’t know why, after years of this template existing, you are suddenly complaining about them? It’s the same story with the other templates you have nominated for deletion relating to iOS and Apple, they exist for a reason and if they are deleted they will cause a major disruption. Therefore I urge you to rescind this nomination, as this template being deleted would cause a significant number of disruptions. Hell, it was even agreed to move these tables to a template due to the fact that it would allow editors to more easily add new iOS versions to a table without relying on the standard table syntax. It should also be noted that this same exact table style and implementation are used on a multitude of other templates, such as Template:Routelist row, to allow easier usage of these tables and templates… You’ve been on Wikipedia since July 2011. You should be incredibly familiar with the fact that not all articles or templates follow the MOS, for one reason or another.
And your bullet point that the device cells don’t have a semantic connection to the other cells isn’t a Wikipedia Manual of Style policy or guideline, so you can’t use that as a reason for deletion. There are allowed to be deviations in how the tables work. You, instead of holding a conversation on the template’s talk page, went straight to nominating a useful template that actually benefits editors for deletion, over my disagreement with your auto hide removal edit. How is that cooperating with other Wikipedia editors? Also, see WP:IGNORE. If a rule or guideline is to the detriment of Wikipedia being able to be improved, it can be ignored. And while there is a bullet point on the template space usage guidelines that mention that templates used only on one page may be nominated for deletion, I believe that relates to templates that are only used once on a single article or page, and the iOS version table template is used pretty significantly. Therefore I vehemently disagree with the mere notion that this template should be deleted, especially because of the severe and significant amount of work and time it would take to retool and change the usage of the template back to regular tables, time that most Wikipedia editors just don’t have, including me. However, I have stopped the template from autohiding by default. This makes one of your bullet points entirely redundant, with the only semi-valid bullet point remaining being about MOS:COLHEAD, however I strongly believe that WP:IGNORE does apply here as the device list serves a valid purpose. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 13:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree very strongly with Evelyn Harthbrooke on this. I don't understand the logic behind wanting to delete this template in the first place, it serves a specific purpose and does it (very) well, deleting it would only create (huge) new problems and needlessly increase editor workloads. The "issues" raised seem like minor quibbles at worst, and are ones that could (and should) be addressed through changing the template and its usage rather than via outright deleting the entire template (which is an absurd escalation that is totally unjustified). This is like demolishing a house because you don't like the color of the wallpaper in one room, only worse, far far worse. Garzfoth (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MOS:DONTHIDE isn't very applicable in this situation and not a reason to delete it. But the table head beyond the first body cell is in fact problematic. And yeah, the MOS is a guideline, but that is as per WP:IGNORE not a reason to ignore it just because we feel like it, nor a reason to not strive for a better solution or a reason to ignore its violation entirely in this discussion. The device list sits in the "Overview of iOS n versions" table. It objectively isn't a version. That doesn't seem right and can easily be solved with simply moving it out of the table, as such it would solve the valid concern of MOS:COLHEAD (if all instances of Template:iOS version separator are removed as well) and make more sense in its placement in the article sections themselves. However, solving that issue would turn this template in essentially just a wrapper around the table element, that isn't any more simple than just using the table element directly and is exactly what tvOS#Version history and watchOS#Version history among many others already do. The Template:IOS version template is literally a wrapper around "|- ! || ||", using it is very much more complex than using the existing simple table syntax.
The issues mentioned in the nomination can be solved within the template, and as such shouldn't have warranted a deletion nomination. However, solving these issues does make the template pretty much redundant. It would just be a wrapper around a very basic table. Requiring users to learn an alternative template-based syntax that only applies to 1 article for 3 simple tables is as a matter of fact adding more complexity than it should, no matter how well it is documented. This is also clearly not comparable to a template like Template:Routelist row which actually does serve to simplify an otherwise complex syntax that isn't easily figured out. The fact that individual version articles like iPhone OS 1 already do use the normal table syntax makes the lack of necessity for this template extra clear. Furthermore, the iOS version history article - as mentioned; the only article to use this template - seems to be phasing them out anyways with only 3 tables remaining, compared to the 6 that existed when October began, so it isn't like its use is widening, quiet the opposite.
Upon potential removal, the flatlist box may be useful to move to its own template if retained at all (it's purpose frankly also seem to be better served in tables further down where a more complete overview is available for all versions).
For further discussion; I'd like to remind others here, per Wikipedia policy, "it has always been like that, no need to change it" is not an argument for anything (we can take that to ridiculous conclusions; e.g.: prior to this template existing, it didn't, so why create it in the first place). Also, "is a [...] guideline, [...] it's not a policy" is very literally just quoting WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. I'd also like to remind participants to assume WP:GOODFAITH, accusing someone of "having a bias against [you]" just because you disagree isn't that. YannickFran (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the iPhone OS 1, 2, and iOS 7 tables were removed was because they had such little information in them to where they could be rewritten to use prose (however the iOS 7 section has not been rewritten yet); another reason the article is slowly moving away from the tables are because of the fact that having tables is ground central for encouraging copyvios (which can be managed if it is caught and deleted on sight but is still basically ground zero for copyvios). However, the 16, 17, and 18 tables are staying for the forseeable future because of the intense effort and time that would be required to rewrite these in prose. And no, using the template is not *more complex* than using existing table syntax, because by the very nature of the template it means the cryptic syntax necessary to create a table is avoided, however at the end of the day this is all opinionative and not an objective reason to delete. Moreover, the template syntax is self-explanatory, as it isn't a bunch of gibberish. Also, deleting this template at this stage would, again, cause a lot of breakage. It should not be deleted until at the very minimum all usages of the template is deleted (such as when the article is fully prose). Until then I do not suggest that the template be deleted. And for the record, the MOS isn't being ignored because I felt like ignoring it. That is not the case at all. The formatting of the template is the same exact formatting it was pre-template conversion, device lists and all, and is how the tables have behaved for as long as I have been editing and contributing to the iOS version history article.
None of these are reasons to delete a useful template, least not until all usages of it are gone, in which instance I will nominate the templates myself for speedy deletion, as I am the creator of the templates. But for now, I very strongly feel that the template should remain in template space for now because a) it would completely and utterly break all three remaining tables were this template to be deleted and b) it would leave the related templates without a host template, thereby effectively orphaning them. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PTG/all-wiki-pt

[edit]

Unused sub page (which seems to duplicate language links from wikidata) and unlinked from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 9

[edit]

Template:Kickers Offenbach squad

[edit]

WP:TFD#REASONS #2: redundant to template:Kickers Offenbach, which was created in 2016, a few weeks after this one was WP:XNRed to Kickers Offenbach. Paradoctor (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted, template has been dezombified. Paradoctor (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redshirt

[edit]

This template is used less than 250 times in {{Infobox college football player}} and in-article tables, where it does not align with the bullet points at MOS:APPROPRIATEICONS. You can see an example of its typical use at Quinn Ewers. This usage could be easily replaced with the word "redshirt". Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good solution 136.58.84.30 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the redshirt icon. Not sure about the reference to only being used 250 times. Perhaps I'm missing something. I see it all the time. 2601:5CF:4200:67A0:3725:A2C8:5E0C:E182 (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is used 236 times per [9]. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine. I think the redshirt icon should stay too. 66.215.49.212 (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the icon is a simple way to represent the concept and should stay as well.
Now that the 1-year transfer sit-out is over (and once the entire COVID class with extra eligibility leaves), it will be a helpful and straightforward designation. 2601:280:5D02:37B0:8D7F:AED0:5BD8:1C10 (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think it should be left because it is simple and understandable and adds a splash of color needed on a grey page. 146.200.77.147 (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the reference to only being used 250 times. Perhaps I'm missing something. I see it all the time. This is addressed below between myself and Bagumba, where it was discovered that File:Redshirt.svg is used 14,554 times. So it turns out this template accounts for less than 2% of the usages of the redshirt icon appearing on English Wikipedia. Left guide (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine. It is only used around 250 times because after graduating/going professional it’s no longer used on their page. I’d imagine it was used on 1000+ pages over last 5 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.133.66.120 (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the icon looks good, and is a concise way to show a redshirt player. As someone else mentioned, the reason it’s only used 250 times because it doesn’t apply after they finish their college career, but hundreds of new redshirts happen every year.
Perhaps a solution would be to make the icon clickable, and direct visitors to a page explaining the redshirt process. 67.245.18.115 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clickable doesn't solve the accessibility problem, nor does it satisfy MOS:ICONS#Do not distort icons. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is actively starting this year and is no longer considered a red-shirt. This should be removed from his page. 2607:9B00:5612:2D00:2F9A:3193:9B87:CAF5 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He absolutely still is a Redshirt Senior playing or not and Redshirt status is relevant for followers of college football. 107.220.89.156 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not the template remains in place, the information should be communicated using text for greater accessibility, both to those who browse without the benefit of images and those not familiar with the term in the context of U.S. college sports. (I know the image is linked to the appropriate page, but there's no visual indication of this, and it's not a typical use of links for images on English Wikipedia.) Using an icon could be an additional way to convey the info in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Its use is consistent and useful. --Bobak (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

[edit]

Since this navbox template is intended to link disambiguation pages and to be transcluded in the article namespace, there's an issue with this template because it will have to violate at least one of the following two guidelines at any given time: WP:BRINT and WP:INTDABLINK. At the present time, the template violates WP:BRINT since there are piped links to redirects instead of linking directly to some of the respective disambiguation pages in order to meet WP:INTDABLINK, but in the process violates WP:BRINT since direct links to pages should be used (so that the viewed page appears as unclickable bold in the navbox when currently viewing that page.) In order to fix this issue, the only resolution I see is to delete this template and replace their transclusions on each page with respective {{Intitle}}, {{Lookfrom}}, or similar templates. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, the current setup of the template also violates WP:INTDABLINK since the links to the disambiguation page redirects are piped, but not in hatnotes; If the link is not in a hatnote, then the redirect is supposed to be linked to directly without link piping. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a somewhat reductive reading. The template is a navigation template, it's not performing a disambiguation function itself. Therefore:
Keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
PS I fixed the BRINT issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, but your edit introduced additional/different WP:INTDABLINK issues since you directly linked to disambiguation page titles that do not include "(disambiguation)" in them, and since this navbox is transcluded on pages in the article namespace. Again, this proves that it is impossible for this navbox to not have any WP:BRINT or WP:INTDABLINK issues, and I would not be surprised if an editor who watches WP:DPL or WP:TDD reverts your edit. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough, the edit was reverted by The Banner: [10]. Steel1943 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the issues are with WP:BRINT and WP:INTDABLINK then just fix it. The template is useful in offering navigation between related pages, which otherwise requires additional wasted editorial time. I see no real argument here other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If the issues are with WP:BRINT and WP:INTDABLINK then just fix it." My argument here is that they can't be fixed. Fixing one breaks the other. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing a navbox on a disambiguation page until I ran across this template, and this problem probably explains why. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template isn't what's broken, it's the bot that is malfunctioning. The bot should be fixed. Or, the links that work perfectly fine with "(disambiguation)" at the end, can continue doing so. I fail to see how that was an issue. Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Maybe WP:BRINT??? Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What purpose does this template serve? I can see no meaningful use of this template. The Banner talk 18:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Navbox can help you see what purpose a navigation template serves. Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. But this is a template to "navigate" among a certain type of disambiguation pages. Not based on content, but on the type of links. The Banner talk 19:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a reasonable likelihood that someone wanting to look at one chapter disambiguation page might want to look at others. I'm not 100% convinced by navboxes, but given that we have them, this is not a bad use case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
It sounds like an otherstuff-argument, but the next step will be an navigation template for all surname-disambiguation pages? The Banner talk 11:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point right there: This navigation template should probably be replaced with a category my originally-proposed "from title" search templates. Steel1943 (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated stance per comments after the relist convincing me a category is not the way to go. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is clearly a useful navigation template, and none of the TFD reasons appear to apply. If there are problems with the content of the template, they should be fixed (the link to Chapter Eight stands out as different). If two guidelines are in conflict with each other, deleting this useful template will not fix that problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really don't think we should be encouraging navboxes of disambiguation pages. You could sell me on succession boxes for this specific case, or the suggested intitle etc as in the OP. Izno (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's some good discussion here, but at the moment there is not yet a consensus as to what to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Epic Rap Battles of History

[edit]

Now the cast have been purged (per WP:PERFNAV), there is not enough here to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 09:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IOS versions

[edit]

A regular table used only in one article. Should be subst there and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template and the other two templates are too large to comfortably move to live within the article, plus this is a siilly reason to delete in my opinion. Templates can exist and only live on one article. Usually templates should only be deleted if they're completely unused, or violate a Wikipedia policy. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Templates that hold article content and are used in one article are a missue of template space, see the first bullet point at the guideline Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. So this might be a silly reason to delete in your opinion, the community guideline says otherwise. Additionally, if we look at the page information for both pages. The template has Fewer than 30 watchers (which does not mean 29, and can also mean 0), while the page itself has 585, which makes these content pages more vulnerable to vandalism. Finally, too large to comfortably move to live within the article, it's not, it's fine. Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The templates don't store article text though, they store information that can be moved to other articles when deemed necessary. That is why they were originally moved to template space in the first place. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 13:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and subsequent comments. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge with Template:IPadOS versions and include this template on the iPadOS version history article in its place (then delete the iPadOS versions template, if the conclusion is to delete de iOS versions template, the iPadOS versions template should probably be deleted by the same reasoning). It's odd in the first place that an entire different template and table was created just for this one to say "go look at that template" instead of just including the 3 cells that are different. If there really was a need to hide extra rows on the iPad article, then that could have just been a parameter for the template, although I'd discourage that. YannickFran (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address the fundamental issue this template has vs. Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template is arguably closer to a navigation then it is article text. The Wikipedia:Template namespace article itself uses a template for a similar purpose. Regardless, the comment was only meant to address the concern raised by Gonnym that the template is single purpose. YannickFran (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's navigation, it goes at the end of the article. But we both know it's not navigation. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is literally not how it works and you know it. Navigation can be placed wherever is deemed adequate, as very clearly shown by the multitude of templates that are primarily navigation focused, such as templates that deal with subjects related to the United States, or even the template used on the iPhone articles that link to other iPhone models. Please stop the disinformation. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 12:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what terminology we choose to use, this is neither a navbox or a sidebar. See Wikipedia:Navigation template. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were separated because of the fact that iPadOS is not iOS anymore and hasn’t been since 2019. They are not the same operating system. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to use the same template for two completely different operating systems. It’d be similar to if we put tvOS versions in the table…it wouldn’t make a bit of sense. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 12:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPod Touch supported OS release

[edit]

A regular table used only in one article. Should be subst there and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPhone models minimal

[edit]

A regular table used only in one article. Should be subst there and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change. Arguably the table in this template should be replaced with the one over at List of iPhone models and then replace the use of that table with this template. A change in name is probably also appropriate at that point though, because this isn't "minimal". YannickFran (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Formula Kite World Championship medallists

[edit]

Unused as Formula Kite uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK place/height

[edit]

Unused sub-template. Can't find it used also in an insource search. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Judo at the 2024 Summer Paralympics

[edit]

Unused sidebar as all links redirect to the same article. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cobaltore Onagawa squad

[edit]

Delete. This is a Japanese fifth tier team, where nearly all of the players will be, and currently are, non-notable. There is therefore no point in a navbox. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LDS Temple list/size-floor

[edit]

Unused probably since this edit. Gonnym (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

October 8

Autumn Classic International templates

[edit]

Not a significant enough skating competition to warrant navigation boxes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to the first template: Keep Part of an international series.
Regarding to the other four: merge in the first. The Banner talk 02:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfd-NPF

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Rfd-NPF with Template:Redirect for discussion.
There has been an ongoing issue with Template:Rfd-NPF for almost a decade now. During the past decade, Template:Redirect for discussion and the way that it is structured has been integrated in various gadgets that are on Wikipedia. it has gotten to a point where gadgets, such as Wikipedia:XFDcloser, are reliant on the way Template:Redirect for discussion is structured. At the present time, Template:Rfd-NPF works in the way that Template:Redirect for discussion functioned prior to the template having most of its functionality moved over to a module.

In a nutshell, the structure of {{Rfd-NPF}} is outdated and needs to conform to what {{Redirect for discussion}} does in its entirety. In other words, though I am requesting this as a "merge", my actual vote is for Template:Rfd-NPF (and any related subpages) to be redirected to Template:Redirect for discussion (and/or related subpages) so that any call to {{Rfd-NPF}} actually calls and uses all paramters in {{Redirect for discussion}}. (Shortly after making this nomination, I will inform the talk page of the gadget that uses {{Rfd-NPF}} (Page curation) about this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, the target of redirect Wikipedia talk:Page Curation, has been informed of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per what I said at WT:NPR, the seven day timeline for TfD is unrealistic to make this change. Please withdraw this TfD and create a phab ticket detailing the changes that need to be made. Once the extension has been updated you can proceed with the TfD. Sohom (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
..."Once the extension has been updated you can proceed with the TfD." ...No, this TFD is happening now. Per what I said at WT:NPR, a "seven day timeline" is not what happens at TFD and could take longer, which is why the "holding cell" subpage of TFD exists. TFD is for forming consensus, not to necessarily implement the consensus immediately after the discussion is closed. Steel1943 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mw:Extension:PageTriage, when tagging a redirect for RFD, currently writes {{subst:rfd-NPF|Reasoning goes here}}. What is it supposed to write under the new system? If it's just suppoed to write {{subst:Redirect for discussion|Reasoning goes here}}, you can just WP:BLAR it. Otherwise you'll need to file a Phab ticket and tag it PageTriage to change PageTriage's code. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae To my understanding, we need to do something like:
{{subst:RfD|content=
#REDIRECT [[Hello]]
}}
which imo might require more work due to fact that the deletion module treats tags as append or prepend-only. (AFAIK) Sohom (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: That's essentially what I was getting to in my nomination statement: The resolution is not just a simple WP:BLAR; However, ultimately, the optimal solution after all the other tools and gadgets are resolved is to perform a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What code do you want PageTriage to append prepend instead of {{subst:rfd-NPF|Reasoning goes here}}? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: I'm not sure what you mean here? I don't know the ins-and-out of modifying PageTriage to make this work. But, if I had to guess what you mean, the "prepend" would be:

{{subst:Redirect for discussion|content=

...and the "append" would be:

}}

...Basically, what Sohom Datta stated in their comment. The only main question I would have then which may help figure something out, given it truly seems that Sohom Datta sees what need to be done to the PageTriage code to make this work is: Does the "name=" parameter in {{Rfd-NPF/core}} need to exist? (From what I'm seeing, it seems that PageTriage users are somehow putting their rationale in that parameter rather than its intended purpose: See this revision's page syntax.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I got my head wrapped around this. Filed phab:T375440. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: Just FYI, I just tested a substitution of {{Redirect for discussion}}, and the additional line breaks (\n) are not necessary at the beginning or the end. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I updated the phab ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shindo

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created in April 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Object as the creator. This is a template that largely exposes the Shindo module in a manner that can be used by casual users. We can use it as a placeholder to redirect users to more appropriate templates. Awesome Aasim 15:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the purpose of this specific template? If it's only use is documentation, it does not belong there. Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a new scale is added to the module, but that scale's template cannot exist for some reason because the template already exists, then this can be used instead to invoke that seismic intensity scale. Awesome Aasim 19:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the templates like Template:JMA and Template:CWA I actually think those should be deleted. {{Shindo|JMA|1}} works and that is much better than needing to create a new template for each scale when there is no real reason for it. So I support the opposite, replace the various scales with this. Gonnym (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome Aasim, thank you for adding basic documentation and a category. This template appears to do most of what {{CSIS}} and similar templates do. Would you be open to a merge to single template? It looks like someone might have to add a few features/parameters to {{Shindo}} to make the merge easy to perform. If you think a merge is possible, I'll be happy to add relevant templates to this TFD. A complete list of those templates would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am terrible at documenting my code, sorry. I make the individual scales invocable for ease of template creation. I have no objections to a merge, but be aware that a lot of the work I did for the module was to ensure backwards compatibility with the previous template code.
I do think there are some useful areas like templatestyles and the like to make the coloring more uniform and dark mode compatible, which currently this module isn't. But that will require a bit of testing, and I do not want to break a thousand pages to attempt to make dark mode work. Awesome Aasim 22:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

Template:AUTOPATRightPlace

[edit]

Unused banner-looking navbox. Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

[edit]

A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".

For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1240534959"