Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:TemplateData.
"WP:TDF" redirects here. For the WikiProject Cycling run Tour de France taskforce, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Tour de France task force.
Not to be confused with 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!

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
  Jul Aug Sep Oct TOTAL
CfD 2 9 37 0 48
TfD 0 0 1 0 1
MfD 0 0 3 0 3
FfD 0 0 8 0 8
AfD 0 0 26 0 26
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. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

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 "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 a 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[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. 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_October_7#Template:template_name.css */

Protected pages: If you are incapable of tagging a page due to protection, please either leave a note on the page's talk page under a {{edit protected}} header, or leave a note at the Administrators' noticeboard, requesting tagging of the page.

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[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 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[edit]

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[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.

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

October 7[edit]

Template:GT Cup Open Europe years[edit]

Navbox with nothing to navigate to. There's only one redlinked title in the content section, so the only link in the entire box is the header itself -- and the box's only transclusion is in the same "header" article, so it results in that article navboxing to itself and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Rugby sevens templates v2[edit]

Useless templates as these have already gone into the main article. HawkAussie (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

October 6[edit]

Template:Cebu City Council[edit]

Navbox for a not inherently notable political position whose incumbents mostly don't have articles to link. We do not accept most city councillors as "inherently" notable, and Cebu is not in the very small and narrow class of major global cities that qualify for special treatment, so 17 of the 21 people here are non-notable redlinks -- and even of the just four people who do have articles, one's up for deletion. Only three of these people have articles that actually contain article-clinching notability claims, and a navbox is not necessary to link just three people. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Tucker Beathard[edit]

This template was created in good faith, but after stripping it of works that do not have articles (per WP:EXISTING), it only has three links. Most of the entries that were removed were independently-released songs that are unlikely to have articles. Either way, it's clear that this template in this current state fails the WP:NENAN test and probably won't garner enough content to pass it anytime soon. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • ETA: After I nominated the article, an IP added other members of the Beathard family to the template in an attempt to pad it out. The IP may be the template's creator editing while logged out. The other Beathard family members should not be on the template because their connection is not as direct. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Great Backlog Drive[edit]

Unused WikiProject banner for the 2011 The Great Backlog Drive. No likleyhood of ever being used and should thus be deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Merge Copied[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Merge Copied with Template:WikiProject Merge.
{{WikiProject Merge Copied}} was created for now historical Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/Assessment which consensus is against as explained far better than I could by wbm1058 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Category:Merge articles by quality. --Trialpears (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:International cricket centuries by year[edit]

navbox for a set of articles all deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of International cricket centuries in 2019. Related category has been CSDed too. Spike 'em (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Biblioteca Marciana[edit]

single-use infobox template, should be merged with the article Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Convert to regular infobox (or not). Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Graph:Most Expensive Books[edit]

Unused. Consensus is against use in the single article it was previously used in: Talk:List of most expensive books and manuscripts#Interactive graph. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

October 5[edit]

Template:Steady Ground[edit]

Only 4 navigable (blue) links apart from the head article. So it fails WP:NENAN. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Chad Stahelski[edit]

This is a complete subset of {{John Wick}}. It may be useful if he directs a film outside of the franchise one day, but at this point it's WP:TOOSOON. Nardog (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Black Foxxes[edit]

With only one or two albums each, none of these templates offer any additional navigational benefit from existing links within the articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

October 4[edit]

Template:Infobox company/wikidata[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox company/wikidata with Template:Infobox company.
The template is an outdated version of {{Infobox company}} with only a few parameters expanded with Wikidata functionality. The documentation is also moot, as the only parameter given is not available within the template itself. The Wikidata functionality should be merged, there is no point in keeping it a separate template that requires parallel updating. Lordtobi (✉) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge as proposed. If there is some political or technical reason for not merging I would like to know what it is. 50.53.21.2 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Why?: Who thinks that this should be merged with just a few parameters? The template is fine. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    Benjaminkirsc, both templates serve the same purpose that is rendering an infobox with details suited for a company article. The /wikidata template is a copy-and-pasted version of the other template, where a few parameters were adjusted to have a Wikidata fallback. This creates a uniformity problem: the main template is continuously discussed and updated, whereas the /wikidata one was not and continues to include obsolete parameters. If we kept this a separate template, every change done to the main template would also have to be made on the other, essentially doubling the work required. Furthermore, I don't see a reason why should we not have these Wikidata fallbacks in the main template, as they do seem to be a good nice-to-have and can still be expanded from after the merge. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 17:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    Lordtobi okay Benjaminkirsc (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge There's really no point in having a seperate template for wikidata, it would also be great to use the wikidata as a fallback on the main template so we can have as much relevant information as possible in infoboxes. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 00:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge as proposed. --Timur9008 (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge --Prettyboy361 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge; we don't really need two separate infoboxes that do the same thing with slightly different parameters, do we? -G.A.WILMBROKE [ USER / ALT / TALK / CONTRIBS ] 17:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge so long as the Wikidata functionality is not lost. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Snow merge Wikidata functionality per nom czar 19:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Question Is the wikidata function documented somewhere? {{Infobox power station}} clearly describes the parameter equivalence and how to populated Wikidata to provide the wanted information. It doesn't seem to be described for these templates yet - is the Wikidata version ready for merging yet, or is a lapsed work-in-progress? --Scott Davis Talk 21:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    ScottDavis, I have a merged version in place at the sandbox and plan to go over the correctness and documentation of each item in the coming days, when the TfD is closed. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 21:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Support Merge if there can be sufficient implementation and documentation to generate an equivalent infobox using Wikidata without needing undocumented knowledge. --Scott Davis Talk 10:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge as proposed.~mitch~ (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • SnowMerge per nom. Lets close this given that it is an obvious improvement and it is appearing on every WP infobox article. Britishfinance (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The discussion at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC#Discussion should be considered here. The summary of the close there stated: There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia if Wikipedians can be assured that the data is accurate, and preferably meets Wikipedia rules of reliability. Wikidata is vulnerable to uncaught vandalism since fewer editors patrol there and vandalism can be quite subtle there. But it is possible to keep track of Wikidata changes from en.wiki watchlists. Telescope articles have been using Wikidata-enabled infoboxes successfully and I would expect that companies could use them too. Company articles are less likely to be the target of vandals than some other topics, and COI editors would likely add correct facts rather than vandalize at Wikidata. See {{Infobox telescope}} for a good example of documentation. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

October 3[edit]

Template:World Championship Wrestling[edit]

Propose merging Template:World Championship Wrestling with Template:WCW Championships and Template:WCW programs.
Template:WCW Championships only has 5 lines which all could be subgrouped into a "Championship" grouping. Template:WCW programs only has 1 line item which could be combined and given its own line called "programming".

The combined template would only have 13 lines and would still be very easy to navigate. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Also this is the first time I tried doing a 3 way template merge and I am not sure I set it up right, since the header on the individual pages only lists one page. Can someone who has done this more double check for me? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Former WWE Championships[edit]

Propose merging Template:Former WWE Championships with Template:WWE Championships.
Each template only has 5-6 lines, and they basically cover the same topic, just current vs former. A person looking to navigate between current championships is no more likely to only want to see current than to see current and former.

A subgroup to cover current and another to cover former should do the trick. The combined template would only be 11 lines, which seems more than reasonable for a template to me. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:2017–18 Isle of Man Football League Premier League table[edit]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Lemony Snicket[edit]

Suggest deletion after replacement with WikiProject novels banner with Lemony Snicket taskforce. This banner doesn't have assessment options resulting in articles tagged with this banner not being categorized properly. --Trialpears (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Baronetcies[edit]

Suggest deletion after replacement with the {{WikiProject Biography}} banner with Peerage and Baronetage taskforce. This banner doesn't have assessment options resulting in articles tagged with this banner not being categorized properly. Only 5 transclusions. --Trialpears (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2[edit]

Template:Uw-uall[edit]

Probably a redundant template. 2600:1702:38D0:E70:C589:FDCB:CA80:C761 (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete A more specific template should be used. --Trialpears (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only more specific template I'm aware of is Template:Uw-coi-username, and that template would only be appropriate for a subset of cases when this template would be applicable. I'm also don't see to which template this template is redundant. It would be helpful if the nominator could specify. --Bsherr (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    That's because accounts in the "Offensive and disruptive usernames"({{uw-vaublock}}) and "Misleading usernames"({{uw-ublock-double}}, {{uw-adminublock}}, {{uw-ublock-famous}}, {{uw-botublock}} and {{uw-causeblock}}) would be banned. For the "Promotional usernames" part {{Uw-coi-username}} should be used as you said. Lastly for "Usernames implying shared use" I didn't find one for cases such as "Jack and Jill's Account", but most of them would fall under {{Uw-coi-username}}. --Trialpears (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    What about Wikipedia:Username policy#Talk to the user, which states, If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in bad faith, politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username. Doesn't that apply to more than just promotional usernames? And what about cases in which several categories of impermissible usernames apply? Doesn't this template work best for those situations? --Bsherr (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Most of these cases seem to be dealt with by cutomizing the reason in the normal {{Uw-username}} template which I think is better due to more customisation, but I would like to know what people who actually deal with this kind of stuff so I posted a notification at WT:UPOL. --Trialpears (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - probably redundant to what? — xaosflux Talk 22:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion – What we could do is "merge" this template into {{Uw-username}}, so that the latter includes the parameters "offensive", "disruptive", "misleading", "promotional" and "shared use", so for example:
(Collapsed to avoid clutter)
  • {{subst:uw-username|promotional=yes}} would automatically give [...] This is a message to let you know that your username, "Example-bad-username", may not comply with Wikipedia's username policy. Please note that promotional usernames—those that match the name of a company, organization, group, website or product (e.g. "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", "Foobar Museum of Art")—are prohibited. However, you are allowed to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally (e.g. "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "FoobarFan87"). [...]
  • {{subst:uw-username|promotional=yes|offensive=yes}} or {{subst:uw-username|promotional=yes|disruptive=yes}} would give: This is a message to let you know that your username, "Example-bad-username", may not comply with Wikipedia's username policy. Please note that the following types of usernames are prohibited:
  • Promotional usernames: Those that match the name of a company, organization, group, website or product (e.g. "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", "Foobar Museum of Art"). However, you are allowed to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally (e.g. "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "FoobarFan87").
  • Offensive and disruptive usernames: Those that contain words or phrases that are likely to offend other contributors, directly threaten or attack another person or some entity, contain contentious material about living persons, or otherwise imply you do not intend to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia (e.g. "JohnIsAJerk", "WannabeWikipediaVandal"). [...]
We can also include these parameters in Twinkle options (see images in collapsed box below).
(Collapsed to avoid clutter)
What it looks like now
Proposed change
Linguist111my talk page 04:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Linguist111 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this TfD.
I think a meta-template like that is a good idea. I don't think it makes a template that provides an overview of the policy redundant. This template is most often used on less than clear and convincing violations. In such a circumstance, it may be better to approach a user with a template that provides an overview of the policy rather than identifying a specific part, which comes closer to seeming like an accusation. Not always, but I think it is useful to have the choice. --Bsherr (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
What about this?
Alternative proposal
Uw username Twinkle proposal 2 190919.jpeg
The "include policy overview" option could generate the text that {{Uw-uall}} currently has, and the parameter could be something like {{subst:uw-username|all=yes}} and/or {{subst:uw-username|overview=yes}}. Linguist111my talk page 16:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposed parameters. Linguist111my talk page 17:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Support the idea of retaining both functions, of course, but keeping them as separate templates would be better. The text introducing the branches of the policy will need to be different: For the meta-template, explaining that the portion of the policy that is of concern is the following. For the general template, setting forth the branches of the policy, without implying that the username implicates all four. Assuming that, now we have a switch that selects between very large blocks of text. With separate templates, the templates' separate pages will preview each iteration fully, the simpler design of separate templates makes them easier to edit for everyone, and the documentation will be simpler. --Bsherr (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:International schools in Djibouti[edit]

Only one bluelink, apart from the title link. Fails WP:NENAN BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete- nothing worth navigating. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Airlines of Djibouti[edit]

Only two bluelinks, apart from the title link. Fails WP:NENAN BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - insufficient need for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Mosques in Djibouti[edit]

Only three bluelinks, apart from the title link and the see-also below the lines. Fails WP:NENAN BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - insufficient need for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:NJ Senate[edit]

Adds unnecessary bloat to municipal articles. People who want to know the names of New Jersey's senators can go to the New Jersey article. It does not need to be repeated on 500 other pages. Rusf10 (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep it takes up very little room on pages and on municipal pages is a piece of the section regarding Representation. I think that the Senators are arguably the most powerful representatives in this county, therefore they belong. JerseyThroughandThrough (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
So would you also favor adding "The president of the United States is Donald Trump" to every municipal article? After all, the president of the United States is considered the most powerful man in the world. Your argument is simply not supported by policy.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is impermissible storage of article text in a template, regardless of whether the nominator's argument is supported or not. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I made a valid argument. But good point, WP:TG says that templates should not be used to store article text.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep The bloat claim in not substantiated by the percentage of space info takes up in articles; indeed a template ultimately uses less space. As mentioned, government representation is part of the story. Additionally, use of templates is extremely effective way to keep articles up-to-date since one edit as opposed to 100s allows for election election result changes to be added efficiently, thus maintaining the quality of Wikipedia.Djflem (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Consensus regarding the inclusion of this material has been in place for the past decade as reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force#Use of templates for federal, state and county representation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey/Archive 4#Regarding municipality articles and here at TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 19#Category:New Jersey government templates. It's not evident in any way that anything has changed since then. The clear consensus is that this is appropriate content for these articles and provides relevant information to readers in a small fraction of article content. Use of these templates allows the data to be added and updated across hundreds of articles,which is the exact purpose of templates. Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the bloat claim since this wouldn't be relevant information for readers of these articles. If you are looking for this information there is an obvious place to find it. It doesn't matter that it's only a small percentage of the article, it is still irrelevant bloat. I fully agree with keepers that this is the best way to store this information if we were to include in most municipalities as we currently do, but ultimately that is irrelevant since the question isn't if we should substitute and delete, but if we should remove these templates from the articles. Taking a quick look at the linked discussions it seems to be a contentious discussion each time and I see no harm discussing this again as the general view on what should be included an d what shouldn't can change over time as shown in the recent portal discussions and more relevant to this discussion at the NJ Governor deletion discussion. Finally as pointed out previously this template is against the template namespace guidelines which discourage use of templates for article text. This consensus would be considered stronger than the consensus in the linked discussions as well. --Trialpears (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Note The above cited WP:TG clearly states should not be normally used and that templates that are intended for long-term use and are likely to require changes should be transcluded for easy future updates. This is not normal situation since election results require regular updates to keep Wikipedia up-to-date.Djflem (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Islamophobia by country[edit]

Duplicate to Template:Islamophobia's "Status by country" section. That template is used in each article. If, for some reason, both a side and bottom bars are needed, it is possible to embed "Islamophobia in" in Template:Europe in topic as it has been in Islamophobia in Sweden. Pudeo (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge with {{Islamophobia}}. While navboxes and sidebar aren't necesarily redundant the sidebar is simply better in this case. I don't like the {{Europe in topic}} solution since it generates too many red links. --Trialpears (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:South Western Football League[edit]

NAVBOX with just 2 links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Template no delete. I added final members and I will add more season in the future Denebleo 14:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete As noted on User talk:Denebleo and by the ongoing prod of a lot of these articles are probably non-notable. It is very unlikley that this template will get more articles and should be deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Its seasons are notable and perhaps will be finished eventually. Number 57 11:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:East Cornwall League[edit]

NAVBOX with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Template no delete. I added members to the Template and I will add more season in the future Denebleo 14:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete As noted on User talk:Denebleo and by the ongoing prod of a lot of these articles are probably non-notable. It is very unlikley that this template will get more articles and should be deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC) (reply) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialpears (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete No notable clubs in this league, and its seasons are not notable. Number 57 11:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Franco-Spanish wars[edit]

This is not a campaign box but a disambigiation page is disguise The Banner talk 07:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not see what the problem is. There are other identical templates such as: Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Spanish wars, Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Dutch Wars and Template:Campaignbox Anglo-French wars. --Muwatallis II (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree for maintaining this template, because it is useful. We could just move this template into other name. 웬디러비 (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
’’’Rename and repurpose’’’. Should be navigation box at bottom of article and not cross out real battle info at right top of article. Expand and explain if moved and repurposed.Student7 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Paris by Night[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Paris by Night into Template:Infobox television episode.
Redundant, per prior discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 6#Template:Infobox Paris by Night. Though that closed as no consensus, in June 2015, we were told that a revamp of the more general template, to facilitate such a merge, was in hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I vote to merge.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 12:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have tagged the standard television episode template with noinclude tags for this TFD, as it's causing the notification to come up on ~11,000 pages, even though it's not relevant on ~10,960 pages, given that it's just the Paris by Night template that is being considered for merging. -- /Alex/21 04:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, convert to module instead - As I pointed out at the last TfD, {{Infobox television episode}} does not contain a number of parameters that are included in {{Infobox Paris by Night}}. These parameters are "executive" (not the same or substitutable by "producer"), mc, filmedat, filmedon, venue and format. That's 6 of the 9 parameters. The TV templates were indeed updated to allow inclusion of other parameters but this is done by using modules rather than adding rarely used, single program specific fields. As Infobox Paris by Night is only used in 41 articles and not the 10,800 that currently use Infobox television episode it would be more appropriate to convert this infobox to a module. That said, it was pointed out at the last TfD that the programs using this infobox are not part of a TV series. Instead, they are essentially standalone events that were filmed and then released on home media. {{Infobox television}} is only missing the "format" parameter (it has alternatives to others) but that doesn't seem like a necessary field. Infobox television is missing the navigation between articles present in the episode and season infoboxes but the Paris by Night infobox doesn't include that anyway. With all that said though, since these don't actually appear to have been broadcast on TV so they are not really TV programs and probably shouldn't use TV infoboxes. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - this should be either treated as stand-alone DVD movies and then use {{Infobox television}} (or {{Infobox film}}), as "episodes" of Paris by Night and use {{Infobox television episode}}. Another option is to generalize this template to Template:Infobox live event and then maybe use that in templates like {{Infobox award}}'s "Television/radio coverage" section. In any case |format= should be removed as it's basically the home media format it was released on, which no other film or TV infobox uses. --Gonnym (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It's worth noting that "format" was a parameter of {{infobox television}} for a long time but was eventually removed because it was an ambiguous term that nobody really understood. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sub_judice_UK[edit]

unnecessary and unneeded on an American Wikipedia. UK courts and laws have no jurisdiction in the United States. Also may be construed as a legal threat which is not allowed per WP:NLT. Possibly only useful on the Uk Wikipedia Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep per the arguments made in the previous discussion. This is not American Wikipedia, and there is no UK Wikipedia - this is the English Wikipedia. Although the Foundation is governed by US law ("or other applicable laws"), this template is not aimed at the Foundation ... it's clearly aimed at editors who may fall under the jurisdiction of the UK courts (incidentally, there are several other regional variants). This template is only occasionally used on UK topics where editors face a higher than normal non-obvious risk of breaking the law, so it seems entirely appropriate to notify them of that risk. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per the previous discussion, although I would suggest perhaps merging them into a general template that could cover any country using this legal system. There are many countries in the world using English law where this rule applies (Australia, New Zealand, even Canada, to name a few) and there are editors in all of those countries who should be aware that something they post about an incident has the potential to be a contempt of court. Also there should be clear guidelines as to when the template is used. For example, it would be appropriate to use it in a high-profile criminal case, but not something such as the current prorogation controversy. This is Paul (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note if this template is up for deletion, then the following might also need to be considered: {{Sub judice and Contempt Bermuda}}, {{Sub judice and Contempt Gibraltar}}, {{Sub judice and Contempt Hong Kong}}, {{Sub judice and Contempt Ireland}}, {{Sub judice and Contempt New Zealand}}. D7a894f1d (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Setting my above comments aside for a moment, there's also a general {{Sub judice}} template that should be included. This is Paul (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with This is Paul. It seems some consolidation would be worthwhile. But that should be undertaken separately from this discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge as per comments from other users, do we really need 8 to 9 different sub judice templates? They look virtually all the same and give the same message. Theprussian (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia should not be in the business of giving legal advice to editors, which is what this template does. Also, based on analysis of the relevant laws in the UK, you have to have access to confidential legal documents or proceedings and publish them with malicious intent (the law states intent is required). The law also states that normal run of the mill reporting on pending cases with public materials is not subject to this law. Since Wikipedia only publishes articles based on public sources, it is very unlikely that an editor would run afoul of this law unless they published confidential court documents, which would not be accepted as reliable sources. Those voting to keep this template need to go and read up on this law. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    One wonders who is attempting to give legal advice. What you say is not necessarily the case. Contempt law can be used where a 'suppression' order is made, but the information is discussed in overseas (reliable) publications. It's also possible to mess with active cases using other publicly available information. There is, as I say above, a higher than normal and non-obvious risk of breaking the law, which is why I think this non-advice-giving template is occasionally useful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    The law as written is pretty clear that malicious intent is required here. I do understand that a UK version of a "gag order" (suppression order) is common in these cases, but such an order has to be directed and served on a party who is active in the case, which this law applies to. That's a far cry from an anonymous editor who is simply quoting from RS in the press. I don't see how your average Wikipedia editor could violate this law by simply writing about a case with public documents. A suppression order would have to be served on a party (an order cannot be served on the public "at large" it has to be directed to some party), and that party would then have to go onto Wikipedia and release court info into the public domain "with malicious intent". The template also gives legal advice (tells editors to consult with an attorney before editing an article). It's also clearly a legal threat which is prohibited by WP:NLT. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    I would change my vote to "keep" if the Wikimedia Foundation can configure its servers to only display the template to IP ranges within the UK. Here in the US, we have free speech and this template doesn't make sense or apply here. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    I don't particularly view advice to "exercise caution" as a threat, any more than the WMF's legal statements. I do want to pick on your assertion that a party to the case must be served with a court order. This is of course common for the mainstream media, but these orders apply nonetheless to all within the jurisdiction. A good recent example of this is the recent prosecutions for sharing alleged images of Jon Venables - lots of unknown people on Twitter were pursued, not just the actress who received a suspended prison sentence. This is such a high profile and obvious case that we don't even need the template for the article. Others are less well known. Another good example was the almost-immediate suppression order preventing New Zealanders from using the name of the (alleged) killer in the Christchurch mosque shootings. I'd agree that some geo-targeting would be a useful addition, but we don't have that. It might help to add a flag or something, but at the moment these templates make it clear which editors it applies to. For this reason I don't really support any kind of unconsidered merge either, though there's probably something that can be done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    My thoughts on that would be to have a main template with regional variations, eg, {{sub judice|UK}} rather than {{sub judice UK}}. This is Paul (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not going to object if someone wishes to do that. We'd lose some refinement in backlinks to the templates, but I'm a bit like meh about that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    {{sub judice UK}} is already bascially coded as {{sub judice|jurisdiction=UK}}. It's just a shortcut. Is that still not good enough? --Bsherr (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons I notes in the previous discussion on {{Sub judice}} (although I note that arguments like mine did not carry the day in that discussion, and are unlikely to do so here.) TJRC (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:National Assembly (South Korea)[edit]

Has existed since 2013 but primarily consists of red links. Some of the articles that do exist look a little undercooked as well. PC78 (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't disagree with the nominator's findings, but I think it nonetheless fits in the exception to WP:EXISTING and otherwise meets the criteria for a navbox. --Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Which "exception" are we talking about? After six years is it "very likely" that these links will be developed into articles? PC78 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep valuable and existed since 2013. And to be created. Sawol (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSOLD. Would a WikiProject list of needed articles not be a better home for these red links? PC78 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • KeepDelete As shown by PC78 the keep rationales aren't policy based and the template is a red link collection. In the legislature section two out of the the three links are redirects to the main article and the third one I think should be merged there as well. In the members section we have two links to other red link collections of very little value to readers and then we have the two good articles for members 2012-2020. Since there are only two links here a navbox isn't justified and instead succesion boxes should be used for linking between them. --Trialpears (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Trialpears: Did you mean "delete"? PC78 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes I did. Thanks for catching that! --Trialpears (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - A navbox is for navigating. No objection to reviving this navbox when there are enough articles to navigate. Based on the history, that doesn't appear to be any time soon. -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • just a passing Comment. (also, hi @Trialpears:--nice to see you here, buddy.)

It'd be pretty helpful as a navbox, if the links led to existing articles. Take for example this template: Template:National Assembly of Quebec. Sure, this template has actual links that navigate to articles, but we can see its value. Also, as Trialpears mentioned above, the latter two articles in the template are of pretty decent quality: List of members of the National Assembly (South Korea), 2012–2016, List of members of the National Assembly (South Korea), 2016–present. I can see potential in articles for previous National Assemblies, more work like this should be produced in Wikipedia. We just need time and more people aware about this. I suggest this be added to the Wikiproject Korea to-do lists and all that, so we can work on building this more together. I don't log on to Wikipedia too often, but I'll also contribute more to that template myself.

Thanks to all for contributing in discussion and bringing this up, @PC78:! Ericgyuminchoi (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @PC78, Trialpears, and Whpq: I will create all the lists. All red links will be removed. Please wait until my creation. Sawol (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to the template being userfied while the articles are being built. -- Whpq (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs with Template:WikiProject Palaeontology.
WikiProject banner for a task force. Should be merged with main project banner to avoid unnecessary duplication. No changes in categorization, but easier maintenance in the future, less clutter and better interactions with auto assessment tools. --Trialpears (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Looks like the main banner already supports the task force anyway. PC78 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not sure what is meant by easier management. We already have two Tree of Life WPs that are too large for some maintenance tasks to run. If {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} were removed, then each affected article would have to be tagged with both {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} and {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}, increasing the amount of clutter. Right now, only {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} is required. If we really wanted to streamline things, removing the legacy TF parameters from {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} and updating affected pages would be the better option. --Nessie (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @NessieVL: I'm afraid I don't understand the nature of your complaint, nor where {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}} comes into it. All {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} does is feed Category:Pterosaurs task force articles (and subcategories therof), a task which {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} can do just as well on its own. Many pages appear to have all three banners (Talk:Eudimorphodon, Talk:Nyctosaurus, etc.), not one as you suggest. PC78 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @PC78: Just because some banners are misapplied, does not mean everything must be wiped away. All pterosaur articles are both reptiles and paleotaxa. These articles should either use only {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} (preferred), or both {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} and {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}. The latter is more clutter and more duplication, the former is cleaner and easier to parse for maintenance tasks.
      • Also, a taskforce or subproject is allowed to be listed as a taskforce or hook of a parent project. WPBats and WPPrimates are both listed as hooks in {{WikiProject Mammals}}, despite having separate banners. WPMCB was a TF under the {{WikiProject Fungi}} banner until recently, despite not actually being a TF nor subproject. The hooks make it easier for casual editors to put articles in the relevant wikiprojects by giving them multiple options. The AFC approval tools do not suggest them, which is why having both options is preferred for smaller projects.
      • And let's not forget that this project is not defunct or anything, so not sure why we need to start consolidating everything now. --Nessie (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I still don't entirely follow. If a page only uses {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} then it will only feed into categories for that task force. If categorisation for the two parent projects is necessary then you will need to use those banners as well. You assert that only the Pterosaur banner is necessary on those pages; if that's true, then merging it into {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} will be of no detriment to WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. PC78 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
          • OK, let's use another example. Say we are placing WP banners on the talk page for Elasmosaurus. It would get {{WikiProject Palaeontology}}, {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}, and {{WikiProject Marine life}}. Conversely, Giant squid only needs {{WikiProject Cephalopods}}. It does not need {{WikiProject Marine life}}, as that would be redundant. All cephalopods are marine. Likewise, you don't need to tag Bonobo under both {{WikiProject Primates}} and {{WikiProject Mammals}} (nor even {{WikiProject Mammals|primates=yes}}). You only use the first one, {{WikiProject Primates}}. We don't need turtles all the way down. --Nessie (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
            • That logic runs counter to every other WikiProject I've encountered, and I don't see any evidence for it at either WikiProject Marine life or WikiProject Cephalopods (and just to note, Giant squid does in fact have both banners which seems to undermine your argument). To use an example that I'm more familiar with, WP:FILMBIO is a subproject of WP:BIOGRAPHY and instead of having a separate template it has a parameter in {{WikiProject Biography}}; any article about an actor or filmmaker is therefore categorised for both projects because it is relevant to both, the two do not somehow become mutually exclusive of each other. By the same token, Giant squid is relevant to both WP Cephalopods and WP Marine life but it currently requires two templates to achieve the same result, which if anything makes it look like another merge candidate. PC78 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Welcome to the Tree of Life WikiProjects then. Under your logic, Firefly should be not just in {{WikiProject Beetles}}, but also {{WikiProject Insects}}, {{WikiProject Arthropods}}, {{WikiProject Animals}}, {{WikiProject Tree of Life}}, and {{WikiProject Biology}}. --Nessie (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
              • Then lets wind this back to start: if the Pterosaur banner is removed from Talk:Pterodactylus and replaced with a parameter in the other banner, it will have no impact. If the Marine biology is not needed now, it will not be needed after a merge. The existence of a standalone banner for Pteroaurs is neither here nor there. PC78 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
                • Yes, back at the start I said "If {{WikiProject Pterosaurs}} were removed, then each affected article would have to be tagged with both {{WikiProject Palaeontology}} and {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}...." Pterosaurs are not marine, they are reptiles. Not all paleontological articles relate to herpetology. I think you are not understanding the consensus of how these are used in taxa articles. --Nessie (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • No, I've just got my wires crossed; clearly I meant Amphibians and Reptiles and not Marine biology. I think it's you who doesn't fully understand how WikiProject banners work. We aren't proposing to get rid of the Pterosaur task force, merely the banner, and if the task force falls under WP Amphibians and Reptiles by default then that won't magically change if we merge the banner into WP Palaeontology. Are there any Pterosaur articles that wouldn't fall under Palaeontology? If not then I can't see any need or justification for keeping it. Whatever impact you think this has on WP Amphibians and Reptiles seems entirley imagined on your part. I think I'm going to let this rest because it doesn't feel like either of us are getting anywhere. PC78 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - it would seem the pterosaur task force is already incorporated in the paleo template for the relevant articles? See for example the talk page of Pteranodon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It would still need a bit of work to incorporate the separate importance ratings and requested image categorisation, but that's an easy enough task. PC78 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @PC78 and FunkMonk: are you volunteering to do all that? --Nessie (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
        • The changes I refered to are fairly trivial, I'd be happy to do them. PC78 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure a bot could do it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm willing to do it and have made some regex that had 0 false positives when converting the 500 uses WikiProject Patna. --Trialpears (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The main benefit this merger would entail would be making sure that all Pterosaurs are tagged with {{WP Palaeontology}} and whether this is desirable is entirely up to the wikiproject, which it has been for all task forces I've seen. If this isn't desirable then I will of course change my mind. For the bats tf example there were some major differences with major arguments being percieved technical problems and unnecessary work, neither of these are problems here. Ultimately though the choice is up to the WikiProject and if NessieVL is still opposed to the change I think it shouldn't be in any way forced by outsiders that have never contributed to any pterosaurus articles. --Trialpears (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This all still seems very backwards. Shouldn't this first have consensus at WPPaleo/AAR to revoke the semi-autonomy of Pterosaurs? That's what happened at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. Plus I still don't know what harm the template is causing. Again, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 19#Template:WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Dinah Jane[edit]

Template which was deleted in April per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 14#Template:Dinah Jane, and then recreated in August without any real evidence that its actual utility had changed -- there's only one new link here that wasn't already in the April version, and it's just a redirect to her BLP rather than a new standalone article. The difference between an artist who qualifies for a navbox and one who does not isn't a question of the number of singles they happen to have released -- it's a question of how many of those singles have their own standalone articles to link to, and if she hadn't cleared the bar to warrant a navbox yet as of April, then one new redirect back to her BLP is not the magic ticket now. The weirdest part, the thing I have the hardest time wrapping my head around, is that the editor who recreated this new version is the same editor who initiated the deletion of the April version. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Doesn't WP:G4 apply? If concensus last time was to delete then padding it out with redirects doesn't really help. PC78 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    PC78 No the original discussion was about the template with two singles, now there are three and an EP. --Trialpears (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    Nom indicates just one additional link, which sounds "sufficiently identical" to me. PC78 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
G4 covers pages that are "sufficiently identical", but excludes pages that are "not substantially identical". I think these are not substantially identical because they are different in substance. Thincat (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think it's better to err on the side of having the discussion instead of speedily deleting. That said, the arguments that prevailed in the prior TfD, are, I think, still persuasive as if made to this template. --Bsherr (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep To keep things balanced I vote keep she released an EP, four singles and a promotional song.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - One EP and four singles equals five articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Unprotected[edit]

Very few uses, redundant to {{RFPP|u}}. --Trialpears (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What if {{unprotected}} is easier to remember than {{rfpp|u}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • That's definitley fair. To be honest I kind of regret nominating this now. The time consumed by this discussion is definitely larger than any benefit/harm this deletion would cause. I guess I'm neutral to this now. --Trialpears (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This. Keep or redirect if possible. — xaosflux Talk 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Miss República Portuguesa[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Navigation template is completely unnecessary as there are no by-year articles in existence. Also, page was apparently created by a sockring WP:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819 - Bri.public (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC) @Bri.public: Moved from WP:MFD to correct venue. ToThAc (talk) 19:25, 2 October 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).

Awards table templates[edit]

Propose merging Template:Awards table2, Template:Awards table3, Template:Awards table4 and Template:Awards table5 with Template:Awards table.
The first unnumbered template has 2600+ transclusions, indicating that it is clearly the primary template, while the other four respectively have 33, 21, 33 and 5 transclusions. They are almost all identical, bar the columns included and their respective names, all of which could be triggered with a single template and optional parameters (similar to how {{Episode table}} uses |director= to include the director column, and |directorT= to change the director header cell's text. -- /Alex/21 12:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose proposal as it was presented. The proposal merge just won't work without requiring a lot of manual code being used in each article by the editors using these templates, which defeats the purpose of these simple templates. Some of the templates use the same column names but in different order, which makes using a field like the above mentioned |director= insufficient, and would require another parameter setting its column position. Changing the cell text (by using the above example of |directorT=) is also counter to the template's purpose, as the template is used to create an identical table header for multiple tables. If an editor just wants to create a table with different cell names, they can just do that with wiki code. Since these templates are simple templates that just create a table header, I see no reason why they can't stay separate, as there is almost no maintenance that takes place. --Gonnym (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    The use of a parameters it not "a lot of manual code". If a merge were to take place, then only 92 (maximum, even less, given that #5 isn't even used in the mainspace) articles need updating. Merging the templates would mean the awards tables conform with each other, instead of having arbitrary random orders that have no guidelines between articles and table. Table 4 lists 7 columns, which presents 5,040 different orders of the columns - should I create those 5,040 templates ({{Awards table5040}}) just for different orders so that there's no maintenance required between them? No, that would be ridiculous. So it having five identical templates that do the same thing except for header text and column order. This case is identical to {{Episode list}} and {{Japanese episode list}}; the latter was almost identical to the format, so it was merged into the former to present a more conformed case. -- /Alex/21 14:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Sandbox updates done at Template:Awards table/sandbox. The code now merges all the templates together into one template, but still allows the use of the five different tables; see below:
{{Awards table/sandbox|1}} or {{Awards table/sandbox}}
Year Nominee / work Award Result
1 2 3 4
{{Awards table/sandbox|2}}
Year Nominated work Category Result Notes
1 2 3 4 5
{{Awards table/sandbox|3}}
Year Category Institution or publication Result Notes Citation
1 2 3 4 5 6
{{Awards table/sandbox|4}}
Year Nominated work Category Award Result Notes Citation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
{{Awards table/sandbox|5}}
Year Award Category Nominee(s) Result Citation
1 2 3 4 5 6
See how they match identically to the cases at Template:Awards table#See also. I see no reason not to merge them all into one template when all the individual cases can still be retained and used, all within the use of a single template. -- /Alex/21 15:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see a great reason to delete these templates, but merging seems fine to me if the merge won't result in anything becoming broken. ↠Pine (✉) 00:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    Pine, yeah, that's what I've proposed above. All of the five different layouts would still be available, not at all deleted (which is why this isn't a deletion discussion, but a merge discussion), just merged under the banner of one template. The first template, with its 2,600+ usages, and the articles its used it would not be affected whatsoever, no changes would be required, we would just need to convert {{Awards table2}} to {{Awards table|2}}, etc. in the 90 articles using the other four templates. -- /Alex/21 00:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

October 1[edit]

Template:2004–05 Football Federation League Northern Zone[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

unused after being merged with the parent article per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:33, 3 October 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:Omamori Himari[edit]

This template is too underlinked to be of any navigational use. We already have Category:Omamori Himari, and wiki-links to the other articles throughout the text in the individual articles. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Milwaukee Badgers coach navbox[edit]

Template is redundant. All the same entries are in Milwaukee Badgers. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Module category[edit]

Propose merging Template:Module category with Template:Template category.
{{Template category}} has slightly more features supporting type, onright and container parameters. By adding module and meta module types (with appropriate text and image changes) module categories could also benefit from these additional features. --Trialpears (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

Template:NUMBEROFADMINS[edit]

It's a wrapper for the magic word which adds nothing but another step to be processed and another point of failure. Furthermore it doesn't do what its documentation claims, "List of users with Admin rights", it returns the number of admins. Cabayi (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:2015–16 Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 2 table[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:11, 1 October 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:1997–98 Division II Independent ice hockey standings (men)[edit]

WP:NENAN A standing of just two schools (with one unknown, as the link goes to a disambiguation page) The Banner talk 09:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm building these templates one team at a time, though I did fix the disambiguation link. PensRule11385 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:1996–97 Division II Independent ice hockey standings (men)[edit]

WP:NENAN A standing of just one school (I assume, as the link goes to a disambiguation page) The Banner talk 09:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm building these templates one team at a time, though I did fix the disambiguation link. PensRule11385 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

September 18

Template:2019 Netherlands Women's Quadrangular Series

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 No consensus for deletion. Mgasparin (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The table is now in the article. HawkAussie (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting based on its current usage (five articles)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Frietjes, Trialpears, and Pppery: just wanted to ping you (even though you'll likely see this as lurkers) re: the newer transclusions. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    • comment, lst still works even with 5 transclusions (see here). for example, this is now the standard for module:sports table. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment my position has not changed, it is still easier for editors not involved with templates to find and edit the section, but maybe we should make an Lst template that is easier to use without the lst and lsth distinction, better error messages and possibly a bot that try to fix instances broken by changes to section names. --Trialpears (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:20, 18 September 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).

Completed discussions[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)

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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

  • Template:Fb_cl_footer2018 September 10 – Fb_cl_footer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl3_qr2018 April 22 – Fb_cl3_qr ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r2_header2018 April 28 – Fb_r2_header ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r2_team2018 April 28 – Fb_r2_team ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r_footer2018 April 28 – Fb_r_footer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r2018 April 28 – Fb_r ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl2_team2018 April 19 – Fb_cl2_team ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl2_header_navbar2018 April 19 – Fb_cl2_header_navbar ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl_header2018 April 19 – Fb_cl_header ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
    Would it be possible for a bot to convert the transclusions of these templates to Module:Sports table? S.A. Julio (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
    Should be doable, yes. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    I could probably do something while I am converting all the {{Fb team}} templates. But, I will have to see how complicated the code is. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Plastikspork and Primefac: Can your bots using Module:Sports table instead in this case, such as [1]? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    Hhhhhkohhhhh, sure. That particular template only had one use, and that use was in userspace, and the title of the page was "concept", so I didn't bother to fully convert it. But in general, the plan is to convert the various table/cl header/cl footer/cl team templates to use sports table. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    I am replacing all of these fb templates Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge into {{Aircraft specs}}:
    There's a discussion about this merger at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot --Trialpears (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For merging into {{Yesno}} - will need heavy sandboxing:
    Primefac You indicated that you had some kind of idea how this merger may be done while closing this discussion with the first step being making a If affirmed/declined a yesno wrapper. I've done that in the sandboxes, but as you can see in the testcases it does change the value for a not insignificant amount of values. Are we supposed to go through each and every template that uses if affirmed/declined to see if it breaks anything and if it doesn't substitute it in? Do anyone have a better plan? -- Trialpears (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see your changes to {{Yesno/sandbox}}. If you don't change the source, then the template won't know what the "yes" and "no" values are. --Gonnym (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry if I were unclear, I meant Template:If affirmed/sandbox and Template:If declined/sandbox is where I've made a simple wrapper version. This will inevitably lead to some output differences if we don't change YesNo directly but I don't believe we have consensus to do so. Several people in the TfD thought we shouldn't touch YesNo and last time a RfC was required before they added on and off. -- Trialpears (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    {{if affirmed}} is basically done, just 750ish transclusions from broken substitutuion of {{welcome cookie}}. Could someone with a TfD bot go through these replacing 
    {{ {{{\|safesubst:}}}if affirmed\|{{{notalk\|}}} \| \| ask me on {{ {{{\|safesubst:}}}ifsubst \| \[\[User talk:{{{{{{\|safesubst:}}}REVISIONUSER}}\|my talk page]] \| my talk page }} or }}([^\[]*\[\[User:)([^|]*)
    with 
    {{subst:if affirmed|{{{notalk|}}} | | ask me on {{subst:ifsubst | [[User talk:$2|my talk page]] | my talk page }} or }}$1$2
    . There seems to be a few more cases left, but this should be the vast majority. Regex is tested and there is no way this will cause false positives. --Trialpears (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Will get to this in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Template:Ctime:062019 March 8 – Ctime:06 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Template:Ctime
  • {{link language}} wrappers - listed at WP:LLWRAP, see TFD for full close. In short - wrappers should be orphaned; first from template use (see §4 of LLWRAP) then article space.
    Wouldn't this be solved by just making all of them auto-substitute? The templates are so simple that they're already substituable. --Trialpears (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    That is certainly possible for most of them. I do highly suggest you actually read through the discussion before just slapping a one-size-fits-all solution to almost 300 templates; some of them are not direct wrappers and some of them have extra content that may need to be considered. Additionally, all of them have a commented-out section giving the language - this should not be subst'ed. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have read it and will check that they actually are only a direct wrapper (using regex). before adding auto substitute, but if that is enough for 90% of them that's what I'll do after dealing with the unprotected templates. I also wonder what I should replace them with. I feel like In lang would be the best choice, but since this wasn't even a redirect an hour ago and there were so many opinions about it I thought it would be best asking you. --Trialpears (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry if I implied that you were going to rashly jump into this; thanks for being cautious. I would say that for anything that isn't protected and/or has <50 uses, {{language link}} would be fine to use in the wrapper (i.e. they can pretty much stay unchanged). I'll have to have a think about the higher-use ones, though; in particular, I'm going to look at the {{ill}} merger and how we dealt with combining multiple templates with very long names. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    {{in lang}} with rudimentary documentation created.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know what a substitution forcer file is, but I would suggest that if the list at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9/Link language wrappers § Templates with above 100 transclusions is intended to identify templates that should be substed from one template to another template, then that list is flawed. There are templates listed there that are also listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9/Link language wrappers § Non-standard templates.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    AnomieBOT require templates with over 100 transclusions to be added to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force for them to be auto substituted. I thought it would be useful having a list when that time comes. The first step will of course be fixing the unusual templates before starting substituting them. --Trialpears (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Is that even the right tool to use? Substing {{de icon}} templates will return {{link language|de}}<!--German--> (I'm not sure how categories are handled in these kinds of cases). But, if the intent of this whole thing was to replace the icon templates with a more appropriately named template (which {{link language}} is not) then how is the AnomieBot task the correct task? One task to troll through and subst all of the various icon templates and then another to subst all of the {{link language}} templates? Is that safe? Are there cases where {{link language}} is used natively where changing those transclusions to {{in lang}} would be the wrong thing?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I was planning on doing an AWB run to make sure all templates are only transcluding {{link language|langcode}} or whatever redirect we decide on using and then let AnomieBOT substitute it, which I think would do the job. The categories are handled by the template and removing the comments would not affect them. I'm not sure what's happening with {{in lang}}. It was only a redirect to link language a couple of days ago and I thought that was the intent based on the closing comment. Why do we have two templates doing the same thing now? Updating the original template would be better if you want to implement new features. --Trialpears (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    The only consensus reached is for removal of the wrapper templates: the various {{<xx> icon}} templates change to something. The close doesn't say to what those templates are to be changed. One might infer that they are to be 'unwrapped' to reveal the inner template which may not necessarily be {{link language}}; I suspect that to be the most common (and likely only) template that has been wrapped for this application. The use of {{LL}} as a redirect is addressed to the extent that a WP:RFD is required to do anything about it (an implicit no consensus). As a result of this RFC, {{in lang}} was created as a redirect to {{link language}} but never used for that purpose (redirect because no consensus to rename {{link language}}). I converted that redirect to a template as a way out of the mire that the fourth bullet item and definitive no-consensus declaration leaves us in:
    explicit consensus to remove (from article space) {{<xx> icon}} wrapper templates (first bullet point in the close)
    explicit no consensus to delete the wrapper templates (fourth bullet point in the close)
    consensus / no consensus not stated with regard to deprecation of the wrapper templates (implicit no consensus)
    What point is there to removing the wrapper templates from article space if we don't have a consensus to do anything with the wrapper templates themselves once the transclusions are removed from article space? We don't have a consensus for deletion yet the wrapper templates are marked with {{being deleted}} templates which contradicts the fourth bullet item in the close; both conditions cannot simultaneously exist (deleting something that we don't have consensus to delete). The close is mute on deprecation so apparently we don't have consensus for that either.
    So, a new template with enhanced features and different categories to replace any-and-all uses of the wrapper templates. This, I think, meets the single consensus we do have, to remove the wrapper templates from article space. A new template is not constrained by the contradictions of the close. The wrapper templates are left to be deleted in dribs and drabs as anticipated in the close.
    To answer your question: Why do we have two templates doing the same thing now? Yeah, there are two templates doing similar things; the original is constrained by the decisions (and lack of decisions) of an inconclusive RFC. The new is not constrained by that RFC and can be used to replace the wrapper templates in article space in compliance with the one consensus decision achieved by the RFC; the new template has features that the original does not: |link=, |cap=, multiple language support; the new template fills different categories; the new template name is consistent with what it does (preceding text – may or may not be a link – refers to something that is written in <language name>); the new template does not support |cat-lang= for the reasons stated at Template talk:Link language § the cat-lang parameter.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Since there has been no further comment I have done these things:
    1. written Monkbot/task 15: normalize lang icon templates
    2. created as a test bed:
      1. Category:Articles with non-English-language sources – parent category for sub-cats:
        Category:Articles with Abkhazian-language sources (ab) et al;
      2. Template:Non-English-language source category – documentation template for sub-cats;
    without objection I shall:
    1. start a WP:BRFA for Monkbot/task 15
    2. create additional sub-categories in Category:Articles with non-English-language sources according to those categories in Category:Articles with non-English-language external links that are not empty
    3. when approved, run Monkbot/task 15 to replace {{<xx> icon}} and redirects with {{in lang|<xx>}}
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't approve of having both {{link language}} and {{in lang}} doing the same thing. {{link language}} should be updated and then {{in lang}} be redirected. Other than that I think it sounds good. --Trialpears (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    Nor do I approve, however, they are not doing the same thing. It is true they are doing similar things but {{in lang}} is about sources and allows multiple languages to be references whereas {{link language}} is for only external links (which "sources" might be considered to include) and does not allow multiple languages. The latter also has a few issues with some extra parameters allowing strange categorizations. So in shorts {{in lang}} was resigned without the historic constraints imposed upon {{link language}} allowing it to be more flexible and potentially more things (if it is ever widely deployed to so such). If anything, after most of these transclusions have been updated to use {{in lang}}, {{link language}} could be updated to use/redirect to {{in lang}} (or just be deleted outright with the rest of the templates targeted by this RFC decision). 50.53.21.2 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm confused. You start out by saying Nor do I approve but then appear to talk yourself around to suggesting that the {{in lang}} should be deployed as I have outlined above. So which is it?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Trappist the monk There are now four templates using cat-lang after I fixed the easy ones a while ago: {{bal icon}}, {{ilo icon}}, {{nan icon}} and {{ksh icon}}. I think there are really two ways to handle this, either starting a CfD to change the names of these categories or modify Module:Lang. When this situation is dealt with we should sync with your improved link language template and then make sure all templates subsitute properly and then finally use AnomieBOT to mass subsitute these and then delete them. --Trialpears (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Your posting above is merely pro forma since you have already set AnomieBOT to work?
    I think that you meant {{bla icon}} not {{bal icon}}.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    I set it up for a few templates all with few transclusions. It was mearly for testing and if there's consensus to do it some other way it can be reverted. Based on those tests it worked exactly as expected. I'm ready to do the rest if you think my course of action is suitable. --Trialpears (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Apparently we are at deadlock because you object to {{link language}} (which, it appears, you wish to retain) and {{in lang}} existing simultaneously. I object to continued support of {{link language}} (which I want to go away) because the text that {{link language}} associates with in article text is often not a link. You think that all of the wrapper templates should be subst'd to {{link language}} and I think that the wrapper templates should be replaced with {{in lang}}. You did write above when discussing this topic with Editor Primefac: I also wonder what I should replace them with. I feel like In lang would be the best choice, but since this wasn't even a redirect an hour ago and there were so many opinions about it I thought it would be best asking you so perhaps we aren't at deadlock and are talking past each other.
    Still, at the moment, I don't see any consensus here to do anything there being only two of us participating.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    Why is it a problem that not all uses of link language are associated with a link? How would that problem be solved by using in lang? Since they have the same output I don't see any reason to keep them separate. I intend on starting another deletion discussion exclusively dealing with very low transclusion wrappers to gain consensus to delete wrappers under 50 transclusions. The arguments for keeping the wrappers don't apply to these and would be helpful for getting rid of a significant chunk of them. --Trialpears (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    The problem is one of semantics. These are taken from Amazons:
    * A. Klugmann, ''[https://archive.org/details/dieamazoneninde00klgoog Die Amazonen in der attischen Literatur und Kunst]'' (1875) {{de icon}}
    * H.L. Krause, ''Die Amazonensage'' (1893) {{de icon}}
    These sort-of-work for both cases because {{de icon}} isn't specific about what kind of text precedes the template. Change {{de icon}} to {{link language|de}} and the first example works because there is a link to a German-language source. The same cannot be said for the second example because there is no link.
    Change {{de icon}} to {{in lang|de}} and both examples work because {{in lang|de}} does not refer to links but does refer to the language of the sources. Editors are often 'literal' and are confused by template names that do not accurately reflect what the template does (one of the reasons that {{de icon}} and similar are not well named – template doesn't produce an 'icon', this is the sort-of-works that I mentioned above) so an editor reading the wikitext of the second example where {{de icon}} has been changed to {{link language|de}} may be confused by that because the second example does not have a link.
    Isn't it first necessary to decide what those wrappers under 50 transclusions are to be replaced with before you charge off and delete them? Why are you in such a rush?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    I am fine with using in lang as the template name. If we turned {{in lang}} into a redirect that would indeed be my optimal outcome. Can we start working on removing the last few cat-lang uses so we can redirect it now? Regarding the TfD: The main reason is that I kind of messed up yesterday CSDing 4 unused templates thinking there was an exception to the deletion no consensus for unused templates. A TfD would be a solution to this, but I guess they would also fall under T3. I will discuss with the deleting admin (Justlettersandnumbers) to see what they think I should do. --Trialpears (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    OK, I was pinged. Were those mistaken nominations, Trialpears? If so, they can easily be restored – just say the word! (oh, and give me the page titles if you have them handy). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    Justlettersandnumbers Yep they were mistaken, the discussion didn't actually reach a consensus to delete any of the templates, not even these unused ones. I think they would fall under WP:T3 and will probably tag them so they can be deleted after the 7 day hold. Please undelete {{Av icon}}, {{Arn icon}}, {{Ak icon}}, {{Als icon}} and {{Ajt icon}}. --Trialpears (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
     Done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    If you are fine with using in lang as the template name, what is the point of redirecting it? If we are settled that the template name shall be {{in lang}}, then the task ahead is to replace all instances of {{link language}} (and all of its redirects) with {{in lang}}. Deletion of {{link language}} (and all of its redirects) as unused to follow. What then, is the point of a making {{in lang}} into a redirect?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    If you prefer to redirect in the opposite directions that's by all means fine by me. As long as the end result is one template. --Trialpears (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Just to move this along, I support Trappist's proposal of replacing the icon templates with the new one. --Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    I still think that Trappist's solution is more complicated than necessary, leaving the inevitable merger of these identical templates for later will cause more work overall and replacing it with another template is a bit dubious when the consensus was "Merge to Link Language". I'm however confident that the end result will be basically the same either way and won't block the proposed implementation. --Trialpears (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    With regard to:
    {{bla icon}} see Talk:Blackfoot language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{ilo icon}} see Talk:Ilocano language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{ksh icon}} see Talk:Ripuarian language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{nan icon}} see Talk:Taiwanese Hokkien § language naming inconsistencies
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC) (bla) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC) (ilo) 17:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC) (ksh) 14:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) (nan)
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages § language naming inconsistencies
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

  • None currently

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

  • None currently

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

Could I claim this merger? I would like to convert this into my first module. It may take some time though since I have zero lua experience. --Trialpears (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Go for it. Just makes sure you sandbox heavily and maybe have one of us check it before you go live. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

To convert[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute[edit]

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

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

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

  • None currently

Ready for deletion[edit]

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=917255288"