Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 0 0 2 2
TfD 0 0 0 5 5
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 0 49 49
AfD 0 0 0 0 0
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects
List at Redirects for discussion.
Moving and renaming
Use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template

[edit]
Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

Note:

  • If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the TfD notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the TfD tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators or Template editors.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TfD, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_October_26#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.

Add this text to the top of the list:

  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without brackets|result of previous TfD}} directly after the |text= before the why (or alternatively, after the }} of the Tfd2/Catfd2).

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the |text= field of the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
III: Notify users. Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts. Deletion sorting lists are a possible way of doing that.

Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

[edit]

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

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

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

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

Twinkle

[edit]

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion

[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]

October 26

[edit]

Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Blockedtext

[edit]

This was tagged for G6 speedy deletion by Awesome Aasim with the following rationale: A single standardized template now provides the messages, also phab:T229992. The G6 tag sat in the queue for over a week and no admin was comfortable acting on it, so I'm sending it here as a procedural nomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Malaysia statehood dates

[edit]

Article content on template space. Only used on two articles. All information on this template can be found on respective articles. This template is not giving any information that requires a template to do so or better of in template space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The years can be added to the tables at States and federal territories of Malaysia. Also, this is an inproper use of navbox to store article content in the middle of an article. Navbox are hidden in mobile. Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Breaking at the Summer Olympics

[edit]

Unused and only one link. No navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unhelpful navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bowl games map

[edit]

Unused map. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gotham TV Award for Outstanding Performance in a Drama Series

[edit]

Unused and only one article linked. This is a new award and it happened for the first time this year. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand Labour Party membership

[edit]

Unused and no information can be displayed for use as it uses graphs and graphs are not working for the time. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand Labour Party electoral history

[edit]

Unused and no information can be displayed for use as it uses graphs and graphs are not working for the time. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Public records laws in the United States

[edit]

Unused with no mainspace article. Nothing connects other than the similarities of these laws. No real unifying topic presented. All articles are under Category:Freedom of information legislation in the United States. But no main article exists for this category so a navbox isn't necessary or needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mister International Venezuela titleholders

[edit]

Contains only one link to any article of relevance outside the main article. No navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Navigation templates without navigation both confuses readers, and makes the encyclopedia look incompetent. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venezuela at Mister International

[edit]

Had been deleted before for not having any links. Now has only one link to an article of relevance. No navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paracanoeing at the 2024 Summer Paralympics

[edit]

Unused and all links are redirected to the main article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shindo

[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 25

[edit]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Argentina medical cases and similar data templates

[edit]

These COVID data template pages have no transclusions and are all or mostly:

  • out of date,
  • probably in violation of WP:NOTDATABASE, and
  • a lot less useful than they may have been in the past, since COVID is not as interesting to people as it once was.

These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of {{COVID-19 pandemic}}, which appears to violate our guideline on linking from article space to other namespaces (In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace) when that navbox template is transcluded in article space.

I asked at the COVID WikiProject page about these templates, and at least one editor (Crossroads) suggested deletion rather than moving them into article space. So here's a TFD nomination. Please discuss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. WP:NOTDATABASE, no transclusions. It is well known that we over-created COVID-19 articles, and that after the recent-ness of the event wore off, that we'd have to mass delete things from the COVID-19 topic area. This is a low hanging fruit example that should be non-controversial since there's no transclusions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COVID killed more americans in 2023 than flu had killed in a hundred years. if the #1 deadliest respiratory disease season in a hundred years counts as being "over-created", what could possibly count as properly created? there's literally no higher rank than #1. i'm obviously going to maintain this resource either way, just tell me how much higher than #1 we have to get until its inclusion isn't controversial. doesn't it seem fair for you to type it out now, so when we get there you can't argue any more? Kinerd518 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that we are all volunteers, but how does your claim that you will "maintain this resource" square with the state of {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United States daily deaths}}, which hasn't been edited in over a year and contains data only from 1 Jan 2023 through 12 May 2023? [Edited to add: I see that the untranscluded {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United States daily deaths post emergency}} picks up where the former untranscluded template leaves off; if you want to advocate for conversion of one or more of those to articles, please do so.] No blame for you at all, but one way or another, it appears that this template is no longer used. The same appears to be true of most or all of the templates above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    referenced below, but for completeness' sake: i can't speak to most of the templates above, just the very specific one that is still included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States which is to say, the deadliest pandemic in the history of the most important and newsworthy country in the entire world. if there are a lot of other articles besides those very specific ones i cited that don't matter, i mean, who cares? go crazy, go wild, delete all of them if it makes you happy, and i mean that sincerely, just don't throw out the globally relevant baby with the Marin County Medical Cases Chart bathwater. how is this even a conversation? Kinerd518 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the most important and newsworthy country in the entire world. Not sure most editors on wikipedia would agree with such a pro imperialism take. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason these charts ended up here in the first place is because they were thought to have no transclusions. But I do see that one there, in a bar graph form; it is the same one in the code. I wonder why that ended up here, then. Crossroads -talk- 05:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have been updating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/United_States_daily_deaths_post_emergency every day for over a year. editor @Crossroads declares that the sources are no longer updating case counts; i can't speak to that either way, because this source is explicitly about deaths and not cases. @Crossroads is too bored to distinguish between cases and deaths, and nevertheless wants to declare their almost certainty that the counts are outdated
why? Kinerd518 (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to personalize things with statements like Crossroads is too bored to distinguish between cases and deaths. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kinerd518: That template is being updated, but it is not transcluded anywhere. If it is article content, it should live in article space. If it is WikiProject content, it should live in Project space. Unused templates do not belong in Template space. What should be done with templates that are still seen as relevant? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in fact, the template is very visibly transcluded in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States
please let me know if you have any other questions Kinerd518 (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
excuse me, but @Crossroads brought up how they were bored by the updating of information on the deadliest pandemic in US history. if it wasn't personalized when they said it, it cannot be personalized when i said it
and, more importantly, you didn't address how they declared how this information was "outdated", when i provided absolute proof how it was updated daily. don't you wonder why you decided to argue about the first point, even though i was absolutely right about that, and ignored the second point, when i was absolutely right about that too?
and don't you don't you wonder benefits from your choice of argument? Kinerd518 (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. I didn't see them call it boring, but I see the quote now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being a bit flippant. The premise in the talk page on the Covid Wikiproject was that none of these were transcluded, which a spot check seemed to confirm. Since that is apparently not true of all of them, I suppose those could be exempted and I will amend my comment below, but I do maintain that this is excessive detail and isn't really an accurate picture of what the virus is doing at this point. Crossroads -talk- 05:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't get a response a while back when I asked the project back in December 2023. But all these templates haven't been updated in a couple of years. And WP:NOTSTATS applies here. And this is just a small batch of unused templates for Covid data and I think all of them should be deleted as all are pretty out-of-date and stats can be found elsewhere and Wikipedia should not be a repository for data like this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't know where or how you asked anything, all i can demonstrate unequivocally is that the specific template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/United_States_daily_deaths_post_emergency is in fact updated daily and the stats cannot be found anywhere else, and deleting "all of them" regardless of how any individual citation is updated is sloppy and frankly embarrassing Kinerd518 (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now, revisit later. Contrary to some comments here, I have been updating three of these templates every day since the pandemic began: {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United States/California/Alameda County medical cases chart}}, {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United States/California/San Francisco County medical cases chart}}, and {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United States/California/Sonoma County medical cases chart}}, plus {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United States/California/Santa Clara County medical cases chart}}, which wasn't nominated for some reason. The nominator may have only looked at the edit history without noticing figures from as recently as yesterday. Edit history is misleading because the backing data for these templates is stored in the Data: namespace on Wikimedia Commons. The Alameda County and San Francisco health departments only release updated figures once a week, while Santa Clara County updates three times a week and Sonoma County updates daily (but the numbers rarely budge). The other Bay Area counties stopped reporting COVID-19 statistics several months ago.

    To be clear, I disagree that the lack of updates would justify deletion. Even if the world eradicates COVID-19 tomorrow, there is significant historical value in documenting past trends and waves in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Even better if we can retroactively update past figures as more information becomes available. For example, earlier this week, Santa Clara County revised the case count for October 13, 2021, and other days in the following years, causing cascading changes and ultimately a difference of 31 cases by October 10 of this year. These revisions happen regularly, though I don't know if others are keeping track of retroactive changes as I am.

    We need to be able to visualize the statistics, not just store them in tabular form on Commons. Otherwise, readers will not come away with an accurate perspective about the rate and scale of spread. Unfortunately, these templates depend on Module:Medical cases chart, which is not fit for purpose. Users need to do plenty of fidgeting to figure out how to display a prior month or year using the filter buttons, but by default, it only shows the last 15 days, which rarely exhibits any change whatsoever. In COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area, I had attempted to replace these templates with {{Graph:Lines}}, which displays the full time series as a much more digestible line graph. Unfortunately, graphs were disabled due to security reasons last year. Until a replacement is ready, these finicky charts are better than nothing. I would edit this article to transclude the nominated templates again, except I don't know if that's acceptable while a TfD is ongoing.

    I vote to table this nomination until the new charts are ready – sounds like we're finally getting close. In the meantime, I highly recommend that folks refactor the rest of these templates as I've done for the Bay Area ones, because the new charts will depend on tabular data on Commons, not hard-coded wikitext on this wiki.

     – Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete most or all per WP:NOTDATABASE. We don't keep meticulous details of case or death counts over time by locality of any other disease, not even ones like HIV or tuberculosis. Case and death counts aren't even accurate anymore due to the fact that testing has been scaled back greatly; [1] recent numbers are misleading precision. And in general, there is no reason for Wikipedia to be a database that keeps track of historical case numbers by jurisdiction, any more than we are a repository of genetic information of variants, or of any other biological entity for that matter. Crossroads -talk- 05:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted it to say "most" since the premise of this is based on them not being transcluded, but at least one above apparently was. In any case, I maintain that ones with no transclusions should be deleted. I also don't think we should be keeping track of these numbers at this level of ostensibly fine-grained detail at all per above, but since that's out of the original intended scope of the nomination, it makes more sense to let that be (I'm not supporting keeping it either though). Crossroads -talk- 05:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If these fail WP:NOTDATABASE, then these should be deleted. If they don't then these are article content and should either be added directly into articles or converted to articles. In any case, these should not exist as templates to store content. To Kinerd518 or other maintainers, if you want to continue to add data, then Wikidata would probably be the correct place for this. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use short sub-templates for Spruance-class destroyer infoboxes

[edit]

Except for the ABL/VLS armament templates, these templates are all just 1 or 2-line, unparameterized replacement text for parameters in the {{Spruance class destroyer infobox ship characteristics}} ship infobox sub-template. They weren't conditionally included; they were all directly included by the infobox subtemplate. I simply subst:'d them into the infobox subtemplate.

The {{Spruance class destroyer armament ABL}} and {{Spruance class destroyer armament VLS}} subtemplates are both the same list of 6 items, with different 7th items (ABL launcher, or VLS launcher). VLS was the default template, so I renamed it to {{Spruance class destroyer armament}}, and parameterized it to include either ABL or VLS, rather than switch otherwise identical parallel template lists.

After deletion, there will be 4 templates left:

The EW and sensors subtemplates are lists of items, and they are conditionally included/replaced by the main infobox subtemplate. IMO it would hinder readability of the Spruance infobox subtemplate to get rid of them.

 — sbb (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as requester – For clarification of the VLS sub-template, Template:Spruance class destroyer armament VLS is now a redirect to {{Spruance class destroyer armament}}; The only article linking to that template is the Spruance-class infobox subtemplate. I'm requesting deletion of the VLS redirect, along with the now-orphaned Template:Spruance class destroyer armament ABL.  — sbb (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 24

[edit]

Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 pandemic in Africa

[edit]

These editnotices have been blanked by ProcrastinatingReader, following what I assume to be proper procedure based on some consensus. I asked about blank editnotices at Wikipedia talk:Editnotice, but I received no helpful input, so consider this a test run at TFD. There are hundreds of blank editnotice templates; this is a sample of eleven of them on the same topic; there are about 70 blank COVID editnotices. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and why did ProcrastinatingReader do this instead of replacing them by {{Contentious topics/editnotice|topic=covid}}? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was in 2020!
Mmmh. Well, today they should be replaced by the code above instead of being deleted, I'd say. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine if that is the consensus outcome. I can choose another set of blank editnotice pages for another nomination. The COVID editnotice pages start at about line 555 at Special:UnusedTemplates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link; I have now added the code to the pages. The only result requiring formal consensus through this discussion would be deletion, I think, so if these are undesirable for a yet-unnamed reason, that reason can be specified and discussed here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm happy to withdraw this nomination and defer to a larger discussion of whether COVID articles still need CT editnotices. That discussion should happen elsewhere. I will nominate some other unused editnotices; this turned out to be a poor test case, as I suspected might happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Four years later I don't think we need a separate editnotice template for each Covid article talk page. And since they are unused we don't have the need anymore when the talk page banner used on such article talk pages is a general contentious topic notice. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For-multi

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Withdrawn by nom. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been bothering me for a bit: This template is redundant to {{About}} since all transclusions of {{For-multi}} could be replaced with {{About}} while shifting all their parameters down a value ("1=" becomes "2=", "2=" becomes "3=", etc.) and it will return the same hatnote. In other words, if literally {{For-multi were replaced with {{About| in all instances, all would be the same. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as the documentation says:

Technically, {{About}} can be used by passing an empty first parameter, but this isn't recommended as the wikitext {{About||UseA|ArticleA|UseB}} doesn't make it clear what the output is going to be and what the purpose of the template is as, in this case, the name of the template "About" is misleading.

Considering that it's a simple wrapper around {{hatnote}} and Module:Hatnote list, it seems clearly net-positive to me. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the documentation clear as day admits that the template is truly unnecessary due to its redundancy, basically per what I stated in my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this concern isn't new either: See Template talk:For-multi#Division of labour. The very existence of this template was question almost immediately after it was created. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is virtually no downside to having this template in addition to {{About}} as both it and {{About}} end up using Module:Hatnote and Module:Hatnote list. If anything, using this template provides a sight advantage as it avoids having to call the intermediate logic in Module:About. The upside of {{For-multi being more descriptive and far less hacky than {{About| outweighs any potential downsides. It is much more intuitive to use a template called for-multi than one designed around a different purpose with an empty argument. – BrandonXLF (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{About}}. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As per above. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:D06C:D3A7:4223:A610 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more readable and intuitive than using {{About}} with an empty first parameter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you want to simply implement it as a wrapper around {{about}}, then, is there a benefit to doing that? --Joy (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I appreciate the concern about redundant templates, the potential for such doesn't seem to rise very high or appear compelling enough to delete it. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep use this frequently and is a simple replacement for the for template in a pinch. --Engineerchange (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep template is used on so many articles, it helps adding more then one entry of related pages on lead & also as per:

Technically, {{About}} can be used by passing an empty first parameter, but this isn't recommended as the wikitext {{About||UseA|ArticleA|UseB}} doesn't make it clear what the output is going to be and what the purpose of the template is as, in this case, the name of the template "About" is misleading.

Considering that it's a simple wrapper around {{hatnote}}. Adharmasingh (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's be honest here - expecting editors to faff around with manually doing {{About|2=...|3=...}} (instead of a simpler and less hacky {{For-multi|...|...}}) is a bit of a silly idea. Nobody's gonna want to do it, and the two likely outcomes are either someone re-implementing {{For-multi}} to save everyone else the hassle of the {{About|2=...|3=...}} malarkey, or people just not bothering to add hatnotes in this sort of situation. Either way, the downsides of deleting {{For-multi}} far outweigh any perceived gains from deleting it. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Seems the major reason why this template has 11,000 transclusions is because an editor (not the template's creator) replaced several transclusions of {{About}} with this template after the template was created. If I recall, doing cosmetic changes like that goes against some sort of policy, but I cannot find the policy at the moment. Either way, my point is the editor performing these steps essentially fabricated the common use of this template. In retrospect, I should have attempted to nip that in the bud when I noticed it back when this template was created in 2021 (3 years ago), but I think I didn't think the editor would replace that many transclusions of {{About}}. Anyways, the "damage" has been done ("damage" in quotes because it's my opinion in the matter, and I know others will consider it "improvement" instead) and is so engrained in Wikipedia at this point, in addition to the obvious WP:SNOW in this discussion, that I withdraw this nomination. (I'd close this discussion boldly, but I cannot unless I do it out of process due to Achmad Rachmani's vote.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Global epidemiology by condition

[edit]

This seems to be an arbitrarily constructed list of some diseases and things, in violation of WP:NAV-RELATED. I can't figure out what brings these topics together. The template creator hasn't edited in over a decade, and my query at the talk page went unanswered. Suggest deletion, as I'm not sure how this can be turned into a reasonable navbox. Ajpolino (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latin script/diacritic with all letters/overview

[edit]

Unused sub template. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Math/li

[edit]

Unused math template. Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 23

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/LGBT article alerts

[edit]

"Wrapper" template no longer needed. This formerly existed as a wrap-around for User:AlexNewArtBot/LGBTSearchResult, so that it could be displayed on Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies inside a collapsible box instead of being directly transcluded wholesale -- but the structure of the WikiProject page has been significantly revised, so that the search-results page (which is still in use) is now accessed through a direct text link instead of using this wrapper template for transcludability, so an editor tried to "archive" it even though it's just a wrapper for a different page that remains in use, rather than content in its own right. So we no longer need to retain this wrapper at all anymore, if the thing it's wrapping is being accessed in a different way now. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Account creator/right place notice

[edit]

This "message box" is only used only on page so it should be subst there, however, it also incorrectly uses {{Navbox}} so does not display on desktop. Replace the navbox with {{Ombox}} before substing. Gonnym (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you moved this back to template-space? This worked perfectly fine in Wikipedia-space; there's no policy there that things need to have multiple transclusions and keeping the overall page source more readable imo is a plus. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a template for over a year and a half and moved last week, and since I sent it to XfD, it should be sent to where it it logically fits. While there is no policy, as an admin I'd expect you to know that for years now templates have been subst for having a single transclusion. A single transclusion template means that you make editing of a page harder and complicated for no gain, and no, keeping the page source readable while hiding the actual content, is not a plus but a minus. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm well aware that one-transclusion templates typically get substituted and deleted, hence why this isn't appropriate for the template namespace. That same logic doesn't really apply to the Wikipedia namespace, though, which is what I said. And no, in this case, substituting this would make editing the page moderately more annoying (same is even more true of the other venues with similar transclusions, which are explicitly meant to be newbie-friendly pages to edit and not mess up; this one isn't quite as clear and I could see a case for removing the banner altogether, at which point this would obviously be unnecessary). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Account creator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that navboxes are also used at WP:PCR and WP:ROLLBACK. I'm not sure why this is preferred. Cremastra (u — c) 21:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 22

[edit]

Template:Speedway race format - t6 r3

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. Created in 2009. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Rail transport in Jamaica

[edit]

Per project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Rail transport in Jamaica redirecting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains - subst or delete or redirect. 38 transclusions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WikiProject banners should never be subst. Gonnym (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect what is the benefit in deleting this? If a WikiProject or taskforce relating to rail transport in Jamaica is established then if this template is redirected it will allow easy categorisation, etc. at that time while offering no downsides in the meanwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clutter is a downside. Banner blindness is a downside. Maintenance burden is a downside. Duplicate banners on the same talk page is downside. If an editor can't be bothered to tag these 36 pages in the hypothetical date in the future where this project is created, then that project is already DoA, as it takes much more effort to run a project. Gonnym (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Active politician

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Active politician with Template:BLP.
{{Active politician}} is only used on talk pages of BLPs, which also display the {{BLP}} template. Would it be sensible to merge these templates, via an optional parameter |activepol=yes which would display the extra text? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 It would reduce clutter on talk pages. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the activepol=yes parameter would still work with the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template so that the display is per proposed change to {{BLP}} I'm in support of this in order to reduce clutter. TarnishedPathtalk 02:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 21

[edit]

Template:HOPL-lang

[edit]

Citation template only used on one page, but even more important, the link does not lead to where it should and the website has a "not secure" warning on my browser. Gonnym (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

No transclusions of this rail-related template. Possibly orphaned during an upgrade of affected pages to use Module:Adjacent stations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Foreign relations of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

[edit]

This template should be deleted as soon as possible right now. Most of the articles on it were permanently deleted earlier. As shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan–Chechnya_relations&action=edit&redlink=1 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia–Ichkeria_relations&action=edit&redlink=1. The Template was created by the banned user and sock puppet of ArsenalAthleticio2017 named [User:Relahs]. So why keep this Template. Delete this template as well as the article for Estonia above. Period. YDMCFreshMeadows192 talk 14:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep for multiple reasons:
  • Number 1: there have been significant contributions since then by users who were NOT blocked/banned. So the speedy deletion point is moot.
  • Number 2: the nomination was itself made by a sockpuppet of a blocked/banned LTA. Which means WP:SKCRIT applies.
  • And number 3: the rationale of “most of the articles on it were permanently deleted earlier” is completely wrong. There are only three red links on that template.
Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; seems like a useful navbox. Should be added to the articles it links to per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Cremastra (u — c) 22:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geert Wilders

[edit]

Not that many links to make a nav justifiable. One of them is even a redirect, and another does not use the nav Dajasj (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible to add more links to this template. The Banner talk 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games event

[edit]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has potential for use – e.g. at 3x3 basketball at the 2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games, which currently uses the more generic {{Infobox sports competition event}}. Cremastra (u — c) 01:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women Group tables

[edit]

Unused as Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament uses different tables. Gonnym (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Highest points of Africa

[edit]

I don't see the point of having a template for every "highest mountain top in xxx place" conceivable Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It provides a way for readers to navigate between the highest points of the various sovereign states of continents. These templates also exist for the Canadian highpoints, US highpoints, and other continents. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the African, North American, and South American templates because Europe, Asia, and Oceania already had pre-existing highpoint templates. If those continents had templates it stands to reason that Africa and the Americas should as well. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – as a highpoint template would be VERY useful. I don’t see conceivability to be a good enough rationale. Especially if everyone works on it. If anything; we need to be creating more highpoint templates; not getting rid of them! I think maybe we should make one for state/territory high points in the United States. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait.. just realized. There already is. And it’s very useful. I use it; I’m sure a lot of folks use it. We should be making more templates like that. Maybe start thinking about high points in Canadian provinces (already done) and Mexican states for instance as well. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R tagged automatically

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 20

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seeing as the handful of transclusions left are very old usages, either subst or use {{CUU}} to replace them. Gonnym (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ACC terms

[edit]

Event coordinators are no longer granted the account creator role, there's now a special temporary event coordinator role (without permission to bypass blacklist or spoofing checks), now meaning that this template has no further use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MolecularPilot (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not used anymore by the new role, which hopefully an admin can confirm. Gonnym (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KoreanSeries

[edit]

This hatnote template strikes me as unnecessary. It is only for use in Korean Series articles. But they all contain the {{Infobox baseball championship series}} infobox that links to the previous and next Korean Series, as well as the {{Korean Series}} navbox template at the bottom that links to all Korean Series. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The infobox and bottom navbox already handle these links. A hatnot should not be used for these type of links. Gonnym (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Art Ross Trophy

[edit]

Template orphaned as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#NHL_award_winner_navboxes discussion, where consensus is against having such navboxes. Flibirigit (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 19

[edit]

Template:Historical race concepts sidebar

[edit]
  1. The template doesn’t meet the threshold of WP:SERIES („very broad subjects“).
  2. It is redundant, because we already have Template:Historical definitions of race.
  3. The template seems an arbitrary selection of articles, mostly from the template mentioned in point 2. The POV character of this template has been discussed at WP:FT/N#"Historical_race_concepts"_sidebar
  4. The template is not used by any article. It had recently been added to some, but I removed it from there because I see no constructive reason for adding it.
  5. All historical race concepts have been debunked and are pseudo-scientific according to modern biology. We should not give those concepts extra prominence by this template.
  6. The picture in the template is clearly racist, being a scan from an old book containing three pictures of an ape, a Black and a White person, the text claiming the superiority of the latter. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I think this should be procedurally closed on account of OP's very strange conduct in the last few days. Some highlights:
    • They have been formally invited by me to simply remove individual entries they find to be POV; they could, of course, also provide an alternate illustration if they knew one. This has not happened. Instead, they remove every single transclusion of the template for being POV (*including in the very article for historical race concepts[4][5]), and then simultaneously ask for it to be deleted on grounds of not being in use (cf. also their FT/N thread). I have harshly criticized this practice on one of the various redundant discussions they have opened;[6] they have not responded.
    • OP failed to point out that there was already a massive POV shift with the inclusion of "Racism, Scientific Racism and Pseudoscience" via an "above" parameter (i.e. of greatest relative prominence within the template).[7][8][9]
    • Of course the illustration is racist; though not in some kind of infectious sense, as this is a now more comical than legitimate illustration from a 1898 textbook.
    • The selection is not arbitrary, as has been pointed out to OP on multiple occasions.
    • OP has - for frankly irrelevant reasons he could have quickly fixed himself - reverted my expansions of the footer with new entries I originally included only in this new sidebar. So the two are, in fact, not even redundant with each other. But even if they were, this would not, in itself, be grounds for deletion.
    Don't misunderstand me: I am not seeking sanctions in this thread, simply asking for a procedural close so that this discussion may continue in some more appropriate venue, e.g. the template's talk page. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that Biohistorian15 didn't answer to my points no. 1 and 5. The redundancy (no. 2) is already given by the similar names and by the obviously identical scopes. It is not true that I removed the transclusions for "being POV", as can be seen from the very diffs Biohistorian15 gave. I'd really like to know what rationale the selection (no. 3) is based on since I can't remember that that "has been pointed out to" me. No. 4: I don't see why I shouldn't revert an addition which IMHO is reducing the article's quality. No. 6: I'm not sure that all our readers will regard the picture as "comical". Some might say, "Ah, formerly they were allowed free speech, and nowadays leftists cancel those results of science." Rsk6400 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose (*just in case my comment above wasn't clear enough)
    (1.) is a mere essay. (5.) This is fully accounted for by our, presently, stating with a lot of prominence in the template, that these concepts are, in fact, racist and pseudoscientific. Besides, left-wing scholarship has engaged critically with these concepts a fair lot; you don't have to be right-wing to find this content area worthy of a navigational sidebar.
    I would also recommend that you no longer remove the sidebar wherever you find it, @Rsk6400; especially when it is under discussion. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bystanders may also want to note that I've (a) now been able to come up with a more neutral illustration,[10] and (b) did a careful revert of Rsk6400's strange activities at the footer template.[11] Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPMASSACHUSETTS

[edit]

Risk of forking with Template:WikiProject Massachusetts - redirect or delete.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. This also applies to each template below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this would be a pointless redirect. Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPQUAKER

[edit]

Redirect to Template:WikiProject Quakers or delete.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this would be a pointless redirect. Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPLAOS

[edit]

Risk of forking with Template:WikiProject Laos - redirect or delete.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this would be a pointless redirect. Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPBRUNEI

[edit]

Risk of forking with Template:WikiProject Brunei - redirect or delete.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this would be a pointless redirect. Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

October 17

Template:Countdown2

[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Epic Rap Battles of History

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

Template:The 70 Greatest Redskins

[edit]

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

October 9

Template:Redshirt

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

[edit]

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

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

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

Completed discussions

[edit]

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

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

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