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.
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
V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 0 44 16 60
TfD 0 0 0 4 4
MfD 0 0 3 6 9
FfD 0 0 0 8 8
AfD 0 0 6 42 48
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 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.

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:

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/2021_October_14#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at Tfd. Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

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

If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous Tfd without brackets|result of previous Tfd}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors[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.

Notifying related WikiProjects[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 {{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[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 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.

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 14[edit]

Template:Afjet Afyonspor squad[edit]

Unused and outdated. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Advisory bodies of Indonesia[edit]

Unused and only three links. Not enough for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Administrative division (sub-district) of East Balikpapan[edit]

Unused and similar to the former West Balikpapan template that was merged with Template:Balikpapan. All the articles here are featured on the main Balikpapan template already. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:AFC Dacia Unirea Brăila[edit]

The first template links to two categories, an article for the team and the stadium. Really two articles. No navigational benefit. The seasons template is nothing but red and has been since its creation since 2018. It's been sitting around for no good reason. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Academic peer reviewed (main)[edit]

Both unused. The first template states it is a "Miniaturised version of Template:Academic peer reviewed". But we don't use miniaturised template versions or any kind with that description. Unless its intention is to be subpage. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:AbortionLawsIrregularMap[edit]

Unused fork of the map already used on the Abortion law article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Abbrw[edit]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Asseco Resovia Rzeszów team[edit]

Only one is used on one article. The rest is unused. These fall under navbox crust as there isn't a need for each team for each season to have a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:AY-3-8910[edit]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete This was used in many arcade video game articles when they included details about the hardware. When CPU and sound chip specifics went away, so did the need for this template. Dgpop (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Category by decade[edit]

Unused. Izno (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Month links by quarter[edit]

This template is used to duplicate the table of contents a) immediately after the table of contents displays, b) in a section where the only section headings are in the page currently. Even if those are proper summary sections, we still don't need this template as it is duplicating the table of contents unnecessarily. Izno (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete Unnecessary duplicate of section headings. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Women in Red 2021 Africa contest: February second place[edit]

The Women in Red project uses badges for users who have won the contest. Not individual templates. These are not used by the project. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Whatsapp group[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 G11 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Advertising Whiteguru (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2021 (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).

October 13[edit]

Template:Artsakh FC sections[edit]

Unused and only two links. Not enough for a sidebar template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Abdul aziz molla[edit]

Unused and not a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Abkhazia national football team results[edit]

Unused as no articles exist for it to be used on. The mainspace article for the national football team already has a game log for results since 2012. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:A-Class article[edit]

Not used. Articles are not assessed by a letter format. Seems like a fork of Good article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Keep for now: A-class is a now mostly unused rating system (supposed to be between GA and FA I think). However, I think A-class as a whole would need to be fully phased out before we can really talk about potentially deleting this template. It would be inappropriate to jump to step 2 before we started step 1. Curbon7 (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Curbon7, you say it should be phased out. But it's not used anywhere. Are you referring to A-Class criteria and what is supposed to be its potential usage from this? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
WikiCleanerMan, Yes it is for A-class criteria. As far as I'm aware, this is a topicon like how FA and GA have topicons in the top-right (for example on Niels Bohr). However, as you can see from the category (Category:A-Class articles), A-class is almost never used anymore outside of the scope of WP:WikiProject Military History. However, as articles (such as Napoleon and James Cannan) are listed as A-class, this template should technically be placed on those articles. Hence the tentative keep for now. Curbon7 (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The page has been around since 2008. Why hasn't this idea taken off or stayed in essentially what looks like a proposal after a decade? Majority of empty cats kept for tracking purposes. But the template was created in March of this year. Which kind of adds more confusion. Maybe you can explain this. But I think it's best to bring in members of the Military history project and have them give their take on this since it's mostly used on their related articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete—while A-class exists, no articles actually label A-class like we do FA or GA articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Azerbaijani clubs in European football[edit]

Unused. Linked to only two articles. The rest are redirect. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Added the Armenian template which is similar to the Azer template. This one is unused, but mainly contains redirects. No navigational benefit is presented. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Arab tribes in Qatar (closely linked)[edit]

Another template fork of Template:Arab tribes in Qatar created by the same user whose previous template was deleted back on August 7. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Creator is apparently a new user. Have you tried talking to them, about what they're trying to achieve? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Andy, I haven't. But the user has been notified of this Tfd if that counts for something. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:ARGint[edit]

Both unused. Not sure what the first template is to be for. But both templates don't have any informational value. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

It's a Jcttop template for Argentina. If you want to get rid of it, fine by me. Just don't salt it. I'll make it back later when I make ARGbtm and use it in some Argentina road pages. Feel free to discuss it on the Latin American Highways Task Force, they might be willing to finish it. I also might have misunderstood what was needed. Somebody on there might see that too. I am not available, as I am busy for personal and educational reasons. Feel free to delete while I'm gone within 5 hours of this post. Mr. Holup (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Keep, I think this discussion was way too hasty. See Template:Jcttop and similar templates. --Rschen7754 00:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:26 Baku Commissars[edit]

Subject doesn't warrant a navbox as the mainspace already lists all 26 individuals. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • An actually valid rationale would be that this navbox is unused. Delete accordingly. --Izno (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Women in Red Women Writers header[edit]

Not used by the Women in Red project or anywhere else for that matter. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • As far as I am concerned, this can be deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Expand with relevant sources[edit]

This template only has five transclusions, and it seems redundant to many other 'needs more sources' templates.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete Redundant and feels like a fork of other templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@WikiCleanerMan and Mr. Guye: This template is probably redundant, since it's already possible to include links in the {{missing information}} template. Jarble (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Sambo[edit]

Per WP:REDNOT, Red links may be used in navboxes which also contain links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Of the five blue links (out of 24), only three actually transclude it. And one of them is the daddy article, World Sambo Championships. One of the blue links is a redirect being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 12 § Asian Sambo Championship. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete No navigational benefit is presented. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:1992 Croatia Olympic team[edit]

Unused and falls under navbox crust. Tfd's from several months ago had dealt with the same issue of these Olympic team navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:1938–39 NBL Western Division standings[edit]

Both unused and redundant as no articles exist for each team's respective season and the NBL season for 1938–39 and 1939–40. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I can agree to that as an alternative. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:5TeamBracket-Byetofinal2legs[edit]

All three are unused and from what I could tell have never been used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Keep Template:5TeamBracket-Byetofinal2legs and delete the other two. I have created the first one to be used in the CAF Confederation Cup seasons' articles, starting from the 2021–22 edition, since no appropriate bracket that suits the competition format existed before. It will be used there once the play-off round draw is held. For the other two, I can see that Template:9TeamBracket-AFC was created to replace two brackets currently being used in 2021 AFC Cup knockout stage, but since the tournament's knockout stage slightly changes every season, I think it would be better to keep using the current brackets instead, and therefore I'm with deleting this template. I can't think of a competition that would benefit from third bracket too, so I'm voting for deleting it. Ben5218 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Anthony Braxton compositions[edit]

Unused, largely text with three links at the bottom that are to non-related articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Museum of Illusions[edit]

There is only one relevant existing article. The template has some big promo vibes. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete No navigational benefit provided. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Infobox rugby league biography/PERSONAL[edit]

Unused in mainspace. Izno (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Apple display specs[edit]

Propose merging Template:Apple display specs with Template:Infobox information appliance.
If this particular 'display specs' template has information generally necessary, it should be as part of the more general information appliance infobox, which is already reasonably detailed as is. Izno (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Herzeleid[edit]

Non-standard navbox/sidebar that is used on only one page. Izno (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete Articles already featured on the Rammstein navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Shades of brown[edit]

October 12[edit]

Template:WikiProject United States presidential elections[edit]

Both unused and no longer used by the USPE WikiProject. From the previous Tfd for the main template from November 25, 2011, the result was keep for now. The nominator mentioned that it was "Deprecated, very few transclusions". And the keep votes were in favor of deletion until it was no longer used. Almost ten years later, the template is no longer used and does qualify for deletion. The editintro subpage is not used as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. As a subst-only template, it is to be expected that it has no transclusions. Further, the use of a template wrapper for WikiProject task forces is widespread and accepted. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Windows NT[edit]

If there is one thing that Wikipedia has too many, it is navboxes for Windows articles. To wit, {{Windows 7}}, {{Windows 8}}, {{Windows 10}}, {{Windows 10 version history}}, {{Windows 11}}, {{Windows 11 version history}}, {{Windows Mobile}}, {{Windows Phone}}, {{Windows tablets}}, {{Windows Vista}}, {{Windows XP}}, and of course {{Microsoft Windows family}}.

So, someone thought it is good idea to make this template too! It's bulky, ugly, and redundant; plus, it resorts to the poseur's trick of coupling the dead-and-buried "NT" designation to modern versions of Windows. Links in this template randomly go anywhere. In one case, "NT" goes to Windows Vista. In another, "NT" goes to Windows 7. And so on. "10.0.x" once goes to Windows Server 2016 and another time to Windows Server. To prevent its deletion, the creator has resorted to a dishonest trick: He added {{oldtfdfull}} to the template's talk page to dupe us into thinking that this template survived a deletion on 2021 June 28. Waysidesc (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete Redundant to a group in {{Microsoft Windows family}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. Unnecessary and poorly thought out navigation box full of Easter eggs. Existing templates already provide almost all the functionality this is attempting to achieve. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Actually, I am not finished with the template, it's still in construction. I will fix this template as soon as possible, it in my user page. Next I will add the component pages from Windows NT. And to be honest, what you guys are saying about me is not true.VictorRocks (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Unsure. Had the links in the template been more focused on features common to most or all iterations of Windows NT, I might have said Keep. But as it stands, it is just a list of Windows NT family operating systems. That is indeed redundant to {{Microsoft Windows family}} and should be deleted. Furthermore, this template seems more like it ought to be a list article than a sidebar template. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:2014 Oakland mayoral election vote count by round[edit]

This should be substituted on the 2014 Oakland mayoral election article and removed from Libby Schaff's article. Election results are not a good use of template space. This is information that belongs on an article as part of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Keep as a valid template used on multiple articles. I don't see a clear reason why this shouldn't be on Libby Schaaf's article, and it's not really justified to remove templates from articles just so they become single-use and can be subst- and deleted. There is no scarcity of template space. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Substitute and delete. This level of detail is excessive for anywhere but the election article itself; Schaff's biography should only contain a simple prose summary linked to the election, making this a single use template. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 11[edit]

Template:Pandora Papers[edit]

Unnecessary navbox, linking only Pandora Papers and List of people named in the Pandora Papers. There is a WikiQuote page, but no WikiCommons page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Still support deletion, as most of the newly-added articles only mention the Pandora Papers in passing or not at all, which makess the articles too loosely affiliated to support a navbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. I have updated template. This is important due to its topic. I will update it with more headings.11:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Ameen Akbar (talk)
  • Keep per @Ameen Akbar. ytpks896 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep I'd advise adding the template to the relevant articles before going to a Tfd to see if its use is warranted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per Pppery. This topic does not presently meet the expectations in WP:NAVBOX, particularly #3 and #5, and I do not anticipate that fact will change. Probably {{Panama Papers}} and {{Paradise Papers}} should meet the same fate as this template. There probably is a reasonable combined template for the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists that should exist connecting all the papers related topics and any other significant activities of the ICIJ, or maybe a generic {{Papers leaks}} or something. --Izno (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per above; does not meet guidelines number 3 and 5 in WP:NAVBOX. The linked articles do not refer to each other, because the Pandora Papers are the only thing they have in common, and they would be unlikely to appear in each other's "See also" sections if not for this navbox. I would also agree on combining all the ICIJ paper leaks into one navbox. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - All so to save face about the current leak warranting it. -2603:9000:A703:1EFD:9541:8330:E94D:87FB (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - Not based on the recent news but because it looks like the template has been improved. It looks like the template was copy and pasted from {{Panama Papers}}, so even if it was deleted today I would imagine a navbox would be created eventually. – The Grid (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Alhatorah[edit]

Used in the creator's sandbox and on one article. No good reason to maintain a custom template and module for so few uses. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Keep - This template links to a scholarly version of many Jewish commentaries to the Bible (and English translations of some of the commentaries). Similar to Template:Bibleverse, it provides a simple and authoritative link to use instead of a plaintext reference. Thus, it is appropriate to be used in hundreds or thousands of references currently found in various Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism articles. So far I have only used it in one place, and it is not well known so nobody else has used it, but it has the potential to be used much more widely. If I find time someday, I may do so myself. Ar2332 (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I just added the template in two more places, and in doing so, I discovered and fixed a copyright violation (the translation linked to by the template was being used without attribution as Wikipedia text). I think that demonstrates the template's value. Ar2332 (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment: I'm conflicted here. I can see the potential in such a template, however after 4 months it is only used in two pages. Such low usage does not need a template and usages can be done manually. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Remove unranked[edit]

Single-purpose template to remove one string ("unranked_"), now replaced with a generic find-replace template. User:GKFXtalk 21:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 10[edit]

Template:Usersock-self[edit]

It only had a half-dozen transclusions or so (which I've just removed while wearing my clerk hat). From an SPI perspective, this template does not actually convey any useful information (so what if someone confirmed that particular socks were theirs?), and I can't say I've ever actually seen anyone use it in my tenure at SPI. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete IPsock-self is similar to this but nonetheless don't see why any user would want to admit being a sockpuppet. The point of them violating their bans is to avoid detection. And this template has only been used once by one user back in 2016. Doesn't have much of a reason to remain. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:SRT Commuter color[edit]

This Template:S-line SRT Commuter on the list are no longer used after being replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/SRT Red Lines. - Jjpachano (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:WAD[edit]

This template is used on more than 1400 airport pages and is supposed to link to an airport-specific entry at worldaerodata.com, see e.g. archived link for RKSI. The domain has been usurped though rendering this template useless. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete per nom. Also Data current as of October 2006 paints a bleak picture by itself. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • weak keep, used as a reference in some cases. I have updated the template to use the web archive link and not link to the usurped domain. But I could see substituting this since it's not likely to be used for new references. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete The link the template provides is now useless. No need for it to be around any more. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Substitute where used as a reference, and delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 9[edit]

Template:King's Cathedral and Chapels[edit]

A fairly substantial navbox which contains no links to on-wiki content. As originally created, was a repository of external links. The only other edit made was to remove those links. A main article was created at the same time by the same user, which is currently at AFD, but wasn't even linked to this navbox! RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:2020 Thomas Cup Group D standings[edit]

Content merged into 2020 Thomas & Uber Cup, the only article the template is used on. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reason:[]

Template:Row numbers[edit]

This template outputs a block of unparsed code for any users of the mobile apps. See here for an example of what that looks like. 150 million pageviews per month come via the mobile app. It's a small percentage overall, but... well, inferring (from other data) an average of 50 pageviews per user per month, that's 3 million people we're serving jumbled nonsense to. It's one thing to have a template that works imperfectly on the mobile app, but I don't think it's okay for us to be transcluding on 84 articles a template that renders their core content unreadable.

I understand that this template provides useful functionality. Thus, until T203293 is resolved, I would propose the following solution: Delete once someone codes a bot to do this. With a bot task, an editor could place something like <!-- Row numbers START --> and <!-- Row numbers END--> around a table, and then make a null template like {{numbered column}} to signal a column that the bot would update after any addition or removal of a row.

To be clear, if the above is unfeasible or undesirable, I would strongly favor outright deletion over outright keeping.

I'll note that I've looked into whether {{if mobile}} would be viable here, but I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be, because it could only remove the wrapping template, not the syntax within the template. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

So write the bot. Don't presume that someone else will do the work for you.
As I understand it, there is a lot of stuff that is visible on desktop that is not visible on handheld devices. If your primary objection to {{row numbers}} is that it renders wiki text for a table then {{if mobile}} might well be a sort-of solution. Whole tables can be wrapped with {{if mobile}} as I did in a simple experiment at List of motor yachts by length:
desktop view
mobile view (surely there's a 'mobile' interwikilink-like prefix isn't there?)
The text displayed could be enhanced to explain why; there could be an entirely separate table that renders only for mobile users.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'd be open to writing the bot if I have time. But I'm not presuming someone else will do the work, which is why my !vote is conditional on it happening.
As to the rest, though, sure, some stuff doesn't work on mobile, but this is the only case I'm aware of where editors have deliberately done something that breaks output (or, in your example, causes output not to render) on the mobile app—for a relatively minor benefit, at that. I don't know how you can reconcile that with our mission as an encyclopedia. As to using {{if mobile}} to actually show the output, my understanding is you'd have to duplicate the entire table markup (minus the _row_count column) for both of that template's parameters, which would be a maintenance hassle significantly greater than the one the template is meant to fix.
Another thing I just discovered while looking at a table that uses this: It doesn't work with the VisualEditor. Table editing is probably the best use case for the VE, so this is a pretty damning issue IMO. I'm now wondering if the extent of the issues this template causes isn't enough that this should just be outright deleted sooner rather than later. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Tamzin: I have produced a fixed version of the template, which you can see tested at User:GKFX/sandbox. It doesn't use nowiki tags at all, instead reconstituting the table from the many arguments the parser splits it into. It is visible but essentially uneditable in the VisualEditor (trying to edit it there causes my laptop fans to spin up but not much else.) However, it is easy enough to edit in the wikitext editor, only needing the use of {{=}} to encode = signs. Is that an adequate solution? User:GKFXtalk 22:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep now that the GKFX table is visible in mobile view. Tamzin and GKFX. The automatically updated tables are also not editable in the Visual Editor. But I haven't heard from anyone wanting to delete them for that reason. See Help:Table and the section on automated tables updated daily by bots. Here is one example:
Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country
I see a need for both static and non-static row numbers. So I think both {{static row numbers}} and {{row numbers}} should be kept.
--Timeshifter (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep - The fixed version has now been moved from the sandbox to the live template and module. The use of <nowiki> tags with this template should be deprecated, tracked and removed. See the fixed version of List of indoor arenas in the United States for a demonstration that this works with minimal change to page code. User:GKFXtalk 17:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - this template is extremely useful, especially for lengthy tables where numerical ranking of the entries is an important factor and the table is updated frequently. On a side note, there is a needless and condescending preachiness to this nomination that would be better served if avoided going forward. Furthermore, the accusatory tone is also unwarranted, as no one "deliberately broke" anything here. I use the mobile app and from the day this template was added to the List of motor yachts by length I have not encountered any issues with this table. Those calling for this deletion should at the very least have a clear understanding of what they are discussing, (eg: comparing this to other templates) and be willing to offer an solution along with any deletion !vote. (jmho) - wolf 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep This template is very useful,for lengthy and dynamic tables where numerical ranking of the entries is required.I neither find the template redundant nor the reasons for deletion convincing.Further,the proposal looks carrying a wishlist along than a solution.I oppose the deletion. User:Curnews 04:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Note: this is one of three templates that suffer from this problem, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Warning nowiki broken. User:GKFXtalk 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'd be inclined to reccomend that we keep this for the moment, with the understanding that in the long term this should be replaced and deprecated. While there is some overlap, it has features that are not available with {{static row numbers}} and so not redundant, more details on the talk page.
    I agree that some readers are ill-served by this template. However, 100% of readers are ill-served by the manual methods needed without it. The long-term solution is to come up with a better method of providing these features or to code a bot to do it, and when that happens I doubt there'd be much opposition to deprecation; if I ever get the free-time I may try to get that done myself. Indeed, ideally MediaWiki would support these and many other features for tables without the need for any additional kludges, but the work involved in getting that to happen is considerable.
    Relatedly the mobile app is so defective that we're probably just better off discontinuing it than trying to work around its myriad deficiencies. This can give you some idea of the problems; if you poke around on phabricator you'll see a lot more. (please ping on reply)
    𝒬𝔔 15:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 8[edit]

Template:Shades of magenta[edit]

Propose merging Template:Shades of magenta with Template:Shades of violet.
Too esoteric. Contents should be merged into other relevant color templates, such as Template:Shades of violet, Template:Shades of pink, or Template:Shades of red pbp 22:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Weak Merge into pink, violet and red. Though magenta might be one of the subtractive primaries, it is not color term that would commonly be used to relate to other color terms as a basic color. PaleAqua (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Merge Magenta looks too different to be classified as violet or red. Magenta is also one of the core colors in RGB and CMYK, and should not be merged with the arbitrary color classification that is pink. ThunderBrine (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • oppose merge-Magenta is a legitimate color of which there are many shades. Inkject printers call it "magenta". --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Boeing 737 MAX orders and deliveries[edit]

These three should be substituted where used. This is not an appropriate use of template space since it's mainly article-related content, and belongs on the respective articles as part of the articles. Not on a separate space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose - Each of these is set up to allow the same data tables to be transcluded onto multiple relevant pages. Killing the templates in favor of repetitive individual article content will just unnecessarily double the amount of work needed to keep the data up to date and accurate on the individual pages. They have been working just fine this way for as long as 8 years, and I am not finding any explicit policy that delineates this as an inappropriate use of template space. Agricolae (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It would make sense for the multiple pages if it was say more than two. But really this is article content that can easily be substituted. I've checked where these three are used and it wouldn't be at all difficult to update any information. And the fact for the past eight years it has worked fine is only because the template space has existed without anybody questioning it, until now, about it being on separate space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
So contrary to the original rationale, it actually is appropriate to use template space for mainly article-related content, but only if the template is transcluded onto three pages rather than on two? Sometimes templates don't get questioned for eight years because there is nothing wrong with them. Before we cavalierly decide it is reasonable to literally double the workload of those who have been diligently maintaining the data in these templates, all for the sin of the template being used one time too few, is there any actual policy behind this proposed deletion? Agricolae (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The first guideline where it states templates should not store article content. I'm paraphrasing but that is the guideline I'm using in my rationale. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Not exactly what it says (emphasis added): "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, . . . ." - There is no apprecialbe text in the nominated templates, so this guideline does not apply to the situation. Agricolae (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have been viewing these templates for years on a more than monthly basis and find them informative and useful. Leave them alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.36.2 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have updated maybe 70-80% of the monthly B777 O&D and maybe 40% of the monthly B787 O&D template updates the last 3 years. If the templates are removed and replaced by two identical table sets that needs individual updates then that is lack of common sense. I have no intention of doing the extra work required to maintain a second table set. Rygjar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support – I'm all in favour of avoiding code duplication, so in general it's perfectly ok to have a template that is transcluded only twice. However, I don't think the content of those templates should appear in any articles other than the List of Boeing xxx orders and deliveries. The main aircraft articles (Boeing 737 MAX, Boeing 777 etc.) are already large enough without that level of detail, and they link quite prominently to the corresponding List of orders article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • substitute in the List of Boeing xxx orders and deliveries articles and remove from the other articles per above. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Too many photos[edit]

I am seeking consensus to convert this template to a talk page banner. While it certainly identifies a real issue that is worthy of being tracked, it's not something so severe that we need to inform readers about it before letting them read the page. In most cases, the banner itself will be more disruptive than the issue it seeks to address. Therefore, putting it on the talk page makes more sense. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete per nomination. Really this is similar to the banner on the talk page where it requests an image. If there are too many photos, then it would be better to discuss it where this used on those articles' talk pages. Not on separate template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Should be converted to inform readers that the article may have serious accessibility problems due to mass amount of images... multiple formats... incorrect placement.... or text sandwich.Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nomination. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. While discussion occurs on the talk page, there's really nothing different about this template than say an NPOV or RS tag in that procedural sense. I'd say why not both? Moxy does bring up a good point that I can be a warning to readers when a page is cumbersome. KoA (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. Notices and discussions about the number of photos and images belong on an article's talk page. If there are disagreements, consensus can be achieved through the dispute resolution process. There is no justification for highlighting a perceived excess in the number of photos at the top of a Wikipedia article. The template distracts readers of the article and can represent an opinion of only one editor. Corker1 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Just a note that Corker1 is currently involved in a dispute where I used this template to point out image issues they disagree with. KoA (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom. This isn’t the kind of issue that we need to call out to a reader. wctaiwan (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'm inclined to keep for the sole use case of WP:VPT#Failure of section collapse mechanism in mobile view provoked by excessive templates/images (possibly with bot enforcement). --Izno (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Keep. I agree. If I were to write a script that, for example, converts flag icons into emoji for mobile accessibility reasons, this would be a way to find pages in need of such attention. – Anon423 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    A tracking category, as proposed in the VPT discussion, seems like a much less disruptive way to track this. Given that the template is also manually added by editors, it doesn't seem to offer any advantages over either a category or a talk page template. wctaiwan (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Templates on article spaces help editors take action and indicate a movement to correct such issues. Qt.petrovich (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: For delete !voters, could you clarify if you are supporting my proposed conversion to a talk page template or outright deletion? For keep !voters, could you clarify if you would be okay with conversion to a talk banner or not, and if not, what your objection is? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
My delete vote is outright deletion of this template. But I would not be opposed for a talk page banner for this concern or a conversion of this one. It should not be in template format in my view. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I object for my specific noted use case to either conversion or deletion. Izno (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(And would probably !vote to delete for all other cases, but I'm not strongly for that.) Izno (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This is a common problem with articles. The "talk page header" argument boils down to "I fully agree that this is a problem, but I want it not to be fixed". This is not an argument that should be given respect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Seems the same as any other cleanup template. It's acknowledging to the reader that Wikipedia articles aren't meant to look like this, and gives a prompt to step in and fix the problem if they know the topic well enough to make any calls on the best representative images. Someone who's having to scroll through twenty holiday photos to get to the second paragraph of the lead is given an apology, someone who's intending to print a long article is alerted to the unusual situation of it having four pages of gallery towards the end, someone who's about to use an article as the basis for creating their own about a similar subject is clearly told that this is not a perfect example, and so on. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep per above; not seeing what distinguishes this from any other cleanup template that goes on the article itself. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Titles[edit]

I don't know if this is right, since I'm not an user. I saw that other templates were deleted because didn't have enought champions, like five. These templates have less than 5 champs with articles. 83.44.180.141 (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Organized crime in Chicago[edit]

Propose merging Template:Organized crime in Chicago with Template:Organized crime groups in Chicago.
propose merging the smaller template into the larger one, as it duplicates it. Funandtrvl (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete Organized crime in Chicago. All the crime groups in this one are featured in Organized crime groups in Chicago. Merging would be redundant. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, I was intending to merge and then delete. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Merging isn't necessary. Because the information is already presented in both templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I realize that now, so how do I delete instead of just merging? --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'd let the nomination play out. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 7[edit]

Template:Queen Elizabeth class battleship armament[edit]

Both unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete: poor use of templates even when they were used.  — sbb (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Trafalgar class submarine beam[edit]

All unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete: poor use of templates even when they were used.  — sbb (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Rover class tanker aircraft[edit]

All unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete: poor use of templates even when they were used.  — sbb (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Attacker class draft[edit]

All unused after being substituted on the necessary articles. Same as the last set nominated on September 30. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete: poor use of templates even when they were used.  — sbb (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Old discussions[edit]

October 6

Template:Pittsburgh Pirates roster/sandbox

[edit]

There is no reason for a sandbox version of this roster Spanneraol (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Sandboxes are not just for people who think a change needs to be checked before being made live, they are also locations for experimentation. I see no reason to delete this one any more than any other sandbox, and I do not want to encourage a culture which does delete sandboxes as they often have significant history associated with changes to live templates. (Yes, there is at least one wiki that deletes sandboxes.) --Izno (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Is that one wiki MediaWiki.org? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Indeedy. Izno (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. No valid deletion rationale has been provided. Sandboxes are useful. The testcases page uses the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Note: If this template page is deleted, it will create a WP:REDNOT error at Template:Pittsburgh Pirates roster/testcases. A group of gnomes has eliminated all but a tiny handful of persistent REDNOT errors; the creation of this sandbox, and of many other sandbox template pages, was part of that effort. As for why sandboxes exist: If the roster template has a problem, and someone wants to troubleshoot the problem without breaking existing transclusions, they can modify the template sandbox, see the results in the testcases page, and preview the results in a page with a transclusion. That's literally why sandboxes exist. Deletion of this sandbox would create an unpleasant precedent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No other baseball team roster has it's own sandbox and any problems would affect all the rosters... what is special about the Pirates that requires it to have it's own testing page? That roster works the same as all the other ones. Spanneraol (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If the testcases can't function without this sandbox, then the testcases should be deleted as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete There's no reason for a major sports team's template to have a sandbox. A sandbox is for experimentation or test edits. Not for editing the main template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Isn't editing the main template exactly what sandboxes are for? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    You don't need a sandbox to edit a roster.... those are pretty straightforward. Spanneraol (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    You don't need a sandbox to edit a roster.... Izno (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    No one needs a sandbox to edit a roster.. you don't seem to understand what this template is used for. If a player is cut then you remove their name and add the replacement player... it's pretty simple and straight forward.. there is no reason to run tests on this roster page. I fail to understand what anyone would need a sandbox here for. Spanneraol (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    You are not the average person. You have figured wikitext out. Not everyone has. Izno (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep No valid reason for deletion. While I personally don't generally create sandboxes for the sake of doing so, and often G7 the ones I do create, I see no reason why TfD should force other people not to create them. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    This isn't a sandbox in the proper sense. We don't have sandboxes as part of a sports team's roster. What would be the point of it? If edits are made to the roster template then it's made on the main template, not a subpage. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    In what way is this not a sandbox in the proper sense? In what way does this not have the same point as all other template sandboxes? I'm completely failing to understand your argument for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sandboxes are for test edits, not for actually editing the template. Why would there be a need for one for a template of a team's roster? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I explained how sandboxes are useful in one of my responses above. Look for the sentence beginning "As for why". – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Why is THIS particular sandbox useful? What could you possibly be using it for? A problem with the template should be addressed on the main template page not the subpage dealing with the Pirates. Do you not know how to preview an edit? Spanneraol (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • keep, seems useful for testing changes. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 4

Template:Historical affiliations

[edit]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Keep - The template has potential to be used on around 258 articles (search) to standardize the "Historical affiliations" box, which are all currently directly using {{Quote box}}, which is not the intended use case of the template. I've haven't gotten around to using the template on articles yet, but I will in the future. – BrandonXLF (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete? for slightly different reasons: I agree that quote box should not be misused, but this template fails basic WP:ACCESS as well as our general color theming. --Izno (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I can adjust the template to use the colour that Template:Sidebar uses. Are there any other accessibility concerns with the template? – BrandonXLF (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That would fix it. Izno (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Well, actually, it also should not be a table probably. Given you appear to be creating a list, it should be an unordered list. Izno (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I don't think a list can be used in this case since all the flags should be in a different column than the names of the countries. It's the same reason why Template:Infobox country uses a table for the "preceded by" and "succeeded by" lists when it would be preferred to use a unordered list. – BrandonXLF (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

A structure like this would work I believe, fairly trivially (further evaluation at your leisure: 

<div class="historical-affiliations">
<div class="historical-affiliations-title">Historical affiliations</div>
<ul>
  <li style="display: flex">
    <img/>
    <div>Country</div>
  </li>
</ul>
</div>

--Izno (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Looking at this further, this won't work either because the text for all the rows should line up, even the ones that don't have an image. Maybe a grid layout could be used, but I don't think that'd be much better than an table. – BrandonXLF (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You can wrap the image in its own div and size it directly since you're sizing the image anyway. Then without an image you still have the div hanging out providing that desired padding. --Izno (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 3

Template:US military utility vehicles

[edit]

Delete. Navbox that is far too big for easy navigation (it occupies two full screens of my ipad). Per WP:NAV-WITHIN a split by era was proposed and agreed to (see Template talk:US military utility vehicles#Splitting proposal) so {{WWI US Soft Vehicles}}, {{WWII US Soft Vehicles}} and {{Post-WWII US Soft Vehicles}} were created, the template creator has subsequently withdrawn their support for the split. List of utility vehicles of the United States Armed Forces, which is linked in all three new navboxes, provides all of the information about vehicle payloads and drive from this navbox in searchable columns. Cavalryman (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Delete Navigational benefit is not here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • POSTPONE deletion Please – 1). Creator (user GeeTeeBee) is still in ONGOING DISCUSSION about splitting this template — 2). The statement that: "..creator .. withdrew .. support for the split." IS utterly UNTRUE !!. – 3). IN July of 2020, Cavalryman proposed splitting the lengthy template in three period/era boxes. To which I directly AGREED ! — HOWEVER: Axing Most of its Navigational Structure was NEVER DISCUSSED – NOR Sound ARGUMENTATION for this PROVIDED..! – Simply splitting it would be enough to make them "wieldy" again! – 4). NAMES of US Military rigs are Notoriously CRYPTIC CODES of Just Letters & Numerals – PLUS: Contrary to cars, which almost All have just Four Wheels - US Military vehicles exist in an Almost Bewildering VARIETY of propulsion Configurations! —
5). Please FREEZE the Deletion process, until a). Ongoing discussion has run its course; and: b). after considering this navbox was created in April 2019 to fill an UTTER VOID; — c). For over FIFTEEN Months NOBODY Complained about its size, although the box was added to over 150 articles ( !! ), giving the impression that it did more good than harm  !? — d). Not until July 2020, Cavalryman contacted me, and we Agreed on splitting the existing box in a couple of eras — but that's not what he did... — After OVER a YEAR WENT BY, his new boxes are indeed wonderfully compact, and neat and tidy to look at, but about EIGHTY Percent of the navigational structure was Cut Out, as well... – Per WP:NAV-WITHIN, a nav-aid must DO MORE, than just box-up related article links, and leave it to the reader to click them, and use trial and error, to find out, what the Cryptic "XYZ-789" model‑codes mean, and how to get to the vehicles they're really interested in!? – PLUS: relegating navigational structure that fits perfectly well within the boxes - Once they have been split as intended! – but unnecessarily sending the reader to a list-article to find out, isn't the intended job of a navbox, now is it ?? —
6). After noting this Deletion Procedure has prematurely been started, I (have to?) conclude that Cavalryman has no intention to be a man of his word, and actually do what we originally agreed upon in July 2020, - namely splitting THIS box by era (without completely changing its structure!).. — So I'm now doing all that myself. – 7). But as I pointed out back in 2020,
I'm a chronic pain patient, with very low energy levels, so I can only do LITTLE, and very SLOWLY, at that... but I'll take some more oxy, and will resume the discussion this week !! – Regards,  GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep Split them up into separate templates. This is not a reason to delete it entirely. NoahTalk 14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Hurricane Noah: it has been split into several templates: Template:WWI US Soft Vehicles, Template:WWII US Soft Vehicles and Template:Post-WWII US Soft Vehicles. Cavalryman (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Oops... nvm I was under the impression it has been agreed to and hadn't entirely happened yet. This should be deleted in that case. NoahTalk 00:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment by GeeTeeBee: Belated – although splitting had been agreed on Template talk:US military utility vehicles#Splitting proposal — on 19 July 2020 — the three split boxes created by Cavalryman are severely lacking in more than one way... 1). Navbox {{WWI US Soft Vehicles}} contains just eight (8) article links – so small, that it could just be a "See also" section in their articles, and thus could be nominated for deletion ! – 2). Moreover, All of Cavalryman's navboxes severely cut down the navigational structure: by a) cutting out whole categories, b) by radically cutting down the payload categories, and c) completely cutting out the navigational aid by number of wheels and drive; – 3). Cavalryman left out the interbellum, I believe; and 4). His boxes only list vehicles, based on their year of introduction – not based on their U.S. military's service life !...
With Over a YEAR passing, the Splitting Job could have been done a lot better — So I did myself what was agreed in July last year, resulting in these navboxes here.
'MY submissions, as the preferred Replacements. — Please View them and consider them with integrity:
I hope you appreciate my efforts, done in haste ... – best regards, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Hurricane Ida series

[edit]

Useless navbox. There are only two links to articles here - Hurricane Ida and Hurricane Ida tornado outbreak and only two other relevant links - Category:Hurricane Ida (which isn't really useful as it simply contains the two articles already linked, plus this navbox) and c:Category:Hurricane Ida (2021). This isn't sufficient for the navigational template to be useful to readers. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Keep see the example, yes is linked but if there a Hurricane related (article) we added this series Template:Hurricane Isaac (2012) series and Template:Hurricane Isaias series . HurricaneEdgar 09:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @HurricaneEdgar: honestly, I think something like {{Hurricane Isaias series}} should be deleted too. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep People are working on another article right now so I don't see what the point in deleting this would be. NoahTalk 11:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    No one outside of the WikiProject would know this - I think these navboxes shouldn't be made until other related articles are published. Otherwise, I can understand why this was proposed for deletion. – The Grid (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep The two links are not going to be the only ones there. An article for Louisiana impacts will DEFINITELY be needed and I wouldn't be surprised if an article is made for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast impacts as well. We need to keep this.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Comment Can we get rid of this now? The consensus is keep and there is no reason to still be debating this.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep because there are already some people who are drafting separate articles for its effects in the U.S. (specifically Louisiana); though I must note that, as mentioned in the talk page for Ida's main article, it has not yet reached the point that it should be split. But for this template, I think it should still be kept, just like in the Isaias series template. Vida0007 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per nom Yes if we want to cover Ida and its impacts in full then yeah it probably will need further articles, but i do not see the need for this navbox, until it has more than 5 or 6 articles especially since we already have a category devoted to Ida.Jason Rees (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Keep We already have drafts for Northeastern US and Louisiana, the former of which is nearly ready can could be sustained in articlespace. Also, Isaias and Isaac both have templates.Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I'm going to make this a separate comment to better address the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones crew: no one outside of the WikiProject would have known related articles were in draft. I think these navboxes shouldn't be made until other related articles are published. Otherwise, I can understand why this was proposed. – The Grid (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • One would only have to check the talkpage of Hurricane Ida to see that these were being made. Although, I do agree the box shouldn't have been made when it was. It just seems rather pointless to delete something and bring it back a short time later. NoahTalk 21:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation at some future date when there are more articles. Three articles is simply insufficient as a navbox. --Izno (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • delete, only connects three articles and the "Effects of Hurricane Ida in Louisiana" draft has been declined. this can be easily recreated if more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • delete we are not a crystal ball; templates should exist based on the present, not speculations of the future. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Only two links. There is no benefit in keeping it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Why in the world was this relisted not once but twice? The consensus has been keep (5-1) for over a MONTH. Seems clear to me that THAT was a consensus.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It was relisted for the sole reason of getting people outside the weather project involved. It is not 5-1 keep, it likely going to end as consensus to delete. NoahTalk 19:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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=1036623227"