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 Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 0 1 96 97
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 1 1
RfD 0 0 0 21 21
AfD 0 0 0 15 15
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. 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/2022_March_29#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.

Add this text to the bottom of the page:

  • 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 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]

March 29[edit]

Template:Rfd2/header-notext[edit]

Unused sub-templates from a failed proposed change to Template:Rfd2 from 2016 which was never worked on after. Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Text Styles[edit]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. Created only 9 days ago, so if it is still a work in progress, this TFD gives the creator a week to get it working. If the creator wants to keep it, it can be userfied or recreated in their user space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ATK Mohun Bagan ISL debut season first match team[edit]

Unused and not sure where it could be used. If a location is found during this TfD then it should be subst there anyways. Gonnym (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Triple-A East and West[edit]

No transclusions. No longer needed, because this league existed for only one year before Major League Baseball realized their error and returned to calling this league the International League. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Teahouse protected[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. It appears that this template previously appeared at the top of WP:Teahouse when the page was protected due to excessive vandalism (at least in 2018), but a search appears to indicate that the template is no longer used. If this is wrong, I will be happy to document where it is used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NewPages[edit]

No transclusions. This appears to serve the same function as transcluding Special:NewPages, unless I am missing something. This template is probably not needed. Created about two months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kabankalan Radio[edit]

No transclusions. No main article for this navbox. All of the linked articles are redirects to radio network articles, which have their own navboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Messianic Feasts[edit]

No main article for this navbox. None of the linked articles appear to be exclusive to this religious movement, so they are not connected in a way that is typical for a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays is the template that should be used for those articles. Gonnym (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Malta/Talkpagenote[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FH Maties[edit]

No transclusions. Created three months ago. Appears to be an abandoned experiment. If these simple links are needed, a single template in the style of {{Rugby union team}} (though not necessarily that complex) should be created instead of individual templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medislast[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Only (dozens of) maintenance edits since creation in 2011. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – OFC First Round group tables[edit]

unused template - OFC qualification was conducted in a neutral-site tournament ⇒ Chris0282 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nepali Congress/meta/symbol[edit]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PSButton[edit]

No transclusions. Created almost two months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah this should probably get deleted. originally was intented for playstation articles but I kinda just forgot about it. -> JLL9Tv (; t, c) 18:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rejected Books of the Bibles[edit]

No transclusions, incoming links, or documentation. Created over a year ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPPJ-BLP[edit]

No transclusions. The only substantive edit was its creation in 2009. If it is wanted, it could be moved to project space as a subpage of the WikiProject. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProjectWUSTLinvite[edit]

No transclusions. Invitation for a project marked inactive since 2010. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yamatai footer[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. Mostly red links. It is unclear what this navbox is for. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 28[edit]

Template:Castewarningtalk[edit]

Outdated and fully replaced by another template Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. For context (in case anyone stumbles upon this discussion after the template is deleted), the other template is {{ds/talk notice}} * Pppery * it has begun... 01:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Template has been deprecated long enough and can be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Rlink2 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup Indic script[edit]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Falcons season[edit]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Germanic diachronic[edit]

Unused, only seems to be intended for one article and seems to contain WP:OR Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Group index[edit]

Unused fork of {{Set index article}} Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Masters of Evil[edit]

Unused, sprawling template that seems redundant to other ones. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missinginfo-search[edit]

Unused. Seems like a bad idea to dump sources in a template when you can just put them in the article yourself. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Morton family[edit]

Unused, no parent article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosques in Jordan[edit]

Unused, fails WP:NENAN with only three listed Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Music of Assam[edit]

Unused sidebar Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Narimanbekovs[edit]

Unused family tree, too few blue links anyway Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notability editnotice[edit]

Unused and redundant Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political infoboxes[edit]

Unused, only navigates other infoboxes Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Army User Rank Badges[edit]

Unused, just a list of userboxes. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deadpool film series[edit]

After removing numerous irrelevant links, there are still problems with this navbox. First and foremost, this navbox is a fork of {{X-Men media}}, which already has almost all of the links found here. It is excessive to list every single song in the two Deadpool films, and Wade Wilson (film character) is a redirect (there is a draft, but it was declined several times). InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose (Keep): It's not excessive if this is the template for it. It is two hours old, I will fix the formatting. Patience man. MandoWarrior (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: MandoWarrior (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this TfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unnecessary fork of X-Men media template. Links such as the songs which while appearing on the soundtrack, were not created for the film (Shoop (song) 23 years earlier) and are not notable for their inclusion. Additionally, the template creator has added some WP:OR into the mix with the inclusion of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which isn't in the same series. Gonnym (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the Mando (template creator) is now blocked as a sock. Gonnym (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very unnecessary duplication of other templates, includes barely relevant links and some non-articles as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media[edit]

Not only the template is incomplete, the template that was complete was deleted last year. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IRTE[edit]

Unused rail template. Gonnym (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IRTNL[edit]

Unused rail template. Gonnym (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Coast colour[edit]

Unused (other than in 1 doc page) rail color template. Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GNWR colour[edit]

Unused (other than in 1 doc page) rail color template. Gonnym (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HeathCon colour[edit]

Unused (other than in 2 doc pages) rail color template. Used in a switch case in another template, but also not used from there. Gonnym (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Priorxfd[edit]

Propose merging Template:Priorxfd with Template:Old RfD list.
Using "XfD" implies that it should capture all such discussions, but it only captures AfD and MfD (in current practice), and it omits RfD, CfD, TfD. Is it possible to merge the {{Old RfD list}} template here? And if done and using the "XfD" text instead of "RfD", my sandbox templating seems to suggest it could capture TfD and CfD use (Special:Diff/1079798244), but I'm no expert. (Is it appropriate to move to {{PriorXfD}} as well for consistent nomenclature?) - 2pou (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jaguars season[edit]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ravens season[edit]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 27[edit]

Template:Ftrmetro start[edit]

Unused bus template. Gonnym (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FilmAwardsInCentury[edit]

Unused category header template. Gonnym (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rlink2 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Emblem WP:COLO[edit]

delete or move to WikiProject subpage WP:WikiProject Colorado/WikiProject emblem This appears to be the only existing of such an "emblem" template (from a cursory search of templates called emblem). It looks like it might be a userbox, but WPCOLORADO has several userboxes already. The only current use is at the project page for WikiProject Colorado, which does not indicate what this is to be used for, and neither does the documentation page. Several instances of what could be substitutions, except that they predate the creation of this template, seem to only clutter the project page with a "sidebar" of this emblem in several sections at the very bottom of the project page. Is this supposed to watermark paragraphs? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New York City FC II squad[edit]

Navbox with only two links. Fails navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rlink2 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there are enough links; I updated the template Joeykai (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those players that have articles and that don't are not for this team. They're for New York City FC. A different team. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These players are all playing for New York City FC II literally right now [1] Joeykai (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The players are listed also at Template:New York City FC squad. I have a feeling that a player can't be in the "current" squad of two teams at the same time. Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient links to merit a navbox. Restore if that changes. GiantSnowman 19:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subtraction game SMIL.svg[edit]

Single-use file transclusion template. No need for an image file to be on a separate space for transclusion. Subst this on to the Nim article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CHNint[edit]

Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Districts of Uganda Image Map[edit]

Unused image map. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hadrosaur tree[edit]

Unused image map. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer World Champions 4 x 100 m Men/year[edit]

Unused templates which contain the same information on Template:Footer World Champions 4 x 100 m Men and Template:Footer World Champions 4 x 400 m Men when editing the templates. Edits have no overall effect on the main templates or vice versa. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:House of Wittelsbach since 1921[edit]

Unused sidebar with all article linked already covered by navboxes related to the subject of the article. These include Template:Bavarian princes, Template:Bavarian princesses by marriage, Template:Bavarian princesses by birth, Template:Dukes in Bavaria, and Template:Duchesses in Bavaria. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it's not being used anywhere, there is no need to have it. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 26[edit]

Template:Article list[edit]

While I am generally a fan of Wikidata, I don't think this template is a good idea. There are a couple reasons:

  1. It basically makes the wikitext unreadable in navboxes, which will make it difficult to trivially update specific navboxes (to wit, "add to")
  2. Because it uses the wrapper template (generally a fine idea), it adds to the processing time of most uses, when (huge) navboxes are already often the cause of processing time issues.
  3. Because it fetches info from Wikidata, this also adds to the time needed to render and use navboxes on arbitrary pages.

I accept that it might be valuable to have a solution to the 'redirect in navboxes' problem and have something to that effect in my own CSS (that colors such links red and styles italic), but I don't think this is the way to go. Izno (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I genuinely believe this template/module has tangible benefits. (Please clarify, Izno, if you are nominating the module too or just the wrapper template?) It is currently in a limited trial after which I will initiate discussion before deploying further. Deletion would prevent this process. For those unfamiliar, the benefits are:

  • Automatic sorting of links alphabetically
  • Automatic update of link when article is moved
  • Automatic removal of link if article is deleted
  • Automatic display of link if article is created. For example, you could load up QIDs of all lighthouses in Tanzania, and if/when those articles are created they will display on Template:Lighthouses in Tanzania, without any further action.

I accept that it makes the wikitext less readable, but I hope people will agree that this slight downside is outweighed by advantages above :) This method may be too soon for the enwiki community, but I suspect it is the way that all linking will happen sometime in the future because of its robustness and stability — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The module as well, the template doesn't exist without the module. Izno (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with MSGJ. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think that there are some good ideas behind this template/module, namely making it easier to keep lists of articles in navboxes up to date and, optionally, alphabetized. Using Wikidata IDs instead of article names makes the template basically unusable, however. If it could somehow perform the sorting and link-checking functions while preserving article names, perhaps with maintenance categories to track red links and page moves, that might be usable. I don't know if this means that the template should be kept because with some editing it can be saved, or if it needs to be wiped out and rethought. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. I do appreciate the concerns about wikicode readability, although I disagree that it makes the template "unusable". I have been including the article name in HTML comment (please see Template:Lighthouses in Tanzania for example) which certainly makes it easier to remove a link which is misplaced. There is also a helper module to automatically convert article names into QIDs and add the HTML comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrict to WP-space and talk pages. Per Jonesey95, it isn't very readable or accessible, so will discourage participation in Wikipedia, reducing the editor population, and potentially relagating Wikipedia to becoming Nupedia or Citizendium (ie. moribund) if this were to be rolled out across the board as being suggested -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • restrict to usage outside of articles and outside of templates transcluded in articles. the use of Wikidata IDs instead of article names is too obfuscated and makes editing much harder (in addition to the performance hit from all the wikidata queries). Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened to WP:PERF? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the advice in WP:PERF doesn't fix the The time allocated for running scripts has expired. at the foot of COVID-19 pandemic in Canada due to the reasons outlined in Wikipedia:Template limits. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template limit problems are probably fixable with {{Template cache}} (and definitely is with some bot improvements that I could do). --Trialpears (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to get a few more opinions on whether this should be restricted to non-article space.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete along with its "module" and any other stuff it uses, this seems an absolutely terrible idea. I took a look at Template:Lighthouses in Tanzania and to edit it (add a lighthouse) I not only have to open the template to see what it contains, I see that I'd have to find out how to mess around with Wikidata in order to edit list Q123456789 or whatever which is a component of the main template. What!!! That's crazy: the proposal basically drives even experienced editors from fixing such templates. I'm sorry but you can't expect us all to go into such details of programming, not to mention tricky design; nor can you expect to be the sole curator and guardian of a template, which is the alternative. This is not acceptable; I'm not sure that the comment above about making Wikpedia as moribund as Citizendium is quite fair, but it is genuinely a move in that direction, and we should urgently resist such dangerous nonsense now. To sum up: this template (and its module, wrapper, any other incomprehensible clutter that goes with it) does not immediately destroy the Wiki, but it lays an axe to the root of the tree, and the whole tree shakes and is weakened by it. This is a move sharply down the slippery slope to an unmaintainable, unmaintained, Wikipedia, and we must reverse it immediately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikidata has many additional problems, (including trying to learn how to edit it). It doesn't have edit summaries, so you can't tell anyone why something changed. Editing Wikidata seems to require memorization of what fields are allowed in which parts of what interface, as something popping up in the selection box as a selectable class doesn't mean it actually works. And properties that should be assignable to some field as subfields don't work that way. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User VRT-Wiki[edit]

Propose merging Template:User VRT-Wiki with Template:User VRT.
Template:User VRT-Wiki should be merged here. They are essentially templates for the same purpose, except for the option to link to a wiki page. I would add a "wiki" parameter and redirect Template:User VRT-Wiki to here. �?� EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Makes sense to use a parameter here. Gonnym (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 International League - North Division standings[edit]

Single used score tables which are only used at 2009 International League season. Should be subst there and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 Pacific Coast League American North standings[edit]

Single used score tables which are only used at 2009 Pacific Coast League season. Should be subst there and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Aviation Safety Network[edit]

Bad creation. Usage removed by author here. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author did not need a new template for what he was trying to do, and he's stopped using it anyway. Rlink2 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swearing[edit]

WP:NODISCLAIMERS; there is a general consensus against this type of template. Note that if this is deleted, Category:Pages that contain profanity should also be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have no need for this kind of puritanism. Plus, whose definition of profanity should we use? Drmies (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above as it is against the guidelines. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also what counts as a swear word? See for example https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_swear_words. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See my answer to Gonnym below. SummerKrut (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, baseless nomination without arguments. SummerKrut (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SummerKrut, please try harder. The nom and every delete voter provides or supports an argument, your “argument” is WP:IDONTLIKEIT] Dronebogus (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but I don't see any actual arguments given by the nominator. Readers should be advised of what they are reading. SummerKrut (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is citing Wikipedia:No disclaimers not an argument? Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I already said before, readers should be advised of what they are reading. SummerKrut (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free to propose that at the WP:village pump but Wikipedia:No disclaimers is an accepted guideline and your opinion doesn’t trump that. Dronebogus (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes. Wikipedia, the place where your edits will be removed and where no one is interested in your opinion. SummerKrut (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s an immature way to deal with your template being rejected, especially since I literally just directed you to a place (WP:village pump) that accepts broad scope proposals and changes to guidelines. You can also discuss at the guideline’s talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If preventing people from knowing about what they are going to read is a guideline then I don't even know what people accepted it. SummerKrut (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:NODISCLAIMERS and related guidelines. SummerKrut (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which you have now withdrawn. That's certainly an acceptable action, but it speaks to there being no current discussion (let alone conclusion of consensus) to change the policy. If the policy stands, then how is it okay to have a template that seems to explicitly contrary to it? DMacks (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless template that blatantly goes against WP:NOTCENSORED. Dronebogus (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the guideline arguments above, who decides what counts as profanity? What next, censor Breast and Sex? Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POINT. SummerKrut (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what WP:POINT means. Dronebogus (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your inability to understand basic policies and guidelines or coherently respond to questions is getting into WP:CIR territory. Dronebogus (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. WP:POINT is "when you discuss a subject, do not bring on other subjects just to illustrate how absurd the initial subject is". Also, "Your inability to understand basic policies and guidelines or coherently respond to questions is getting into WP:CIR territory" - WP:NPA. Comment on the subject, not the editor. SummerKrut (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All the examples I’ve seen of POINT refer to engaging in behavior, not discussion. What Gonnym is doing here is basic Reductio ad absurdum Dronebogus (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIR is not a personal attack. A personal attack is “you are an idiot”. CIR means “you have not shown sufficient proficiency in editing to be trusted to do it without causing unintentional disruption, and should reevaluate your behavior lest you get blocked” Dronebogus (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that someone is incompetent is a very serious personal attack, as you are discussing the user instead of the subject. Please, stop. SummerKrut (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were to censor terms that have become abusive in talking, I agree - this would be absurd. I would only suggest applying "profanity" to where it is indeed swearing. Biological and other terms in such cases should not be touched. SummerKrut (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please discuss this at the Village Pump. Your arguments currently hold no weight here because they require changing an established guideline, which is not what this debate is about. Dronebogus (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My first question was who decides what counts as profanity? which you haven't answered. I'm pretty sure that my definition is completely different than yours. Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "who decides what counts as profanity?" - The community. SummerKrut (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an intractable concept, and the community has already consensus'ed that this sort of thing generally cannot be resolved satisfactorily. As WP:PEREN for this template notes, It is impossible to draw a line between "offensive" and "non-offensive" content that satisfies all cultural, religious and political norms. Any page could conceivably be offensive to somebody. Furthermore, once a page has loaded, the disclaimer is often too late. Your example use-case of this template, at Russian warship, go fuck yourself is a great example of "too late". DMacks (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as contrary to WP:NODISCLAIMERS; this template is a great example of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Content warnings, an idea that has consensus to reject. DMacks (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we can WP:SNOW close this. There’s an overwhelming consensus against this not only here but among everyone who supports WP:no disclaimers. Extraordinary proposals require extraordinary support, which is not happening here. Dronebogus (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Content disclaimer Wikipedia contains content which may be objectionable -- this applies to the entire site. Thus rendering this particular template redundant -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment why hasn’t this been WP:Snow closed yet? If anything doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell it’s this. Dronebogus (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 25[edit]

Template:Peg Solitaire interactive solution guide.svg[edit]

Not an actual template. Should be substituted or changed into [[File:...]] --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. Single use image template which is a simple imagemap. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why the template I based this one on - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Subtraction_game_SMIL.svg - has not been deleted since 2015? The usage is identical, to take anyone clicking on the thumbnail of it in an article directly to the interactive SVG, as opposed to just the File: page showing just a non-interactive PNG snapshot of it. Mardeg (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Playable Fox Chook Corn puzzle.svg[edit]

Not an actual template. Should be substituted or changed into [[File:...]] --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. Single use image template which is a simple imagemap. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per Gonnym Rlink2 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why the template I based this one on - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Subtraction_game_SMIL.svg - has not been deleted since 2015? The usage is identical, to take anyone clicking on the thumbnail of it in an article directly to the interactive SVG, as opposed to just the File: page showing just a non-interactive PNG snapshot of it. Mardeg (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Memer[edit]

Horribly designed by a now-banned user. WP:BMB. ––FormalDude talk 19:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Userboxes shouldn't be in the template space anyway, and it looks like it wont get more transclusions. Rlink2 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SHM lines[edit]

Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Shanghai Metro Frietjes (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly obsolete. JackPotte (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCFC II squad[edit]

Duplicate of Template:New York City FC II squad Joeykai (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cycling data UCN[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 G6 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete duplicate of Template:Cycling data 194 (old UCI code), clear way for redirect to UCN. Benjamin112 �?� 22:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per request same team so delete for redirect.Paulpat99 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no need for redirect since nothing is transcluding it) Rlink2 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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).

March 24[edit]

Template:ICW Women's Championship[edit]

Just three articles linked. Not enough for a template. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It only being on 3 articles does not mean it should be deleted. I didn't see anything in the policy saying templates have to be transcluded a certain amount of times. Rlink2 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NENAN: "A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the "rule of five": are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used?" Italic text

Template:UKBlock[edit]

No longer needed; was part of an action that was last relevant in January 2009. wizzito | say hello! 05:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OTRS received old[edit]

Only used on a handfull of pages. Should use {{VRT talk}} (if at all) instead. Also, it is outdated with references to OTRS and not VRT. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OTRS topicon[edit]

Propose merging Template:OTRS topicon with Template:VRT topicon.
This one should be named {{VRT topicon}} as it is the primary one. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the new VRT topicon has poor contrast and doesn't pass WCAG contrast accessibility guidelines. �?� EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE MERGE - the VRT topicon is easy to see - it’s used on other language sites - just delete the OTRS topicon as it is no longer valid. Atsme 💬 📧 20:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 23[edit]

Review aggregator prose templates[edit]

All prior XfDs for this page:

These two templates violate WP:TMPG, "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. They should also not be used to 'collapse' or 'hide' content from the reader." Because these templates are used, it is difficult for an experienced editor to change the text at all. For an editor to make a change to the text, they have to copy the text, paste it, restore blue links, retrieve the related URL, and fill out a new citation template. This is nearly impossible for novice editors to do. The use of these templates pretty much "locks in" the templates' wording of Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic despite zero consensus for a specific wording of either review aggregator. Please notice that we already have numbers-inserting {{Rotten Tomatoes data}} which can insert scores and still allow the text around it to be edited. That is the kind of template that should be accepted, not this one that dictates entire sentences. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify about my argument, editors who argue to keep these templates should make the case that the templates do not make it more difficult to edit the content and that the templates do not hide content. WP:TMPG at the end says, "Templates that violate the guidelines on this page... may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion." It seems like some editors are not actually responding to whether or not these templates meet WP:TMPG's first bullet point and are making unrelated arguments. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. This nomination makes similar arguments to the nominator's one last June that resulted in a keep outcome, and I predict there will be a similar result here. My thoughts are basically unchanged, so I'll copy the bulk of my !vote from last time:

    First, the existence of this template does not force any particular wording, as its use is optional, so editors are free to ignore it. Second, standardization is often good. Readers become accustomed to certain aspects of Wikipedia style over time, and when articles are similar, it makes it easier to navigate unfamiliar pages because they know what to look for. Third, templating allows for optimization. When a format is applied over hundreds of pages, it becomes worthwhile to refine small details like whether to use % or "percent" that probably would never have been considered at the level of an individual page. It's particularly advantageous for sensitive areas like critical reception, as it helps us remain neutral—when this template is at an article, it's unlikely to be changed to Film did extremely well at Rotten Tomatoes, where critics gave it a very positive 68% fresh rating. Fourth, removing the template would hamper future improvement efforts. To see what I mean here, look at the example of census data at WikiProject Cities: a long time ago, a bunch of census info was added to city pages, but because it was done via copy-and-paste, rather than templates, updating and improving it turned from a relatively straightforward task into an arduous saga. The same sort of thing could happen here. For instance, it's perfectly plausible that at some point Wikidata will be able to mass-import RT scores on a regular basis. If this template exists, plugging those in to the transclusions will be easy. If not, it'll be basically impossible.

    Deleting a template like this is pretty irreversible—you don't have to agree with me on all of the points above, but if any of them resonate, take a pause before rushing to delete this.

    On {{Rotten Tomatoes data}}, I have no objection to that being used instead where editors desire a customized wording, but per above, it's not a reason to delete this one. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To your point about Wikidata, this template is not needed for that to exist. That integration is completely separate and independent of this template. Wikidata integration is done with {{RT data}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, if this is closed as subst and the substing isn't done extremely carefully to invoke RT data, substantial information will be lost. Many uses of this template code the values into parameters, so those would need to be bulk converted. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never mentioned WP:TMPG in that discussion, and it looks like only one editor mentioned it in passing. Now that is the core argument. Your counterargument is contradictory. You argue that the templates are good for standardization and optimization, and in the same breath, you said that it does not force any particular wording. It's obvious that template use will encroach on natural use, as it is easier to change the natural text into text dictated by the template than it is vice versa. And the fact that you are warning us that deletion will be messy and problematic shows how unnecessarily centralized the article text becomes under these templates. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Consistency + use of wikidata. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some Dude From North Carolina, wikidata can still be used, as evidenced by {{Rotten Tomatoes data}}. I don't think anyone disputes using these kinds of templates. It is more about specifying the article text surrounding the data in a way that makes it difficult to edit. As for consistency, there is no consensus for wording the reporting of Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores in only one way. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Nothing has changed since the previous TfD. As before, [the sole argument for keeping] consists of fundamentally disagreeing with the merits of Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines point 1 without making any attempt to argue that rotten tomatoes is not normal, and is thus outside the scope of TfD. Furthermore, the suggestion about Wikidata would be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, and it makes no sense to keep templates in order to make it easier to ignore consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to keeping as subst only. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make them subst-only and subst the existing uses per WP:TG. All prose should be at the discretion of editors of each article. These templates unnecessarily make editing harder and less flexible, especially for newcomers. Nardog (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've never been a fan of these, since it "locks" in an apparent "correct" version of this information. While consistency in this information may be good/useful, editors should still have the ability to adjust it freely. To any points about the Wikidata integration with the Rotten Tomatoes template, the Wikidata information has a bot that goes around, User:RottenBot, that can put the Wikidata template calls ({{RT data}}) into any articles, so that functionality won't be lost. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would also support changing to subst only (or substing first, then deleting outright). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Favre1fan93. There is no reason to hard-code this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've always found it pointless. No need. JOEBRO64 04:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notifying those who participated in the prior TfD who have not commented here yet: @Facu-el Millo, Kingsif, Shadowboxer2005, Chompy Ace, Aoba47, Οἶδα, Froth, Some Dude From North Carolina, Nyxaros, Zpierson01, DrewieStewie, Plastikspork, Peter NYC, Frietjes, Emir of Wikipedia, Anonymous-232, Kumagoro-42, Uses x, Izno, Seraphimblade, TompaDompa, Don Cuan, and Labdajiwa:. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I said keep above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, forgot to remove your username; apologies. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the closing admin, I'm not sure if it is appropriate for Sdkb to have notified all editors from the previous TfD (that did not involve the WP:TMPG argument) where more editors !voted to keep than to delete. As evidenced by DrewieStewie's !vote below (they voted in the previous TfD too), they are not even responding to the WP:TMPG argument here at all. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Keep. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Edit the template to notify an editor it needs replacement, and once all instances of it are gone, delete it. - Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form – subst-only is fine with me --Iiii I I I (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or subst-only. Templates should be a help, not a hindrance, to editing. In this case, they clearly are not; someone who wishes to change the text would need to have substantial knowledge of what templates are and how to work with them. If made subst-only, their helpful features could be retained without the problem of making editing of the text difficult, so I'm fine with that as a solution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: So I may be a bit of an idiot user who isn't up to parsing templates, but if I stick a plain {{RT data|prose}} into Suspicion (1941 film), I get
On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 97% of 33 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.8/10.
which seems pretty OK to me. Now, ideally, a novice user would like that template to create a cite as well, but that would be like wishing for a pony, right? == Peter NYC (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter NYC, sometimes ponies exist Face-smile.svg If you'd added |ref=yes, it'd have included a reference for you. Granted, we don't have retrieval date working automatically yet, but we'll get there soon if this template isn't destroyed. You highlight a great overall point: this makes it incredibly easy to quickly build reception sections, an ability that would be lost if it's deleted. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subst-only sounds like a sensible solution (unless there's a strong counter-argument to it that I haven't heard yet), so if change is really needed then go for that. QuietHere (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete basically per nom. But also, even stronger, based on usage.
    1. there appears to be very few editors actually adding it to articles, and where they are adding it, they are instead replacing very similar wording that already existed. Its implementation has been functionally pointless and not widespread.
    2. the templated text does not "update", so the figures presented in it do not change even when the figures on the websites change, even though it is supposed to be automatically generated. It looks like the actual template will need to be cache-purged to just update that once, so: the template immediately becomes outdated, the process to update it is manual so it's pointless to have an "automatic" template, and there's no easy way to update at the individual articles.
    Suggesting subst-only is also ridiculous because the text was already at all these articles, people just replaced very similar text to the template, with the template. Might as well have just left all the text there. What an exercise in futility this has been, as several of us predicted at the beginning; no useful outcomes and a lot of effort in making and debating a template that could have been used elsewhere. Just TNT it.
    Seriously, what are any good arguments for keeping? When you're (already) writing a critical reception section you can't also copy-paste a RT consensus line? Really? And for all the people that would have spent more time finding this template exists than just writing out the sentence, it's a slap in the face for the select few users who use this template to come and cover over their work unnecessarily but uneditably (which also takes longer than doing nothing). I don't think it should be dictated what phrasing to use, but even if it was, when an instance of alternate phrasing is found it is just as easy, realistically, to change the text at the article as it is to add this template, because you already need to go to RT/MC to make sure you get the name they have for the [film/show] correct.
    Sdkb suggests that this template makes it easy to write a reception section, whereas I think it does the opposite: 1. a reception section should not only by aggregate scores, so other work is needed. 2. a good place to start is by looking for reviews at RT/MC, so you will already be at those webpages and can add the aggregate scores yourself. 3. I hope I don't have to point out how extra useless a reception section that, when opened to edit, is just a template, is. It discourages further editing (i.e. basic-level improvement) from new users who may be inclined to think they need to add to the template or add more templates and don't know how (or that they don't).
    There really is no good reason to have this, and no amount of !keeps changes that. Kingsif (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To illustrate #3, this is what such a section looks like, first seeing the text:
==Reception==
On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 23% of 57 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 4.8/10. The website's consensus reads, "Alice's well-intentioned attempt to reckon with racism sadly misses the mark on multiple levels, although Keke Palmer's performance remains a consistent bright spot." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 52 out of 100 based on 17 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".
...then trying to edit any of the text:
==Reception==
{{Rotten Tomatoes prose|23|4.8|57|''Alice''{{'}}s well-intentioned attempt to reckon with racism sadly misses the mark on multiple levels, although Keke Palmer's performance remains a consistent bright spot.|ref=yes|access-date=March 18, 2022}} {{MC film|52|17|ref=yes|access-date=March 18, 2022}}
Per WP:TMPG, how is the average editor supposed to engage with the above that shows no way to edit the content? Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template is gradually getting smarter and smarter, so some of the parameters you mentioned are still needed, but we're rapidly working toward a point where it's as simple as entering {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and it automatically populates the entire sentence from Wikidata information that is being constantly updated. That's all that will need to happen for the vast majority of articles—the standard wording is perfectly good for all but the most edgy of cases—but if someone wants to customize the text, it'll be as simple as adding a "subst". It's incredibly convenient and helpful for experienced and novice editors alike to create, and it's simple to maintain since updates are handled automatically.
Overall, it's not a hard template to use, and it's getting easier and easier as it becomes more advanced. This nomination is a torpedo to those efforts, based on an inflexible interpretation of WP:TMPG, the consensus for which is highly dubious (other prose templates like {{Year article header}} enjoy widespread support). If you don't personally find it helpful, fine: just don't use it in the articles you edit. But there are no grounds here to impede those of us who do find it helpful, and the idea that it should be deleted (rather than made subst-only) is not even internally consistent with the nomination argument. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're dodging the heart of the matter. It is difficult to edit the content because the article text is stored out of sight for the average editor. Of course certain templates like {{Rotten Tomatoes data}} are useful, but they are narrow insertions. Furthermore, if you are actively wanting to standardize these templates, it is against the policy of WP:CONSENSUS because there is no consensus for the specific wording dictated by these templates. As another editor mentioned, if we "subst" all the templates, we're back to where we started in simply using article text. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template has a full set of TemplateData, so if newcomer accessibility is your concern, it's as easily editable as any other template, and it'll only get more so over time as TemplateData improves. But editability is only really a concern for things that need to be edited all the time. If the scores are stored manually or without this template, then yes, they need constant editing. But if they're being updated by bot automatically on Wikidata, there's no need to ever edit this template after you insert it. Indeed, most possible edits would be bad ones (see third point in my quote block above), so some structure is a good thing (and again, if there's truly a good reason to customize, just subst). Your idea of how consensus works is mistaken—no wording is being imposed on anyone, because the decision to use this template is optional. If your notion were true, we'd delete all the user warning templates because they are against the policy of WP:CONSENSUS because there is no consensus for the specific wording dictated by these templates. Lastly, while I maintain that subst-only would be a bad outcome here for the reasons in the block quote above, it's still clearly superior to deletion, since unless Hollywood closes tomorrow, there will be future films. For many of us, it's much easier to just type {{subst:RT data|prose}} than to fetch all the data from Rotten Tomatoes manually or remember all the more specific templates and type it all out. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So help an editor who is on the fence here... Invoking subst-only means the prose can easily be updated on subsequent edits, but the numbers are not updating automatically. So how is that an improvement over placing the suggested prose into the MOS or an explanatory supplement of some kind? Doesn't sound like we really need to have a template in that situation. A guideline or supplement with some backing of consensus would do just fine. And speaking of consensus, that becomes a concern as well for the template. Imagine a scenario where an editor inserts the template without substitution, because they agree with the wording and want the automatic updating. But then months or years down the road, the template wording is modified, updating in every article that uses the template. While the editor who originally inserted the template agreed with the old phrasing, we don't know they still do with the modified version. I believe this is why we typically want to steer clear of doing this for article text, as the concern about consensus as Erik points out is a valid one. Your comparison about user warning templates is apples to oranges, since they exist in a different namespace.
I really want to have a reason to keep, because I think the intentions behind it are of good faith, but I'm beginning to think it's causing more problems than it solves. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60, having suggested prose encoded into a policy or guideline would be creep, but aside from that, it's just convenience: having to remember or search out the suggested prose is a lot more difficult than just substituting a template whose name is pretty easy to remember.
On substitution, the possibility for template text to change is something that exists in all templates, and I'd argue it's a good thing. It allows for updates and improvements as norms and best practices evolve. Templates are also often watched more than obscure articles, allowing better scrutiny: if a well-meaning newcomer really excited about an obscure film decides that they'd prefer the wording critics loved it and gave it a very positive 58% fresh rating, no one would likely notice, but if the wording at the template is changed, people will. So it's more stable for the long-term to rely on a single template than to have very similar wording spread out over a bunch of articles. This is the don't repeat yourself principle—if similar content is used in a bunch of different places, you want to have it centralized in one core place, not copied and pasted. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel like the template is kind of a waste. I mean, how hard is it to type one sentence for the reception/percent score on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic? Having a whole template dedicated to this is pretty pointless and I feel like it is only used because some may be just too lazy to type just one simple sentence. SlySabre (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or make it subst only per above. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or subst only per WP:TMPG, as it interferes with editors' ability to edit article text. Hut 8.5 20:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Standardizing how we refer to review aggregators is a net benefit. Wherever I've seen articles deviate from the wording used there, it has been for the worse. At times suggesting that RT and MC assign these scores themselves. The only portion better served by free text is the critic's consensus in the RT template. Don Cuan (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that it's a good idea to make it harder for editors to edit the content about review aggregator scores for this "net benefit"? And again, there is no consensus for the wording for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. Keeping these templates and wanting to make them the standard across all film articles is a forcing of specific wording despite no consensus, which violates Wikipedia's WP:CONSENSUS policy. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To Erik's point, editor should recommend the necessary components that should be covered in review aggregator statements, but the actual make up and construct of that info should be open to implementation without one "standard" idea, which as he noted, there is currently no consensus for such wording, especially the ones in these templates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about one or two sentences here that ought to convey the same kind of information in about every article that references review aggregators. It's not like there is much flexibility in wording these two sentences, or need to change the sentences afterwards. (which could be an argument to keep it subst-only at least) Don Cuan (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. It's useful for readers to see if a film is well-received or not. Dunkaccino2020 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not what we're discussing. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now that I think about it, since hardly any articles use it and it works just as well in typed words, there's really no need for this template. Songwaters (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or subst-only per others above. --Izno (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both (preferred) or subst-only (less preferred). This is WP:CONSISTENCY overreach, trying to apply it across articles. We should be discouraging snow-cloned formulaic article writing, not encoding it into law template form. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or subst-only – I agree with the points outlined about making the wiki markup easy to read. Additionally, I've seen some talk from supporters of this template about automatically updating the scores (example), which greatly concerns me – if we place too much trust in automating the process from RT/MC → Wikidata → Wikipedia, we risk all appearances of the templates breaking if something goes wrong with one of those connections (i.e., Rotten Tomatoes changes their website's format and the scores cannot be retrieved). Writing it manually or substituting the template means the info might not be quite up to date, but it avoids any possible issues from the data retrieval process. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Rotten Tomatoes is useful because it contains reviews not only from professional critics, but also from ordinary viewers. 53zodiac (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    53zodiac that is not what's being discussed at all here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, and also Kingsif's summary. Converting to a subst-only form is a reasonable idea, in that it would provide a good basis from which editors can expand as necessary. Locking in textual presentation in this way goes against the spirit of a wiki, and it's directly contrary to WP:TMPG. Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not leave around to be subst'd (although making subst-only is preferred over keep). Mostly because this sets a bad precedent: that machine-generated, formulaic sentences are the way to write articles. These sentences are fine, but unfortunately the use of a template will encourage certain editors to "fix" articles to one particular wording when actually many wordings would be fine, and some might even be better based on context (e.g. a contrast with others, a comparison with other aggregators, etc.). This kind of template-expands-to-prose should be done exceptionally rarely and only when there's truly One Right Way to write something that needs to be enforced, not merely a stylistic preference. SnowFire (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subst-only which allows for standardization and optimization without preventing revisions. I object to deletion. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  08:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a substitution option. Lazy or not, its use is still a net positive benefit to the encyclopedia in adding valuable information. Substitution use allows it to provide an easy prose baseline to incorporate without having to dig up the last instance of "good" use, and still allow customization/user-friendly edit capabilities. If substitution is too difficult thanks to the use of additional templates and Wiki data, a concern raised above, keep outright. Just because it is there does not mean it must be used. In order to prevent WP:OWNERSHIP edit warring, perhaps a large note can be added to the template documentation pages stating something to the effect of this: "The use of this verbiage is discretional, and it is not intended to replace any existing prose. If the template is replaced with readable prose, use of the template should not be restored." (But I think substitution is the better route to take.) -2pou (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based the multiple well-reasoned keep !votes above. Plus I don't believe we should be dumbing-down tools just for the sake of fly-by editors. If people want to edit this project, they should make the effort to learn how, just like the rest of us. That's how you go from "novice" to "experinced" editor. Templates have instructions, there is the help desk, teahouse, village pump, sandbox, plus article, template and WikiProject talk pages - all places where people can seek assistance and learn. There is also the old trial and error tinker until you get it right method (hopefully using the preview function).

    And also, Erik: "For an editor to make a change to the text, they have to copy the text, paste it, restore blue links, retrieve the related URL, and fill out a new citation template. This is nearly impossible for novice editors to do." - huh? Am I missing something? Why not just copy & paste from the edit window? All the mark-up for wiki-links and cite templates is all right there. - wolf 21:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like you agree that the templates violate WP:TMPG but that "fly-by editors" should struggle anyway with changing the article text to anything but what is dictated by the template. I'm not sure what you're not understanding about the process. The template can't be substituted without making a mess, and have you tried to change an article using {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} to an article using plain text and/or {{RT data}} elements? It's much easier for the article text to be plain and not templated in the first place so any editor can change a few words as appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... try reading my comment out loud and then see if it "sounds" just as wrote it, or how you seem to wish it was written. I noticed you avoided answering my question about your quote, but I suppose that is in itself an answer. Have a nice day - wolf 17:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am not swayed by the arguments for deletion. --Pokelova (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, "An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted." Erik's demand that "editors who argue to keep these templates should make the case that the templates do not make it more difficult to edit the content" puts the burden of proof on the wrong editor. If there are any "novice editors" that agree with him that this template makes things more difficult, let them speak for themselves. I am certainly not an advanced editor and it doesn't seem very difficult to me. Kire1975 (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Policies and guidelines take precedent. You have to make an argument as to why the template is appropriate even if it makes it difficult to edit the content. If you don't believe that it is difficult, please, share an example of a hypothetical template that actually makes it difficult. I can't think of a better example than this one, which literally puts the article text out of view for the passerby editor. And "subst" does not work either; it creates a muddled mess needs further detailed cleaning-up. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "subst" does not work either; it creates a muddled mess needs further detailed cleaning-up Not if you use WP:SAFESUBST. Try previewing the diff of {{subst:Rotten Tomatoes prose/sandbox|88|7.30|274}}. Nardog (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Express Entertainment TV[edit]

Delete Same rationale as the one deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#Template:Express Entertainment TV Programm: almost entirely red and disambiguation links. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ranking movements/helper[edit]

Unused after Template:Ranking movements was converted to use Lua. Gonnym (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Animation industry in Iran[edit]

Only 1 active link in this navbox - pointless to have Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom with no prejudice against re-creation/REFUND if it can be more widely populated in the future. -2pou (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map/sandbox quick[edit]

This non-Lua version is no longer being developed and is unused other than in a talk page. Gonnym (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adrian Stresow[edit]

Even if the main article gets out of draft state, there is no need for this navigational box for only two albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Playa[edit]

Two articles to link to—an album and a single from that album—besides the main article and an article for its most notable member. Not enough to link to to justify keeping this, yet the template has existed since 2008. Ss112 19:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commander of National Order of the Cedar (Lebanon)[edit]

Unused award template. Nothing but an image file of the order and link to the article of relevance. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heroes of the Soviet Union 370th RD[edit]

Unused navbox with only one article link. No navigational benefit. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hero of the Republic of Cuba[edit]

Unused award order template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leaders of the Republic of China[edit]

No longer used and replaced by the more favored Template:Presidents of the Republic of China. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jagtial district[edit]

Unused with fewer than five links needed for navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both added more than 20 links of the villages in each district, meets the requirements -- Ab207 (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: transcluded — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it provides better navigational assistance with the new additions. -2pou (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 22[edit]

Template:Dutch Senate elections[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Dutch Senate elections with Template:Dutch elections.
There is no reason for keeping them separate, in other countries indirect elections are usually in the same template. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 18:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The reason for keeping them separate is the long-standing consensus that the main national election/referendum templates do not include indirect elections (which is the case of Dutch Senate elections). Number 57 21:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Sendai Girls Junior Championship[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. ✗plicit 11:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just two articles linked. Not enough for a template. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Andre Agassi start boxes[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. ✗plicit 11:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use, so should be substituted and deleted per the recent discussion. The remaining 8 templates in Category:Tennis preceded and succeeded boxes that I haven't nominated here all have a second transclusion in their respective players' career achievements articles. Letcord (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete per nom. Single use templates that can only evert be used in the biography article of that person, as they apply to no one else. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without subst. As I stated in the previous discussion, these duplicate the navbox award templates that each article also has, so we end up with a navbox with succession links and a table with succession links. Since the navbox offers the better layout, there is no need for these to duplicate the same information in the same exact section. Gonnym (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite true, though. Template:Martina Hingis start boxes for example has succession links for 12 separate achievements, but there are only navboxes for three of those on Martina Hingis, so deleting without substing would remove info from her article. While I agree something needs to be done about the redundancy of having both types of template for some of those awards, the correct outcome here is subst and delete. Letcord (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree however that a general debate on the utility of these succession boxes is worth having. Some are completely trivial ("Fan Favorite Shot of the Year"?), and while aesthetically pleasing when maybe a couple are used, the skyscrapers that some of the top players have built up look ridiculous and reveal the inefficiency of this way of displaying the information. I would personally limit them to only those that are official awards in the sport an athlete competes, e.g. ITF World Champions and the No. 1 ranking for tennis, as who preceded/succeeded a player in a general athlete award like the Laureus World Sports Awards is completely irrelevant to the athlete. Letcord (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're worth having but if some people find them interesting then some of them definitely need to be trimmed down. Serena's box for example could be edited to look like this. ForzaUV (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better to me. I'd even go further and remove the newcomer/most improved/comeback/fan favorite doubles team awards, leaving just those achievements that Serena "took" from other players, like the No. 1 ranking and ITF World Champion status. Letcord (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Martina Hingis has 17 award navboxes under the "Martina Hingis in the Grand Slam tournaments" header and 11 under the "Martina Hingis achievements" header. If there are still some that are missing at this point then either they are not notable (such as Swiss Sports Personality of the Year) or are somehow notable but missing a navbox which should be created. Gonnym (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "somehow notable but missing a navbox" category of achievements is why these templates can't be simply deleted here and now. What achievements do and don't deserve a navbox is a topic that would require a full discussion at the tennis project page. Also tennis isn't alone in having too many of these, Usain Bolt's list is just as long. Letcord (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Cuphead[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. ✗plicit 10:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Template consists entirely of two unique pages in mainspace. All the other entries are sections of the originating work's article, or point to articles like the Cuphead character that no longer exist to reflect consensus among editors, as per the merge proposal here. It serves no purpose other then as an expression of enthusiasm by a fan. Haleth (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Aeromot aircraft[edit]

Unused duplicate of Template:Aeromot created by the same editor. Gonnym (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Petty family[edit]

WP:NOTGENEALOGY Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, no worse than the family-based navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being used and not in violation of the Genealogy policy. Connects articles relevant to the subject at hand. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charles[edit]

A nearly endless template of names which may or may not have the same origin as "Charles" (some do, some like Carey (surname) apparently don't, some like Lina have many origins and could thus carry many similar templates, some aren't even "real" names but only pseudonyms like Karloff (name)). Disambiguation pages are meant to distinguish between people with the same or very similar names, so it makes sense that the disambig Caryl has a see also for e.g. Caryll and vice versa; but burying these in a massive list together with Giancarlo, Chip, Lotte and Sharlene will not help for this in any way. Fram (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a lot of those given name and surname template can go as well as this one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I am researching something that isn't on WP, I usually put it on WP since other people would likely find it useful. I came across {{Nicholas}} and found it interesting. I spent some time researching it. Then, I moved on to names in my own family. With a father (Carlos), uncle (Charles), sister (Carla) and niece (Charley), I became interested in names derived from the same origin as these names. Maybe 5-10% of the names on the template should be pared from the template since a surname may have a irrelevant derivation from a given name and another few are from nicknames that have wideranging origins. I am not a member of WP:APO and have no expertise in the field, so I have tried to leave a lot of comments on the template talk page for experts to help me refine the templates. Whether I have cast a slightly wider net than I should have should not be the determining factor of whether the template is useful. I.e., if some surnames have derivations unrelated to the given names that are relevant, I could remove those. Similarly, there are some nicknames like Chuck that are almost exclusive to this derivation of names. Nicknames like Lina have a wide range of derivations. So it is less clear whether these are appropriately placed. However, the fact that the list may need to be pared down somewhat is not a reason to delete the template. The reason to delete the template would be that it would be hopeless to reduce it a useful form with some guidance from people who are expert in the field. I find learning about all the names from different cultures to be useful. I prefer this template to a table like Charles#Regional_forms_of_the_name. I would love help from WP:APO with rules on what should and should not be included, but I think deleting this because of my personal lack of expertise is not helpful for the encyclopedia.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #3: The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. One could imagine each article referring to Charles, presuming they are related, but not to all of the variants.—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Bagumba, the WP:NAVBOX list states "Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines". So saying it fails one of the list is not really fail. Most templates would fail WP:NAVBOX 3 in the way you suggest. The most recent three navboxes that were Kept here at TFD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 15 all fail this criterion {{Dutch Senate elections}}, {{Peddapalli district}}, {{Nuneaton Borough F.C. squad}}.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's WP:OTHERSTUFF, without justifying why an exception is warranted in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Bagumba, You are pointing to a general guideline that is an almost unattainable standard. Otherstuff, means the fact that almost no navbox templates achieve this standard is irrelevant. However, the guideline says "most or all". Since it is not a policy, each criterion is just a suggestion rather than a requirement. The reason that an exception is warranted is that this is a template joining lists rather than articles. WP:NAVBOX 2 & 3 are more attainable in the case of navboxes that link to fully fleshed out articles rather than lists with stubby article content. Each subject is generally a nickname of, diminutive of, derivative of, variant of, son of, or descendant of Charles or another name or two that is itself a nickname of, diminutive of, derivative of, variant of, son of, or descendant of Charles. Each article generally mentions a few other articles that is on the template. Sometimes, the other name is one or two levels removed from the subject. As a list the article content is sparsely presented however.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am allowed to cite a guideline if I agree with its ""suggestion". Others can !vote differently, if they choose. You didn't address my other comment: One could imagine each article referring to Charles, presuming they are related, but not to all of the variants. It's implausible that many at Lotten would want to navigate to the dab Carloman. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Bagumba, thank you for engaging and starting by imagining more fully fleshed out material. Certainly, Carloman refers to almost nothing. We have to imagine a less stubby article. Although one appears to be a masculine secondary derivative of Charles and the other a feminine secondary derivative. Imagine a world in which these articles were fleshed out. In such a world, each article would have a description of regions (and eras) of prevalence. In such a world Carloman might say. In region X, Carloman is one of the most common derivatives of Charles along with these 5 male derivatives and these 5 female derivatives. In this world, the article becomes informative by selectively presenting these lists of 5 or so in each region rather than mentioning all 200 derivatives of Charles. No article would be useful for mentioning all 200. However, an article might be well-formed by mentioning a handful of others. It is conceivable that Lotten, could overlap with Carloman in its region of prevalence. That region could be described by contiguous geography or by language family. Suppose both names were popular in say Western Europe or in places where slavic languages are spoken. That is how I imagine the world of well-formed fleshed out articles. Any two article on the list might share a region of prevalence even if they are secondary derivatives from different primary derivatives.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Definitely expand the individual variants. I just think most of them are too dissimilar to warrant being in the same navbox. I think the prose in Charles, which should be linked in every variant, is sufficient for those seeking more information. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Bagumba, May I ask what your given name is? Given that my name is Antonio, I learned a lot when I created {{Anthony}}. I learned about all the nicknames that my father called me when I was a kid. My dad sometime called nicknames that included Tonio (name), Tono (name), or Tonton, but he never called me Antoñito (name), Tó, Anto (name), Ant (name), or Tonino. Seeing these lists, though made me feel closer to people with very different nicknames and realize, that if they were presented in this way on wikipedia when I was a kid, I would have gone by a different name and not as Tony. I believe seeing the list of names derived from Carolus, which has been anglicized to Charles, is informative to an intended audience of people who are likely named something on the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but pare down. It's perfectly sensible to provide navigation between the variants of a given name. This is already commonly done within {{infobox name}} (see the field "related names"), which means the criterion cited by Bagumba has been met. The problems pointed out by Fram have to do with the inclusion of particular entries (it's true that this could do with some work and it doesn't help here that most name indexes don't provide reliably sourced etymologies, but these obstacles are not unsurmountable). Carey apparently should be removed, but Karloff, as long as it's a separate article, can stay (it's an alternative spelling of Karlov, which is obviously a Russian patronymic surname derived from Karl). – Uanfala (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Uanfala, in terms of paring down, I am thinking about taking a closer look at surnames that have the same spelling as relevant given names. Carey (surname) is a tenuous connection. However, it is a bit difficult for me to be decisive. It seems to me that Carey (given name) is connected per the non-RS that I have found helpful. This is where I could use some WP:APO interaction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uanfala, why is it sensible? I can understand people interested in Carlota wanting to have further information on the name Charles, its origin, ...; and the same applies to people looking at Karl, Lotte, Charley, ... but are they best served by a long box containing all these variations (even when trimmed down), or do they need a link to a page (e.g. Charles) which has this information? A navbox allowing people to e.g. surf between the different seasons of a football club makes sense, as it is all part of the history of that club: but why are people looking at everyone named Carlo more likely to want to get all people named Charlotte than e.g. all people named Domenico? Why is a navbox joining one disambiguation page with another disambiguation page because they have the same, often remote root name logical, acceptable, useful, considering that many other navboxes with equally correct but tenuous links could be created as well? A navigation aid between navigation aids is a bit too meta for my taste. Fram (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get it that this sort of navigation doesn't make sense for you, but it evidently makes sense for many other people. The way I see things, grouping human names by shared origin is no different than grouping animal species by genus or languages by family. As for the small number of disambiguation pages currently listed, this again is a question of inclusion and there is a strong argument that they should be left out. – Uanfala (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "small number of disambiguation pages currently listed"? They are nearly all pure disambiguation pages, that's one of the issues. We are not linking closely related encyclopedic pages (like species from a genus), but pages of lists of names which share a first name, but not any defining, major characteristic of these people. The only link between the list of Carla's and the list of Chuck's is that their parents lived in a culture where a "Charles" based first name is in use. Fram (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The template currently has entries for 9 pure disambiguation pages, and over 280 surname article. A surname article serves a twofold purpose: 1) providing encyclopedic information about the surname, and 2) listing the name-bearers that have articles on Wikipedia (that's a disambiguation-like function). If you're focussing only on the second aspect, then obviously, the various lists of people don't have anything meaningful in common. But if you take the first one into account, then it's equally obvious that the names, as topics by themselves, are closely related. – Uanfala (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • You do know that a page doesn't need "disambiguation" in the title to actually be a "pure" disambiguation page surely? Somethine like Carlisle (given name) or Carlton (name) is a pure disambiguation page, as are nearly all of the others. Having one introductory line stating that it is a variant of Charles (with very weird intros like the one here; Carlo (name)) doesn't make it a "surname article", they are still disambiguation pages. Almost none of the pages would exist if they were treated as articles instead of disambiguations, they would either be deleted or redirected to Charles. Fram (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I should further state that I am also motivated to research nicknames in this family tree because I have a curly-headed niece who may be a future WNBA baller. She was the first guard off the bench on Varsity in 7th grade and started at point guard in the just completed season for her 8th grade year. Everytime I visit, it seems my sister is experimenting with the responsiveness to different nicknames for Charley (name). I have heard, Char (name), Cha-Cha, Chachi, Chach, Cha (name), and a few others. In the last week alone, I have discovered at least 2 that might be acceptable for a razzle dazzle point guard of the future. I have found that although Charo (name) is primarily a nickname for Maria Rosario, it is sometimes a nickname for Charlotte (name) (and I suppose similar names in the family) according to this source. I have also found that the nickname of one of the most legendary ballhandlers of all time (Curly Neal) is in the set of names associated with this family per this source. Curly/Curley also includes Curly Armstrong (middle name Carlyle), Curly Linton (middle name Charles) and Curly Brown (first name Charles). I remain hesitant to put either of these on the page yet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Uanfala, I'm interested in your opinion on what it should take to be included in the template. While cleaning up Chick (nickname), I came across support for Chic (nickname) and Chicka, which clearly belong on the template. Do you have thoughts on Chickie (nickname) being inlcuded as a feminine form? Also since about 1 in 400 babies born today and 1 in 200 about 50 years ago are named Charles, seeing Curly with about 30 names including 1 first name Charles, 1 middle name Charles and 1 middle name Carlyle. How strong does the association need to be to be on the template?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe an article should be included in the template if it's stated in its text, with reliable sources, that the name in question shares its etymology with Charles. – Uanfala (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are the easy ones. Unfortunately, WP:APO is in a place where I think WP:APORED means you are encouraged to create articles for redlinks before finding RS. I think this means if we have reason to believe that an RS would support the association, we act as editors without the actual RS and thus fill in the template. So we have WP:NAMELIST articles on subjects like Chic (nickname), Chicka, Chickie (nickname) and Curly. In a world where APO has namelists without links so we make inferences. What we know is that about 1 in 300 random people (in the US) are named Charles. For some names, the frequency is more than 100 times as strong. If instead of random people, we chose people nicknamed Chick, Chic, or Chika probably more than 1 in 3 is actually named Charles. In an APORED world, these articles get created and seem to belong in the template. My question is if people with a given nickname are only 15 or 20 times as likely to be Charles so that 1 in 15 or 20 people of a given nickname is Charles, should we include it in the template. One of the reasons I am so active again in recent weeks is that I had back surgery in the fall that may take a full year for recovery. I am unable to do the same kind of work as before and am at home a lot more. I am not likely to be going to bookstores or libraries to track down books. Am I misinterpreting APORED as instruction to create without RS?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ctime:07[edit]

Unused Chinese date and time templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, these don't seem to be used and the creator hasn't been around for years. I'd say relist for another week to be on the safe side and if still no usage found then delete. Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CRT color[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Chongqing Rail Transit. Gonnym (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Old discussions[edit]

March 21

Template:Lang-grc-x-byzant

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Lang-grc-x-byzant with Template:Lang-grc-x-medieval.
Medieval Greek and Byzantine Greek are generally considered to be synonymous. This Byzantine Greek template should be merged into the Medieval Greek template.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both templates created as part of this discussion. Nominator should notify that and possibly other wiki projects.
Both templates are nominally used about the same so someone, not me 'cause I haven't a clue, but someone, thinks that a reasonable distinction exists between them. It is this that, I think, makes it important for nominator to notify the cognizant wiki project(s).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Both Medieval Greek and Byzantine Greek link to Medieval Greek. Both the lead of that article and its infobox mention both names (and also Middle Greek). As long as our articles identify these as the same, our templates should follow that as well and should not create a hidden parallel system. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

Template:Uw-dttr2

[edit]

Barely-used "templates" which you can use to complain about being "templated". Ironic/humorous depending on your point of view, and surplus to {{dttr}}. Nigej (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth redirecting? Also added {{Uw-dttr4im}} to the discussion per comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment {{Uw-dttr1}} will still exist if these are deleted, so redirection seems better, as the number "1" location will still remain. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. The warning itself (even at the base version) is just nonsense. Experienced editors are not exempt from anything, including templates. Redirects shouldn't be used just because we can. There is absolutely no value in redirecting here. Gonnym (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User templates make it easy for people to raise concerns and this template acts to inhibit that. Gusfriend (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep I've used these templates, myself. That they have become less popular isn't a reason for deletion. There is a real cultural loss in our community if we start to strip away things like this, and for what utility? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uw-dttr4im, marginal delete other two. All except dttr1 are pointless if used seriously. dttr1 is borderline, and may cause more conflict than it solves, but it is a long-standing part of wiki history, and should not be bundled here, but treated separately. However, it is impossible to use dttr4im seriously, it is purely a joke. The joke is the fact that it exists in the warning template series, not it's wording, so it would be pointless to userfy. The cost of keeping it is zero; the benefit of keeping it is a marginal increase in lightheartedness on the project (something increasingly in short supply). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "...barely used" signifies that they are used - just sparingly. Unless the proposer can indicate that the use causes conflict or even a sense of grievance, then allow those few who know who will accept being templated to refrain from templating others to continue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uw-dttr4im: I am indifferent about the other 2 templates. However I find the idea that you are using a standard tempate response as a block warning against editiors hilarious, you can't fight stupid with more stupid, while it isn't a policy I aggree with the sentiment of WP:DTR but you can't start enforcing essays with blocks. You might catch a warning for WP:CIVIL as a part of WP:Don't template the regulars if you are egregious with handing responses out, but I don't see Uw-dttr4im providing anything apart from a counter argument at WP:AN for the original offenders against the person who places this notice, which could cause both parties to get warned by Admins?... Terasail[✉️] 16:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'm glad you find it hilarious, that was the intent. Second, if you re-read the template you will see that it does not threaten anyone with a block, which seems to be the main reason you support deletion of this one? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that I still oppose this template (Delete/Rename/Recat) for the reason that its easy to take the wrong way (As I just did), it has the chance to cause unnecessary confusion and it would be better to userify for anyone who wishes to have a good joke while removing prominence of this since it isn't a user warning that should be mixed in with the others. Terasail[✉️] 16:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the last badgering I'll do, but I really take issue with the idea that "it has a chance to cause unnecessary confusion", since it has not done so in the 11 years since it was created. No one will attempt to use this as a serious warning, ever. No one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely get your perspective on it I just personally disagree with the idea of it being misued, you definitely weakened my opposition to keeping the template but I'm not going to completely reverse my stanse on it. Sometimes jokes land and sometimes they don't and this one just misses for me. Terasail[✉️] 17:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that dttr4im has been thru TFD before: in 2015. Result was no consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WHIMSY. I realize not everyone will get the joke (that they're templates telling you not to use templates), but fortunately we're still allowed (for now, at least) to communicate with other editors by using levity instead of being Stern And Serious all the time. 28bytes (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unhelpful silliness; each of these has been substituted either once or zero times, making their pointlessness apparent. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is it really a requirement now for all templates to be utilitarian, dull and humorless? Have the template standards become so narrow, predictable and set in stone that any divergence must be eliminated? I'm all for getting rid of information that might be confusing to editors but this purging of anything less than absolutely pragmatic and serious really takes the human element out of the project. It would be one thing if these templates appeared in main space but they are for User space, you know, where people communicate with each other.
At some point in the future, we might be able to specify the subject parameters and have AI editors generate flawless templates which are perfect but I think eliminating the quirks in the project is, well, just really sad. I'm sure this is not an approved rationale for keeping a page but I just wanted to share my opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is the definition of "humor". I find these, and the various whale-esque templates, more cringey than funny. At present I'm sure that your theoretical AI editors can generate better humor. Gonnym (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Liz. I was leaning towards weak delete for this one, as templating regulars for templating regulars does not make sense. However, "warning templates", and for that matter, "templates" in general, are tending to sound increasingly robotic. Plus, taking into account Floquenbeam's point, absolutely no-one is going to use these for serious matters. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 22:45, 27 March 2022 (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=1074003086"