Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 14 September 16 >

September 15[edit]

Template:Ccnorm[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 September 26. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2020 (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).

Module:Time interval[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used after Special:Diff/724713686 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:44, 15 September 2020 (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:Janáček operas[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Everything in this navbox template, bar the image, is in {{Leoš Janáček}}, which appears on all the pages in this one, and does so in the more usual position at the foot of the article. Furthermore, it does not appear for mobile users - over half of our readers, AIUI - and so hides the image from them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Tim riley talk 23:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant. the navbox version is better since it doesn't crowd the article prose. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: For the avoidance of doubt, I'm proposing that the template be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:01, 24 September 2020 (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:Lecocq operas and operettas[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Everything in this navbox template, bar the image, is in {{Charles Lecocq}}, which appears on all the pages in this one, and does so in the more usual position at the foot of the article. Furthermore, it does not appear for mobile users - over half of our readers, AIUI - and so hides the image from them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find these horizontal navboxes at the bottom of the page inconvenient and difficult-to-read. A vertical list at the top is far better. When we had them, I used them frequently, but these new horizontal ones, almost never. I'm very happy to see a vertical drop-down is still used for Handel's operas. I'm in favor of adding a drop-down chronological list of operas by the same composer to the opera infoboxes. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has clearly standardised on horizontal navboxes at the foot of articles. {{Navbox}} is, apparently, "used on approximately 2,780,000 pages" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andy's opening comments, but he is premature in thinking WP has standardised on horizontal navboxes at the foot of the page. I wish! Coincidentally there is a discussion (getting a little heated in spots) here on that very subject, where comments from Andy and Robert and anyone else will be most welcome. Meanwhile, I support the deletion of the Lecocq operas and operettas template, which has specifically been declared pretty much mothballed here. Tim riley talk 22:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: if the template is deleted will the discussion on its talk page vanish with it? I'd rather regret that, as it's a useful snapshot of opinion at the time. Perhaps I should copy and paste the discussion to my talk page archive or some such? Tim riley talk 23:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing wrote: it does not appear for mobile users - over half of our readers, AIUI - and so hides the image from them – Not quite. On my Android mobile device using Wikipedia 2.7 (2020-08-04) the image from the navbox is shown above the article. OTOH, horizontal navboxes at the desktop's version bottom are not shown on that version, so that doesn't seem to be a convincing argument. The same point applies to the nomination below, #Template:Scarlatti operas. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. An extract from the page's lead image is shown, which may or not be the image from this template, but often not the full image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing wrote: and so hides the image from them and An extract from the page's lead image is shown – a) so it's not hidden; b) isn't that the case for (almost) every article's lead image in the mobile app, navbox or stand-alone? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The image in the template is hidden. The lead image on, for example Mozart (which has no such template) is shown in the header in the manner you describe; but it is also shown in full as an on-page image. furthermore, what you describe occurs in the mobile app. The image in the template is not shown at all on the mobile website. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Wikipedia has standardised on horizontal navboxes; I demonstrate that it has, quoting that they are "used on approximately 2,780,000 pages". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tim Riley has a good point. Isn't it also true that when a legacy template is deleted, the history of the pages that utilized the template in the past will no longer render correctly when it is called? If so, maybe it is not a good idea to be deleting these old templates? --Robert.Allen (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant. the navbox version is better since it doesn't crowd the article prose. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2020 (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:Scarlatti operas[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this navbox template, bar the image, is in {{Alessandro Scarlatti}}, which appears on all the pages in this one, and does so in the more usual position at the foot of the article. Furthermore, it does not appear for mobile users - over half of our readers, AIUI - and so hides the image from them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Tim riley talk 23:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant. the navbox version is better since it doesn't crowd the article prose. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2020 (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:Tfdl2[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent fork of {{Tfdl}}; little used - around 20 transclusions, mostly in old archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I created this template in 2009 apparently to "fix several annoyances [with Template:Tfdl] and make [the] template more intuitive", but I've long since forgotten what any of those changes were, and {{Tfdl}} looks pretty intuitive these days. At any rate, I'm not involved any more with any areas of the project this template might be used in, so I don't really care what the outcome here is. 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy1000 20:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute then delete. I see the differences. Tfdl is formatted like a heading, while Tfdl2 is formatted in such a way that it could be used in-line where Tfdl would be awkward. That said, one could also just use a wikilink for the same purpose as Tfdl2 so, if usage is low, the template can be substituted and deleted. But we should avoid replacing tfdl2 with tfdl here. --Bsherr (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2020 (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:Usercomment[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 September 28. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2020 (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).

Module:Wikidata Infobox[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. There is consensus against a full merge of these two modules. There may be some support for copying/moving some of the generic functions into Module:WikidataIB, though that can be hashed out elsewhere if it is desired. There was also some discussion on whether the proposed module, Module:Wikidata Infobox, and its accompanying template, should be deleted on this wiki. Interested participants may wish to focus their efforts there. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:Wikidata Infobox with Module:WikidataIB.
We should have one Wikidata infobox module and make life easier for our editors as learning a new module everytime takes time. This one is used on less than 400 pages with minimal documentation, while Module:WikidataIB is used over 1m times. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gonnym: Module:Wikidata Infobox is extra Lua code that is used by {{Wikidata Infobox}} beyond Module:WikidataIB. It provides extra functions that are useful in that infobox, and while they may also be useful elsewhere I don't think other templates use it. It is used a lot more on Commons than it is here (>3 million times). I don't mind if they are merged, but if they are then they need to be kept in sync across all of the wikis. @RexxS: probably has views on this! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I'm a bit less concerned what other wikis do and if or how they keep their modules updated, and more concerned with what code is used here. Template:Infobox telescope is an example, of a very badly coded template, which uses Wikidata Infobox, WikidataIB and Module:Wikidata (which is deprecated). I'm pretty sure that WikidataIB can either handle the required functions now, or be made to handle it without a lot of trouble. --Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The argument presented here about Template:Infobox telescope is inapplicable since the only use of Module:Wikidata Infobox there is ifThenShow, which is an unnecessary Lua module that could be implemented in Wikitext. Module:Wikidata Infobox is intended to be a module implementing Template:Wikidata Infobox, not a general purpose Wikidata infobox module, and I would support removing all usages of it from templates other than Template:Wikidata Infobox to support that purpose. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That still leaves only 14 transclusions of {{Wikidata Infobox}}, which some are pointless and others can use {{Infobox person/wikidata}} or the actual standard infobox for that type. I doubt this template has any consensus to be used in place of the standard infoboxes as its style is completely different. --Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The style is easily changeable (see {{Wikidata Infobox/styles.css}}). I use it regularly, but people always come along and change it to a non-Wikidata infobox, hence why there aren't more transclusions. It's worth keeping at least as an example, and there will probably be discussions about it in future (but having that discussion here is not appropriate, I think). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deleting Template:Wikidata Infobox is not what is being proposed here (although I would support that proposal as well if it were properly proposed) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support moving some of the common helper templates, like ifThenShow, into WikidataIB - they are useful, and are mostly implemented by small templates like {{if then show}} that aren't very portable. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I would strongly oppose that. Template:If then show is working just fine in wikitext as is, and there is no reason it and several other equally simple functions should be aggregated into some sort of mega-module. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that the purpose of the two modules is sufficiently different to justify keeping them separate. Module:WikidataIB was designed to function at the individual infobox field level, supplying the tools that allow a template editor to upgrade an infobox to draw information from Wikidata for some or all fields individually, for any infobox. Module:Wikidata Infobox was designed to implement an entire particular infobox template (albeit one that is completely generic). I can see value in moving a few of the generic helper functions into WikidataIB, iff they would find use in other templates, but I don't really see what value would result from a wholescale merger. For what it's worth, I implemented {{if then show}} using template functionality, because it's so simple that I didn't see the need for a Lua implementation. My preference is reserve Lua for functionality that's messy or impossible using template syntax, but where to draw that line will depend on individual taste. --RexxS (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per RexxS, different purpose. But looking at the names Module:Wikidata Infobox and Module:WikidataIB, reading from left the different parts are " Infobox" and "IB". If IB is replaced with "Infobox" then the only difference is in a space. I am happy Gonnym oppened the discussion. Since Module:Wikidata Infobox is an infobox module, Rename (withdrawn see below) Module:WikidataIB so it makes transparent what it is about, e. g. Module:Wikidata data retrieval, dropping "IB" completely if neither the structure of the output nor the manner to call it is confined to infoboxes. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TerraCyprus: you make a valid point, but I think it's too late to rename now. When I wrote Module:WikidataIB, it was a fork of Module:Wikidata designed specifically to meet the needs of bringing Wikidata into infoboxes, so I named it to reflect that. Since then, I stopped development work on Module:Wikidata, which then became deprecated. I've concentrated on improving the functionality of Module:WikidataIB over the years so that it can now be imported unchanged into almost any other language wiki or Wikimedia project. That means that 100+ other wikis depend on the enwiki version and so I'd be loathe to rename Module:WikidataIB now. It's also in use on about a million pages here (and two million on Commons), so that would take a bit of effort to rename all the invokes (modules can't be redirects). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @RexxS: thank you for the explanation, didn't know redirects don't work on modules. If it is used under the same name in other wikis then it would make copying code between wikis harder. I withdraw my proposal until knowing more about how renaming could be done. Maybe some magic WMF-wikiwide dbside edit. ETA not before 2030. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2020 (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:AMD Zen 2 based Ryzen Desktop Processor with Radeon Vega Graphics[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unfinished draft template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 15 September 2020 (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:Add quotemarks[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Userfied per creator's request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unfinished draft template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 15 September 2020 (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:Beginner version[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unfinished draft template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; template has a clear purpose not replicated by any other template that I know of. As explained from the talk page, we're waiting before introducing it widely, but ProcrastinatingReader and I discussed it as recently as three days ago, so it's not sitting around collecting dust. I left the {{draft RfC}} tag in place to indicate that it has not been deployed yet, but it is not "unfinished" as it is fully functional. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sdkb has been doing some important work on this front. Template is not abandoned and appears functional to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2020 (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:Walled garden[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unfinished draft template Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The issue the template refers to does not actually pertain to the article itself, but rather the articles it links to. If those articles are appropriately tagged as orphans, there's no need for this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:23, 15 September 2020 (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:Use shortened footnotes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Clear consensus to keep this template. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Bsherr (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP: there is no reason why all references in an article should all necessarily be of the "shortened footnote" type. It is very common for an article that contains numbered footnotes that several of these are of the "shortened footnote" type, along with several others which are not of that type (e.g. explanatory footnotes which are not "shortened footnotes"). There is no guideline, and even less a policy, that says they should all be converted to the same shortened footnote format, e.g. the explanatory footnotes guidance is explicit: "... both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists ..." (emphasis added). Hence, this is a solution in search of a problem, and this problematic template should not be introduced. Francis Schonken (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stong keep I believe that the above is an ineffective argument to make, as WP:CITEVAR clearly applies here. The editor proposing this deletion has failed to consider featured articles such as Cleopatra, the Finnish Civil War, & the Winter war, all of which exclusively use shortened footnotes. They currently use the {{Use Harvard referencing}} to help enforce the shortened footnote style. However, use of Harvard or parenthetical referencing inline has been deprecated as of RfC (concluded 5 September 2020), hence the need to properly replace a template that has existed for nearly eight years.
I will note that {{Use shortened footnotes}} was initially proposed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Template:Use Harvard referencing where other editors have expressed support for it. I would invite editors to read that discussion, to which both Francis Schonken & myself have been participants, in conjunction with this.
Peaceray (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the references contained in Winter war reads:

<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hough|first=William J.H.|date=1985|title=The Annexation of the Baltic States and its Effect on the Development of Law Prohibiting Forcible Seizure of Territory|url=https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1213&context=journal_of_international_and_comparative_law|journal=New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law|volume=|pages=370–373|via=}}</ref>

This is one of several references in the article which are neither a "shortened footnote" nor a "Harvard reference" of any sort. Furthermore, I think this is unproblematic. {{Use shortened footnotes}} makes something that is not a problem into a problem, hence, instruction creep. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP is to keep Wikipedia policy and guideline pages easy to understand. It applies to project-level policy and guideline pages. The {{Use list-defined references}} and {{Use shortened footnotes}} templates are applied to individual articles, and the instruction they provide can be revoked by discussion on the talk page of those articles, per WP:CITEVAR, so WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP does not apply here. Biogeographist (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Biogeographist, last time I checked you are still contending that template documentation supersedes approved guidelines. Which is an infringement of the WP:CONLEVEL policy, as I already explained to you and others elsewhere. The point is, templates can contain (admittedly, low-level) guidance, and such low-level guidance is particularly susceptible to instruction creep: things that would never pass as consensus in guidelines or policies for being instruction creep are maintained without much opposition in templates and essays: and that's where the bulk of all conspicuously cultivated (as opposed to: eradicated) instruction creep currently is. So, no, better not have the instruction creep at all. Especially in this case, as the ones who likely are going to cultivate the instruction creep, are also the ones contending that template documentation supersedes guidelines. In what you write above there's already a next piece of despicable instruction creep – you write: "templates are applied to individual articles, and the instruction they provide can be revoked by discussion on the talk page of those articles, per WP:CITEVAR" – wrong, and stifling instruction creep: the templates can be removed by anyone as they have no statute covered by any actual policy or guideline, so it is instruction creep to contend that such template can only be removed after talk page consensus (this is different from date-format-variant or variant-of-English templates which are indeed covered by consensus contained in guidelines). For citation formats, the protection of the format comes from the CITEVAR guideline (which has to be read as a whole), and the proposed template does not improve that protection at all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken said: you are still contending that template documentation supersedes approved guidelines. No, that's not what I intended to say, though I can see how what I wrote could be misinterpreted. What I meant was what the content guideline WP:INLINECLUTTER says, after mentioning list-defined references and shortened footnotes: "As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so." Removing the template does not require consensus; doing a large-scale conversion between shortened footnotes and another citation system, or vice versa, is what requires consensus. The {{Use list-defined references}} and {{Use shortened footnotes}} templates merely reflect prior consensus and communicate it to new editors; they don't dictate the citation system. Biogeographist (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And although it is not relevant to the current TfD, since Francis Schonken made the following claim, perhaps I should respond to it: Which is an infringement of the WP:CONLEVEL policy, as I already explained to you and others elsewhere. The only other place where Francis Schonken mentioned WP:CONLEVEL to me was in this edit at Wikipedia talk:Parenthetical referencing § Replacement text, but as I pointed out in this response to him, his reference to WP:CONLEVEL there was incorrect, since it confused one of the WP:HOWTOPAGES with a WP:GUIDELINE page. Biogeographist (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity: "explanatory footnotes" are not citations, so WP:CITEVAR does not apply in any sense to "explanatory footnotes" – thus, I continue to oppose the template, not only for being instruction creep and incompatible with current guidance (which explicitly allows explanatory footnotes along with footnoted citations), but furthermore for being yet another confusing message in mainspace, which already confuses the creator of the template (leave alone what future editors will do with such confusion). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken, shortened footnotes {{sfn}} are not explanatory footnotes {{efn}}. Shortened footnotes are references that point to full citations. Peaceray (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote:

explanatory footnotes ... are not "shortened footnotes"

You wrote:

shortened footnotes ... are not explanatory footnotes

I fail to see the difference (I see no reason to parrot me, just say: "I agree"). These expressions compare two types of footnotes: "shortened" ones, and a different type, "explanatory" ones. The "Use shortened footnotes" instruction which could reasonably be understood as "don't use explanatory footnotes" (see your first comment above: you immediately understood it that way) is again a wrong name for a template: better to stop this right here and now.
Could you also please stop pinging me with every reply? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "explanatory footnotes" are not citations & WP:CITEVAR does not apply in any sense to "explanatory footnotes", then why mention explanatory footnotes at all? {{Use shortened footnotes}} has nothing to do with explanatory footnotes.
(A clarification for other editors: Shortened footnotes are generally different from explanatory footnotes as one can see from most of the examples at Help:Shortened footnotes. This becomes explicitly obvious if one uses the {{{sfn}} & {{efn}}. {{Shortened footnote template}} must use either the {{Reflist}} or the <references/> tag, whereas {{efn}} can use either {{notelist}}, one of its varients, or reflist if notelist is not specified.)
  • Shortened footnotes are footnotes. If one applies WP:CITEVAR to footnotes (& references & citations), then one must apply it to shortened footnotes as a subtype as well.
Francis Schonken, I will stop pinging you. I think that every reply is a bit exaggerated, as I have only pinged you once here & in three of my nine comments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Template:Use Harvard referencing. Nevertheless, I do understand some editors find {{ping}} or {{u}} to be annoying.
Peaceray (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Part of a continued attack by Schonken on our ability to even write articles such as this recent one of mine whose references include many different pages from the same book source and need to distinguish which references come from which pages. (Do not speak to me of {{rp}}. It is an abomination.) The nomination rationale is false: yes, there is a reason to use only shortened footnotes, so that the full references can all be collected in one place, because it is a consistent citation style, because having a consistent style is a good thing, and because we should not all be forced into whatever brain-damaged lack of style without short footnotes Schonken thinks we should use instead. This goes far beyond the recent RFC and must be nipped in the bud lest we become the encyclopedia only of topics that can be sourced to web pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This attack on short footnotes is especially bizarre since almost exactly this reference format was used (albeit inconsistently) by Schonken in one of the more recent non-redirect articles he created, Grosso mogul. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop the strawman argumentation: this is not an "attack" on short footnotes, on the contrary, this is an attack on a template that causes more problems for short footnotes than it resolves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is forbidden even to mark articles as using this citation style, then that suggests that you feel this should not be considered to be a valid citation style. Your support for the recent RFC also suggests the same thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Re. "... that suggests ..." it doesn't, so please stop the strawman. Re. "... forbidden ... to ..." – I didn't say nor suggest anything of the sort, so again, that was another piling on of strawman argumentation. Please stop it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Stop what? Contributing my opinions to discussions on which I disagree with you? Why should I? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop the strawman argumentation: I don't see in what way it would be helpful here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Let me see if I understand the proposer's opposition to this template. The proposal says It is very common for an article that contains numbered footnotes that several of these are of the "shortened footnote" type, along with several others which are not of that type, which is true. A case that one sometimes encounters is when the first instance of a cited work is a footnote with a full citation (here I'll call this a "standard footnote") and subsequent instances are short citations (shortened footnotes), with no separate list of full citations (i.e., the shortened footnotes point back to the standard footnotes). If I am interpreting him correctly, the proposer is afraid that this template will be used to justify converting such cases from a mix of standard and shortened footnotes to purely shortened footnotes with a separate list of full citations. This is a reasonable concern, but it is not a good reason to delete this template. All we need to do is clarify in the template documentation that the template should only be applied to articles that use shortened footnotes with a separate list of full citations, not to articles that use a mix of standard and shortened footnotes with shortened footnotes pointing back to standard footnotes. [EDIT: Now I see that the template documentation already says this.] An analogous template, {{Use list-defined references}}, has existed without opposition since 2013. I have seen some articles that contain a mix of standard footnotes and list-defined references, but nobody is proposing to delete the {{Use list-defined references}} template for that reason. Peaceray's creation of this template was a good idea and I look forward to using it for unambiguous cases of articles that use shortened footnotes with a separate list of full citations. Biogeographist (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC) and 14:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another advantage of the template and category is that they can provide a way to easily find examples of articles that use shortened footnotes with a separate list of full citations but that do not use the {{sfn}} template: for example, Common factors theory. Biogeographist (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Exactly analogous to the templates in Category:Use English templates. Can help avoid WP:CITEVAR misunderstandings. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike English variations, which require more scrutiny to detect, the style of references is obvious by looking at the references. The template documentation about bots using this template seems to be prospective. So I think this is just unnecessary, and I would not like to see the top of the article become a billboard of stylistic prescriptions (use spaced en dashes, use serial commas, use wikitable style, etc.). I am adding the associated maintenance category. --Bsherr (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet often I see editors deviating from the prevailing citation style. Also, you missed that this template is in the Category:Templates with no visible output. Like English variations or the use dmy/mdy templates, it is only visible in the Wikitext while editing. Its only other function is categorization. See Patsy Mink for an example.
Bsherr, do you wish to reconsider your vote in light of the fact that the template is not visible in read mode, & is only visible in the Wikitext?
Peaceray (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't miss those aspects of the template. I suspect the reason editors use an inconsistent citation style is not a lack of notice or, if it is, that this template is no more likely to give notice than the actual references. Does anyone have anecdotal evidence to the contrary? --Bsherr (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like Peaceray I too often see inattentive editors mistakenly adding what I above called "standard footnotes" to articles that otherwise use all shortened footnotes with a separate list of full citations. I know the editors were mistaken because more than once the editor has thanked me for converting the standard footnote to a shortened footnote afterward. Some editors may not know how to use shortened footnotes, and it's fine if they add a standard footnote to be converted later by another editor. But in instances where an inattentive editor simply hasn't noticed that the page uses all shortened footnotes, this template could help reduce the workload for other editors. The {{Use list-defined references}} template has the same effect, I suspect: it doesn't guarantee that editors won't add standard footnotes, but it likely helps prevent inattentive editors from mistakenly adding standard footnotes. Biogeographist (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this template is brand new, it would be difficult to offer any anecdotal evidence at this time. However, I can offer my observation about the use English variations or the use dmy/mdy templates. There does seem to be some reinforcing for some editors. I myself often look at the top section for such templates. I have seen other editors working to render the article consistent with the style delineated in the templates. But more importantly, it offers a rationale in reverting edits that deviate from a preferred language or date style. I see other editors reverting edits & referring to those templates, as I myself do. I find this enormously helpful in my page patrol, of which I do a lot. Bsherr, do you do page patrol, & have you found that referring to the use English variations or the use dmy/mdy templates useful in edit summaries for reversions? Peaceray (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peaceray, I think that's not a good analogy. Editors who add what I've above called standard footnotes to articles with {{Use list-defined references}} or {{Use shortened footnotes}} shouldn't be reverted if the citation is a good one. Their citations should just be converted to the consensus citation system. Biogeographist (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is generally true for citations. They should be converted, not reverted. That has been my practice. However, in the unlikely circumstance where someone reverted a shortened footnote in a Use shortened footnote article, or if someone replaced a shortened footnote with a longer citation to the same source, then it would be nice to have that to refer to in the edit summary.
I am all for adding clarifications to the template documentation to indicate that the citations should be converted & not reverted, unless something egregious is going on.
Peaceray (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Above Bsherr said: The template documentation about bots using this template seems to be prospective. Notice that this is also true of the {{Use list-defined references}} template, but as I said above, nobody is proposing to delete that template. The prospect of a bot is not the only reason for the templates. Biogeographist (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Bsherr said: I would not like to see the top of the article become a billboard of stylistic prescriptions. I totally agree with that sentiment, and I suspect we all would agree about that, but the claim that there is a slippery slope here into billboard hell would need more evidence. Biogeographist (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thirdly, Bsherr said that the style of references is obvious by looking at the references. Notice that in the cases of both {{Use list-defined references}} and {{Use shortened footnotes}}, the best evidence about these citation systems is toward the end/bottom of the article, so editors who start reading from the top, and who then decide to replace a {{Citation needed}} tag without first checking the end/bottom of the article, could easily overlook that the citation system is something other than what I above called standard footnotes. Biogeographist (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A response to Bsherr's statement, & Biogegraphist's comment about, I would not like to see the top of the article become a billboard of stylistic prescriptions: since {{Use shortened footnotes}} is intended replacement for {{Use Harvard referencing}} for articles that use shortened footnotes, I do not follow that this implies that the incidence of WP:CITEVAR templates would increase. This will merely increase the precision of language around an existing use. Peaceray (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Peaceray's argument, note that after the deprecation of inline parenthetical referencing there are now basically only three major citation systems: (1) what I above called standard footnotes, (2) footnotes with list-defined references, and (3) shortened footnotes. Standard footnotes vastly predominate, so there is no need for a template and category to find unambiguous examples of their use. We now have a template and category for examples of the other two citation systems, {{Use list-defined references}} and {{Use shortened footnotes}}. There is no need for any other such template, therefore none will be created, therefore there is no slippery slope from this template into a proliferation of other such templates. Biogeographist (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The template does no harm, therefore doesn't need deleting. The template does good (alerting editors to the existing reference style) therefore needs to be kept. Unless there is a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:POV pushing I cannot see any reason to either delete it or waste editors' time over this. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Biogeographist's rationale is on the mark. XOR'easter (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete (OP !vote) – reconfirming because the related category was added after my OP, which indeed should also be deleted for aforementioned reasons, & per Bsherr. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To which related category are you referring? I created all related categories for this template at the same time that I created it. Thus, all were in place before this proposal. Peaceray (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's referring to Category:Use shortened footnotes. See Special:Diff/978705518. Biogeographist (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! To my point: the template was created at 2020-09-13T13:00:19, the category at 2020-09-13T13:01:05, RfD at 2020-09-14T21:37:29‎ . I just wanted some clarification as to the timing. Peaceray (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I did not understand that Francis Schonken was indicating that an RfD for the related category was added to this RfD discussion. Now I get it. Peaceray (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RfD? Who was talking about a WP:RfD? I think quite enough cluelessness has been thrown at this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Peaceray misspoke and meant TfD. Biogeographist (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why Francis Schonken opposes {{Use shortened footnotes}} but does not oppose {{Use list-defined references}}. If one of these two sibling templates is going to be deleted, the other should be deleted as well (though I'm not advocating deletion of either). Above Francis Schonken said he's not opposed to shortened footnotes in general, and I assume good faith, so the asymmetry here in his treatment of {{Use shortened footnotes}} and {{Use list-defined references}} makes me wonder what he is thinking. Biogeographist (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I don't understand why Francis Schonken opposes {{Use shortened footnotes}} but does not oppose {{Use list-defined references}}" – "shortened footnotes" and "list-defined references" are not mutually exclusive: shortened footnotes can be, and sometimes are, formatted as list-defined references. At least there's no rule against combining both styles, which is sometimes the best approach when using {{harvnb}}s between ref tags as shortened footnotes. Yet another reason to get rid of the {{Use shortened footnotes}} template: it is too vague and confusing to indicate an actual referencing style. And agreeing with Bsherr that the infinite number of prospective templates in this collection is going nowhere. {{Use list-defined references}} is useful while that informs editors that they have to scroll down to add a reference, and can't do a mere section edit if they want to format a new reference according to the established format and add it in the body of the article in a single edit (for shortened footnotes that is clear in read mode, while the list of sources is visible without going to edit mode). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable, except for Bsherr's slippery slope claim, which I consider fallacious in this case until proven otherwise. I don't have strong feelings for or against this template, but I agree with Martin of Sheffield that there is no harm in it when applied to unambiguous cases as I described above. I wish we had some more !votes here so we had a better sense of what the community thinks about this. Biogeographist (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC) and 21:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's only fallacious if it speculates that further steps will lead to an undesirable result. Here, this is the step that leads to the undesirable result. We already have date styles (used by bot/scripts?), English variations (subtle enough, okay). This step now adds an issue that is—uniquely among all others—plainly obvious from looking in an entirely predictable place in the article. That, I believe, is unnecessary and pedantic. I wasn't the one to fashion the TfD, so I can't address that the other templates in this category are not also nominated, but WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is considered fallacious here too. --Bsherr (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The way you stated it sounded like this template would be the first step toward a billboard of stylistic prescriptions (use spaced en dashes, use serial commas, use wikitable style, etc.) But you're not really worried about that, so it's not about a slippery slope, it just sounded like it. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not fallacious here; it's a legitimate question why one of the two templates should exist but not both. Francis Schonken gave an explanation for why he would keep one of the two templates but not the other. He gave a reason why he would keep one template and gave a different reason why he would delete the other template. One can agree with his reason for keeping the one and disagree with his reason for deleting the other, since they were different reasons. Indeed the reason that he gave for deleting the other applies just as well to the one that he would keep, so he is using balance-of-considerations reasoning to justify keeping one and deleting the other, but the balance of considerations is different for other editors. Biogeographist (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST does not apply here. {{Use shortened footnotes}} is intended as a replacement for {{Use Harvard referencing}}, a template that had existed for nearly ten years without question but now needs to change because of its usage for two purpose, the now deprecated inline Harvard referencing, & shortened footnotes. The replacement is for articles that use shortened footnotes, to make the language precise around an existing legitimate use. Peaceray (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The deprecation of the Harvard referencing style means that {{Use Harvard referencing}} should no longer be used (see other TfD): that taking out of circulation of the other template does not mean it has to be "replaced" by anything. The determination whether that is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, any other flavour of WP:OTHERSTUFF, or in fact, literally, a WP:OTHERSTUFFWILLSOONNOLONGEREXIST is a rather tedious exercise. The {{Use shortened footnotes}} needs to be judged on its own merits, which include "adds more confusion than it avoids", "unnecessary", "instruction creep" (and a few other epithets). The referencing style of an article using shortened footnotes is protected by WP:CITEVAR – no need for an additional template driving that point home has been established. If, in the future, the necessity of such template can be demonstrated, then it can be started. At this point in time it is however superfluous cruft, unfortunately inspired by a WP:OTHERSTUFFWILLSOONNOLONGEREXIST. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken, once again you ignore that {{Use Harvard referencing}} was used for two purposes
  1. to denote the (now deprecated) inline Harvard referencing
  2. to denote shortened footnotes, including the proper use of parenthesized referencing / Harvard style referencing within <ref></ref> tags.
The legitimacy of this second usage & the necessity of having a template for the sake of WP:CITEVAR has not gone away, & there is anything tedious, it is the necessity to have to repeat what should be obvious over & over. Thus WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, & WP:OTHERSTUFF does not apply because this {{Use shortened footnotes}} template in itself addresses an existing need & an existing usage. Because it replaces Use Harvard referencing in its second usage, there is no instruction creep as you allege.
Also, regarding your comment This is one of several references in the article which are neither a "shortened footnote" nor a "Harvard reference" of any sort. On one hand, I found that argument rather disingenuous since all but eight of 212 references in Winter War were shortened footnotes. That a few editors ignored the template while the vast majority adhered to it is a poor argument against {{Use shortened footnotes}} & its purpose in enforcing WP:CITEVAR. On the other hand, I should also thank you for letting me know about the problem, as I was able to convert the those non-conforming footnotes to shortened footnotes. Peaceray (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I mourn the deperecation of in-line referencing and how the Actuary article has changed due to that. At least shortened references allow for specific page numbers or sections to be handled individually and not overwhelm the reference list with multiple examples of the same source that "standard" in-line citations do. -- Avi (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2020 (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).

Module:Archive[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:12, 15 September 2020 (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).

Module:Kana[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 September 26. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2020 (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:Syrian War map[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused fork of Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map or Template:Syrian Civil War overview map that hasn't been updated since 2017. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as duplicates. --Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2020 (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:Myanmar C20 estab by decade[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. This template was created in 2015 by @Fayenatic london to allow a navbox which accommodated the change of name from Burma to Myanmar.
However, that issue has been resolved by the {{Navseasoncats}} family of templates (in this case {{Navseasoncats with centuries below decade}}), which follows category redirects. So I have replaced all uses of this template with {{Navseasoncats with centuries below decade}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but the affected pages are now constructed longhand, e.g. [1]. The required parenting & navigation could be done using {{EstcatCountryDecade|Burma|Myanmar}}, adding only the Asia & SE Asia parents. The only other difference is the century parent, for which EstcatCountryDecade currently uses the old name (Burma) rather than the new name (Myanmar) – and this could be changed (either for all cases, or via an additional parameter) in the template. I mention this to avoid unnecessary longhand work to replace all the similar templates within Category:20th-century establishments templates by country etc. – Fayenatic London 15:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic, I am most of the way towards a solution to that. Since March 2020, {{Year in country category}} supports two parameters to cover country name changes:|newname= and |newnamestart=. That's in use on e.g. Category:1936 in Burma (diff).
      I have deliberately refrained from documenting this, because it's not in final form. I want to take that work a step further and generalise it it as an parser engine (or meta-template, like {{WPBannerMeta}}) to be used in all year/decade-in-country or year/decade-natioanlity categories. Some other pieces of the jigsaw are present in newer developments such as {{YYYY elections in countryname category header}}, which in most cases needs no parameters: it can handle converting country to nationality, and looking up the continent.
      So at some point over the winter, I will finish that engine ... and then we can have parameterless templates for all these tasks.
      That's why I didn't update {{Myanmar C20 estab by decade}}: all such templates should soon be redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 15 September 2020 (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).

Module:I18n[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. The rationale provided by the nominator is sound, but so are the arguments from the opposition. This might require a discussion on the use of modules as a whole, especially those "only stored on enwiki" but used elsewhere. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is used by Module:Wikidata to provide internationalization for non-english wikis. If deleted, the non-english wikis that newly import Module:Wikidata after that time will hardly find the code for Module:I18n to import. To let non-english wikis to guess for some other non-english wikis and import the code from that is not a good practice --Ans (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC) --Ans (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't commons:Module:I18n be the place where such a module exist? --Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most non-en wikipedia import module codes (like Module:Wikidata) from en wikipedia, not from commons, they have very little chance to know that related module is on commons. Moreover, mixing import like importing Module:Wikidata from en wikipedia, while importing Module:i18n from commons is not a good practice, since modules from different project doesn't guarantee that they are compatible.
      • If the reason to delete Module:I18n is just that it is unused here, so the code block if wiki.langcode ~= "en" then ... end should also be removed from Module:Wikidata, since that code block is also unused here. If that code block is kept here, then Module:I18n should also be kept for same reason.
      • --Ans (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree with this line of argument entirely. Modules should not exist on the English Wikipedia unless they are actually going to be used on the English Wikipedia. The purpose of the English Wikipedia is not to serve as a template repository. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • To keep Module:I18n is not to serve as template/module repository, but to serve internationalization purpose, and Module:I18n is important part of internationlization in Module:Wikidata. --Ans (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Modules that could theoretically be used but the conditions required for their use never apply on the English Wikipedia have been deleted in the past. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • The English Wikipedia does not need to have a module of this sort: it is written in English and there is no reason to write code that dynamically conjugates text in other languages.
              • I disagree with this line from Module:Linguistic deletion. Many modules on English Wikipedia is designed to also apply on any non-English Wikipedia. Many modules on English wikipedia have the code like, local i18n = { ["errors"] = ... }, which is the evidence that the purposes of those modules are to also serve messages translation on any non-English wikipedia, so the mechanism to serve these purposes should be kept.
              • --Ans (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree completely with the suggestion that The purpose of the English Wikipedia is not to serve as a template repository. Any module that is used on multiple projects needs to have a repository somewhere, i.e. an authoritative version that other projects can import. Most big modules have a principle maintainer and developer, and doing that job quickly brings you to the conclusion that you need to do maintenance and development on a wiki where it is in widespread use and where you are comfortable editing. For me that's the English Wikipedia, and I expect to be able to do maintenance and development of modules here, which means that the 100+ projects using WikidataIB will expect to import updates from here. That makes enwiki the default repository for such modules, regardless of unsupportable assertions to the contrary. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is it used in Module:Wikidata? And why can't mw.message.newRawMessage be used, along with the enwiki module itself moving strings into a separate page? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's used in Module:WikidataIB, but only for wikis that don't have English as their site content language. See lines 83-86 (approximately). WikidataIB contains all of the English internationalisation strings and functions within the opening section of the code. That allows the module to be used on other wikis which can then override the English text with their own by using a module called Module:WikidataIB/i18n, which is not needed on enwiki, of course. The concept of moving bits of functionality out of a module into other modules makes importing the module into another wiki a nightmare, and nobody who has ever tried to implement an enwiki module into another language would dream of suggesting separate pages.
        As far as the deletion request goes, the module performs the function of merging an external table from another module, with the ability to replace (or not) the corresponding keys in an existing module table. It may have functionality beyond just integrating a local internationalisation module, but if you decide to delete it, I can just duplicate its functionality directly into Module:WikidataIB. --RexxS (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Ans and User:RexxS. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep module is in use. No apparent benefits to deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not in use (the only link there is a self-transclusion). The fact that this module could be transcluded if en does not equal en does not mean that it is "in use" in any significant sense. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:45, 18 September 2020 (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:Pop row wikidata[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete for multiple reasons:

AnomieBOT⚡ 16:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:47, 15 September 2020 (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).

Module:Lunar eclipse[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 September 26. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2020 (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:CouncilDataTest[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: This is a project to allow political representation data (initially for Belfast City Council) to be kept up to date in one place and invoked in a versatile way from anywhere. I think. It's been a while and I don't know if it would have worked. Anyway, I've saved it all to my sandbox so do your worst. ta – FLYING CHRYSALIS 💬 17:53, 19 September 2020 (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:Q number[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 15 September 2020 (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:Eix Transversal Ferroviari Line[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and can't find an appropriate parent article. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2020 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_15&oldid=980714099"