Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/All current discussions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Current discussions[edit]

June 19[edit]

Template:Warsaw central stations[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template was originally intended to provide a reader with detailed scheme of the interchange located in the Warsaw city centre and was inclouded through the "{{Enlarge}}" function in the Template:M1 line (Warsaw Metro). There are other examples on wiki using the same solution, see Template:Railways around London Paddington station RDT linked in e.g. Template:Bakerloo line RDT. — Antoni12345 (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Templates should not be linked to like this as they aren't article content. If they are linked to, that means you are using them as content and they should be an article. Additionally that link itself is an MOS:EGG link, but that is the least of the problem, as links like that will practically never be found as they are hidden away like that. Gonnym (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that ship has sailed (train has left the station?) as {{Enlarge}} is now used on over 750 pages and approximately 250 other templates. Useddenim (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A local consensus in a very small part of the project does not get to override guidelines like MOS:EGG and WP:CLICKHERE. Gonnym (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym:
  1. I think you're misinterpreting the use of {{enlarge}} here so that you can justify your POV in order to be able to delete {{Warsaw central stations}}; and
  2. What's your "better" solution?
Useddenim (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now added to appropriate pages. Useddenim (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean Junior Champions Figure Skating templates[edit]

Other nations do not include navigation templates for the Junior championships, only the Senior ones. Additionally, half of these names have no wikilinks, rendering the templates unhelpful. The Pairs template features only one team! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclone current storm templates[edit]

Violations of MOS:CURRENT and WP:NOTNEWS... determined to be improper by uninvolved editors at ANI. These editors state that the inclusion of current storm information violates policy and that attempting to duplicate official information may be dangerous. Updating this information also wastes the time of editors since it is not included in the final version of the article. We do not and should not have a responsibility to keep updated current information on storms since that's not what Wikipedia is for. People should refer to official sources for current storm information. Noah, BSBATalk 18:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of Wikipedia policies. OhHaiMark (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the reasons given in the nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 18[edit]

Template:Sambalpur University[edit]

Navbox with one link. DB1729talk 22:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there are more links that could be added if this is wanted. Sambalpur University Institute of Information Technology, List of colleges affiliated to the Sambalpur University, Gangadhar National Award For Poetry. Might be more found in the category. Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kingston Branch[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Izno (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as now used. Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Descendants of Watatsumi[edit]

Unused. Watatsumi uses Template:Three generations of Hyuga which has some overlap with this. This should either be used, merged or deleted. Gonnym (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current ITTF Men's World Ranking[edit]

Unused ITTF ranking tables. Gonnym (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Css comparison heading[edit]

Unused table template. Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crime opentask[edit]

Unused todo list. Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#To-do list doesn't use this. Gonnym (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2030 FIFA World Cup qualification[edit]

Way to early to be in use. Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete qualification will probably start in 2026 or 2027, which will be the earliest that this template will be needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too early, full of redlinks. GiantSnowman 18:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NavigationFinnishChampionsFigureSkatingPairs[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Izno (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally gross sea of redlinks; ergo, an unhelpful template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has 7 blue links so it can be useful. Just remove all red links. Or this can be merged without red links to Template:Finnish Figure Skating Championships as it duplicates the event years already anyways. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left the other three discipline templates (men, women, ice dance) alone, because those were predominately blue links. There is little chance that the red links on this template will ever be developed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I count fourteen blue links. The red links may encourage the development of articles; Lars Björkman, for example, was a co-winner of this event seven times with two different partners, and he won and medaled in other skating events as well. He and other people in this navbox are probably notable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More blue links would be interesting but a check on the Finnish template turned out to have the same red and blue links. Usually a template with 5 or more blue links is worth keeping, and this template qualifies on that point. The Banner talk 09:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Summer Paralympics by year category navigation[edit]

Until these were created, {{Category series navigation}} was used on these categories and did the same thing. The addition of more links isn't needed as using if you really want all links, just use the parent category. Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These templates were just created but right now seem to be unused. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dancing with the Stars (Greece) (Season 1)[edit]

This season navigation boxes are underused and only used on the season article and not on any person linked in these templates. They also have very few actual links with the season three having only one link. Either these are not wanted and should be deleted, or they should be merged into Template:Dancing with the Stars (Greek TV series) with only blue links. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dancing Stars (Austrian TV series)[edit]

While this is used, it is not used on the articles it links to, as none of the season articles have articles as all have been deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely useless template. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2023 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Asia Qualifier Bracket[edit]

Unused. Content is embedded at 2023_ICC_Women's_T20_World_Cup_Asia_Qualifier#Knockout_stage. I can't imagine this content being required anywhere else. DH85868993 (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2024 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Qualifier Bracket[edit]

Unused. Content is embedded at 2024_ICC_Women's_T20_World_Cup_Qualifier#Knockout_stage. I can't imagine this content being required anywhere else. DH85868993 (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 17[edit]

Template:Infobox climber[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox climber with Template:Infobox mountaineer.
I think that Template:Infobox mountaineer could be handled by Template:Infobox climber. A lot of mountaineers do climbing and visa-versa. Infobox climber is the most important infobox (and the most detailed) and has the richest level of detail on their climbing/mountaineering career (I think infobox climber captures all of mountaineer career data. The mountaineer infobox items of "famous partnerships", "final ascent" and "retirement age" are subjective items). The main differences are around the non-climbing items that cand be just merged? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also that we have been recently merging several mountaineering categories and climbing categories together such as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 26#Category:Works about mountaineering, amongst others. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Cullen328 who I have seen participate at climbing AfDs - @Cullen328, what do you think of my proposal? I have put a notice of this on at WikiProject page but no one has answered so far - are there any others who should be pinged? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list the parameters that would need to be added or have different names? That would make it easier to see if these indeed have the same scope. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aszx5000, I am not familiar with the details of the respective infobox parameters, but I agree that mountaineering and climbing are basically the same sport with many variations ranging from bouldering to high elevation expedition mountaineering. I think that it is counterproductive to try to separate it into two separate sports, so I am generally supportive of what you hope to accomplish. I am 72 years old and have not been an active mountaineer for about 15 years, so I am not current on recent developments in the sport. Cullen328 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, The disjoint of the parameter sets for these two templates appears to consist of the following: |main_discipline=, |other_discipline=, |start_discipline,=|height=, |weight =, |start_age =, |partnerships=, |website =, |typeofclimber =, |namedroutes =, |highestredpoint=, |highestonsight=, |highestboulder=, |apeindex=, |knownfor=, |worlds =, |final_ascent=, |medaltemplates=, |updated =, |partner=, |children =, |parents=, |relatives=, |firstascents=. Further, the following parameters would have to be aliased to one another: |retirement= and |retirement_age=; |notable_ascents= and |majorascents=.
That said, {{Infobox climber}} wraps {{Infobox sportsperson}}, whereas {{Infobox mountaineer}} does not appear to, so many of the mountaineer parameters not present in the climber template may actually be inherited (the family stuff for sure).
Why not just wrap {{Infobox sportsperson}} with {{Infobox mountaineer}} instead of trying to realign everything here? How many articles have a problem where it's unclear which template is more appropriate for the subject? Both genuine questions for Aszx5000. Folly Mox (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the way {{Infobox climber}} does so is the better way. I'm leaning support this merge unless someone has any valid objections. One thing though, when the merge happens, please make sure you use the correct naming conventions for parameters (snake case) and climber uses a mix of 4 different styles. Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would definitely keep {{Infobox climber}} as it has lots of good objective facts when used properly (e.g. Alexander Huber, Chris Sharma, Catherine Destivelle). The issue is that {{Infobox mountaineer}} has essentially the same 'biographical' facts (i.e. personal and family info) as {{Infobox climber}}, but outside of 'notable ascents' (which is the 'major ascents' on {{Infobox climber}}), the rest of the 'career' section are either not objective facts or not really notable things in mountaineering, and should be discarded. I would be happy to help guide any merge process (I am very active in WProj Climbing). Once done, there are a few more upgrades we want to make to {{Infobox climber}} to improve its usefulness. thanks to all above. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expert-category-notice[edit]

Unused notice of questionable utility. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from its appearance, it should be a substitution template. It even has the inline HTML comment found in substitution templates. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it appears to have been substed some 350 times, but basically not in the past 5 years. There's about 40 uses by someone else but not many of those are since 2019. I find the template similarly questionable in general however. Izno (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foreign relations of the DPR and LPR[edit]

The DPR and LPR were puppet states of Russia and had no foreign relations. Aldij (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They did have recognition from a few other countries, although, looking at Donetsk People's Republic–South Ossetia relations, sourcing doesn't seem to be of the quality you'd want to write good standalone articles that go further than "X officially recognized Y". The navboxes have four and two links respectively, so not great, although there's no objection to recreating them if more articles can be written (hopefully with better sources). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination has nothing to do with the templates and is a political statement than of actual concerns with the navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, nominated by a blocked user and I agree with WikiCleanerMan. xq 00:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep should be the default. Multiple relistings almost always indicate keep. It's not clear that there will be long term value for these templates, but at the moment they should remain. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions or incoming links. No blue links to full articles in the body of the navbox. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Third reason in WP:TFD#REASONS says to delete when a template has no likelihood of being used. Three years is not a long time; similar templates have been populated over time. Many of the structured templates I created in Category:Diplomatic missions by receiving country started off as bare-bone/transclusionless and now have increased usage. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are three blue links now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    I do not see any blue links to full articles about the navbox's subject in the body of this navbox. The navbox has not been edited for content since 2022. It may be useful someday, but it is not useful for navigation yet, so it should not exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused template. No links to relevant full articles. The Banner talk 22:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transperth railway network diagram[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been added to appropriate article. Useddenim (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are several problems with this template. It is massive, and thus unusable in any article. The Airport line does not cover the full extent of its route as shown on File:TransperthRailwayMap.svg. The Morley–Ellenbrook line also does not cover the full extent of its route, which is meant to reach Perth station. The colours of each of the lines is incorrect (correct colours are shown on Module:Adjacent stations/Transperth). The size of the rail network makes this sort of template impractical and hard to read because the labels for each station have to be on either the left or right side, which results in the Ellenbrook line stations being listed in between the Joondalup line stations, for example. Steelkamp (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     "Massive" is subjective, not objective. And there are many route diagrams in use that are longer, wider, or both, than this one.
    • The Airport lane has been corrected.
    • The colours have been adjusted (within the constraints of the available icons).
    • The nature of route diagram templates is that (with rare exceptions) the labels are on the sides.
    • The Morley–Ellenbrook line has been repositioned separate from the Joondalup line.
    All in all, this objection sounds to be mostly WP:IDL. Useddenim (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Useddenim: Can you give some examples of other route diagrams that a longer or wider? It might help to see some other large routemap templates and where/how they are used. I believe that Template:Routemap is mostly used by single lines and not whole networks. Steelkamp (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steelkamp: See Category:System rail transport templates for starters; Template:S-Bahn Zentralschweiz RDT is one. Template:Midland Main Line RDT is considerably longer. And nowhere does it say that RDTs are only for single lines. Useddenim (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warren Railroad[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West-Midlands-Metro-Line-One[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it might be used again at some point. G-13114 (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zhengzhou–Jinan high-speed railway RDT[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railway signal mast[edit]

Unused railway related image template. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, since it seems to be one of the better alternatives available for depicting these concepts. (I could see it being used in an article about a historical rail incident where signals were implicated, but no contemporary image of that signal aspect exists.) I'd also be interested to know if its creator has concrete plans for it. TheFeds 23:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virudunagar–Sengottai line[edit]

Unused route map. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been added to an appropriate article. Useddenim (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arvind Kejirwal series[edit]

Duplicate sidebar template and misspelled version of Template:Arvind Kejriwal series. DB1729talk 13:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The content does differ a little between the two. I suppose the solution is to merge the content under the correct spelling. --DB1729talk 13:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the material to the properly titled template and I've replaced all usage and it can be safely deleted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rally Isle of Man[edit]

Navbox with two blue links in the body. DB1729talk 12:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 16[edit]

Template:Escape page link from within[edit]

Unused template that does what Template:Delink does. Gonnym (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is currently used, at the ANI header (just sporadically, so not showing up currently), as well as somewhere else I'm forgetting and don't have time to find at the moment (I'm on mobile with limited internet). It is not the same as {{delink}} — please reread the documentation. Delink won't help you for a parameter value that has the linking in the parent template. There's plausible use in the future, and a suitably strong warning in the documentation that in most cases you don't really want to use it, so overall no reason to delete. I suggest withdrawing the nomination, Gonnym. Sdkb talk 14:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at the code at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header. Am I missing something or was this entire template created just because you wanted to add a silly smile to the header ([1])? Because without {{4-1}}, the code works fine:
    {{if April Fools|{{Spoken Wikipedia|date=2007-02-20|Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard Slash Incidents.ogg}}}}
    If that is the sole reason for that, I'm still sticking with the delete rational and also remove the smiley. Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonnym, please do not remove the documentation that explains this template's purpose (and which I just referenced above) in the midst of this TfD. I created this template because there are various circumstances in which someone might want to use a template field that is normally wrapped in a link, but not want a link in a particular niche circumstance. The linked example is one — this template allows the {{4-1}} (which is better characterized as the mandatory humor disclosure than a "silly smiley") to be added — but there are others. I have indeed used this template in other circumstances (which were since resolved, thus why it's no longer transcluded elsewhere), which I can try to remember and dig up if you or others are curious. The example in the documentation with {{redirect}} is also only quasi-hypothetical. But it's somewhat immaterial, as the overall use case is laid out clearly in the documentation, and WP:TFD#REASONS is very clear that being unused is not sufficient rationale for deletion unless the template also has no likelihood of being used in the future. Sdkb talk 23:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the "documentation" as it isn't documentation, but you telling a irrelevant story. Documentation should be short and to the point. So far you aren't adding any usages other than the one at the header template which isn't really needed. Gonnym (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grand Rapids and Indiana Railroad[edit]

Navbox with two blue links. DB1729talk 23:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Piccadilly Page[edit]

WP:Picacadilly is about to get deleted as it is literally self serving so this should be deleted too. xq 23:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Huang Xiaoyun[edit]

Empty navbox. DB1729talk 22:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TP (Taiwan)[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 15[edit]

Template:Acceptance[edit]

Navbox with only two links in the body. Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is almost certain that all three pages should be linked together. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unknown Blank[edit]

Navbox with just one blue link in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to nom this for deletion myself after seeing Oinkers comment below, but Jonesey had already did it. --DB1729talk 22:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Aim of Destruction[edit]

Navbox with zero blue links in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to nom this for deletion myself after seeing Oinkers comment below, but Jonesey had already did it. --DB1729talk 22:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lansing Oldsmobile[edit]

Sport team navbox with two blue links in the body. One link to the main subject and one to a stadium does not justify a navbox. DB1729talk 15:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fine with deletion. Something I had created in my early days at Wikipedia, without understanding all the policies for navboxes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Albanian football updater[edit]

Unused broken template. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-functional template with unclear intent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Running Man PH2 Episode Count[edit]

Unused, text-only template. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what this is for. There is no article for a show titled Running Man PH2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:K.S.R Bengaluru - New Delhi Karnataka Express route[edit]

Unused template linking to file on commons. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just use File:Karnataka Express (SBC - NDLS) Route map.jpg directly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Delhi Metro Green and indigo Line Route Phase 4[edit]

Unused, text-only template. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too incoherent to use. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infocaseta Politician[edit]

Unused, broken template. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the history, it seems that this user is editing in Romanian and shouldn't be on enwiki. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fiddlers' Bid[edit]

Musical group navbox with no links to albums or singles. Just a couple members and an associated act does not justify a navbox. DB1729talk 04:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Am I Worthy?[edit]

Navbox with one blue link, to a user page. DB1729talk 00:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You may also want to nominate Template:The Aim of Destruction and Template:Unknown Blank, both of which are in a similar boat. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 14[edit]

Template:North Dakota State Bison women's volleyball navbox[edit]

Navbox with one blue link. DB1729talk 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Knoxville NightHawks seasons[edit]

Two links does not justify a navigation box. DB1729talk 14:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Europa engine games[edit]

Not opposed to a navbox based upon a video game engine, but there is a 100% overlap with {{Paradox Development Studio games}}. A mention of Europa Engine would be more suitable. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Europa Engine is a redirect, by the way, if that should be mentioned. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PCGamingWiki[edit]

A template for an external link, linking to website PCGamingWiki. It is not a suitable external link, since PCGamingWiki is suitable for (experienced) PC gamers, with the technical know-how to change, mod, tweak, a game. It doesn't offer any encyclopedic information. I used the same example on WT:VG: Their wiki on BioShock Infinite for instance is great if the player would want to skip the introduction video, add a Turkish fan translation or disable lens flare effects, but how does that help the general reader, wanting to know more about BioShock Infinite? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As creator. The site meets the standard under WP:ELNO#EL12 which is a wiki with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. It contains a level of detail which would be unsuitable for an encyclopedia article but may be of interest to our readers. Either way, that is more a question of the WP:EL policy rather than whether the template should exist at all. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is acceptable because it doesn't fail one bullet point of ELNO? It's a wiki for gamers for running PC games. It's not of interest to the general reader whatsoever. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Try as I might, but I can't find what part of WP:ELNO this violates. It appears to offer precisely what external links are supposed to - additional information and research beyond what a featured article might even have. They are specifically for people who want a more indepth view of the subject, such as technical specs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 13[edit]

Template:31[edit]

Unnecessary template. Creator was blocked for vandalism. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:50A8:690B:EA45:43EB (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big brackets and similar[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in early 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Binom[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in early 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Banners of the Garter[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2018. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian cyclone warnings table[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Used for active storms that are threatening land and have warnings for the Australian Region.
Noah, BSBATalk 12:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Withdrawn. I have marked this template with {{transclusionless}}, using the above explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this is apparently a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Noah, BSBATalk 17:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All Ordinaries[edit]

No transclusions. According to All Ordinaries, there are 500 companies in that index, which might make a useful category, but the companies are not related to each other in a way that fits the purpose of a navbox, and there would be too many to list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I thought of changing it to top x of the all ordinaries but this would basically be the same as existing ASX indexes so doesn’t seem very useful. Wikibility (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AreaR[edit]

No transclusions. Created in 2018. It cannot work as designed, because there do not appear to be any articles that fit the naming scheme in the template code. If it is kept, it should be moved to Template:Area Record to match similar templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a failed attempt at creating a template for the common formal Athletics abbreviation of an "Area" or Continental record. A template for the formal abbreviation "AR" is too common a letter combination to be useful. Since this did not become functional under this weird spelling, most editors of this subject including myself create a manual redirect to the record mentioned. This should be a template. Instead of deleting this, a useful, more technical editor should create a workable solution to achieve this need.
Side comment. There is a functionality issue to this comment box. The use of the shift key takes the cursor to the beginning of the paragraph, so all sentences are built backward and have to be copy pasted to the correct position to be readable.Trackinfo (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alpha/Fe[edit]

No transclusions. Created in 2012. This is a subpage of an unrelated redirect, which is confusing. If this template is useful, it should be moved to a useful name that is not a subpage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2023 NCAA Division III independents football records[edit]

Templates only have one transclusion each, which do not meet the standards for templates. Content should be substituted into the articles they are used in. The college football WikiProject will argue that these templates is necessary for some sort of category hierarchy within the WikiProject but content on Wikipedia still needs to meet Wikipedia standards first and foremost. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; part of a standard scheme of standings templates. The templates all now have two transclusions each. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out which templates have "over five transclusions"? I've only found transclusions at the individual NCAA Division III season pages (the only one that they were transcluded on when these were nominated for discussion here), and now at List of NCAA Division III independents football records, a page you've just created in an attempt to avoid deletion here. I've also nominated that page for deletion since it fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCAA Division I FCS independents football coach navbox[edit]

Navbox only has two transclusions, not enough to warrant existence. It also fails #3, #4, and #5 of the general criteria listed at WP:NAVBOX. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCAA Division II independents football coach navbox[edit]

Navbox only has two transclusions, not enough to warrant existence. It also fails #3, #4, and #5 of the general criteria listed at WP:NAVBOX. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Awards ref[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Laura Mancinelli[edit]

Navigational box that only links between two articles. Uriahheep228 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one novel. --woodensuperman 15:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dead Winter Carpenters[edit]

Navbox with no links. DB1729talk 11:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless. --woodensuperman 12:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Voodoocult[edit]

Only two albums, so all band members well linked by normal means without the need for a navbox. --woodensuperman 09:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Control Denied[edit]

Only one album, so all band members well linked by normal means without the need for a navbox. --woodensuperman 09:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 12[edit]

Template:Khulna University[edit]

Navbox with no useful links. There is one blue link in the body and that is just piped to the main subject, Khulna University. DB1729talk 22:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Faculty of Nizhny Novgorod State Technical University[edit]

Navbox with no links. DB1729talk 22:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anderson University (South Carolina) presidents[edit]

Navbox with one blue link. DB1729talk 21:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dew Tour[edit]

Navbox with one blue link. DB1729talk 21:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TBU[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in March 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added transclusions and incoming links as well as description. Flipping Switches (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as generally unnecessary. Duplicate of one or another of several other table cell templates. Izno (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nizam's guaranteed state railway network[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Izno (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Speyside Way[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Izno (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I created the template and then completely forgot to substitute it into Speyside Way. Fixed now. dewet|✉ 17:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per creator. Useddenim (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, withdrawn as now used. Gonnym (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Warsaw central stations[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2024 June 19. Izno (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lao–China Railway[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Muni Market Street Subway[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2024 Irish local candidate[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What little use for this is now over. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sledge Hammer![edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All linked episodes are redirects to the episode list, so no point to the navbox. --woodensuperman 14:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ARR RRR worksheet[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination at the correct venue. Originally nominated at MfD by User:David Eppstein with rationale: Template whose only purpose is to add a worked example to Experimental event rate in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, orphaned after I removed that part of the article Nickps (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke and Robert McClenon: Pinging participants of the MfD. Nickps (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still think it should be deleted. Bduke (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - It is not entirely clear what this is for, but it is primarily the work of multiple inactive users, and does not appear to have current utility. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:FC Masr squad[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This football squad template is 7 years out of date, and the team is now called ZED FC. If someone wants to update and move it to ZED FC, fine. Otherwise, this squad template is pointless. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pretenders to the Mexican throne[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP violation:

  • Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide states: Götzen does not pursue any claim to the throne...Despite Götzen not actively pursuing any claim himself, social media users claiming to be Mexican monarchists have posted their support of his claim. So some guys on the Internet want him to be a pretender, but he isn't.
  • Carlos Felipe de Habsburgo never mentions he is claiming the throne of Mexico, and he is not in Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne, but still included in this template anyway.

Also WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The BLPs above and two other people in the template (and the category) appear to have been inappropriately included for purely genealogical reasons, even though they do not appear to have claimed or actively pursued their (theoretical genealogical) claim on the Mexican throne:

  • Agustín de Iturbide y Green: When he came of age, Iturbide, who had graduated from Georgetown University, renounced his claim to the throne and title and returned to Mexico. So as soon as he was legally capable, he renounced his claim.
  • María Josepha Sophia de Iturbide: [She inhered] the Habsburg claim on the throne. Maria Josepha was a very traditional Lady, and a devout Roman Catholic, and stayed as far away from politics as she could. Doesn't seem to have actively pursued her claim either; seems more like other people expect(ed) her to pursue it for purely genealogical reasons (but WP:NOTGENEALOGY).

That would leave this template with just 3 people, namely the 2 emperors (Agustín de Iturbide and Maximilian I of Mexico) and the son of the first emperor, Agustín Jerónimo de Iturbide y Huarte, who is the only historically verifiable active pretender to the Mexican throne from 1824 to 1864. The viablity of this template for navigation is thus in question.

Given past template discussions on pretenders to former thrones, we should delete this one as well.

Follow-up to recent deletion of main article Pretenders to the Mexican throne, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. See also ongoing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne. NLeeuw (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone, Pppery, TompaDompa, PatGallacher, and Mccapra: courtesy ping to participants of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 31#Template:Former monarchic orders of succession and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico for follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mile High[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 06:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with one blue link in body. DB1729talk 03:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It also has a blue link to the list of episodes, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing to navigate between for this long-defunct TV show. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Docpng[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template hasn't been used since at latest 2018 (which is when the string docpng was added, a search for which basically turns up empty for something like this template). A gallery whether tag or template is a sufficient functional equivalent. Izno (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IASTText[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient template with no uses in article space but apparently intended for article space. May also not be not particularly relevant with the evolution of policy/guideline onwiki. Izno (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

June 8

Template:Scrolling box

[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Scroll box (no objections so closing my own nomination). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created and largely duplicates other templates like Template:scroll box. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to previously existing is fine for me. We also have {{Scrolling window}} that maybe also shouldn't exist, all it does is make the text inside the box "auto-transclude", which is a trivial and totally unnecessary difference, while missing the implementation in the template that either warns in mainspace or outputs no wrapper in mainspace... Izno (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 29

Template:Pedagogy sidebar

[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can add it to other articles. Your nominations of late are nominating good useful templates without thinking they should be added to articles before going to Tfd. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't add templates to articles just because someone created a template with a link to it. If I feel it has no merit I send it here. If you want me to amend my nomination I will. Gonnym (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amending nomination: A navigation template that was created 11 years ago and until now was unused and now is used on a single article. Navigation templates aren't helpful if they aren't used on the entire set. This seems like this template is apparently unwanted as it would have been used by now. Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was only removed from the main article on May 17. It was added in February. Only one edit removed it of late. This doesn't make it unwarranted and being used on one article doesn't make it a valid reason to delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. This template is a navigation template, if isn't used anywhere, then there is no bi-directional navigation and it becomes pointless. If the other articles don't need it, then it just isn't useful. Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 22

Template:Edit semi-protected

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Edit semi-protected with Template:Request edit.

As I have (surprisingly) recently discovered, this entire family of templates auto-detects the protection level of the template for which the edit request is being made. This means that an {{FPER}} placed on a template-protected template will result in exactly the same thing as a {{TPER}}. Because of this, it seems to me that there is little reason to keep these all as separate templates, instead using the more obvious and reasonably-named {{request edit}} as the base template for this family (instead of the latter template being used as a dab for all five). Primefac (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck {{request edit}} since most of the participants feel it's not well-suited for the final target. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the first five together but keep {{request edit}} as is since COI edit requests are, and need to be, a separate process (a page someone has a COI with can also be protected). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a parameter such as COI=yes or type=COI could be used to flag the type of edit request that is being made, which would allow all six templates to be merged into Template:Request edit. That would still keep them a separate process. Adam Black t • c 16:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason to do that, though? It seems to just make things more complicated for everyone. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it complicates things, it streamlines the process of requesting an edit. Btw, {{request edit}} has been deprecated, so you're already meant to use a different template - {{edit COI}}. Adam Black t • c 22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Request edit used to be for COI, and it's a generic name that could refer to it or edit partially-blocked as well. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge (Non-Admin vote) Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 16:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being an admin doesn't mean very much here--there's no need to point out you aren't one. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the first five and keep {{Request edit}} as a disambiguation per Pppery. I was also rather surprised and amused to find out that the edit request templates automatically emulate each other based on the page's protection level. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As no one has suggested a title for the proposed merged template, perhaps {{Edit protected}}? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should probably have "request" in its name. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then maybe {{Protected edit request}} to match the Module it invokes, though I should note that the possibly enticing shortcut {{PER}} is already a template for the Peruvian flag. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge first five unless there is some yet-to-be-discovered reason to have them separate. Gonnym (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{request edit}} needs a new name, since that's not what it does. Other than that, I see no issue with merging the others. Izno (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I see an issue (based on the VPT chatter), and the underlying module already deals with these reasonably. Oppose. Izno (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [Edit: Oppose]: These do not behave identically when the edit request is to an unprotected page. For example, you could use {{Edit extended-protected}} for an article that is within an WP:ARBECR topic area but which has not presently been protected. (If the page is protected, you have to use |force= to force a different protection level the default protection level specified by the wrapper.) SilverLocust 💬 23:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Need to make sure the force stuff isn't broken, it is needed sometimes. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I don't think it's possible to merge these without breaking current functionality (as I explain below), I am changing my comment to an "oppose". (I don't oppose creating a sixth template with no default level that instead would say when the protection level could not be detected, but I oppose redirecting or deleting the five templates proposed for merging.) SilverLocust 💬 20:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this template set is missing a template for requesting edits that are editfiltered, so autodetection doesn't help, when you need extra rights due to an edit filter instead of page protection. If these are merged, will a switch be available to select a rights level for that situation? -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Except the last, they're all wrappers for Module:Protected edit request with slightly different arguments, so in that sense they're already merged. But we should probably keep the slightly different behavior in that {{Edit fully-protected}} should default to fully-protected if the auto-detection fails, {{Edit semi-protected}} to semi-protected, and so on rather than turning them all into redirects to a single wrapper. {{Request edit}} should probably have no default, if that's reasonable. Anomie⚔ 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge, now that the last has been struck, keep different behavior defaults if feasible per Anomie. I also agree that with everything already under one-module it really doesn't make that much of a difference. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - I do like Anomie's point about the default action Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional oppose merge per Anomie. These separate 'templates' are just wrappers for that edit request module really, so not any duplicated template code to worry about. Let's not possibly cause unintended behaviour for a template that's used at least hundreds of times everyday, especially with the auto-detect failover. There are other potential complications like what 65.92.244.237 has written above. Though, consider this vote invalidated if it's possible to merge all of these templates together without changing the behaviour and functionality of these templates. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support creating a template with auto-detection, as long as the existing templates are kept per SilverLocust and Anomie. Rusty4321 talk contribs 14:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but the target should maybe be {{Protected edit request}}. {{Request edit}} may be the destination or redirect to a different merge target, since hatnotes can direct users to more appropriate templates. SWinxy (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the currently-proposed merge of the first five. Agree the final template name should be something like {{Protected edit request}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:ECR doesn't always get applied using WP:ECP. Therefore, using {{Edit extended-protected}} on a page that is not extended confirmed protected makes sense. The autodetection will not be able to handle that case. Add that to the other edge cases described above by other editors and it's clear that this merge will create more problems than in will solve. Nickps (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I don't oppose a merge if the current default behavior is retained. Nickps (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I am mistaken {{EPER}} doesn't currently recognize non-ECP pages that also happen to be under ARBECR. If I am mistaken, then yes, the post-merge template will be able to handle it because no functionality is being lost (just renamed). Primefac (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm going by what Anomie said. If the auto-detection fails, {{EPER}} defaults to ECP. So, while it doesn't recognise that the page is under ARBECR, it still handles the situation correctly. I also just noticed that SilverLocust has already raised this issue. Nickps (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There would be a loss in current functionality, Primefac. For example, {{Edit extended-protected|force=yes}} would no longer work.
    Each of the five wrapper templates proposed for merging has a default level. E.g., {{Edit extended-protected}} is {{#invoke:protected edit request|extended}} (where the default there is extended). If the page to be edited is unprotected or if |force=yes is used, then that default level is used. If these were all redirected to one template, then there would be a loss of functionality unless someone knows how to tell a module not merely which wrapper is invoking a module (since there would only be one merged wrapper), but rather which redirect is being used to transclude the wrapper that invokes the module (and I don't think that is possible). If no default is provided when invoking the module, then it presently breaks with the error message Lua error in Module:Protected_edit_request/active at line 299: attempt to concatenate local 'boxProtectionLevel' (a nil value). when the page is unprotected or |force=yes is used. SilverLocust 💬 20:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SilverLocust The module could use getContent() to get the text of the current page and then search it for one of the redirect templates. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would potentially break when viewing old revisions/permalinks, and probably need to take into account possibilities like multiple requests on a page (compare Module:Is infobox in lead's difficulty of handling multiple infoboxes). I prefer not to have templates behave differently when viewing permalinks/old revisions of a page. (Ahecht also replied at Village pump (technical), where Nickps asked whether this is possible. PrimeHunter replied expressing opposition to the suggestion.) SilverLocust 💬 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple solution for new uses is to transition from |force=yes to specifying the level to force, eg. |force=extended. I agree there's no straightforward solution for existing uses, so we should just leave the existing templates as is, but stop advertising them in preloads and documentation pages. – SD0001 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why exactly would something like {{Request edit|force=semiprotected}} be better than {{Edit semi-protected|force=yes}}? Other than to satisfy a misguided desire for {{Edit semi-protected}} to be a redirect rather than the wrapper it is now? Anomie⚔ 11:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per reduced clutter of templates to ensu8re a smoother and more effective way of getting editor's attentions regarding articles and editing. The move would be very helpful in sorting edits an allowing -people to use those templates better as it would be easier and more effective as opposed to having them separate.
97.77.64.90 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, just makes sense and simplifies things on the technical side DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, The auto-detection feature makes the distinction between semi-protected and fully-protected templates unnecessary for users requesting edits. This would streamline the editing process and improve clarity.
2603:8080:B8F0:5360:70CF:3BF2:4A5C:A546 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell[edit]

View the holding cell at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1083806995"