Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 0 37 37
TfD 0 0 0 11 11
MfD 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 0 0 0 1 1
RfD 0 0 0 58 58
AfD 0 0 0 0 0
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

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

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

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Listing a template

[edit]
Shortcuts

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

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

Note:

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

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

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_November_23#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.

Add this text to the top of the list:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Twinkle

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]

November 23

[edit]

Template:Use Ugandan English

[edit]

I am unable to find any discussions leading to the creation of {{Use Ugandan English}} by Cobaltcigs. Ugandan English explains that this dialect makes use of phrasing that would not be acceptable here on Wikipedia per MOS:COMMONALITY, and uses misspelled standard English words. We would never accept those misspellings here, so these templates should probably go away. I have found no information about whether Ugandan English is based on British or American English, so I can't recommend conversion to a redirect at this time. Evidence supporting a redirect is welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 22

[edit]

Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia talk:Friendly

[edit]

Editor created a blank editnotice. CSD was declined, so here it is at TFD. There does not appear to be an applicable group editnotice to be suppressed (see the edit summary upon creation), but maybe I missed it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hiberno-English

[edit]

The article Hiberno-English clearly and competently explains that Irish English's writing standards, such as its spelling, align with British English. The rest of the article explains the differences in pronunciation (not relevant since Wikipedia is a written medium) and regionalisms (also not relevant because MOS:COMMONALITY says not to use regionalisms: Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences).

I propose that these templates are redundant and that they should be redirected to {{Use British English}} and {{British English}}.

There is a detailed discussion about these and similar templates happening at Template talk:EngvarB. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Berenstain Bears

[edit]

Editnotice blanked in early 2024 as no longer applicable. No longer used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/E-kid

[edit]

Editnotice blanked because it was no longer needed. See talk page for details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deprecated stub

[edit]

No transclusions. There is limited discussion linking to this template, most of which is from 2010, when it was created. I don't know if it was ever used, or just transcluded in one place until recently, when it showed up on the unused template reports.

It may be redundant to {{Deprecated template}}.

If it is used only sometimes, it should have {{transclusionless}} added to its documentation, with an explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CURRENTCENTURY

[edit]

This could easily be manually updated by hand since centuries only change every 100 years, and I don't even think Wikipedia will last that long. If it somehow does the current century can easily be changed. TheWikipedetalk 16:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Billie the Vision & the Dancers

[edit]

Only one album, so useless for navigation. --woodensuperman 15:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Egyptian royal family

[edit]

Page contains less than five people, all of whom are closely related and would already be linked together, limiting its usefulness. 2601:249:9301:D570:9061:13F5:EDBD:C800 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a bottom navigation template, which takes less visible space. Remove non-links. This has enough links for a viable navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TAT (band)

[edit]

This is a template I authored many years ago which no longer satisfies the rule of five so I'm self nominating it for deletion. Muhandes (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Novembre

[edit]

This is a template I authored many years ago which no longer satisfies the rule of five so I'm self nominating it for deletion. Muhandes (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kish Mauve

[edit]

This is a template I authored many years ago which no longer satisfies the rule of five so I'm self nominating it for deletion. Muhandes (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:An Angle

[edit]

This is a template I authored many years ago which no longer satisfies the rule of five so I'm self nominating it for deletion. Muhandes (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pomigliano CF squad

[edit]

no "current squad" template needed; team is not active during the 2024-25 season Joeykai (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:At school occasional

[edit]

Propose merging Template:At school occasional with Template:At school.
These templates both reflect that an editor will be making fewer contributions due to their schooling, and {{at school occasional}} simply specifies that the editor will not entirely stop editing. I propose that {{at school occasional}} be converted into a parameter for {{at school}} (|occasional=yes) and merged therewith. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support, they both convey the same theme that school affects presence on Wikipedia. No significant difference between them.
𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Both mean the same thing. Agree with reasoning provided by JJP. ( ͡° ( ͡° ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) ͡°) 00:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 21

[edit]

Template:Powerlifting at the 2024 Summer Paralympics

[edit]

Unused and all links are redirects. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of navboxes at Category:Basketball Olympic squad navigational boxes by competition

[edit]

These navboxes are for teams that finished lower than third place in the Olympic basketball tournaments. Such templates are subject to WP:TCREEP and were previously deleted per May 31, 2021, April 22, 2020, June 7, 2019, and March 29, 2019 (first, second and third) discussions (to name a few). – sbaio (Via Geardona (talk to me?) 00:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC) and AWB)[reply]


November 20

[edit]

Template:Dhangadhi Premier League

[edit]

Only 2 valid blue links plus main article page, not enough to warrant a template. All the 3 articles have links to each other in article space, making template links even less useful. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top 100 booking stations of Indian Railways

[edit]

A "Top 100" is not a suitable topic for a navbox. No article to match. --woodensuperman 16:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Lingayata Math

[edit]

Infobox template created by a sock. Only has three transclusions; three articles with no sources and no proof of Notability. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usages can be replaced with {{Infobox monastery}}. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability for the articles is not relevant here. As these are for monasteries, they should probably use {{Infobox monastery}}. Gonnym (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serbia Men Basketball Squad 2019 FIBA World Championship

[edit]

Propose deleting navbox for team that finished lower than third place in tournament. Such templates are subject to WP:TCREEP and were previously deleted per May 31, 2021, April 22, 2020, June 7, 2019, and March 29, 2019 (first, second and third) discussions. – sbaio 08:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Men Basketball Squad 2010 FIBA World Championship

[edit]

Duplicate of Template:United States Squad 2010 FIBA World Championship. – sbaio 08:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 19

[edit]

Template:WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League Member

[edit]

Project does not exist anymore. Gonnym (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alt

[edit]

This is used to show character text as images instead of actual selectable text. This is extremally unhelpful. Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was helpful to me, for what I used it for (which is documented on the page).
Happy to hear if there are better alternatives for achieving the same thing. Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the text isn't selectable it is harmful. If you want to make unselectable text in your userspace, that's fine(?), but it should never be allowed in other places, especially no in an article. Gonnym (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would generally be a harmful thing to do. The exceptions to that general principle are exactly what I made Alt for, as is clearly documented on the page. Such as working around the generally poor state of browser text rendering of ᵘ̄ by alt-ing a smallsup-made ū (in case you have one of the better browsers out there, the first one often renders as a superscript u with a line following it, when it's supposed to appear as a superscript u with a line over it).
This is really not much different from the math genre of templates, if that helps. For example, sfrac produces ⁠1/2⁠, which is then selectable as "⁠1/2", despite the fact that it displays as different text. Sometimes this is the most useful thing to do for the user. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also interesting to note is the mediawiki extension <math> which renders formulae like “” as images that when selected seem to copy as text like “E = m c 2 {\displaystyle E=mc^{2}}”, which is just some garbage. I'm not in favor of this, and think it's overused, but it does serve to show that unselectable text in practice is already fairly common in articles. — And, in fact, the point of Alt is to make things like this, which display correctly, but also give them the correct textual value when copied, unlike the current <math>. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to fix a specific character, create a template that produces the character in a font that produces the correct output. Gonnym (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gaardebaach

[edit]

Extremely excessive detail. This very small brook is not even mentioned outside Wikipedia, it seems[1] yet it has its own template, basically a step-by-step-guide of the few hundred meters this presumably exists. We are not a repository for stylized topographical maps of mainly non-notable entities (the Syre is notable, but hardly needs this overview of every minor thing it encounters in Contern)

The same goes for the other templates used on the same page:

@Fram Alright sure I admit I might have been a little carried away making some of these such as Réimeschbaach and Gaardebaach but the other rivers pass as far as I know WP:GEONATURAL and therefore the templates are potentially useful especially for Trudlerbaach and Syre. Although yes, I made those on the simple wiki a while ago and in hindsight, they are overdetailed and could do with some cleanup. As for Railways in Contern, I don't really see the problem to be honest, to me it seems like a useful addition for anyone trying to make Geographical sense of what is written in the Contern article. N1TH Music (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Fram, that most of these appear excessive as most of them cover small tributaries and brooks which as yet have no coverage on the EN wiki. I suggest that in the Contern article they should simply be listed in running text with any necessary explanations. Those developed as articles could be included in List of rivers of Luxembourg as some already are. There may well be a case for maintaining Template:Railways in Contern.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you have been canvassed to comment here though. In any case, why would we want a template that lists every street crossed and every stormdrain along the path of a railway in some village? Seems like rather excessive detail. Fram (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram WP:Canvassing states "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." and it also states that "Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." I clearly did the former so why are you referring to this as canvassing? N1TH Music (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2] "there's one thing that I could do with some help with [...] templates for each which have since been nominated for deletion [...] I think the rest of the templates are useful" with an explicit request to join the TfD for someone who seems to like the excessively detailed Contern article (listing the number of votes every single of the 200+ candidates received in the national elections in this village? Images like File:F,6 panneau.jpg?) is canvassing. Fram (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram I requested him for him to input his opinion and I told him my own, by no means did I tell him what to think. Additionally, it appears he’s leaning more towards siding with you in which case I’m withdrawing and no longer have much opposition to the deletion of the templates as now it seems there’s more of a consensus that this is too much detail as opposed to being just me against you again. N1TH Music (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waterqual mid-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; deleted as G5 by Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary addition of a level to an existing table scheme; no consensus for this. OhNoitsJamie Talk 11:39, 19 November 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:Wikimedia Commons redirect

[edit]

This template has been around since 2017 but has only 7 mainspace transclusions, so it has never meaningfully caught on. I'm not sure what sort of title it would be used for — perhaps a name of a photo that's somehow famous enough that people might reasonably search for it but not famous enough to be notable? In that case, I'd find it inappropriate, per a corollary of the notability backdoor argument I made about {{Wikispecies redirect}}. Sdkb talk 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikibooks redirect

[edit]

This template has been around since 2017 but has only 6 mainspace transclusions, so it has never caught on. It has a theoretical use for book titles that are not notable for an encyclopedia article, but in that case, a corollary of the notability backdoor argument I made about {{Wikispecies redirect}} applies. Sdkb talk 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikispecies redirect

[edit]

I start from the philosophical perspective that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we should therefore make use of the sister projects when they help us build a better encyclopedia, but that otherwise we should give them no special preference over any other content anywhere else on the internet.

This template was boldly created in 2017 without a larger discussion (or at least nothing was mentioned in the edit summaries). It takes a similar form to the much more widely used {{Wiktionary redirect}}. However, unlike Wiktionary redirect, which helps us provide information readers searching for terms that would never warrant an article, Wikispecies redirect functions more like a loophole in our notability guideline. The vast majority of its uses are for biologists that would not be notable for an article.

We have notability standards to constrain the size of the encyclopedia and reduce the maintenance burden, and I do not see a reason that we should carve out an exception for biologists just because our parent organization also happens to run a non-encyclopedia project that — unlike us — finds it appropriate to create a database of biologists. Such an exception opens some floodgates: If the WMF created, say, a Wikipaintings project that had a database of all visual artists without a notability bar, would we want soft redirects there? How about soft redirects to any concept with a Wikidata item? Or let's say we find a highly reliable non-WMF database of musicians — why not create soft redirects there for all musicians that can't survive AfD?

Either a biologist is notable and should have an article, or they are not and should not be included in Wikipedia. The only redirect in the latter case should be "go search the internet". Sdkb talk 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. See, for example, this deletion discussion; there were no uses or foreseen uses, so the template was deleted. Should the community decide that a link to meta was necessary, it would likely be restored. This is an example of it going the other way. Even if the regular soft redirect template was technically disallowed from being invoked into the mainspace, attempts at it would lead to disarray -- at the bare minimum, this serves to plug such holes until the community makes a decision about retention or deletion.
We must also remember that the general rule for the creation of a soft sister redirect is for a topic to have a less-than-encyclopedic scope and be either commonly wikified words or repeatedly recreated (WP:SRD and Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project). At least some of the scientist soft redirects that use this template probably have several wikilinks on other pages in the encyclopedia (but, regardless, that is an individual case matter for rfd). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need to not delete it GAMERBOY102 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. This is a discussion venue, and I'm using it to start a discussion about whether this template should exist or not. Sdkb talk 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 18

[edit]

Template:NASCAR on Amazon Prime

[edit]

Empty template that is not needed, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASCAR on Amazon Prime. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Canadian Football League biography

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Canadian Football League biography with Template:Infobox NFL biography.
These should be merged, with the CFL infobox redirected to the NFL infobox, and the NFL infobox then renamed to Template:Infobox gridiron football biography. I've been using both of these infoboxes for years, but there's really no good reason for there to be two different templates. They have all the same parameters basically. There are a few differences; the CFL template has "hand" and "pass_style" but no one uses those. The only parameters I might keep from the CFL infobox are "amateur_title" and "amateur_team" for Canadian junior leagues like the Canadian Junior Football League but even if those parameters weren't included, that is not enough to prevent this merge. Template:Infobox gridiron football person is also a duplicate of the CFL infobox that was split out in April 2024 ("Infobox gridiron football person" is what both leagues used originally I believe before the NFL infobox split out on its own in 2007 and then later "gridiron football person" was moved to "Canadian Football League biography" in 2017; that's a condensed version of events but the long history doesn't really matter here anyway) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. I feel like one info box is perfect for professional gridiron football in general along with dissident93 comment above. Maxx1222 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Although the “Undrafted” field may have to be adjusted to clarify if it’s the NFL or CFL draft. Not sure how people want to do that. Keeping the amateur teams is preferable for CJFL, CEGEP, AFL, etc. Cmm3 (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine there could be a "cflundraftedyear" parameter added for Canadian CFL players. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. I'll Support with this parameter added. WuTang94 (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and added it. (NFL) and (CFL) are amended if both |undraftedyear= and |cflundraftedyear= exist, otherwise the label just lists "Undrafted" like it used to. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding cflundraftedyear D93. I'm not sure if there would ever be a scenario where someone would use both though. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't think of anybody either, but it exists if ever needed now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per nomination. SudoHack (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment make sure the short description generator continues to work when merging the two templates. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've been frustrated by the difficulty integrating players that played in both the CFL and NFL. That said: make sure that there are NINE stat lines for each league, which is too many, but better too many than not enough. Make sure the name of the league is editable — there are some players who were in the All-America Football Conference, others the AAFC + the NFL, others who were all in the American Football League, and others the AFL + NFL. This doesn't even touch the Arena League, USFL, XFL, UFL, and so forth... This needs to be specified by the page editor with a league_name= parameter. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "statleague" is in the NFL infobox. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There also needs to be integration of coaching into the pro football infobox, since the number of former players who have gone into coaching is vast, and the number of coaches who are former players is almost 100%. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite, what you mean by "integration of coaching into the pro football infobox"? Coaching is already supported by the existing infoboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure it was part of the CFL box. The fact that they don't have the same parameters is part of the problem. In my opinion, rather than having separate NFL stats and CFL stats, with those leagues auto-specified, which is my reading of what things are going to be, there should be slates for three blank leagues, with stat_league1= , stat_league2= and stat_league3= parameters user specified. There are more than just two or three pro leagues and trying to force data into a template that isn't malleable enough is problematic. Again, yes I know that this is specifiable within the NFL infobox template, but it needs to be also so with whatever merged creation results here. best, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, both football codes from America and Canada are identical. Cltjames (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While also considering merging it with college football as well, with pages like Chuck Knox and John Robinson compared with Chip Kelly's (who has bowl game/"tournament" stats. 9mm.trilla (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9mm.trilla, Chip Kelly uses {{Infobox college coach}}, which supports all college sports, not just college football. In partciular, it is designed to handle coaches who coached more than one sport, which was very common decades ago. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball national team roster navboxes

[edit]

Propose deleting navboxes for teams that finished lower than third place in tournaments. Such templates are subject to WP:TCREEP and were previously deleted per May 31, 2021, April 22, 2020, June 7, 2019, and March 29, 2019 (first, second and third) discussions. – sbaio 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject New York Giants

[edit]

just like the WikiProject New York Jets TfD, this one should be replaced by {{WikiProject National Football League|giants=yes}} Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Double J

[edit]

This template has very few Wikilinks, mostly for presenters all of whom are included on the main Triple J template. There are no pages for any of Double J's programs which would be this template's core usefulness. Triple J template can be used on the Double J article instead. Marcostev8 (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Triple J Unearthed

[edit]

The template has almost no Wikilinks, it is completely unecessary and its content is outdated. Triple J template can be used on the Triple J Unearthed article instead. Marcostev8 (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

These (mostly?) Trump-related editnotices were blanked in 2021 as being no longer needed, so they have not been used for three years. I asked about blank edit notices in general, and I didn't really get a response. I then asked the editor who blanked these notices, and that editor had no opinion on whether they should be deleted. So here we are at TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Support CSD. Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox essay

[edit]

Unused and broken template. We have various book related infoboxes that I'm sure one of them can work, if actually needed. Gonnym (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's broken because I can't get it to work, hence the {{helpme}} tag. I was trying to demonstrate what an essay Infobox should look like. As I explained, the Infobox for books doesn't work well for essays.
It's like using the Album infobox for a song. The two things are different. Sometimes, there are album-length songs, just as there are book-length essays. But most often, an essay is a totally different genre from a book. It has different parameters, and it would make sense to have an infobox that served it better than borrowing the one for books. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have fixed this infobox, and it appears to be something that will be useful on the more than 600 articles about essays, many of which are definitely not short stories or books. I have deployed it on a few already. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So instead of using an existing infobox, you copied 1 for 1 the infobox book, for what reason? Who cares what the infobox is called, the parameters are exactly the same. And now, we have a undocumented, unmaintained, infobox. I will revert replacements on exiting pages as completely pointless. Gonnym (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a one for one copy; I adapted {{Infobox book}}, which was the easiest way to get to the destination. I believe that this infobox is useful, so I fixed it and deployed it in a couple of cases where an essay was clearly not a book and clearly not a short story. One of your reverts has added the words "short story" to the infobox of an article that is about an essay and in which the words "short story" otherwise do not appear. We have plenty of undocumented infoboxes; lack of documentation of a new infobox is not a reason for deletion. Conversely, demonstrating the usefulness of a template is a reason to keep it. You can see the utility of this template at Federalist No. 10, where {{infobox book}} is misused for an essay that was published in a newspaper. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You copy/pasted an exact copy of infobox book, removing the categories. You did so without giving attribution or without creating any sort of documentation. Infobox templates that are meant to be used heavily shouldn't be used so recklessly. Additionally, any one of the currently exiting templates, be that book or short story (and probably others), can do what this template does. As I've demonstrated. Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that is a long series of false claims. I did not copy/paste an exact copy of infobox book, as you or anyone else can see in this diff; I adapted the template, removing wikidata calls and other items that were inappropriate or not needed. Further development and documentation has been and will be needed, as with any new infobox template, but again, those are not valid deletion reasons. As for attribution, my edit summary was "fix infobox, copying and adapting from Template:infobox book"; it is my understanding that this is sufficient attribution.
    Please provide a link to substantiate claims of recklessness, which is bordering on a personal attack. And as I have demonstrated and explained, the short story template was placing inaccurate text in Shooting an Elephant; that did not stop you from reverting my use of the more accurate {{Infobox essay}} and claiming that my use of the infobox was "pointless".
    As for any one of the currently exiting [sic] templates, be that book or short story (and probably others), can do what this template does, which infobox would you use for Federalist No. 10? It's clearly not a book.
    Are you OK today? You are usually much more rational than this. I can't recall you making such personal statements in the past. Maybe a break is in order? I sometimes need one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Federalist Papers are precisely the example I would use for why the Book infobox doesn't work for essays. The fork in the road is at the "book/ISBN" level. For example, Inside the Whale and Other Essays is an anthology of George Orwell's essays. It has a book infobox as it should. There is also a wikipedia article for the title essay "Inside the Whale". A helpful infobox would instantly identify for the reader that the essay came first and the anthology later. Using the Book infobox on the title essay's article needlessly confuses the issue. There is no ISBN for an essay, but there often is for the essay's anthology. The Essay infobox that Jonesey constructed solves the problem. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Essays are not books. This will go well on lots of articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 17

[edit]

Template:ISU world number one figure skaters

[edit]

Incomprehensible and unwieldy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to clarify that this template features two very large tables, with no explanation as to what the difference is between the two. Additionally, both tables feature all four skating disciplines. Perhaps if this template were parsed out by discipline, it might be more manageable. As it is, many figure skating articles have become excessively cluttered by a voluminous number of templates at the end, such that it's difficult to see the forest through the trees. We really need to be more judicious in terms of which templates are truly the most beneficial. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No article text/default

[edit]

Unused sub pages. Couldn't find usages with an insource search. Gonnym (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from creator: This was created because of discrepancies where different messages are shown to logged out vs new users. I have not been able to successfully get these messages shown to anonymous users because it might need consensus, that hasn't stopped experimentation. I am willing to accept userification in lieu of deletion. Awesome Aasim 02:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see phab:T333846. Awesome Aasim 17:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simmons1988

[edit]

Unused citation template. Also appears on an unused report from 2013, so might have been unused all this time. Gonnym (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PIE

[edit]

Replace usages with {{lang|ine-x-proto}} and delete.

Proto-Indo-European language has been supported for a while now by {{lang}}, which additionally provides various checks, validations and categories, that this template does not.

The main difference between the two templates is that PIE does not italic the text or adds an asterisk (*), while Lang does. That means that when replacing, if a PIE usage

  • has an asterisk, it should be removed
  • wraps the template in italics, they should be removed

See this edit as an example.

Also somewhat related, "pie" is incorrect to use here as that is the language code for the Piro Pueblo language. Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 16

[edit]

Template:Testcase

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Testcase with Template:Test case.
{{Testcase}} is referred to as the legacy version of the spaced {{Test case}}. They should be merged. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do think that the amount of coding that would be required to create a wrapper for the old template so that all the params can translate into the new one would be overly burdensome, and I don't think that the time spent reprogramming old test cases to follow the format of the new template would be worth it. As such, I don't think that template merging here would improve the encyclopedia on a net basis, so I think they should be kept. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replace all usages (122) and delete template. Don't merge anything that the new template can already do, and only merge specific features if actually needed. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that outcome, too. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reportedtoaiv

[edit]

Similar to AIV Notice and Reported to AIV, but it was created much earlier. Level 4 warnings already say you may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time [...] and there's nothing to do with this information besides vandalize the report itself. Nyakase (talk ) 16:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is more or less nothing harmful about this template; allowing users the discretion of using this sort of thing causes no harm to the project. For that reason, I see no reason to do anything but keep. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some editors don't understand that duplication is very harmful. It leads to lesser-used templates being out-of-sync, either with current practices or with an updated MoS style, OR it leads to continued maintenance burden. If Template:Uw-vandalism4 needs updating, that discussion should be held there. Gonnym (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no concern here about duplication, as this template simply states that one has been reported to AIV, whilst {{Uw-vandalism4}} states that future vandalism will result in a report. I'm confused as to where this is coming from. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a duplication of a vandalism warning. Uwvandalism4 has |3= for extra text. Gonnym (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That simply appends additional text to the standard {{uw-vandalism4}} template's message; the template we are discussing here is different in purpose. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Melbourne Rebels squad

[edit]

Team has been wound up and no longer competes, meaning current squad navbox no longer required Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

November 15

Template:Cinema chains in Canada

[edit]

Navbox template with only one item in it. As always, the purpose of navboxes is to navigate between related articles, so a navbox serves no purpose if there's only one thing in it. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The related category has more entries, but it's neither's the nominator's or other editors' job, to fix or transclude navigation templates that the creator of the template didn't care enough to do. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railway accidents and incidents in 1972

[edit]

Unused copy/paste without attribution duplicate of Template:1972 railway accidents, Template:1973 railway accidents, Template:1974 railway accidents, Template:1975 railway accidents, Template:1976 railway accidents, Template:1977 railway accidents, and Template:1978 railway accidents . Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – 'Railway accidents and incidents in xxxx' is the format currently accepted within Wikiproject Trains for these templates, as opposed to the old 'xxxx railway accidents' format. However, all existing 'Railway accidents and incidents in xxxx' (about forty of them, from 1972 to 2022 or so) were erroneously created as copy-paste from the old templates, instead of the old templates being moved to the new title. I'm not sure what's the best way to tidy this up. All years before 1972 will now be done the proper way; for later years' templates I suppose some admin action is required to sort them out. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    History merge is needed for those that aren't tagged here. These can be deleted and then the current one moved. Gonnym (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not that the template content is the same between old and new templates (I'm talking about template years 1979-2022): the content has been reformatted to make it neater and more legible, which was the main idea behind the migration from the old style templates to the new ones. The content of the new templates should be preserved; only the histories should be merged. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, including history where possible. See also User talk:The Emperor of Byzantium#Railway accidents and incidents in 1979. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the new ones, which have no significant history. If there is a new consensus name, the existing templates can be moved to the new name(s). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not that simple, it's not just a case of WP:CUTPASTE: the old template's content was reformatted and then put into the new templates, giving a neater and more legible layout based on the {{vad}} template. Deleting the new templates would wipe out a lot of good reformatting work that was indeed backed by project consensus on both the new template's name and its new layout. I'd be happy to do the work required to sort out this cock-up (since I did most of the aforementioned reformatting work), although I'm not an admin (nor do I aspire to become one), so I'm a bit limited in what I can help with. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – To clarify the work that was done here: compare the old template for the year 2002 with the new one. It's not just that the name has changed; the content is significantly different (and is laid out in a much improved format in the new template). Any action intended to restore the full template history should ensure that the current content is preserved. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

Template:WikiProject Lanka Premier League

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Lanka Premier League with Template:WikiProject Cricket.
These 4 projects were redirected into the newly created Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Asia cricket task force. They should now use the project banner with a new asia parameter like {{WikiProject Cricket|asia=yes}}. Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge, these templates could instead be converted into wrapper templates for {{WikiProject Cricket}} by using the following code,
{{WikiProject Cricket{{{{{|safesubst:}}}ifnotempty|{{{class|}}}|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}!}}class{{{{{|safesubst:}}}=}}{{{class|}}}}}|Asia=yes}}

@Gonnym: It could be done once the draft banner in Template:WikiProject Cricket/sandbox is moved to the main one. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio please explain how exactly that wrapper with the parameter |Asia=yes works with your oppose. Gonnym (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: If a wrapper template like below for example has been added to a page, it will be substituted as the following one,
  • {{WikiProject Example|class=C}} will substitute as {{WikiProject Cricket|class=C|Asia=yes}}
  • {{WikiProject Example}} will substitute as {{WikiProject Cricket|Asia=yes}}
Tools like WP:RATER has native support for wrapper templates and will substitute them directly. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:WikiProject Africa banner wrapper templates for some examples... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 04:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd take a look at those pages you'd see that I've edited a lof of them. My point was that you can't use |Asia=yes as it doesn't exist. Why doesn't it exist? Because you just opposed it's addition. Gonnym (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in this situation a wrapper is incorrect. The wrapper does not set |Pakistan Super League=yes, |Indian Premier League=yes so a user using these would end up with an unexpected result, unlike Template:WikiProject Angola which does set |Angola=yes. Gonnym (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't oppose the addition of |Asia=, I opposed the template merger which would result in the previous templates being left as redirects. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Let's keep the discussion here only then.
Now, what would exactly be done if the TfD is made consensus to merge... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: The edit request I placed on the talk page involved the implementations of,
  • FormerFA, FormerFL, FormerGA, Current event and Cricket Collaboration
  • Re-worded text for |MAIN_TEXT=
  • New image for |IMAGE_LEFT=
  • Taskforces for ICC, Women's cricket, Africa, Americas, Europe and EAP
How any of these are related to this discussion??? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with the first 3 bulleted points, I oppose the task force one as I've explained being a separate discussion from the merge as the merge was the exact point of it and we would end up here anyways, which is a WP:DISCUSSFORK. Gonnym (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the task force, I've explained above, that adding |Asia=yes to the template will allow for the merger of these 4 templates, which you've opposed. Additionally, you've proposed making them wrappers, but that adds more confusion as they don't produce the result a user would expect to get from them, as they aren't a 1:1 wrapper, but a wrapper of a redirected name. That's isn't really helpful. Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: But, what about the other 6 task forces; they are freshly new ones-no mergers - we can add them to the banner now as they are unrelated to the TfD. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Merge WikiProjects back into this project the question was regarding a merge of four Asian projects, but at the end of the discussion you proposed creating additional task forces. Are you sure that is the actual consensus there? See KjjjKjjj's comment My only main concern is that some of the task forces might be inactive most of the time due to little coverage. Creating task forces pre-emptively where no one actually said they'll be a part of and which would stay inactive isn't helpful. I'd say close the ones you created (other than Asia) and wait until a group of editors actually want to work in that area. Note that there is a lot of maintenance required for task forces, even inactive ones (categories, templates, gnoming, etc.). Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear consensus for Asia task force (see the comments of that discussion, task force was endorced by me too, despite initially proposing a merge). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Buckethead task force

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Buckethead task force with Template:WikiProject Musicians.
At the TfD 1 year ago, it was suggested to merge Template:WikiProject Buckethead task force with Template:WikiProject Musicians.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym, Cyfal, and WikiCleanerMan: pinging all participants of the previous TfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll be a little rude and just say completely delete. There were many WikiProjects created for single artists and bands which unsurprisingly are inactive or just flat out dead. The last non-bot related post on that project page was 15 years ago. Just delete and get rid of stale projects. We should stop supporting indefinitely stuff like this. And this goes for most music artist projects. Gonnym (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

Template:New Anonblock

[edit]

No transclusions. Proposed in early 2024, but the proposal did not gain any support. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As the creator, I would like to submit a counter proposal that we merge {{School block}} and {{Anonblock}} using this template. It is impossible to know every IP address that is a school, some administrators use the anonblock template on schools and universities purely out of preference, and in the past the argument for the school block template's existence is that there is information on it that is not on the anonblock template. A merged template would eliminate inconsistency. Additionally, the "create an account at home" suggestion on the school block template is ridiculous when used on residential schools and universities or institutions in countries where hardwired internet at home is not common, which is probably part of the reason why some admins use anonblock on universities, which leaves out information that is relevant to them.
    Furthermore, the "persistent vandalism" part of {{school block}} is problematic. Per WP:Vandalism, there are instances of "silly vandalism" and there are instances of "editing tests." In the case of a registered account or a residential IP address (that is not CGNAT), we can make the distinction when one engages in it repeatedly after warning, but any kind of shared IP address is inherently difficult to identify repeat problems from an individual vs. multiple individuals that have nothing to do with each other (I've used corporate networks where clearly people more than 24 hours away from me were using the same IP to edit Wikipedia for example, and some large school districts or universities aren't much different in that regard). About the only way one can do this is if there's an observable pattern (some fascination with a subject, posting the same person's name in articles over a long period of time, etc), but I "persistently" see IPs being blocked for "persistent vandalism" with no observable pattern (I saw a school get blocked for five years one time over a kid or staff member writing "HI" on an article a few weeks after a previous block expired...). Jumping the gun to label silly edits which could be "editing tests" as "persistent vandalism" is really a violation of WP:AGF (and potentially WP:BLP) PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PCHS Pirate Alumnus: If you want to propose this merge, the talk pages of the other templates need to be notified, and the templates need to be tagged appropriately and listed here. It would probably make more sense, though, to modify one of the existing templates if its content is not appropriate in all situations. That discussion should probably happen at the talk page for one of the templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need non-admins futzing around with block template UIs. It's time for this failed proposal to meet its fate. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkfact

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Talkfact with Template:Fake citation needed.
These templates are duplicates. {{talkfact}} just has |nice=yes to change the wording, and {{fake citation needed}} has namespace detection. The merge target follows WP:TPN's "standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization", and the source can be a shortcut. 174.94.28.189 (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move {{Talkfact}} to {{Talk fact}} which is where it should have been. The two templates display similarly but have different functions. I, for example, want to be able to find all the documentation, by using "what links here" on {{Fake citation needed}}. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
"What links here" indents redirects so that function would remain after any merger. Furthermore, at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Fake_citation_needed&limit=500, the majority of transclusions are outside templatespace (documentation) and apparently inside discussions. 174.94.28.189 (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJPMaster (she/they) 13:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

Template:Rollback and reviewer granted

[edit]

How often are people getting both of these rights at the same time? I don't see why we should have a template specifically for this instead of just using {{Rollback granted}} and {{Pending changes reviewer granted}} separately. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – these are "thematically related", so I can see why the template was created, but I don't think that outweighs the costs of duplicating templates. If this could be reimplemented as a "thin wrapper" around {{rollback granted}} and {{pending changes reviewer granted}}, I'd support keeping it. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lzh

[edit]

Unnecessary wrapper of {{lang}}. We're moving away from specific templates for each language as they require an additional maintenance burden and are less flexible. See similar discussion for lang-?? templates. Replace usages with {{lang|lzh}} and delete template after. Gonnym (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Can't this usage just be redirected to (or wrap) {{lang|lzh}}? This template only has transclusions on about forty articles and talkpages, but I'm worried what precedent this is setting for {{zhi}} (639 trans­clusions) and {{zh}} (~70,000 transclusions), both of which wrap {{lang-zh}}.
    Reducing maintenance burden is fine, but I neither A. want a bot run to blow up my watchlist on hundreds of articles substituting {{lang}} for wrappers of {{lang-zh}}, nor B. want to have to type {{lang|zh}} every single time I have to type Chinese characters somewhere, which might be dozens to hundreds of times per article, depending on the subject.
    Seems like it would be better to handle cases like these on the backend instead of forcing more specific syntax onto all editors (which is also a kind of maintenance burden). Folly Mox (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Folly, but I've created enough headaches for TfD maintainers based on templates I've created to suit my own particular preferences, and will defer to see if others find them potentially useful or not. Remsense ‥ 论 22:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{lzh}} is already a wrapper around {{lang}}. It could be made a redirect. {{zhi}} is a very poorly named redirect to {{Zh-no-labels}} which invokes Module:Lang-zh – poorly named because zhi is the ISO 639-3 tag for Zhire, a Nigerian language. {{zh}} is a redirect to {{lang-zh}} which also invokes Module:Lang-zh.
    You wrote:
    I neither ... B. want to have to type {{lang|zh}}
    Wait! What? You are quite willing to type:
    I neither ... B. want to have to type {{code|1={{((}}lang{{!}}zh{{))}}}}
    {{tld|lang|zh}} is much shorter/easier. Seems like that argument doesn't carry much water.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym this is essentially a typing shortcut. Would it be satisfactory to have it auto-subst per AnomieBOT? Remsense ‥ 论 22:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm firmly against having any sort of subst only template for any language template. We've just deleted over 1400 lang-xx templates, and over the years deleted even more language related templates. This is an extremely outdated system (having a template for each language) that causes much more harm then it saves. The 5 additional characters you save aren't worth this hassle. Fox is worried about his watchlist, so instead you are suggesting that every single edit now will have an additional bot edit? Regarding {{zh}} that template is not a wrapper but a redirect. It has nothing to do with this discussion and is red herring. Gonnym (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and don't want to create more headaches. Would you like me to go through and replace it? Remsense ‥ 论 20:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion. Who doesn't love templates? But we have a problem here in user space. I came to this discussion because of Simplified Chinese characters#History. {{lzh}} now linking to ‹See Tfd›. Dcattell (talk)
If you are talking about the ‹See Tfd› annotation, that has nothing to do with the discussion but is added by {{Template for discussion}} via {{Template for discussion/dated}}.
What do you mean by we have a problem here in user space? The article you link is not in the User names space.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that goal of Wikipedia is for people to be able to use an online encyclopedia as an encyclopedia. That is our goal, is it not? The average user in that sense is in "user space", I would say. "User name space" of course is different and more technical. What I am saying is that we should be mindful to help the actual end "user" (by which I mean "reader" not "editor" or whatever). Having a completely public-facing link to our discussion about template deletion just before various Chinese characters in numerous articles is not a good thing. I suggest that you reverse the template deletion immediately until something better is figured out. I guess I should have said "article space" not "user space". However, I think of user space as the Wikipedia area where mostly non-Wikipedia editors, administrators, sysops, or whatever just want to read a decent article. The "end user". Our readers all around the world see this in real time. Maybe actually look at actual article? Does not look good. This humble editor requests a fix as soon as possible. Dcattell (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS I added the tfd link via the lzh template, not the one(s) you mention above. Dcattell (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As part of the TfD process, discussed templates are modified to add one of several possible tags, one of which is ‹See Tfd›; see step 'I: Tag the template' at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Listing a template.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you object to the labeling that is part of the normal WP:TFD process, this discussion is not the right venue. Perhaps the correct venue for such complaints is WT:TFD. This discussion is about {{lzh}} and nothing else.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My discussion here is solely linked to this particular template as currently implemented in a very bad way. My point is that the current state of lzh template is breaking stuff in article space. I am sure that there are complex technical reasons for this, possibly pre-existing, but more probably related to recent changes. I'm not sure what went wrong or when. Full disclosure: I don't use this template. I really don't care that much, except generally trying to improve Wikipedia.
Probably what I should have said is:
Article space broken
Urgent action required. Recent changes to the {{lzh}} template are potentially an embarrassment to Wikipedia and those particular individual(s) involved leading to this incident. Articles with {{lzh}} tag now link to this discussion, in real life.
Obviously, every article with this template should not be linking to this discussion with every instance of the transcluded template, but they do, and I am pretty sure that any discussion labeling is not supposed to be carried out in this manner throughout main article space, but it is.
I'm pretty much done with this. I was merely attempting to provide some helpful feedback on the apparently unexpected current performance of this template tag. I would not expect the performance of this template transclusion in article space to lead to a link to a discussion about template deletion. However, that is what is going on. This can be verified by going to an article with this template tag: you don't even need to look at the code. If you want every article on en.Wikipedia with this template tag to link to this discussion in each and every instance of its use, then you have indeed achieved your desire. My tendency when I see something on Wikipedia that can be improved, then I tend just do it when and if I have the time. In this case I think that I will leave it up to someone else.
Respectfully yours toward a better Wikipedia,
Dcattell (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS My sincere apologies to everyone involved here. I did not due my due diligence to research everything going on here, who did what, and whatever, and how the whole template process is working these days. I went on for far too long about various issues about the whole process. I have looked a bit more into things, as I should have done to begin with. My only excuse is that changing out the lzh template for a link to this discussion was a bad idea, and in fact the one which lead me here, where I've probably just been a big waste of time. I guess I was a bit shocked to see a discussion tag in front of Chinese characters, which could better have appeared without any tagging. Sometimes I just want to read articles, and find the editorial discussion inclusions to be intrusive. Other times I edit articles. But here I go again...
Thank you everyone, and especially Trappist the monk, for helping point me in the right direction.
Dcattell (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-grc-gre

[edit]

This template should be replaced with the newly created {{langx}}, which accepts various Greek languages:

  • ["grc-x-aeolic"] = "Aeolic Greek"
  • ["grc-x-attic"] = "Attic Greek"
  • ["grc-x-biblical"] = "Biblical Greek"
  • ["grc-x-byzant"] = "Byzantine Greek"
  • ["grc-x-classic"] = "Classical Greek"
  • ["grc-x-doric"] = "Doric Greek"
  • ["grc-x-hellen"] = "Hellenistic Greek"
  • ["grc-x-ionic"] = "Ionic Greek"
  • ["grc-x-koine"] = "Koinē Greek"
  • ["grc-x-medieval"] = "Medieval Greek"
  • ["grc-x-patris"] = "Patristic Greek"
  • ["grk-x-proto"] = "Proto-Greek"

Which Module:Lang/data, which handles the code says the above codes are preferred alternates to the non-standard catchall code grc-gre. See also the related TfD which deleted most individual lang-?? templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: {{Langx}} does not support parameter for grc-gre, unlike custom {{Lang-??}} templates {{Lang-rus}}, {{Lang-zh}} and {{Lang-sr-Latn-Cyrl}}. Absolutiva (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are marginally correct. It is true that {{langx}} does not support the grc-gre language tag. This is because grc-gre is not a valid IETF language tag; gre is not a valid extlang; see the IANA language-subtag-registry. {{lang-rus}}, {{lang-zh}}, and {{Lang-sr-Latn-Cyrl}} have nothing to do with {{lang-grc-gre}}. Both {{lang-rus}} and {{lang-zh}} support a variety of parameters that are not shared between them and were never supported by {{lang-grc-gre}} or the now deleted 1150-ish {{lang-??}} templates. {{Lang-sr-Latn-Cyrl}} is specifically intended for languages where two scripts have equal standing and where the Latin form is not a romanization of the Cyrillic form; again, characteristics not shared with {{lang-grc-gre}} and the {{lang-??}} templates.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
replace with {{langx}} and then delete: According to its documentation, {{lang-grc-gre}} is to be used for Ancient Greek; hence the grc in its name. Internally, the template uses {{lang}} with the language tag grc. {{lang}} and {{langx}} understand grc to be Ancient Greek so comparing {{lang-grc}} to {{langx|grc}} shows that their outputs are quite similar:
‹See Tfd›Greek: Ἀφροδίτη, translit. Aphrodítē, lit. "Aphrodite" ← {{lang-grc-gre|Ἀφροδίτη|Aphrodítē|Aphrodite}}
Ancient Greek: Ἀφροδίτη, romanized: Aphrodítē, lit. 'Aphrodite' ← {{langx|grc|Ἀφροδίτη|Aphrodítē|Aphrodite}}
The obvious differences are the linked labels and {{lang-grc-gre}} incorrectly uses double quotes for the gloss. The outputs are sufficiently similar that there is no real need to keep {{lang-grc-gre}} – it does nothing special.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replace en masse and delete, per Trappist the monk. Judging by the example given above, the two are largely identical in terms of output, with the few minor differences between the two favouring langx. In particular, I don't know why a template for ancient Greek would contain the descriptor "Greek" instead of "Ancient Greek", especially with a link to Greek language, rather than to Ancient Greek, as this seems somewhat misleading. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Modify Parameters before replacement. There seems to be an conceptual error, you speak of "various Greek languages" and this is not accurate: what difference is there between Attic Greek and Classical Greek? It is not best to consider them separate languages. The English equivalent is to say "Victorian English is a language different from American English" and in some sense you would be right, but most words are written and even pronounced the same, and it would be mad to have a dozen English tags. Also you are missing entirely the Homeric Greek which under these assumptions would be yet another different language. So pick a side. Either keep it as it is now ("we herby declare there are no dialects and every smallest variant is its own language") or better, simplify all categories into a lump category for all polytonic greek. El Huinca (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can use {{langx|grc|...}} for output in ancient Greek generally, and in the majority of cases this is surely what would be used. I don't really see any issue with having the added choice of specifying a dialect or variant, for cases in which that's useful or appropriate. – Michael Aurel (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

Template:Alid rebellions

[edit]

Unused navigation template. If the pages on this need a navbox, they should use Template:Alids. Also, there is no place in navigation template for prose text like this. Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I was about to add the template to relevant pages in the next few days. The argument of lumping all together into a single template on the Alids is a different discussion, but there is no rule either way, and the Alid rebellions are a significant political and military phenomenon that can easily stand alone in a navbox. There is also no rule against prose text if it serves to give context rather than confuse the reader. Constantine ✍ 18:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well over 2 months unused does not seem you were about to add it anywhere. Regardless, navboxes are for links and not prose text. Prose text requires citations per WP:V and citations also do not belong in navboxes. Text like Revolt of Mukhtar al-Thaqafi (685–687) which do not link to the revolt but links to the person is also a MOS:EGG link. This navbox while titled "rebellions" seems to only have 2 links of that nature. Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

Template:WikiProject Glass

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Glass with Template:WikiProject Physics.
{{WikiProject Glass}} is not a WikiProject, but a taskforce of {{WikiProject Physics}} @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Glass. Taskforce-ify {{WikiProject Glass}} into {{WikiProject Physics}}, then replace all ~1900 transclusions with {{WikiProject Physics|glass=yes|...}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I would recommended leaving it a wrapper template as that makes it easier to find when assessing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I personally would support complete deletion. I found that the wrappers are more trouble than they are worth. Editors adding these with, or without tools, do not even care they are adding duplicate templates so we will end up with both the Glass wrapper (which would be subst by a bot) and the Physics one. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite a few of the tagged articles are more to do with art rather than physics and merging the banners would add the physics banner to a number of pages that are not relevant to the physics project. Maybe the glass project should not be a taskforce or maybe they need to tidy up the tagging to be just physics related first? -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Glass & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support or delete glass WikiProject is dead.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that while "WikiProject Glass" is actually a physics taskforce, it's been used and perceived as it's own thing (because the banner is separate). So, (as said above), some are WP Physics, some are WP Materials (and sometimes maybe also WP Physics), and some are WP Visual Arts. So, absent reclassifying 1900 articles, how can the correct WikiProjects be set?
The scope says "The project is listed as a taskforce of WikiProject Physics, but since the scope is larger than only the physical aspect of glass (chemistry, history of glass, glass art, ...), it is set up independently of WikiProject Physics." So, I wonder why it got set up as a taskforce anyway?
From a look at the task force page (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Taskforces/Glass), the taskforce is slightly active (last post -- 1 year ago). And the project page itself has some really good resources and a great scope writeup.
Based on that, Oppose: WikiProject Glass should be made its own WikiProject, as long as the people who work on it are OK with that (if they don't exist, just mark the new WikiProject inactive) because it de-facto is its own WikiProject anyway, and it's useful if the article are also labeled "WikiProject Physics" because not all WikiProject Glass articles are physics-focused. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize it seems pointless to make it its own WikiProject if its inactive, but it's not like we delete WikiProjects for being inactive anyway, and this basically is already its own WikiProject. It's just set up in the wrong place, as far as I can tell (if anyone here knows why it's set up a Physics taskforce, that would probably be useful). Mrfoogles (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in that Glass should have been set up as its own WikiProject, but it is what it is.
Glass & Physics were both notified 11 days ago, and the only respondent from either appears to be ReyHahn.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

[edit]

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

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

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