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 May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 0 0 9 0 9
TfD 0 0 11 0 11
MfD 0 0 5 0 5
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 85 0 85
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_August_8#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 Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code 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]

August 8

[edit]

Template:1930 Canadian federal election/Waterloo South

[edit]

I couldn't find sources to verify this information Boleyn (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, the source (from the Library of Parliament) has been in the green expandable "Source(s)" box at the bottom since I created the template. I did notice the link was dead, so I've updated the citation with a Wayback link. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Free Fire World Series

[edit]

Unnecessary navbox based upon an esports competition. Most listings do not have articles, there are just three links in the navbox, one of which is to Free Fire World Series – Global Finals 2024#Grand Final. The event is covered by Free Fire World Series, the navbox is not needed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chinese elections

[edit]

Had made a suggestion for improvement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive 33#Chinese elections, but no changes have come forth. Moving towards deletion as the template does not deliver on what its title promises, it merely lists sessions of the National People's Congress which is just a rehash of certain heads of {{National People's Congress}}, and does not serve as a navigable aid to articles about the actual process of delegate selection to the NPC (compare with {{Chinese elections (1912–1949)}}). Neither are NPC elections the sole form of elections in China. This template needs a complete overhaul and as of now is very apt for a WP:TNT. Gotitbro (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1926 Canadian federal election/Kent

[edit]

I couldn't find references to confirm the results. Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1930 Canadian federal election/Kent

[edit]

I couldn't find references to confirm the information here Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anna Biller

[edit]

Template links to only two films; does not meet guidelines at MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 04:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


August 7

[edit]

Template:2024 Pakistani Election Constituency

[edit]

A very useless template, just further increases clutter on articles and Wikipedia in general. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Midsizediv

[edit]

No transclusions. I made this template over a year ago, not realizing that {{resize}} already had a |div= option that makes it the same as this template. This one can be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Episode counter

[edit]

Consensus at the infobox television talk page is that this template is excessive and not needed. Existing usages have been replaced with a simple number. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 20:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFC below TOO

[edit]

Unused and the usecase is limited. If a non-free file is relicensed as free and a user disagrees that it is free, then they should discuss it and if needed go to WP:FFD. That's the standard procedure.

If deleted then also Category:All non-free files possibly below the threshold of originality and Template:NFC below TOO/doc should be deleted. Jonteemil (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Inheritance Cycle

[edit]

Propose merging Template:The Inheritance Cycle with Template:Christopher Paolini.
The links in {{The Inheritance Cycle}} navbox are completely contained within {{Christopher Paolini}}, and the latter only has a couple of additional links. I propose to redirect the former template to the latter or replace transclusions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


August 6

[edit]

Template:Campaignbox North American theater of World War I

[edit]

There was no North American theater during the first world war. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MultipleMedalistMedalTable

[edit]

Subst and delete – Used in only one article. Creator of this template no longer active. George Ho (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move topicon

[edit]

No transclusions except in one editor's sandbox. Proposed in 2020, apparently, but not used anywhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify on the "proposed in 2020" bit, here's the history as best as I can reconstruct it. In April 2020 Sdkb noted that the RM banner is relatively disruptive from a UX perspective and proposed a change to the banner. Generally there are three main issues with the RM banner which still apply in 2024 which I'll give in order of increasing severity.
  1. Unlike banner issues such as NPOV or inadequate sourcing, page titling is an editorial concern irrelevant to most readers. It contributes to banner blindness, and it immediately distracts the reader from trying to find the information they came to the page for.
  2. It brings a lot of noise to move discussions on highly trafficked pages. Our page titling criteria (e.g. COMMONNAME) and consensus based decision making (i.e. NOTAVOTE) are not well understood by the general public. Having closed a lot of requested moves including the 2020 Kyiv rename, closing becomes harder when you have a high volume of "ILIKEIT" comments and exceptionally so when it is on an active, high-profile, or geopolitical topic. This slows down the RM process and leads to the banner being up even longer which amplifies the first problem.
  3. The current RM banner and process are an effective vector for political campaigns to influence public opinion without actually needing to move the page. As a case study, take the inciting incident for this template which concerned the title of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation which had 4 RMs in 1 month. Biden supporters wanted to focus on the allegation by Tara Reade and pushed for leaving Biden's name out of the title and using the singular rather than the plural; Biden opponents wanted to highlight Biden and other less substantiated allegations by including his name and using the plural. Ultimately I think we got the call right, but the problem wasn't making the right call: for over a week while this RM was active we advertised in Wikipedia's voice, without citation, that a major candidate for public office may have engaged in multiple sexual assaults. I think that's a bad outcome, but it's remarkably easy to pull off: just start a "good-faith" move discussion and you get free advertising for your unverified POV on any page you like no matter how high traffic for 7 days (or longer if it attracts enough noise to make finding a closer difficult).
With all this as background, Netoholic suggested converting the RM notification from a page banner to what MediaWiki calls page status indicators and {{Move topicon}} was my attempt at implementing it. There was a technical problem with the template which caused it to stall out after a request to modify common.css, and given the pandemic at the time and other priorities I think it fell off everyones' radar. For the reasons above, I think it's still a viable initiative and worth keeping around in case someone wants to pick it up. — Wug·a·po·des 22:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur with Wugapodes that it should be kept given the ongoing need to reform the way RMs are advertised. If anyone would like to help out with the common.css issue, I'd love to pick up the initiative again. Sdkb talk 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Portals sandbox

[edit]

Used in only one sandbox which itself hasn't been used in years. The general Template:Sandbox heading is enough if needed. Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Belgrade

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/Belgrade task force is a task force. Usages should be replaced with {{WikiProject Serbia|Belgrade=yes}}. Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newyorkerize

[edit]

This template violates accessibility guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text, as screen readers will vocalize the diaereses, rendering the words unintelligible. I can confirm this is the case, as I tested the template by installing a text-to-speech web browser extension. Amendment: I may have incorrectly filed this, as my nomination was not for deletion but for discussion, as this is a templates for discussion. The issue isn't the mere use of the diaereses but its non-standard application of them, which would be vocalized by text readers. Svampesky (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not invent the diæresis. It's been part of the English language for at least a century; if there is an accessibility issue with people using uncommon orthography, this is something which needs to be resolved either by the embedding of metadata (e.g. setting a non-printing tag with correct pronunciation) or the improvement of screen-reading software. In either case, I posit it would be better to better handle this case through a coöperative endeavour, rather than immediate deletion of any template which (within five hours of its creation) does not emit perfectly compliant accessibility-supporting output to all software ever written. jp×g🗯️ 04:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on the issue, just this text: or the improvement of screen-reading software. That isn't something that can happen in a Wiki discussion. If there is an issue with screen readers and something we do (even if it is correct), we should stop doing it until the issue on their end is resolved. Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head -- we once had a user named ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ; we currently have a user named ජපස (his name is not even written like that irl, he just uses the letters). We have user signatures featuring stuff like "×", "🗯️", "☏", "¢", "😼", and the utterly cursed "𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇" -- we have people who use diacritics and diæresis on Latin characters in articles, talk page discussions and their own names. If it is in any way incumbent on us to avoid ever using characters outside of the standard ASCII set, this comes as extremely significant news to me. jp×g🗯️ 08:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is backwards. The burden is on screen-reading software to parse text as it exists correctly out in the world, not on us to change otherwise correct content to make it screen reader compatible. Sdkb talk 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's almost certainly better ways to go about this than immediately flagging something for deletion without so much as trying to consult the person that made the template first or even just creating a discussion about it on the talk page. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle. Nominating a potentially useful, and decently documented, template seven hours after its creation is too bitey (link for explanation of WP jargon; I know that JPxG is not a newcomer). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not find the accessibility argument the nominator made persuasive. However, I'm struggling a bit to see the utility of this template, as we don't really use the New Yorker style. Why did you create it, JPxG? I'm inclined to keep it if there's any valid reason, even if just for humor (templates are fairly cheap), although I'd consider adding {{subst only}} to the doc. Sdkb talk 15:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


August 5

[edit]
[edit]

The above templates can all be replaced with using {{Wikt-lang|code}} which produces the same result. This has the advantage of not needing to create and maintain code in dozens of different templates and documentation pages. See collapsed list for comparison between templates.

Comparison table
Old New
{{Wiktafr|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|af|test}} → test
{{Wiktang|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|ang|test}} → test
{{Wiktar|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|ar|test}} → ‏test‎
{{Wiktarg|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|an|test}} → test
{{Wiktast|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|ast|test}} → test
{{Wiktcat|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|ca|test}} → test
{{Wiktdan|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|da|test}} → test
{{Wiktdeu|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|de|test}} → test
{{Wiktell|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|el|test}} → test
{{Wikteng|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|en|test}} → test
{{Wiktepo|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|eo|test}} → test
{{Wiktfao|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|fo|test}} → test
{{Wiktfra|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|fr|test}} → test
{{Wiktfro|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|fro|test}} → test
{{Wiktfur|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|fur|test}} → test
{{Wiktglg|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|gl|test}} → test
{{Wiktgrc|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|grc|test}} → test
{{Wikthau|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|ha|test}} → test
{{Wiktita|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|it|test}} → test
{{Wiktlad|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|lad|test}} → test
{{Wiktlat|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|la|test}} → test
{{Wiktlij|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|lij|test}} → test
{{Wiktlmo|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|lmo|test}} → test
{{Wiktlzt|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|lb|test}} → test
{{Wiktmul|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|mul|test}} → test
{{Wiktnap|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|nap|test}} → test
{{Wiktnld|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|nl|test}} → test
{{Wiktoci|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|oc|test}} → test
{{Wiktpms|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|pms|test}} → test
{{Wiktpor|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|pt|test}} → test
{{Wiktroh|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|rm|test}} → test
{{Wiktron|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|ro|test}} → test
{{Wiktsco|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|sco|test}} → test
{{Wiktspa|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|es|test}} → test
{{Wiktsrd|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|sc|test}} → test
{{Wiktswe|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|sv|test}} → test
{{Wikttgl|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|tl|test}} → test
{{Wikttha|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|th|test}} → test
{{Wikttts|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|tts|test}} → test
{{Wiktvec|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|vec|test}} → test
{{Wiktzho|test}} → test {{Wikt-lang|zh|test}} → test

Module:Wikt-lang/data/iso 15924

[edit]

Language module not used by any other module or template. Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Himarë

[edit]

Unused and unlikely to ever be used, template creator is indefinitely blocked. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


August 4

[edit]

TBT champion navboxes

[edit]

Summer league semi-professional championships are not notable. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:10TeamBracket-2ElimC

[edit]

Unused and redundant to {{10TeamBracket-2Elim|upperstyle=3}}. – Pbrks (t·c) 14:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


August 3

[edit]

August 2

[edit]

Template:Ancient parishes of Northamptonshire

[edit]

This fails at least 3 of the criteria listed on WP:NAVBOX: "ancient parishes of Northamptonshire" is a topic so obscure that it does not have an article of its own (criterion 4) and is mentioned in few or maybe none of the articles that this template has been added to (criterion 2). The list is very long and busy for a navbox, meaning the appearance gives undue weight to an obscure topic on the articles it's been placed on, without even being very useful to users in terms of linking the articles together. Joe D (t) 19:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Msieshare1

[edit]

This template summarizes share of data for MSIE, but it can't be updated basically ever again as net applications has gone offline. Other websites such as caniuse.com or MDN no longer track MSIE at any version. If there's a need for a running snapshot of this data, it can be on pages of interest. We don't need a separate template for it any longer, as IE 11 is the only version of interest. Izno (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CSS list-style-type values

[edit]

This template hasn't been updated in a decade and a half. caniuse.com and MDN are better replacements and could be linked where relevant. Izno (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


August 1

[edit]

Template:David Tennant

[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 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this? Seems a bit tenuous with the family members and a couple of Doctor Who incarnations feeling like padding. --woodensuperman 15:54, 1 August 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:Chinese elections

[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 August 8. Izno (talk) 17:27, 8 August 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:Corman Poe

[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 14:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think we need this. Whilst it is a fairly well established cycle of films, there is no article specifically on the subject, and all films are already included in {{Roger Corman}}, so it seems superfluous. --woodensuperman 14:16, 1 August 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:Political Graveyard

[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 11:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not appear to have much use other than mentioning material in articles are from an online resource that has notably been labeled unreliable five times, with the most recent discussion taking place here. This temp just generates text linking to the Wikipedia article for the website, but it does not provide any actual source, and thus, leaves several articles without any sourcing, and is rather being used as a replacement to citing individual citations. It is categorized as an attribution template, although it does not appear to be in-line with the likes of {{Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity}}. Having a temp generating a faux citation to an unreliable database in place of actual refs seems like a bit of an issue, and it is used on 257 different articles. I would also like to add that {{Pg}}, which currently redirects to this temp, could potentially be repurposed as a shortcut to either {{Page}}, {{P.}}, or {{Reference page}}, as I have seen it get confused for those. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 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.

Old discussions

[edit]

July 31

Template:Birth year and age2

[edit]

Unused duplicate of Template:Birth year and age with no clear indication why another version is needed. Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, @Gonnym this template is in the same vein as {{Birth date and age2}} compared to {{Birth date and age}}. It's not a duplicate of {{Birth year and age}} because that template doesn't allow you to calculate age at a specified date, as compared to age as of today. If this is deleted, then {{Birth date and age2}} should also be deleted by the same reason. --Habst (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of what it can do that the other template can't? Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym, sure, here is an example:
How old was George Washington Carver in 1900? {{Birth year and age2}} can tell you:

1864 (aged 35–36)

The result is suitable for inclusion in any list of people (e.g. sportspeople) with their year of birth and age as of some achievement. {{Birth year and age}} can't do this sort of math, it can only tell how old something was as of the current moment, not as of any particular date. --Habst (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 11:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

Template:Iw2

[edit]

Duplicates {{interlanguage link}}, unmaintained and more or less unused (no article-space uses, only 7 transclusions). Primefac (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. {{Iw2}} does not duplicate {{interlanguage link}}. Compare
{{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} Hanning Schröder
with
{{iw2|Hanning Schröder|Hans Schröder|de}} ‹See Tfd›Hans Schröder ●
— Yuri V. (t•c) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Yuri V., what is the intention of your example above? We should not be linking to disambiguation pages in articles. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{iw2}} does not duplicate {{interlanguage link}}
  1. Indeed, compare {{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} and [[Hanning Schröder]], they identical, Hanning Schröder = Hanning Schröder. On the contrary, {{iw2|Hanning Schröder||de}} ‹See Tfd›Hanning Schröder ● we see, that article was translated, and remove iw2 to [[ ]].
  2. The template {{iw2}}, as [[article|any necessary text]], allows to write any necessary text, e.g. {{iw2|Fedir Vovk (disambig)|any text|uk|Федір Вовк}} ‹See Tfd›any textuk, so, after translation, appropriate bot removes iw2 and obtains [[Fedir Vovk (disambig)|any text]] any text.
— Yuri V. (t•c) 20:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
And which bot does this? Primefac (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BunykBot, see example 1, example 2, example 3, ... — Yuri V. (t•c) 02:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Does that bot run on en.wiki? Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, nor is it approved to run here. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. {{interlanguage link}} hasn't at least one possibility of {{iw2}}.
Indeed, compare {{ill|Fedir Vovk|de|Fedir Wowk}} and [[Fedir Vovk]], they identical, Fedir Vovk = Fedir Vovk. On the contrary, {{iw2|Fedir Vovk||de|Fedir Wowk}} ‹See Tfd›Fedir Vovk ● we see, that article was translated, and remove iw2 to [[ ]].
— Yuri V. (t•c) 19:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Duplicate oppose !vote struck. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing why we need to highlight a wikilink if the wikilink exists. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "highlight a wikilink" isn't principal, I remove it. The main feature is checking #ifexist: {{{1|}}} and a message "the article is translated", see pop-up ●. — Yuri V. (t•c) 16:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
But that's my point - if the article exists on enWiki, why do we need some sort of special "this has now been created" notice? If the page has been created, then it should show up as just a regular wikilink (which is what {{ill}} does) until it can be un-transcluded. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than ten years I wrote "template:iw2" on my page user:Yuri V. as the most nesessary template for me. This template is used on approximately 108,000 pages of ukwiki, 327,000 pages of ruwiki etc. I don't see or understand any harm from this template may be in enwiki.

P. S. Now there are exist uk:template:link-interwiki and pl:template:link-interwiki, they are better, much stronger and more comfortable than both {{iw2}} and {{interlanguage link}}. I'm trying to adapt them to enwiki instead of iw2. — Yuri V. (t•c) 16:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

What other projects do doesn't affect us. We have an interwiki template, {{ill}}, which is far superior to this template. I'm not saying that your efforts were not done in good faith, or that the template wasn't at one point useful (or is currently useful on other projects) but enWiki does not need it, which is why I am suggesting that it be replaced with (i.e. redirected to) {{ill}}. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but {{ill}} can't replace {{iw2}}. Only {{uk:link-interwiki}} is superior both {{ill}} and {{iw2}}. — Yuri V. (t•c) 17:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Deomyinae

[edit]

This template is unnecessary as we can always navigate the taxonomy via the taxonomic infoboxes. And now we have to maintain the taxonomy in 3 different places: the infoboxes, the genus articles (which list the species), and navigation templates like this. Why do we need such redundant systems that just create more work? Nosferattus (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a standard navbox that is used in many articles. Clearly useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is my preference, as I share concerns about keeping redundant information up-to-date across multiple pages. However, I don't understand why this template was singled out over everything else in Category:Mammal species templates and it's subcategories. Many (but not all) mammal species have navboxes. Very few other organisms have navboxes like mammals do. If I was going to single out one mammal species navbox for deletion it would be {{Murinae (Others)}}. The subfamily Murinae is split across 10 navboxes, why not just make one (massive) navbox for the subfamily? And putting two genera in the "Others" navbox is completely unintuitive for readers when the other navboxes are arranged by parts of the alphabet. Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think broadly the idea of navboxes which link the tree of life are reasonable. So from that direction I think this is a keep. However, I think this navbox does too much. It links pages which are clearly not WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (the parent taxa), and links multiple of the child taxa and their children, which I am not generally a fan of (see also User:Izno/Navbox constellations which pretty-naturally apply here). Izno (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, these topics are usually well-linked on the articles themselves to the child and parent topics. So yeah, I don't totally see the point in navboxes for tree of life stuff. Izno (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, there is extra overhead of maintaining subfamily navboxes and I don't think there is significant added benefit (due to the navigational redundancy). Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header

[edit]

Propose merging All of the above together.
These category templates basically set three parameters:

  • |Occupation=
  • |JobPortal=
  • |ParentOccupation=

Where the last two are the same value between the templates.

|Occupation= can be easily retrieved by using {{last word|{{PAGENAME}}}}, thus eliminating the need for endlessly creating these template for every single item, and using code to handle things more efficiently. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose for now. Hey there (as the template creators); I don't think that "|Occupation= can be easily retrieved by using {{last word|{{PAGENAME<nowiki>}}}" this actually applies. There are several nationalities that follow the structure of FOOians from COUNTRY, such as the Russian Empire and Georgia, and Northern Ireland. So it would not always grab the template. I do think that this could be generalized to a broader range of musical instruments, but not how you have described it. Part of the advantage of making the template specific to a given occupation is to keep flexibility if the parents change or another parent category is added. Each of the nominated templates have different parent categories.

At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. But merging them, as you have suggested, would eliminate that possibility down the line. I could see creating another layer on top that called a specific subtemplate based on the presence of a specific occupation, similar ot how Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header current works using |"{{#if:{{in string|source={{PAGENAME}}|target=FOO INSTRUMENT|plain=true|nomatch=}}". But I really would be reluctant to overgeneralize it. Mason (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overgeneralizing this system is much more better than having hundreds of similar templates like this. The maintenance burden in continuing with your current system is just insane. Regarding countries that won't work in the proposal, if you show a current category that it fails with it, I'm sure we can get it to work. Also, if the templates aren't complete then please stop creating more uncomplete templates and finish the ones that you've created. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why it is "insane" to have templates that are specific to a given occupation. Right now there are 5 in your nomination, not hundreds. These templates are designed to be flexible so that changes in the category nesting can be easily applied, and ease the present burden on handling parent and child categories for a given occupation. I see this is much less burdensome than having to go through each nationality. As I already said, "At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. ". What I mean what there is no need right now, because the parent categories don't exist at the intersection of century and nationality. I've added in an example for accordionists [1]. I thought it wasn't a good use for resources to go through multiple if checks for categories that don't presently exist. It isn't that the templates are incomplete, its that there is the potential that these categories might eventually differ. Mason (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think that a couple of questions and a suggestion on my talk page would have been more constructive than using ableist language to better understand the the purpose of the templates. Mason (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Verification requested

[edit]

It looks like this template is completely redundant nowadays. It seems that it was created to handle cross-wiki rename requests or something back in Ye Olde Days before Single-User Login was invented (checking if a user who wanted username X was the same as the user with username X on the other language wiki). However, with SUL now being a thing, this template seemingly hasn't been used since 2010 (no transclusions since december 2010), so it should be safe to subst out all 5 remaining uses of this and then delete this template (along with its redirect, {{ver}}) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 10:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subst usages and delete. The process hasn't been in need for over a decade and this simple link template isn't something we need to keep around forever. Gonnym (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Citation

[edit]

The 2018 TfD says that "a soft redirect in a module is not possible". That's not true anymore. require('Module:Module wikitext')._addText('{{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}}') would do exactly that. I'm not saying the closer made a mistake; Module:Module wikitext was created two years after the TfD, but that doesn't mean we can't reevaluate the close since things have changed now. Nickps (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Trappist the monk since their comment on RfD brought the module to my attention. Nickps (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, that require() doesn't work. I don't know why and I'm not going to take the time to figure it out. Currently, if Module:Citation is invoked you get:
{{#invoke:Citation|citation}}
Lua error in Module:Citation at line 1: This module is retained for historical and structural reasons; consider using Module:Citation/CS1..
I think that error message appropriate. Readers should never see it but editors will if they are doing something that they ought not do (and are paying attention ...).
If we want to 'soft redirect' Module:Citation can't we just add {{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}} to someplace in Module:Citation/doc and be done?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That require doesn't work because it just redirects the page. If you add a second line that says return require [[Module:Citation/CS1]] under it, then the module will be functional too. Nickps (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited Module:Sandbox/Nickps to demonstrate. {{#invoke:Sandbox/Nickps|citation}} gives Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which doesn't look too promising at first but it's the same error as {{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation}}: Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which means the redirect is working. Nickps (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just pushed the change to Module:Citation directly as a proof of concept. It can always be reverted later. Nickps (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that I am not understanding? You get the Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150 error message because of line 2 at Module:Citation (permalink). It is not obvious that line 1 (permalink) is doing anything that we want. If, as WP:SOFTREDIR says, Soft redirects differ in that they leave the reader on the redirect page that isn't happening because line 2 is pretty much the equivalent of a hard redirect. So tell me, what it is that you are attempting to accomplish with your edit? That edit puts the soft redirect outside of the module documentation. Wouldn't it be better to add {{soft redirect}} to the ~/doc page?
Part of my misunderstanding was that I expected an invoke of Module:Citation to do nothing but put up a soft redirect annotation and halt as WP:SOFTREDIR sort of suggests that it should. The soft redirect annotation is for direct wikilinks ([[Module:Citation]] → Module:Citation). That being the case, I see no benefit to be gained by using the module to create the soft redirect annotation when the same can be accomplished by including {{soft redirect}} in the ~/doc page.
Just what am I missing?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. If you open Module:Citation you're left at the redirect page. So by the definition you provide, that's a soft redirect. I don't see how a redirect being soft or hard has anything to do with what it does when transcluded. Now, we could move the soft redirect template to the documentation page, although that would require changing the second line (then only line) to return require('Module:Citation/CS1') to avoid creating a hard redirect. Or, we could avoid this entire conversation and go with Pppery's suggestion of making a hard redirect. Nickps (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it must be a redirect, let it be a hard redirect or (my preference) leave it as it was and delete {{Citation/lua}} as unused/unnecessary. And then let us be done with this.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on a hard redirect being better than a soft one. Nickps (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the previous TfD. Nickps (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History merge and delete per Izno. A page move should follow. Having this be a sub-page of a "dead" module has always seemed strange to me. Gonnym (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Css

[edit]

Template with no transclusions that has been marked as deprecated since 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't seem to be used based on incoming links. Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Presidency of Jimmy Carter

[edit]

Duplication of Template:Jimmy Carter. All links here are featured on Carter's main navbox. I can understand the the navbox being larger. But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Discussion of the template and other presidency vs. president biography templates is currently ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiCleanerMan and Randy Kryn: As I've noted in the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page, I believe there are serious content policy issues with the how the biography templates of U.S. presidents were before the creation of the separate navigation templates for their presidencies, specifically the WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX policies. Contrary to the comments made by User:Randy Kryn, I am not including every bill signed into law by a president during a presidential administration and only the ones that have Wikipedia articles. If a law, executive order, regulation, or other public policy has a Wikipedia article that meets the requirements of the general notability policy (WP:N) and is related to a particular presidential administration, then that should be major enough for inclusion in a navigation template about the presidential administration because the WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE policies explicitly require editors to not make judgments that certain topics related to a broader topic have greater importance than others when including them in a navigation template. In the absence of subject-specific notability guidelines, and if a law, executive order, regulation, or public policy does not meet the requirements of WP:N, it is not supposed to have a Wikipedia article in the first place.
    Likewise, speeches and foreign policy summits that do not meet the requirements of WP:EVENT are not supposed to have Wikipedia articles either since they are events under the terms of that guideline. Before I created the separate template, there were only a selection of topics related to a presidential administration in the biography templates with a greater focus of on foreign policy, state of the union addresses and other speeches, presidential inaugurations and transitions, and judicial appointments rather than domestic and economic policies. Criteria 4 of the WP:NAVBOX policy for good navigation templates requires that there that is a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template exist, and not every President of United States (POTUS) has a separate articles article about their presidency (i.e. William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield). WP:NAVBOX also suggests that navigation templates are better for small and well-defined groups of articles, which is why the I'd argue that only a link to the presidency article should be included in a biography template for a POTUS should be included, and all other articles related to a presidency should be split into a separate template about the presidency. This would preclude duplication, and there wasn't any duplication until User:Randy Kryn reverted the templates to how they were before the Template:Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox was created. WP:NAVBOX also does not ban templates with large numbers of links. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is an unneeded duplicate navbox of entries already present on the main Jimmy Carter nabox, and other duplicate navboxes have been created and entries removed (but reverted) from the individual navboxes. And yes, scores if not hundreds of tangential additions where the president is not mentioned in the article could be trimmed from presidential navboxes, which should not include every law that the president signed but only those which they initiated and/or worked to pass and were then semi-identified with them (LBJ's Voting Rights Act, FDR's New Deal legislation, etc.). This does not need additional discussion elsewhere, an obvious duplication of existing material. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This can be solved easily..., just add an expandable section for 'Presidency' on the very few oversized navboxes in the style of {{John Paul II}} (but without multiple expanded sections, just one would do). This would solve everyone's concern, and would keep the rest of the links about the subject - Wikipedia's map of the topic - in the same navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any ideas?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, my idea just above. Many navboxes include collapsed sections. There is no reason, when this option exists, to separate a president's record from the rest of their Wikipedia map. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can be an alterative, but people are adding too many articles as mentioned above, but this template has to go. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, it is both a duplicate navbox and becoming a magnet for tangential entries. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week since the last relist, this template still meets the merit of deletion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As do several others created in such a way which have the same issues. One problem is that this Carter presidency navbox was put in place of the actual {{Jimmy Carter}} navbox which has to be returned to the articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or split, but do not keep this duplication. Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same situation has occurred with the navboxes of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and others. It seems likely that each of the pages of presidential entrants of all these navboxes will have to be fixed. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rft

[edit]

I was going to originally suggest merging these two templates together, but after looking at the almost-zero transclusion count I realise that neither of them are really necessary; if a discussion gets moved to another location, we can easily use {{moved}} or type out "discussion moved to <link>", and if someone changes something (e.g. a signature) they can just... say so? It's not a bad idea but in practice it doesn't seem to have much use. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the single transclusion of {{Rft}} with {{moved}} and delete. Replace {{Refactored}} with the full sig and delete. Not sure why this is even needed. Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

Template:Empty-warn-NPF

[edit]

Similarly to {{Empty-warn}} (see RfD) the name is confusing. "Empty" is understood to mean either A3 or C1 but not A1 which does not apply to empty pages. This template was kept at a previous TfD because it was used by PageCuration but this no longer applies as it has been removed from Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is my preferred outcome since the template is unused but I wouldn't oppose moving it to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF which would be a reasonable title and would match the pattern in Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still used by mw:PageTriage. See deletionTags.json line 22. There are plans to convert PageTriage to use standard rather than custom (-NPF) templates in phab:T362477, but we're not there yet. These -NPF templates should stay in the meantime. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ideal. Cam we at least move the page to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF? The redirect left behind will make it so nothing gets broken and we can delete it as soon as deletionTags.json gets updated. Nickps (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel strongly enough about to bring it here. Let's make it happen. Nickps (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nickps Can you file a task to update deletionTags.json Sohom (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably wait for the TfD to close. For all I know someone may object. I'll do it right after that. Nickps (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how I picture it going. First the TfD closes as move so the template is moved to the new title and the redirect at the old title makes it so PageTriage won't get broken. Then I open the task to update deletionTags.json and finally when the update is made, I tag the redirect for WP:G6. Is that fine? Nickps (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't G6 the redirect. Redirects from page moves are supposed to exist forever, to help people track down pages that have moved. They cost nothing for us to keep :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case the redirect falls under WP:R#D2 since, as I've said above "empty" is not really associated with A1 but since the deletion isn't uncontroversial anymore, I'll take it to RfD when the time comes. Nickps (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a {{R from page move}} falls under WP:R#D2 (The redirect might cause confusion). Besides being a standard practice to leave these redirects (which is why the software automatically does it), it alleviates confusion rather than causing confusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please ping me when the TfD is closed so I don't forget to file the task. That is, unless you want to do it yourself. Nickps (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

Template:Resize

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Resize with Template:Midsize.
{{resize}} reduces text to 90%. {{midsize}} reduces text to 92%. As seen in the lorem ipsum samples at the bottom of {{Font size templates}}, they are all but indistinguishable. In the interest of eliminating unnecessary complexity, I suggest merging midsize with resize, making them "aliases" a la small and smaller. Uses of midsize would be further reduced from 92% to 90%. What are the odds that those uses will be adversely impacted? Exceedingly low, in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I somehow botched it using Twinkle. This should be a proposal to merge midsize into resize. No clue how to fix it since it affects a lot more pages than this one. (One would think Twinkle would be smart enough to catch this error. One would be wrong.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Earth page is completely broken due to a message going "‹ The template below (Resize) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›".
this should be fixed i think TerrariaTree3852 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt to fix this; see my contribs. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that 92% or 90% does not make any difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have an opinion about this template, but this nomination has broken the heavily used template:XfD relist. See today's RfD for example. Please can you unbreak it quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed (disabled the banner at transclusions). SilverLocust 💬 09:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative merge: {{midsize}} accepts |size=, which can translate to |1= in {{resize}} (if |2= is present, AFAICT). {{midsize}} also accepts |height= for line-height. Would we add that parameter to {{resize}}, or get rid of it? Someone will need to make a detailed plan for this merge to be successful. A sandbox version of the merged template would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone will need to make a detailed plan - Someone knowledgeable and eminently competent like you, I suggest. You could manage the "project" and delegate to worker bees like me. I could handle anything but template code changes, such as template doc changes etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have removed {{midsize}} from a number of templates in which it was violating MOS:SMALLFONT. Also, this proposed merge would presumably also affect {{midsizediv}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to keep commenting. I have found that the majority of uses of {{midsize}} are inside of navbox, infobox, and other templates in which the size of text is already reduced; I am working on removing those MOS:SMALLFONT violations rather than doing a template merge and then later having to remove it. This work should not affect the TFD outcome; I just don't want people to be surprised or suspicious when the initial 2,400 transclusions is drastically reduced during the course of this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another usage is using it in a unlinked note. This should be replaced with actual note templates like this. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Qwerfjkl and I have reduced {{midsize}}'s transclusions from about 2,400 to under 240 in article space by removing instances that conflicted with MOS:SMALLFONT. There are likely a few more that should be removed to comply with the guideline, but they are getting more difficult to find among the MOS-valid usages. If this discussion is closed as "merge", this trimming should make replacement easier. Also, I found only two instances of |height= being used among 2,000+ removals, so that parameter is probably safe to ignore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what to think about this. Resize is a shit name for a template that defaults to 90% but also actually resizes things. {{font}} exists if a use actually needs an arbitrary number. So perhaps that's one to throw in the mix being considered here. I don't think it makes sense to merge the two nominated templates for what they're doing and how they're named. If I had any thought, it would be to change resize's default to 100% and then shift midsize's down to 90% from 92%. Either that or up to 95% (which would make it a valid use in infoboxes; 95% x 90% > 85%) and actually make it reasonably "mid"... size. So in that case it may have been premature to remove midsize from where it is used... Izno (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree in principle, but a suboptimal name at the (widely used) target shouldn't stop us from merging two essentially identical templates. If someone wants to propose that {{resize}} be renamed or split, that's a separate discussion. As for removing {{midsize}} from infoboxes and navboxes, text in those boxes is at 88% already, so 97% is the most that internal text can be reduced to, which is a pointless change for readers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These aren't really all that identical though, if we're operating in the space of "templates that change sizes". Resize allows a block display and arbitrary font size. Midsize doesn't. And we shouldn't merge a template with a shit name into a template with... a half decent name. I think I'll make a bold comment now, oppose merge. Izno (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are pretty much identical. Midsize does allow a block content option, using {{midsizediv}}, mentioned above. It can be switched to {{resize}} with the |div= option. And Midsize does allow for arbitrary font size with the |size= option. I tried to explain all of this above, but it looks like I failed. Again, if the target name is a problem, we should start another merge or rename discussion, not bail out entirely on a valid merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not fail, I disagree with your characterization of similarity. But even if that weren't the case, I'm arguing that the names are sufficiently bad that the merge itself is bad and should be rejected. "Again". As for we should start another merge or rename discussion, you are empowered to do so. That's why I said "find another target". The alternative is to make it clear how these are different templates, which would be removing the arbitrary font selection in midsize. As for {{midsizediv}}, that's not part of this template despite your framing it as a question of options that would be in this template (it's not). Anyway, we're into circles territory at this point, so I suggest you disengage. Izno (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not entirely off topic: For another shit name, one with more adverse impact, see |upright= when used for image scaling. Been that way for many years and the shit name argument has failed in extended discussion(s). Seems we're inured to shit names. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 1 August 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=1236889243"