Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TD)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.

Closing instructions

On this page, deletion or merging of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

  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 they 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]

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

Tag the template.

Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

  • 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.
  • 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]]
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].

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). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

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.)

List the template at Tfd.

Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

  • 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. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
Notify users.

You generally should notify the creator of template and it is also considered polite to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. 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 these users, as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion. (There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: you should 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.


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 before the template page is deleted.

Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.


Current discussions[edit]

July 29[edit]

Template:Provinces of Zambia Image Map[edit]

Template:Provinces of Zambia Image Map (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused template DexDor (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Star Wars Junior Jedi Knights[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by Jenks24 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 19:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Star Wars Junior Jedi Knights (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Navbox in which all linked articles have been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junior Jedi Knights Series. Deor (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • delete, probably speedy per G8? Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Template:Film-fiction (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This template was used in only The Three Smiles, so I removed it from the page. Now it's no longer useful. Also, the template itself is redundant, as "fact" and "fiction" are easily distinguished in fictional films by very good editing. George Ho (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Back in the day, I disambiguated the "X type of article that needs to differentiate between fact and fiction" - I notice that when you look into Category:Film articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction, there are more than a couple articles. It looks like they use (for example) {{In-universe|subject = film|category = film|date = October 2009}} - which seems like a reasonable solution. Disavian (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, the template is not about classifying a film as "fiction" or "non-fiction", both rather signalling that the article needs to be edited to clarify which elements of a plot are factual or fictional; at least one "bot" account seem to provide the template as to tag for this purpose. There may be other templates that also perform this function which could be consolidated, but the criteria used to propose this one's deletion seems to misunderstand its purpose. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28[edit]


Template:Nosubst2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Created just under a week ago; zero transclusions, unclear purpose (no documentation). It appears to be a template that transcludes a template, the name of which is specified in the first (only) positional parameter. It may have no point either: using e.g. {{nosubst2|fact}} (without further parameters) is exactly the same as using {{fact}} (without parameters) but takes slightly longer to parse. A definite disadvantage is that if parameters are specified, they are not passed through, so {{nosubst2|fact|date=July 2014}} behaves as if it were undated. Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears as a signature transclusion. If when you signed it with 4 tildes it should replace with a signature template to stop signing much character that copied from a template. --Allen talk 20:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - It was created as a consequence of the umpteenth failure to understand WP:SIG#NT. Allen is also an editor on wikis hosted by Wikia, where the usual rule is that signatures should be templated because it reduces the amount of code in the source to a minimum. TFD surely isn't the place to discuss an editor's communication barriers, but I felt the information was relevant to clearing up why this template was created. moluɐɯ 21:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Template:! (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Keφr 10:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Soft redirect - It's a magic word now, and I can't think of any consequences, especially if every page is "officially" using the magic word now as evident from WLH. Per Frietjes. It would probably prevent any confusion as to why one of the most important templates was deleted.moluɐɯ 12:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) 21:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • soft redirect? this is what has been done with many other magic words. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • comment the documentation should be kept. If this is softredirected, the softredirect should carry documentation about how to use it, same as now. -- (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Keep or soft redirect , the documentation is useful, and helpful, and lets Wikipedian editors learning wikicode from our templates understand this. -- (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect, keeping edit history and full protection (for template editors, anyways). There is some interesting Wiki-history here. =) —Locke Coletc 12:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:BRICS countries[edit]

Template:BRICS countries (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:BRIC summits (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:BRICS countries with Template:BRIC summits.
Redundant. Merge similar to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Current_BRICS_Leaders. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support and rename BRICS--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • sure why not? Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note {{BRICS countries}} only really appears on country articles. If this is merged, there should be a way (a parameter) to turn off all other links except the country links, as I don't see the relevance of linking to summits in the country articles. -- (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
And how would some superflous links at the end of huge country article really matter? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Legislative districts of Valenzuela City[edit]

Template:Legislative districts of Valenzuela City (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

All links covered in the main Template:Valenzuela City.--RioHondo (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Template:Overlinked (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

27 transclusions. Of dubious value as a cleanup template given the ease of fixing the alleged problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I tend to agree with CC's position. Articles tend to have poor usability when aggressively delinked, as you need to hunt for links on the page if you knew the condition existed, or you'd believe no articles existed for likely key topic, as in long articles, the first occurrence may be nowhere near what you're reading, especially if you used a section-redirect or the TOC to get to where you're reading. -- (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This template has been in continued use for years, because there are always a few editors who exaggerate in adding links to articles. I have found this template useful in finding those articles. The argument by Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) is flawed, because this template doesn't serve to fix the problem but to draw willing editors' attention to it. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete When an editor sees there is a redundant link, a "link not relevant to the context", or a combination of (or multiples of) the 2, he can simply delete the few characters that create the link(s) (e.g., the [[ ]] brackets)--instead of typing all the characters for the hatbox code. (That is, the Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) argument is valid.) Moreover, Template:Cleanup suffices and makes Template:Overlinked of extremely low extra value. 30 SW (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The template is needed to draw attention to such articles. The fact remains that articles with heavy overlinking do exist, and these articles need attention drawn to them. Template:Cleanup is too general, so that is a non-argument. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Here's an example my usage: Doti District. There's way too many (and weird) red links/red-linked templates in that article for my liking. It's just unappealing to a reader and needs to be slimmed down. Just because a template is less used than others, doesn't mean it needs to be tossed in the bin. With the template applied, the issue is addressed and time is given to hand pick bad links out, whether it be too many red or blue links. Obviously, no article needs too many blue links (hence this template). They only need what's relevant. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes it may have few transclusions, but this does not mean that it isn't useful. Besides, if it was added to something like Twinkle, it might actually start being transcluded more. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ktr101: It is in Twinkle. It's under Specific content issues then links. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, this template is not meant to be used transcluded frequently. It is meant to draw attention to over-linked articles, so they may be fixed, and the template removed. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Full disclosure: I created the template. But I didn't create it for the occasional article with three links to the same article. Some people will link 60% of the words in an sentence. Also, more often, creating redlinks, often in lists. Or, in some type of advertising campaign, overlink a particular term many, many times. Sometimes, you don't have time (or desire) in that moment to rectify the problem personally, but as Debresser said, it will draw another willing editor's attention to the problem if he/she desires to correct it.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 12:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Not all useful templates will be use frequently. --I dream of horses (T) @ 06:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep One may not have the time to remove all those links. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - If an article has too many unneeded links, it may be useful to tag it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cite image[edit]

Template:Cite image (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Only one article use; replaceable by {{cite AV media}}; not mergeable due to differing parameters.  Gadget850 talk 10:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of nominating for deletion a template which is attached to a proposal (hence only one example usage)? It is clearly not replaceable with {{cite AV media}}, which is just a normal citation template for text in articles. It's a bit rude that you didn't read Wikipedia:Image citation or ever attempt to contact me before this nomination. Dominic·t 15:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication in the template documentation that it is attached to a proposal. If this is part of a proposal, then it should be marked as such and should not be used in articles. This has been in template space for six months. The only thing missing from {{cite AV media}} is the LOC ID, and that can be included as a separate template. This would also allow IDs other than LOC (I have worked with these before and understand how they work).
Lastly, this page is Templates for Discussion, and that is what we are doing here. One of these days we will change the TfD template to reflect this.

"[Inez Milholland Boissevain, wearing white cape, seated on white horse at the National American Woman Suffrage Association parade, March 3, 1913, Washington, D.C.]". Photographic print, [19]13 March 3. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-DIG-ppmsc-00031.

"[Inez Milholland Boissevain, wearing white cape, seated on white horse at the National American Woman Suffrage Association parade, March 3, 1913, Washington, D.C.]". (Photographic print). Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. March 3, 1913. LC-DIG-ppmsc-00031. 

I fail to see what harm the page is causing or why I need to spend my time defending it now. You nominated this page for deletion without giving anyone the courtesy of asking what it was for first or looking at the pages where it was used, and now you are insisting that we must discuss the specific design of a template for an idea that doesn't even have consensus yet here. You can claim that this isn't a deletion nomination and that you just want to discuss, even though it seems to me that that was not your original intention, but if you actually have comments on that proposal, please discuss it on the talk page where it is more appropriate and not here. Dominic·t 19:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment why is this called "cite image" ? Shouldn't it be called "cite file info" ? The namespace is called "FILE", and this would obviously be usable in non-image files. As for why "info" would be to distinguish citing files from citations for files. -- (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to user space or Wikipedia:Image citation/template or similar. It's a proposal which should be kept, although not in template space. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • move to userspace Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Anik Dutta[edit]

Template:Anik Dutta (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

fails WP:NENAN with just two valid blue links The Banner talk 20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William 14:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NENAN is not a policy and there is no consensus for the view that there is a minimum number of links necessary for a navigational template. The template has three blue links, not two, and as Dutta is an active director it is likely that there will be more links as time goes on. If the template is extended to include writing credits, which has been done elsewhere, the number of blue links increases to four, not that there's a magic number for survival. "Directed by" templates a common feature on WP:FILM articles and useful to our readers. Mackensen (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:ANOEP, with support for the expansion mentioned by User:Mackensen. I would think about putting this on Anik Dutta, as well. —PC-XT+ 01:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • weak keep, seems to be active, but no problem with reconsidering if it hasn't expanded in a year or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27[edit]


Template:PD-AustraliaGov (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This template is covered by {{PD-Australia}} which specifies terms for Australian State and Federal governments. The wording of the text erroneously specifies ...and was published... which isnt a requirement as PD in Australia only specifies was taken prior to 1955. Gnangarra 09:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • It might be worth keeping this template as a wrapper for PD-Australia that also categorizes the file specifically as being a government work rather than generically PD. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll support this conversion to a wrapper. We still could later redirect it if the category is decided to be unneeded. —PC-XT+ 02:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Pink Floyd singles[edit]

Template:Pink Floyd singles (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Pink Floyd (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Redundant to singles section of {{Pink Floyd}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I feel that the singles section of {{Pink Floyd}} is disorganized and lacking in information (ex. date of release, what country the single was released in, B-sides, etc.) This template expands on the singles category. However, if it is to stay, the singles section of {{Pink Floyd}} should be removed. Another idea is to add the singles template inside the {{Pink Floyd}}, in a manner akin to the {{Beach Boys}} template. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Better to improve the existing template than create a partial fork. Your additional information should be merged into the former. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Would merging require a new discussion? If this is merged, I'd obviously say delete —PC-XT+ 01:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge. Coverage at Pink Floyd discography is what is done for many musical acts. Only the more significant singles should be listed at Template:Pink Floyd, not all the singles from this template. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • merge Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge - Don't know who thought separating singles / songs templates from band templates altogether was a good idea or why it was allowed to happen. It needs to stop. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 22:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Missing article[edit]

Template:Missing article (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Search (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:Missing article with Template:Search.
I updated the missing article template so that there were no longer any dead links, and additionally added some new useful links, such as HathiTrust and I think the best way to go is to merge the templates, as they have the same uses, and simply make either one of them a redirect. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment {{search}} should not redirect to "missing article". Many uses for search are not anything related to a non-existant article. -- (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • merge, but use 'search' as the basename for the merged template. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting[edit]

Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

The project is inactive, the site if not dead is on life support. Most of it hasn't been updated in years and is certainly not a good source of content for WP, especially as this appears on mostly very active pages that long ago improved past the point where they could benefit from a refresh from CZ, if they ever could. Maybe once useful but now pointless clutter on some high traffic talk pages. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - I have asked the participants of WikiProject Citizendium Porting whether they are o.k. with marking the project as defunct (which would imply that this template should be removed). So far, one has said yes, one thinks it is premature and another is going to see if there is anything that can be done to resurrect the project. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep make the project defunct first. We should not delete the banner if the project is only inactive. This nomination is getting the process backwards. -- (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Why not? The reasons for deletion are it serves no purpose, both because the project is inactive and the site is dead by any reasonable metric. As it's inactive there's no activity to participate in if you follow the first link. If an editor on their own initiative visits CZ anyway they'll find it dead. A handful of content edits a day[1]. One article stuck waiting for approval for over two[2]. No new approved articles for three years[3]. The latter is a particular problem for porting content across.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep We shouldn't give up on this. Citizendium has in the past made it impossible to move WP articles to Citizendium ,and still makes it very difficult; I think this was a major factors inhibiting its growth--certainly my initial intent there was to work on articles suitable simultaneously for both encyclopedias. This project is the reciprocal one, to take the relative small amount of good content there where we either do not have articles or have just sketchy ones (most of their content does meet our standards, once their references are converted to our system, it's just that they have compared to us such a small amount of content). I've always meant to do some of this, but I have to admit I haven;t done any recently. But I nonetheless think it very important to keep up whatever connections we can maintain--their purpose is not opposed oto our, but complementary. Especially if they never od reach a critical mass, it would be good it =f the work done there was not altogether wasted. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @DGG: According to the table in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Citizendium_Porting#Articles, the last time any content was ported was November 2010. Aside from one editor who is no longer active, no new participants have joined since November 2011. If you're not yet ready to give up on the project, do you have a criterion for deciding when it is time? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Template:V (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Navbar (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:V with Template:Navbar.
They both basically do the same thing, namely provide V-T-E links. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. Links other than "view · talk · edit" have been deprecated in {{Navbar}} due to this similarity, or it would be partially merged, already. Other (largely redundant) features are summarized in the following table. —PC-XT+ 00:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Effect Navbar param(s) V (or View) markup
v · t · e |mini=1 {{v|t|e}}
view · talk · edit |plain=1 {{view|talk|edit}}
This box: view · talk · edit default This box: {{view|talk|edit}}
This template: view · talk · edit |text=This template: This template: {{view|talk|edit}}
[view · talk · edit] |plain=1|brackets=1 [{{view|talk|edit}}]
CSS for span |fontstyle= wrap in span HTML with style sttribute
CSS for div |style= wrap in div HTML with style attribute
v · m deprecated {{v|m|<page>}}
v deprecated {{v|<page>}}
  • {{v|<page>}} are used in a lot of templates. I think the syntax of navbar should be changed so the text is optional not forced (this box). Christian75 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Parameter syntax is completely incompatible. What is more probable is {{v}}, {{view}} and {{navbar}} calling on the same module in the near future. But I see no benefit in a merge. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of a wrapper or module, myself, but I'll support a merge if it doesn't cause problems. I think {{Navbar}} could basically wrap {{V}} for the same result, but merged into the same template, the article title looks like it would be a problem requiring usage change and editing of other pages. —PC-XT+ 02:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, wouldn't {{V}}'s {{{template|{{{1}}}}}} work for the article title in both templates? Maybe I was thinking of a different parameter... —PC-XT+ 02:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge, but I really like V's flexible syntax a lot more than navbar, so merge with navbar, but use V as the base and add navbar's functions to it. To make it easier, I'd suggest moving V to a better name (maybe Module:Templatelinks/{{templatelinks}}), make the merge update, then start orphaning navbar. -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Netoholic: Template:Navbar has over 7.5 million transclusions, and Template:V has less than 3500. If we merged, we'd definitely be merging V into Navbar (at least as far as names go), not the other way around. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • V's parameters make it the better merge target, as demonstrated by —PC above. The # of transclusions makes it even more important that the transition happen over time, and neither "V", "View", or "Navbar" are very good names for this merged template. I think my suggestion is the best plan, I don't care how popular navbar is. -- Netoholic @ 17:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I also think {{V}}/{{View}} is the better merge target, due to the way the parameters work, but if we rename it, the first "v" or "view" would need to be replaced by the new template name. {{Navbar}} could be a wrapped redirect, transcluding {{v|t|e|each_named_param=...}} in a similar way to {{View}} redirecting to {{V}}, (or just using a module for them both, as suggested earlier.) In this way, we could have both using the same code, adding functionality to {{V}}, but preserving the functionality expected for the widely used {{Navbar}}. (Unless a module is used, {{Navbar}} should probably handle |mini=1, using perhaps 2 or 3 #ifs, one for the named parameter used by {{View}}, and one or two (if there is trouble with the "|") to change the second and third parameters between "t|e" and "talk|edit".) If someone wants proof-of-concept code, I may have some time to write it this weekend, unless someone else does it first... —PC-XT+ 04:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a note: It hasn't been mentioned, but a module already exists for {{V}}/{{View}}: Module:Template view. I believe it to be fully functional now, but I held off on reactivating my PER when I saw this discussion. moluɐɯ 12:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
That module looks good. Any thoughts on adding more named parameters that do the same things as those {{Navbar}} provides? If this ends up being called from Navbar, text should be prepended by default, as well. —PC-XT+ 05:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Follow up comment 5.5 million of {{navbar}} uses are hidden invisibly within WikiProject banners and 1.8 million are similarly hidden within {{asbox}} (stub templates). These mega-use templates need to be looked at. In the case of the ones hiding the links, I see no reason to support them for the maybe dozen or so editors that have customized their CSS to see them. They could incorporate the relevant code into their templates directly rather than call navbar. Anyway, I just wanted to share why there is such scale to this particular template, and show where that transclusion count really comes from. -- Netoholic @ 10:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Fist, given that Edokter opposes (08:41 cmt), is a good indication of incompatibility (beyond surface observations). By myself, I know that {navbar} is tailored to a table environment, and uses <div> tags. This {v}/{view} tempaltes use <span> tags, so allow inline usage & handling (great). Also {v}/{view} is more flexible wrt the links provided, is what I need every now ad then. -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rajya Sabha Members from Odisha[edit]

Template:Rajya Sabha Members from Odisha (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

A possibly huge template. I am not saying its absolutely unnecessary, but its huge in capacity when formed fully. It comes from List of Rajya Sabha members from Odisha. We also have a Category:Rajya Sabha members from Odisha for navigation purpose. Plus, I guess this is the only in the lot Template:Rajya Sabha Members from Indian state §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Medical colleges in India and Template:Airports in India are also two huge templates. Is there any rule/ guideline against the size of this Nav. box ? In case of Nav. boxes almost everywhere there is a related category for navigation purpose. I don't understand what's the problem here. If this Nav. box violates any pre defined guideline/s, then it must be deleted I have no objection. Thanks --Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Having template for 15 entries is different from having it for 100+. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • keep, I do not think this is lengthy at this moment. There are overtly long templates. Plus, this is useful for the articles about the MPs. --SubhaUtter2me! 19:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Its currently not long as it's not fully updated. Note that templates can have red-links of notable entries which in future would be blue-links. If all names are added in it, it would have 100+ names in it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Kylie Minogue source warning[edit]

Template:Kylie Minogue source warning (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

A useless Kylie Minogue-related template; I replaced it with {{notice}} in Talk:Better Than Today. George Ho (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Template:Assess (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Previously used for WP:article assessment. Now it's no longer transcluded by any page, and the Wikipedia page is deprecated and superseded by its successor, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. It is time to delete this template. George Ho (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Open wikilink & Template:Close wikilink vs. Template:!(( & Template:))![edit]

Template:Open wikilink (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Close wikilink (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:!(( (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:))! (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Open squares (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete) (added 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC))
Template:Close squares (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete) (added 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC))

Propose merging Template:Open wikilink & Template:Open squares with Template:!((, and Template:Close wikilink & Template:Close squares with Template:))!.
Of course I may be mistaken, but do these templates do precisely the same things? If yes, and if this would not lead to some technical issues like a very costly redirect, I think they should be merged under the shorter (even though more cryptic) titles !(( & ))!, to follow {{((}} and similar. If closed to merge, please note that the former templates are older, so probably their edit histories should be kept at the final titles. YLSS (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • comment. Since this sets a precedent for {{square bracket open}}, {{square bracket close}}, {{open squares}}, and {{close squares}}, I think this discussion should include them as mergers to {{(}}, {{)}}, {{((}}, and {{))}}, in order to get as broad a discussion about the full template classes. VanIsaacWScont 23:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    Added {{open squares}}, and {{close squares}}, thanks for noticing. WRT {{square bracket open}} & {{square bracket close}} vs. {{!(}} & {{)!}}, quite possibly they should also be added, but I do not grasp the purpose of {{square bracket open}} & co., maybe some other hack was intended?.. YLSS (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    It seems that {{square bracket open}} & co. are for displaying a single bracket without triggering an external link in the parser. VanIsaacWScont 04:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    I meant the purpose of that construction with the second parameter to get either one bracket or two. If there is no hidden context, then yes, all instances of that template can be simply replaced. YLSS (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Ahh, I see you are right. I'd seen that functionality on the open/close combination templates, but didn't realize this one had it too. And just to make it official, if nobody registers an objection by the close, I do, in fact, support this merger proposal. VanIsaacWScont 20:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment for simplicity, keep the double and single bracket templates separate. That would have four templates, and multiple redirects to them. And have another template with a variable that defines how many brackets to display and whether they should be open or close. So a total of five templates. If a subst happens with the simple single and double bracket templates, then it won't spitout a boatload of template code. Simple templates being simplicity itself to maintain, and if as {{!}} was turned into magic words, that happens here, then we won't have a mess of complex or shimming templates to deal with. The forms to keep as very simple templates are {{!((}} , {{))!}} , {{!(}} , {{)!}} ; the complex flexible template should be {{square brackets}} -- (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:US links[edit]

Template:US links (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Less functional duplicate of {{United States topic}}. All articles have been changed to use 'United States topic'. Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates backlink is just a link noting that it has been replaced with another template. Bamyers99 (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia talk notice[edit]

Template:Wikipedia talk notice (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This template is almost redundant to {{Warning}}. I replaced it with that template in Talk:Wikipedia. If you disagree with the edit, you can revert it back to this template. George Ho (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - a template used for just the one page is pointless. Ollieinc (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment is this an antivandal feature? To move off the text so that people can't easily replace the text? -- (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jj98: - as creator, do you know? Ollieinc (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've created it myself around four years ago. I have no objections support deletion of it. JJ98 (Talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - highly unlikely to have any uses outside of where it already was used and is redundant. APerson (talk!) 19:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

Template:Grabbed by the Ghoulies[edit]

Template:Grabbed by the Ghoulies (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Template with only 1 relevant article. Death (personification) is not directly related to the main subject. None of the red links are likely to be developed into articles. Mika1h (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete - one link does not a template make. Ollieinc (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Concur, the "undeveloped" second game in the series unlikely to be an article. Characters unlikely to be notable in own right. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

Template:Nethope Members[edit]

Template:Nethope Members (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Single use template. Information can be transcluded into the parent article NetHope. The Banner talk 21:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge into article per nom —PC-XT+ 04:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Merge: a template used for just the one page is pointless. Ollieinc (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Bare url references need to be filled out; topic of the content must be specified (is it dates that members joined?); if these quality issues can be addressed, I would support a Merge into the article content. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Televisa telenovelas 1960s[edit]

Template:Televisa telenovelas 1960s (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Nearly all redlinks, and those entries that aren't are nearly all NOT to telenovela articles but point to film, book, song, album articles, to disambiguation pages, or to something else equally irrelevant. Template could be userfied pending creation of the necessary articles.

There are several other templates in the same series which could also be nominated for TfD for the same reason, but this one is an extreme example. NSH002 (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep: First of all create the template, so we can go slowly creating all those articles telenovelas, many of these items exist in the Spanish Wikipedia unfortunately do not exist here, but I'll create. for instance El diario de una señorita decente.--Damián (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The correct thing would be to write the articles first. You can only navigate between existing articles. The Banner talk 22:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I disagree, because I just can not write in a day all these articles, and also help for other users to see the template to create these items. Now I'll create some items, but if I want to delete do what they want, I will not lose my time here.--Damián (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You should have written the articles before you published the navigation template. The Banner talk 23:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • comment the others are correct that the articles should be created before the navbox. However, if you find it easier to create the navbox first, there is nothing wrong with creating one in your own user space, which can later be moved into the template space when the articles have been created. --NSH002 (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy, or alternatively comment out sections with no blue links—PC-XT+ 04:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep Adding red links to a nav template is fine if you intend working on them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • comment: That's exactly what I'm doing!. But hey, it's what others decide, I have already created some items and the template being used.--Damián (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You are doing fine! But to avoid headaches I would suggest that you give every year about five links. That gives you a better chance on a withdrawn nomination and a happy author. The Banner talk 20:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You are doing fine! I will change my !vote to keep once each year has at least one blue link, because I expect you will continue filling this out. —PC-XT+ 02:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on it, but in a day or two can not create many items, it's something you get tired, and do it relaxed. But if I'm working in each of those years telenovela.--Damián (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Damián80: All you have to do is comment out the red links until you get to them. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Blofeld, you are needlessly complicating things for Damián80. Let him work in peace for a couple of days. Let us say, till Friday. Usually we have no deadline, so giving him some space to work. That will harm nobody. The Banner talk 12:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

How is it complicating things?? A too huge number of red links will attract delete votes here. I don't want him to feel rushed in blue linking them all. Let him do it by year gradually at a comfortable pace. I've told him to let me know when he wants years opened up again so there should be no problem.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld editions were correct, say we look good for now. To what can finish all items.--Damián (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Society portal box bottom[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Society portal box bottom (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused template DexDor (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete - unused template; the complementary template Template:Society portal box top was deleted in 2011. Ollieinc (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Open curly bracket[edit]

Template:Open curly bracket (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This has only one transclusion. I can't see how it is like {{!}}, as the curly bracket doesn't have other functions like | does. Pointless template. Rcsprinter123 (talk) @ 09:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

KeepRedirect: without it, some pages display highlighting incorrectly if a bare { is used, such as MasterChef New Zealand (series 5) - see the difference between with the template and without the template. Without using the template, the rest of the article will be highlighted orange by default. Ollieinc (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's really so much of a problem. How many people actually use Syntax Highlighter? Rcsprinter123 (chatter) @ 20:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Redirect or delete: {{(}} does the exact same thing. Either redirect the template there or delete it and change the one transclusion to the shorter template. moluɐɯ 13:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{(}} as redundant —PC-XT+ 04:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{(}} as the fully specified name -- (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Template:The Butterfly aircraft[edit]

Template:The Butterfly aircraft (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Fails WP:NENAN with only two relevant blue links The Banner talk 11:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay and not Wikipedia policy nor even a guideline. As an essay it is not well accepted on Wikipedia and other essays contradict it such as WP:ANOEP. This is a bad-faith nomination against a consensus that the nominator participated in and found here that all WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes are useful and should be retained, regardless of the number of blue links presently in the template. This consensus in no way affects TfDs of other templates outside the purview of WikiProject Aircraft. Both here and here the nominator states that he will not accept any consensus about WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes and will continue to nominate them for deletion against consensus. Here and again here he indicates that his motivation for doing this is one of revenge. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Please stop those senseless personal attacks, mr. Ahunt. Everybody knows this song by now. And it is only a method from you to discredit the nominator to protect your own dodgy templates. The Banner talk 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • KEEP AND CLOSE. This nomination has triggered a complaint at WP:ANI, see here, following an extended period of destructive mass-nominations and in defiance of ongoing discussion. This nomination should be summarily refused and closed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NENAN is an essay, not a policy, and there is little evidence that said essay enjoys wide support within the broader community (which is the definition of a policy). These navigation templates are a common feature of aircraft articles and are conspicuous by their absence. They link related articles which are not often otherwise discussed in text yet which are related. Considered as part of the article, instead of just an abstract occupant of the template namespace, the template is both necessary and useful. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for now — It could use more blue links, but there are nearly enough. I also considered the potentially pending RfC. —PC-XT+ 04:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The navbox looks perfectly suitable to me in the articles transcluding it. The essay, despite its promising title, degenerates rapidly. It seems to me that the essay is at fault rather than the template. Thincat (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It has been long established that templates with just two relevant links are delete material. Why should the Wikiproject Aviation be any different?...William 12:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: Because we have a strong consensus to that effect here. There is no reason that all templates should be treated the same across Wikipedia. In fact WP:REDNOT, an accepted guideline, specifically permits this, "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, etc."- Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @WilliamJE: I asked in an earlier discussion where this was "long established" and I didn't receive an answer. Wikipedia operates on a mixture of formal (written) and informal (convention) policies. The latter are more easily overridden by individual discussions. WP:NENAN is an essay. It has never received the imprimatur of the Wikipedia community. It enjoys no more formal standing than WP:ANOEP. Participants in this discussion are free to ignore WP:NENAN and a closing administrator who relied on it would be making a reversible error. Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:User ![edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete (housekeeping) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:User ! (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This template was originally used to allow multiple columns in {{Babel}}; however, when writing Module:Babel, I decided to have td tags called as ! inserted explicitly as tags. This was mainly because the table is created with html instead of wikitext. With the job queue finished updating all 33,000+ references of the Babel template to be recognized as using the module, User ! is down to 3 transclusions. With its functionality obsoleted, I don't think it is necessary as a template any longer. moluɐɯ 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as a template with no purpose. APerson (talk!) 14:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as unneeded —PC-XT+ 04:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

July 23[edit]

Template:Food industry criticism[edit]

Template:Food industry criticism (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

A clear example of a WP:POVFORK. A generic food industry template should be made and criticism be made a section of it. Additionally there are potential problems with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR arising from what was chosen to be placed in this template. AioftheStorm (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. I created this template because several articles that dealt with the subjects in the template just linked to each other in their "See also" section. I thought a template was a cleaner way to deal with linking to similar subjects. I don't have a problem with a general "Food industry" template, but with all the content of this template and more for a general one, I'm afraid it would become HUGE and unusable. Anyway, I think it serves a purpose and should be kept. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree that the template cleans up the previous info, and does well at serving its purpose, but I disagree with the purpose it is serving and elaborate down below.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Strange combination of subjects. The Banner talk 19:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - I believe fears over synth and or may not apply as the films and articles covered are specifically covering criticism of the food industry. I would not be opposed to making to a general food industry template - although it may become too large. An alternative way may be to make it something along the lines of 'Media on the Food Industry'. This would allow for a template including these films and books, but also allow for less critical media to be added - without trying to cover the whole food industry. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The problem with synth comes from the placement of food safety issues from disparate times and places within the same context to imply they are comparable in some way, without a source placing these within the same context for us. How is Upton Sinclair's criticism of meatpacking plants in early 1900s USA related to food safety incidents in contemporary China? If they were specifically covering the same thing, then okay maybe, but Earthlings is a look at animal cruelty in general, from pet ownership to cosmetics, Super Size Me is a criticism of fast food, and The World According to Monsanto is a criticism of the corporate practices of a seed and herbicide producer, this media is clearly only barely tangentially related to one another.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • This true of any temple. Just because two articles are on a template doesn't mean they are linked to one another - just that they are linked to the templates topic. For example Template:Social sciences features Law and Food Studies - the template isn't trying to suggest these are comparable.Jonpatterns (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
        • What's true of any template is that there are sources linking the topics together. Law and Food studies are commonly placed in categories of social sciences, Earthlings and The Jungle are not commonly compared to one another by sources.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Perhaps some entries in this template could be removed but for so long as Wikipedia has enough articles on food industry criticism to fill a navigational box, it seems fine to have that box. If this were made into a food industry navigational box then the criticism would be overly represented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • so long as Wikipedia has enough articles on food industry criticism to fill a navigational box
    • So are you saying you would be fine with the creation of a Template:Criticism of homosexuality, and then having that template placed at the bottom of every article about a piece of media that is critical of homosexuality, because we have a lot more media on that than we do this. We have enough material to make Template:Criticism of X templates for hundreds of topics, but we don't because we specifically disallow such pov forks.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't how many articles are present on Criticism of Homosexuality or on Criticism of the Food Industry. I don't see why the quantity is important? I imagine that the Criticism of Homosexuality articles all have links to the other article on the same subject under See Also. Unless you think using a template somehow gives it extra weight? I'm not opposed to making the template something along the lines on Media about the Food industry. That why any perceived negative connotations are removed, it would work with the example too - Media about Homosexuality.Jonpatterns (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why the quantity is important?
This was in direct response to the user above me who argued that if the quantity is large enough to fill a template then it seems fine to have that template.
I imagine that the Criticism of Homosexuality articles all have links to the other article on the same subject under See Also.
There is a huge body of anti-homosexual media out there, individual articles cannot and do not link to them all in their see also sections.
Lastly, my main concern is NPOV which a "Media on X" template would satisfy. If nothing else a renaming of this template to "Food industry media" would at the very least humor my concerns.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep per Frεcklεfσσt's argument Ollieinc (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Drunk In A Dumpster[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 19:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Drunk In A Dumpster (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Not an actual template for anything. Whpq (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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


Template:Highway (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

{{jct}} already supports the function of this template for every state in the US, every province of Canada, all of their territories, and many countries around the world. Since jct is widely used by the various highway projects, it is well-maintained, and this template was easily orphaned by replacing it with jct. Imzadi 1979  05:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is an “on-again-off-again” project that I simply haven’t worked on for a while. The template also support generic square and round/oval route markers (which {{jct}} does not do). Also, {{jct}} is not suitable for use in Route Diagram Templates because it breaks their formatting and flow. Useddenim (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • A few points: {{jct}} doesn't need to support "generic" square or circle markers, because it supports the actual markers for every state, province, and territory in the US and Canada plus many foreign countries. This includes the states that do use the circle or square as their marker. {{jct}} also supports the banner plates above the marker for alternate/business/bypass/connector/truck routes, it properly handles disambiguating links when there are multiple highways by the same number in a state, and it links directly to the state-specific sub-article for an Interstate or US Highway, all things {{highway}} cannot do. Lastly, it is suitable for use in those templates, and it is in use in them already. See {{WMATA Red Line}}, {{BART Red Line}}, {{Sugar House Streetcar}}, {{M-1 Rail route diagram}}, and many more. Imzadi 1979  21:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
      • So you're saying that editors should use {{jct}} with its 27 parameters (but surprisingly no way to adjust the icon size) as a replacement for a simple, streamlined template? I admit that {{Highway}} certainly needs more work, but {{jct}} certainly didn't spring into existence fully fleshed out with its thousands of bytes of code and dependent upon dozens of sub-templates.
        I haven't figures out the pattern of circumstances yet, but in some cases {{jct}} does breaks the formatting. I don't understand why you're engaging in such insistent POV pushing to eliminate this template. Useddenim (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I think you need to read the link to the subsection of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute you supplied, and once you absorb its details, you'll need to retract a personal attack you just made in your last reply. Neutral point of view refers to the presentation of content in articles; editors should be expected to have opinions in situations like this, and they should be allowed to express them in a civil fashion to advance their viewpoints. And for the record, {{jct}} does not have "dozens of sub-templates"; rather it has just one, a few testcase pages, a sandbox and some documentation pages. Over 3/4 of those entries are for other templates used to make road junction list tables, names which just start with "jct". Imzadi 1979  01:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
          • You still haven't satisfactorily explained why you don't want to let me to continue to develop {{Highway}}. Will it really break Wikipedia to have an extra template? Useddenim (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
            • See WP:T3, which is policy. This is a substantial duplication of the jct template. {{jct}} will, and does, handle the function of {{highway}}, and it does so for provinces and states you haven't implemented yet. Imzadi 1979  04:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
              • My intention is/was to create a simpler/smaller template than {{jct}} with icon images that are less obtrusive, for use in WP:RDTs. Similar? yes; a subset? yes; needs work and better coding? yes; substantial duplication? NO! IMO, with {{jct}} you're trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Useddenim (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
                • Looking only at two-digit Interstate/U.S. markers, there's a 3-pixel difference. For three-digit Interstate/U.S. markers, there's a 6.4-pixel difference in height. (The highway template is keeping them at a constant 17-pixel width, yet the three-digit markers are 25% wider, meaning the height drops to 13.6 pixels.) If by meaning "less obtrusive" you mean that the default output links the graphic to the article instead of supplying a text link, that's also bad since it's running against the accessibility advice at WP:ALT, something we fixed in jct about 5–6 years ago. If jct has extra functions you don't need, ignore them when you use it; a Swiss Army knife is still a great pocket knife. (jct is not using "excessive force" or doing something "overzealously" to accomplish its task of displaying the appropriate graphic in a format that complies with accessibility advice followed by the appropriately disambiguated text link.) Imzadi 1979  10:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • A valid point about width, but an easy coding fix: the height should actually be fixed at 17 pixels. Useddenim (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • delete, assuming the necessary functionality is really provided by {{jct}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, the necessary functionality is really provided already. Both templates call the appropriate graphic for a highway marker. {{jct}} supports every state- or territory-maintained highway type in the United States, plus things like county roads and specific markers for toll roads. It also supports all of the types of highways in Canada, Australia and several other countries. After jct calls the appropriate graphic, it supplies a text link to the appropriate article, and in the US for Interstates or US Highways, it links to the appropriate state-detail article. jct also has additional parameters to add intermodal icons and destination cities/locations listed on highway guide signs when used in the context of highway junction lists, junctions that wouldn't be needed in the railroad uses.

      In comparison, {{highway}} uses the graphic itself as the link, a behavior not common on Wikipedia. It also cannot link Interstates or US Highways to the state-specific link. In some cases, that means it will link to a disambiguation page ("Interstate 275" is a dab page, and the articles are "Interstate 275 (Michigan)" for each state's highway).

      On Template:Brown Line (Pittsburgh), the 7th row down relies on hand-coded supplemental links to the state-specific US 22 and US 30 articles. Compare I-376.svgUS 22.svgUS 30.svg I-376 / U.S. 22 / U.S. 30 vs. I-376 / US 20 / US 30. Imzadi 1979  01:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

      • Yes, compare indeed. In the first example the icons are approximately the same height as the text; in the second they overpower the text—not something that is desirable in a rail diagram (where the roads are not the primary feature). Useddenim (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, Perhaps this could be moved to userspace? --Zfish118 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Superfluous to {{jct}}. Dough4872 03:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - is Highway substantially easier to use than Jct, also can Jct be fixed work with Route Diagram Templates? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @Jonpatterns: You're asking two questions, so I'll try to briefly give you those two answers.
      1. As far as ease of use, jct is actually easier. To output the graphic + a proper text link with {{highway}}, an editor has to the use template and append the text link after it; with jct it handles both functions at the same time. When it comes to concurrent highways, one transclusion of jct will handle all of them. For the I-194/M-66 freeway in Battle Creek, Michigan, {{jct|state=MI|I|194|M|66}} will give you: I‑194 / M‑66. (Not that most rail diagrams will need it, but jct will support more concurrent numbers just by continuing to alternate the types and numbers as needed.) If I use {{highway|state=Interstate|route=194}}, it gives me I-194.svg, which links to a disambiguation page (oops!) because the template is assuming "Interstates" are a "state". Additionally I can't add a {{highway|state=Michigan|route=66}} because it only handles a vary limited selection of highway types, yet jct handles the US, Canada, and dozens of countries' highways.
      2. jct already works with route diagram templates, as noted above with {{WMATA Red Line}}, {{BART Red Line}}, {{Sugar House Streetcar}}, {{M-1 Rail route diagram}}, and many others. Imzadi 1979  09:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case a would support Delete as highway appears to be just duplicating work. If there are some unique feature in Highway prehaps they can be merged in to Jct. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
A size parameter would be nice, but I don't think that it's likely to be included in {{jct}} as it's a locked template, and Imzadi1979 seems to be zealously engaged on a crusade to eliminate {{Highway}} rather than improve {{jct}}. Useddenim (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
If the size parameter was added to Jct would you still want to keep Highway? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
In lieu of a "size" parameter, I've added {{{rdt}}} to the sandbox. Passing any non-empty value for it will set all shield sizes to x17px. The sandbox version should be deployed sometime early next month, though I can expedite it if need be. -happy5214 10:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete With a parameter that can force the smaller sizes in this template being added to {{jct}}, there is no need to keep this template. -happy5214 10:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Another fix needed for {{jct}} is a thin space between multiple icons (as highlighted by the example I-376 / US 22 / US 30 above: note how the two US shields but up against each other.) Useddenim (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Are thin spaces relevant to this discussion? I don't see them anywhere else here. -happy5214 15:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
        • The existing template has no facility for multiple markers, and existing uses do not manually insert a thin space, so this the outcome of this discussion does not rest on this latest request. Imzadi 1979  16:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

July 22[edit]


Template:MH370 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This isn't a navigation aid between related articles, it's an assorted collection of topics vaguely having to do with MH370, all already linked and discussed on the main article, but unrelated to the others. Only the main article and the absurd conspiracy theory article are directly about the disappearance, while the rest are as generic as bodies of water and the U.S. NTSB. This does not meet the criteria of WP:NAVBOX, as they are not specifically related to the disaster, though the disaster may have (barely) involved them; very few of the articles linked mention MH370; almost none of the articles refer to each other at all; and these wouldn't be linked in a see also section, they're just mentioned in MH370 article body and for some reason duplicated here. Reywas92Talk 00:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • delete per nom, with no prejudice against recreation if a real navbox is needed later. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – per nominator. United States Man (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Flight 370 is not a defining aspect of any but one or two of the articles in question. Arsenikk (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nominator Ollieinc (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – The infobox mainly just lists several vaguely related topics to MH370, and most relevant links may be found in the prose anyway. Dustin (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, since I am assuming all the relevant links are in articles, already —PC-XT+ 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Nina Sky songs[edit]

Template:Nina Sky songs (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Nina Sky (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:Nina Sky songs with Template:Nina Sky.
Filing this on behalf of a user who incorrectly placed a PROD on this template and suggested that the template could be merged with Template:Nina Sky. At the moment, I personally have no position as to whether to keep, merge or delete. I will notify that person so he can make a comment here if he wishes. Safiel (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge "Template:Nina Sky songs" into "Template:Nina Sky" - Templates consisting almost entirely of songs are almost always reserved for artists with large navigation boxes consisting of a multitude of songs. I have included all of the Nina Sky articles in the navigation box that I can contemplate, therefore, anything else can go under related. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Merge per nom Ollieinc (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Merge per Jax 0677 —PC-XT+ 20:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:MediEvil series[edit]

Template:MediEvil series (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Fails WP:NENAN with just three relevant links (the links to related articles and the link to the parent article are usually not counted as "relevant link") The Banner talk 10:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep: series could easily expand in near future. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Is there any indication that more parts are on the cards? The Banner talk 21:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NENAN is not a policy and does not enjoy the support of the community. This is the only navbox linking many of these articles and clearly the editors who work on these articles thought they were relevant. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It could be easily solved with normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 21:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • keep appears to connect at least 4 articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I count 5 articles that I consider relevant, (including the title article,) plus the developer's page, which isn't included in the navbox. —PC-XT+ 20:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Template:P (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

[Not sure if TfD is the best forum for this; please feel free to suggest alternatives]

This template is currently a short redirect for {{smiley}}: Face-smile.svg

I propose to re-purpose if for Wikidata properties, as a primary usage (that's also how it's used on Wikidata). My plan of action would be:

  1. have a bot subst: all instances.
  2. move it without a redirect, to another suitable short name, for future use
  3. Recreate the Wikidata equivalent, on this wiki

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. I wrote this template nearly eight years ago and it was then changed into a redirect four years ago. It is an incredibly useful template that is used roughly a kajillion times on talk pages (it's supposed to be subst'd). It is intended to be incredibly short and easy to introduce, because we should be smiling frequently Face-smile.svg. And when you type it out, it makes a little smiley face at you with the tongue sticking out. Unless I am horribly misunderstanding the proposal, there exists no reason to recreate the Wikidata template at Template:P; it could be recreated with any title, such as {{WDP}}. Red Slash 22:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • comment you probably want WP:RFD, since you discussing a redirect. Frietjes (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Estudiantes Tecos squad[edit]

Template:Estudiantes Tecos squad (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Template should be deleted since the team does not exist anymore. GoPurple'nGold24 07:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • delete, defunct. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox hurricane current[edit]

Template:Infobox hurricane current (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This template is used to track information only about active storms, and is then replaced once the storm is over. In attempting to resolve a prior TFD merge decision for this template and some similar ones, I instead began incorporating its functions into the main {{Infobox hurricane}}, which has an almost identical (but larger) selection of fields, and needed only a few modifications to support "current" storm information. The results can be seen in this testcases section, where you can also see that the "current" template uses a non-typical infobox style, which I've attempted to standardize as part of the merge, while preserving its basic requirements. Since this function can now be fully served by using an existing template (and to settle the issue with some editors that "just don't like it"), I recommend deletion. Netoholic @ 02:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Netoholic did not link to the discussion where significant opposition to his approach has amassed, and which shows that he insists on ramming changes that only he believes are constructive, ignoring the consensus developing against his edits. Instead, he decides to prove a point by trying to delete a template that is used by WP:WPTC for all current storms (such as 2014 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Depression Two). He insists on a complex merge of two templates ({{infobox hurricane}} and this template) that do not share a common use case, and as a result make no real sense to place together. Netoholic's changes would be welcome to {{infobox hurricane current}}, but his insistence on changing existing editorial processes because of WP:ILIKEIT is becoming disruptive to the point where users are considering referring him to AN/I. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • This is not matter of WP:ILIKEIT, this is practical elimination of unnecessary complexity and following the spirit of the original TFD - I am just a worker bee in WP:TFD/HC. There's no complexity, the work has already been done, and testing shows that in practice, the template will work just fine (in fact, better than before, as right now editors maintain both templates in parallel (main one commented out like this). There is no point putting further development work into a template like "hurricane current" when its function can be incorporated into an already standard and widely-used template. -- Netoholic @ 02:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It may work, but this "current" template works much better for members of the project to maintain current seasons. That is just how it is, no matter how much work is done. United States Man (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
        • How were you "following the spirit of the original TFD" by trying to merge this template? YE Pacific Hurricane 03:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Please give evidence to support your claim that "this "current" template works much better". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
          • No, you give me evidence that this template works better. This change was just a pain in the ass for everyone. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep – There is more or less a consensus against this at the same discussion Titoxd refers to. Since Netoholic could not win there, they have moved here to try to gain support. This would really hurt WP:WPTC, as this is an essential part of maintaining a current season. The merger is unhelpful to the project, and, as Titoxd said in an edit summary, this is a WP:POINT nomination. United States Man (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per the points raised by Titoxd and United States Man.--12george1 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's farcical to have different templates for current and past instances of the same thing, and we've merged several on that basis in recent months. No cogent reason to keep the templates separate have been given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You must've not read User:Titoxd's comment. Just because others have been merged doesn't mean this should be as well. The current template is set up for a specific purpose, to provide complete information on current storms. That is something that {{infobox hurricane}} cannot handle, no matter what changes are made. United States Man (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Please don't presume to speak for me, nor to make assumptions about what I have or have not read. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is inappropriate; and your closing assertion is hookum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Netoholic, why are we merging this to infobox hurricane? It was fine to leave it in infobox hurricane current. Supportstorm (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with {{Infobox typhoon current}} to {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}} – The template has served well, and it has a better appearance when used (the template remains at an acceptably narrow width even when changing computers). However, I wouldn't object to merging with {{Infobox typhoon current}} to {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}}. That would be the most accurate title in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep – Simple template that allows us to easily maintain information on current tropical cyclones rather than having one all-encompassing and cumbersome template that covers both active and inactive ones. I don't see any reason why this needs to be removed as we phase this specific template out when a storm dissipates anyways. It's a preference among editors of tropical cyclones articles to have this. Truthfully I think it's rather silly to try and cram everything together when it works just fine the way it is. This is simply a case of trying to fix something that's not broken. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is working fine now, and has worked fine since 2006. It works easier having them separate, speaking as a member of the tropical cyclone project. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I can see both sides in this debate.Jason Rees (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - every "keep" voter here so far is a member of the WP:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones (and by their usernames you can tell they are very dedicated to that area). A link to this discussion was posted on their talk page. Hopefully we can re-list this one to get some neutral perspectives outside of this particular walled garden. I do believe any objective look at the functions of these templates would see that a merge not only means simplification, but also consistency, as the "current" template looks nothing like standard infoboxes, and uses fields that are a subset of the same ones used in the main infobox. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    How is this a walled garden? This debate has been advertised on the TFD log and open to discussion for nearly a week. That you might not get your way is hardly reason enough to call for a second discussion. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    So having feedback from the people who actually use the template on a regular basis and, thus, are most qualified to say whether or not the template is useful, is a bad thing? DOSGuy (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Why does it matter what wikiproject we edit? If anything, it helps our case. After all, we are the ones using the template and we don't want it gone. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't delete something that works just fine. It makes it clear if the storm has dissipated or if it is ongoing. ExtraTropical11 (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for now if the project actually relies on the template name to differentiate between editing modes, but merge if the structure of the resulting template can easily make the same differentiation, in both article visibility and wikicode. I don't think it would be hard to style the same template slightly different, if that is even necessary, but the project seems to be arguing that a parameter in the template wikicode would be harder to spot than the template name, making the storm status less clear for editors. Also, WhatLinksHere can be used to keep track of ongoing storms, though a category would more or less do the same thing. I expect this will be overcome, eventually, allowing a merge similar to the other "former" template merges, but for now, consensus seems to be lacking. —PC-XT+ 20:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Alternatively, I would support a merge per User:Dustin V. S.'s proposal, above, though I believe that would require a new discussion. —PC-XT+ 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

July 21[edit]


Template:Wikidata (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This template is pointless since every article already includes a link to it's Wikidata page in the Tools section of the sidebar. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep/Merge, I throw my "vote" more towards keeping this template; this would be useful to highlight significant content at the sister project for novice users who may not even be aware of Wikidata. However, it might also be merged into Template:Sister project links for greater consistency. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: To avoid a piece meal approach, other individual "sister project" templates ought to be included in this discussion. There should be a consensus regarding this category of templates in general. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Which other templates? Are there more templates which are duplicated in the Tools section of every article? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if no other sister templates have such a "tools" link, it would be inconsistent for there not to be a template for Wikidata. Not every article has obviously related Wikidata; pointing out articles that are good examples can make new users more aware of the sister project. However, the piece meal approach I more specifically referred to would be merging the individual "Wikidata" template into a larger "Sister" project template, but not other individual project templates. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment is this for linking to a secondary interwiki set? (ie. If you have "Japanese (disambiguation)", you could link to translations of the term "Japanese" that are disambiguation pages, or disambiguation pages for the use of the character string "Japanese" on other wikipedias) -- (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (This template's been around for a few years...)
Merge with Template:Sister project links? Au contraire, I suggest to remove it from that template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Template:CCC (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This template currently serves a very basic purpose; it merely creates a wikilink based on on the inputted county name. As its documentation calls for substitution, this should not break any existing pages. I hope to use this template name to create a new citation template; I would not oppose renaming the current CCC template as an alternative. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, highly simplistic not really needing the process entailed in using a template. -- (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, not opposed to renaming though if necessary. The template performs the same function as the football (soccer) templates {{fc}} and {{nft}}; similar to the pipe trick, it saves time when editing but can be used in situations where the pipe trick does not work. The template does not violate any of the template guidelines; simplicity is not a reason for deletion. BigDom (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn, if renamed. I was uncertain if the template were even still in use, and do not begrudge its mere existence if it is of use to its author or others. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Zfish118, BigDom: so what are the possible new names if it were to be renamed? Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I reached out on @BigDom:'s talkpage, suggesting perhaps "CCEW" (County Cricket England-Wales), in part because such acronym would unlikely conflict with other templates in the future. Perhaps also an alphanumeric combination ("CCC101" or "CCCBD" for example), given the limited scope of the template's use. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Completed discussions[edit]

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell (edit)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Closing discussions[edit]

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions.

To review[edit]

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

To convert[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.

  • None currently

To substitute[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

To orphan[edit]

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Ready for deletion[edit]

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices[edit]