Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)
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]

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 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).

I
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]]
    or
    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.)

II
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}}
III
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.

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 before the template page is deleted.

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

October 1[edit]

Template:Saint Peter's Academy[edit]

Template:Saint Peter's Academy (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Appears to have been created by an editor who thought s/he was creating an article. PamD 18:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

Template:Xifnoteq[edit]

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

Unused and unneeded. Maybe this had a purpose to add logic to parser functions pre-Lua but now would be easily done in Lua if needed. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Redundant to, and slower than, the #ifeq parser function. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Xifeq[edit]

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

Unused and unneeded. Maybe this had a purpose to add logic to parser functions pre-Lua but now would be easily done in Lua if needed. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Redundant to, and slower than, the #ifeq parser function. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Xifexpr[edit]

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

Unused and unneeded. Maybe this had a purpose to add logic to parser functions pre-Lua but now would be easily done in Lua if needed. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Redundant to, and slower than, the #ifexpr parser function. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 29[edit]

Template:NBA Project/Any[edit]

Template:NBA Project/Any (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:NBA Project/Class (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete now that the banner no longer uses them —PC-XT+ 05:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:ECAC Lacrosse League navbox[edit]

Template:ECAC Lacrosse League navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This NCAA men's lacrosse-only league folded after the 2013-14 season. This template has a redirect that should be deleted along with it. Precedence for templates like this here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete unless it would be useful for articles describing it in a historical context —PC-XT+ 05:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Vandalisim detected[edit]

Template:Vandalisim detected (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Really bad idea per WP:DENY among many other reasons Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. The template is a vandal magnet. (That, and the word "vandalism" is spelled wrong in the template's title.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons, as it doesn't seem to help the situation —PC-XT+ 05:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:BJAODN has been deleted. Otherwise, rewrite as an urgent administrator needed noticebox that bot informs WP:ANI -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Meddle tracks[edit]

Template:Meddle tracks (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Redundant with Template:Meddle, which has more coverage than the track list alone. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 04:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC) © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 04:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant, though I probably wouldn't oppose substituting it first, if desired. —PC-XT+ 05:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Yahoo directory[edit]

Template:Yahoo directory (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

YDir is being deleted soon: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/09/28/009249/yahoo-shuttering-its-web-directory?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feedJustin (koavf)TCM 04:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep deletion is premature, the index still exists [1] ; Suggest renomination next year, in January 2015, after the index is shutdown (31 Dec 2014). -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This should be deleted after the shutdown, but it can remain until then. Maybe a message could be added that the link will not last. —PC-XT+ 05:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 05:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ilgwang Polaris Entertainment[edit]

Template:Ilgwang Polaris Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

The record label/agency is non-notable and does not have an article. Readers are unlikely to want to navigate between singers/actors signed to the company, so their links should be removed. The partner companies do not even mention the company in their articles, so they are not needed, which leaves one red link for another non-notable group. Aspects (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete for providing little useful navigation —PC-XT+ 05:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:American Inline Hockey League[edit]

Template:American Inline Hockey League (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

I've cleaned this up, but the template is still full of redlinks, and from AFD discussions on some of the redlinks, it doesn't appear as if many of them will turn blue - indeed some of the blue links may also be deleted. NSH002 (talk) 22:35, 10 September 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) 01:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • It is mostly redlinks. I suppose the navigation could be reduced to only blue links, or it could be deleted. —PC-XT+ 05:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rutgers New Brunswick[edit]

Template:Rutgers New Brunswick (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Template:Rutgers should be the parent template of all Rutgers articles, not this. Kai445 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, in part. I agree that Template:Rutgers should exist for the Rutgers University page, but the Template:Rutgers New Brunswick is only found on that respective page. It adds links not found on the Rutgers University template. Similarly the Template:Rutgers Camden and Template:Rutgers Newark add links specific to those campuses....Pvmoutside (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Instead of just deleting the navboxes for the 3 campuses, which are relevant because they have links pertinent to these regional locations, why don't we try to incorporate it into the main Rutgers navbox with collapsible groups, something akin to the U Michigan example on the the template page, Template:Navbox with collapsible groups (see Basic example)? The main Rutgers navbox is already sort of bulky. I would be willing to work on this if anyone is interested. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 12:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with static shakedown and Pvmoutside, the collapsible template would be acceptable to me. -Kai445 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
So, User:Staticshakedown/sandbox/Rutgers is what the navbox would look like with the regional campuses as collapsible groups. Not sure I like this option either. What do you think? static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 23:48, 27 September 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) 01:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Template:Profanitynotice[edit]

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

Violates WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Trivialist (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The template is completely useless. I agree. - EvilLair (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wander Over Yonder[edit]

Template:Wander Over Yonder (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

All redlinks in this template. Blue links go to unrelated articles. No indication that any of the links will ever be notable for articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll fill in those red links as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WanderIsAwesome2001 (talkcontribs) 22:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a navbox template with redlinks to articles that don't and probably won't exist. Navbox unnecessary for this show now and won't be needed until after the linked to articles are created and survive a notability review. Best to wait until after that happens to create navboxes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I created a Wander article now, but can you add an image because I don't know how to add images on this wikis just yet. Zach 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC) WanderIsAwesome2001.
  • Delete - I've removed the redlinks, text only links and links to redirects, which should not be in navboxes. This leaves 5 links, including the links to the main series article. Of the remaining links, the two character articles and the episode article are all at AfD and should not survive. --AussieLegend () 00:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
And if they all get deleted, the template wouldn't be needed. - EvilLair (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook[edit]

Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Db-f9 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook with Template:Db-f9.
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. The Facebook disclaimer only covers the uploading of pictures but does not address authorship. Public photos at Facebook have not necessarily been produced by the user that hosts them; not to mention group sites where there is no single responsible user and various press photos are prone to be circulated. De728631 (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
What about authorship has not been addressed exactly in order to make the work 'free'? Can you point to a policy that bars anonymous free works, for example? Every aspect of what we require in a free content license is covered. FS, follow that link. --{{U|Elvey}} (tc) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose

The legal Terms of Use of facebook say: "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." and "By "use" we mean use, run, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of." [1]

As the template says, public content on facebook is free, but content just shared with friends or groups is not free. (If someone releases content under a free license they didn't own the copyright to in the first place, the license is not valid. Like with any other content published under a free license, this is the case with content published on facebook with a Public privacy setting.)


Any publishing by a facebook user using the Public setting is a release under a free content license. It could be an illegal release, but so could any upload here. We have to have more reason to delete it than merely the possibility that the release was illegal.--{{U|Elvey}} (tc) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support: while photos released on Facebook might be under public domain, (I'm not convinced) this tag would make us way too susceptible to flickrwashing and the like. Photos released on Facebook are often done by those who do not own the copyright. It is much harder to verify on Facebook whether the image is legitimate. This is a scary template to have around. TLSuda (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Salisbury City F.C. squad[edit]

Template:Salisbury City F.C. squad (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Salisbury City were expelled from the Conference Premier last season and are not in active competition now. This template is redundant and should be deleted. JMHamo (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 06:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – No active players, this team effectively does not exist at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - as redundant. Fenix down (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 27[edit]

Template:Minipop[edit]

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

Unnecessary navbox for a band with only one album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

September 26[edit]

Template:Judaica Navbox[edit]

Template:Judaica Navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

There are thousands of important books on Judaism and Jewish life. This template collects a couple of dozen, with no obvious connection between them aside from the obvious. Completing this template would be impossible, it would be better replaced by several targeted templates (e.g. "Jewish Feminist Literature", ") Fitnr 04:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Either delete or split to limit scope —PC-XT+ 01:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the criticism, please create a new template or templates before doing this, as you will lose the entries.Ethnopunk (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 25[edit]


September 24[edit]


Old discussions[edit]

September 23[edit]

Template:Toronto mayoral election, 2014 candidates[edit]

Template:Toronto mayoral election, 2014 candidates (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Navbox template which was originally created to link five "Candidate mayoral campaign, 2014" spinoffs about the five "major candidate" campaigns in the Toronto mayoral election, 2014 as separate articles from the BLPs about the candidates themselves — three all five of which have now been deleted at AFD as unwarranted content forks. (and the other two are up for deletion and have a clear consensus to delete as soon as the AFD is closable, which it will be within hours.) The deleted articles have since been replaced with direct links to the BLPs themselves, but this template would not be appropriate for direct inclusion on those articles, since navboxes of this type are not normally created for municipal elections. All of which means that the template's only remaining use will be at the bottom of Toronto mayoral election, 2014 itself — but that article already contains links in body text to all of the relevant candidates, so providing a templated set of repeated links to the same articles isn't necessary or valuable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I don't see the harm in having this infobox on the bio pages. There are bios for some of the minor candidates as well, and 67 names on the ballot. I also don't expect there to be much harm done to ease of navigation if this navbox goes away. Ivanvector (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:TVUS[edit]

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

The documentation at Template:Infobox television and Template:Infobox television season both discourage the use of wikilinks in the infoboxes per WP:OVERLINK. Template:Infobox television channel doesn't have any instruction on the matter. Not sure where else the country parameter might be used, but it's unclear what purpose this template serves if consensus has shifted to exclude wikilinks from the main templates. (I have listed this nomination at WikiProject Television to solicit other voices.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Not everything needs a template; I'm getting really tired of templates being created solely out of laziness, and this is a perfect example. Surely the extra few seconds typing [[Television in the United States|United States]] aren't truly a massive waste of time in the grand scheme. Nate (chatter) 18:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, because that is brought up, the deletion policy of it is causing problems in the infoboxes in TV shows, due to it's message about being considered for deletion. That has to be solved soon. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The message is supposed to alert people to the fact that the template is nominated, but I've reduced the size by adding |type=sidebar to the deletion tag. --AussieLegend () 06:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep - Saves time and already has all of the information we need in one place; why go and delete this one, and then waste extra time adapting another template to our needs when we already have one for this topic? Besides, this template is already very organized and looks rather nice the way it is right now; I don't really see any need for deletion or even significant modification, as a matter of fact. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no need for a template. All it does is redirect to a certain link that should be typed out (or in most cases, [[United States]] works just as well). This is over-templating for the sake of over-templating. Nate (chatter) 13:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Just a note that [[United States]] shouldn't be used. The infobox instructions are quite clear, per WP:OVERLINK country names should not be linked. --AussieLegend () 14:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm glad to know that now; I never have added anything to that part of the template but I did feel "United States" was too generic. Nate (chatter) 15:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong delete – Absolutely redundant template. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - This template originally linked "United States" to Television in the United States and added the articles in which it was used to Category:American TV. The automatic categorisation was removed soon after the template was created in 2009,[2] leaving just the link. Five years later, only 506 articles use the template,[3] while the categories that replaced "American TV" contain many thousands of articles. It's not a widely used template and never likely to be. Looking at Television in the United States, I don't see a lot of benefit in linking the country to that article for the average reader. If it was found that there were some benefit, it's more likely a better option to have the television infobox autolink to [[Television in <country>]] so that non-US countries would benefit. For these reasons I see no real reason for this template to be kept. Saving 4 keystrokes over typing "United States" really doesn't warrant mention. As an aside, is it too late to add {{TVUK}} to this nomination? --AussieLegend () 14:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Nominate it and drop me a note so I can chime in. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm pretty much natural about this. I will say that while the template maybe redundant, but it does save time to avoid typing [[Television in the United States|United States]] on there. I would do something quicker to add something like that by creating a template or something along those lines. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The template doesn't do what you would expect to. When I see United States wikilinked, I assume it's there to tell me more about the United States. A Television in the United States category would be more suitable or as part of a See Also section, where it would be more obvious. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Overlink. I always thought this was an odd duck. Linking it to TV in the US is also not needed. — Wyliepedia 21:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems more convenient just to have it, can't think of the benefits of not keeping it. --xcuref1endx (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment-It has both pros and cons,For some readers it is easier to get information about 'TV in the US' without having to search for it.But as per Overlink names of major geographic locations should not be linked.--Chamith (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - There's no reason why one cannot simply write "United States", It's simply lazy to use templates like these. –Davey2010(talk) 20:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - And who's going to go through every single television series page on Wikipedia and change the deprecated template? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I nominate you. Or a bot. I'd rather a bot do it. But if you're not busy... Anyhow, we don't need to go through every TV page. Only the ones that link to TVUS. If five of us did ten a day, we'd burn through it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Or you could use AWB to do it, as it's only 500 pages. A single person could do them in no time at all. --AussieLegend () 08:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Substitute and delete. I don't necessarily agree with the WP:OVERLINK claim since the link may or may not exist elsewhere in the articles that transclude this template, but I do agree that it's unnecessary since the article can just be linked to directly (or maybe have the infobox edited somehow to accommodate for this, such as editing the parameter to create this link when "US" is used as a value for it.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per Steel1943 —PC-XT+ 01:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Deletefast delete。--Qa003qa003 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 22[edit]

Template:Top[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 redirect (transclusions were mixed with {{top4}}/{{mid4}}, so closing this discussion with that one). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Top (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Mid (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Bottom (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

rarely used and redundant to the myriad of other Table and column templates, can be easily replaced (for example) with {{col-begin}}/{{col-2}}/{{col-end}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment these are imports from Wiktionary. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. These are redundant. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect as these are easier to remember shorthands than the col- series. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:06, 24 September 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.

Obsolete "future episode information" editnotices[edit]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Glee (season 5) (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Editnotices/Page/ICarly (season 4) (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Editnotices/Page/List of So Random! episodes (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Sonny with a Chance episodes (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Editnotices/Page/List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Editnotices/Page/Wizards of Waverly Place (season 4) (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Editnotices/Page/Doctor Who (series 7) (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

These expired "future episode information" editnotices all refer to series/seasons which are complete, so nobody should be adding future episode information to them. On that basis, I believe these editnotices are no longer required and can/should be deleted. All the editnotices are instances of {{Future episodes editnotice}}. DH85868993 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Blank - these expired notices can safely be blanked. (In fact they appear blank at the moment anyway, because expired notices automatically do not display.) I'm not sure of the benefits of deletion - a possible disadvantage is that it hides the history from other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: They appear blank already because they are expired, and there is really no need wasting resources adding another revision to blank them or delete them. Just leave them be. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, deleting templates does save some resources in that it makes public dumps smaller. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm wondering why Future episodes editnotice isn't used any more. Should there be a discussion on its use? 117Avenue (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Thyrotoxic myopathy[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 G7 by MSGJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 12:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Thyrotoxic myopathy (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This editnotice, which expired on 22 September 2013, says "This article uses parenthetical referencing". I'm proposing this editnotice be deleted on the basis that the article no longer uses parenthetical referencing. DH85868993 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I deleted this under G7, but on reflection I think that blanking may have been preferable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 22 September 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:MissSupranationalCountries[edit]

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

Template reliant on deleted (and salted) article for non-notable Miss Supranational pageant. When I looked at this before some of the links in the article didn't even appear to be genuine Miss Supranational deciders, making its accuracy dubious. Creator has a track record of apparent conflict-of-interest and promotional edits for articles relating to Miss Supranational, appears to be closely associated with the event, and is currently being investigated for their editing behaviour. Mabalu (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

September 16[edit]

Template:Worldalmanac[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) 20:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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

This template gives excessive prominence to the use of a certain source. Such templates should only be used when text from public domain sources has been incorporated into the article and no other solution for citation is preferable. SFB 22:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly delete, I would slightly differ about the use of such templates. They should only be used in the case that an article is mainly due to the existence of a certain source. An example would be like some antiquated Jewish Encyclopaedias and Britannicas where articles have been written based solely, or almost solely, on them (including reference about diseases in the past and interesting stuff), and these publications get a note from Wikisource. I mean, I wouldn't have an issue if a (for instance) NASA logo was placed on a page which contains a NASA image (and I do believe that is how it is done). But on articles about NASA missions, the publication work is not theirs alone so they don't get the sticker on that page, and it probably says something similar in one of the guidelines. Question Does anyone know the guideline to that NASA-image-type circumstance? ~ R.T.G 22:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment There is a deeper implication to this listing. There is another template called {{CIA World Factbook}} with a similar purpose. but that template is used 500-1000 times. However, half (ish) of that use is in userspace... but the fact is, there is a category for categorising articles that incorporate statistics from the CIA book, and much as I appreciate the information, everybody elses refs get reffed in the same way. I do not see the benefit of desperately informing people of things based on the fact they might not have had any interest. That sort of informing has a negative connotation. ~ R.T.G 16:07, 20 September 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.

Category:Language icon templates[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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • There are 348 templates in this category. The substitute a single english language word to denote that an external link is in another language.
  • They do not display the text in some strange script or anything and they do not include words to suggest what exactly the word is there for. For instance, the one for Arabic external links displays as (approximately) "(Arabic)". It's just a single word, but this particular template requires you to write {{ar icon}}, and that is longer than just writing the word in the brackets without the template. (note: comment changed to avoid this TfD page being in category. DexDor (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC))
  • Most of these templates are totally defunct with only a couple dozen uses each, but the ones that are used plentifully, such as Arabic, have the potential to be added dozens of times to the bottom of a page for the sake of adding one word, possibly causing a resource drain.
  • They are commonly used without a space, for the sake of not writing one(word).
  • And, most significantly, these templates are mainly composed of two letters, aa, ab, ac, etc.. and these template abbreviations should be reserved for high access templates (speed dial) which actually help the editor to complete a lengthy task in short time, such as "sd" for "speedydelete" notices instead of a single word, "(Sindhi)" ~ R.T.G 19:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • No, all two letter templates should be reserved for languages, because xy:pagename is an interlanguage link, so the corresponding {{xy}} should be some sort of template about or for that language. These are international standards, not parochial Wikipedia minutiae. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
What you say has value, but the fact remains that these templates are not much used except a dozen-ish. That leaves hundreds to consider, and functionality is the point here, not arbitration. These templates are not a mark of respect to anything. They are simply a tool. Marks of respect are for content. Templates are for ease of use. ~ R.T.G 09:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Nuke 'em all, from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ~ R.T.G 19:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • keep, (1) the two letter versions are commonly used on other WPs, and repurposing these two letter templates for something else would just cause a mess, (2) the two letter versions are used on commons for {{lang-xx}}, so if anything we should make them all function like {{en}}. the fact that they are being misused suggests we need a bot to go through all the transclusions and generate a report of the improper uses for clean up, rather than throwing out the entire system (i.e., they generate more than text, but also add articles to categories). Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
They aren't being misused. The directions clearly say to use these to put the word at the end of an external link, to show that it is in another language. We do not have multiple languages on the English language WP. There is no other use for them here. Not the way there is a use on Commons or Wikimedia.org. They are defunct, providing no other service than a single word addition at the expense of similar amount of typing to create the word, and tying up of the handiest template dialling code.. They really are not important enough to have the most important template abbreviations. This site is in one single language... ~ R.T.G 11:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
yes, they are being misused in many many cases in the |native_name= field in infoboxes to mark the language of the name in the native language (see here for example). Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but to say that a significant part of the usage of these templates is not even proper, taking Frietjes word for it, while they are (most of them) barely used at all after that, and only to produce a word in English language script... just points further to the waste of the templates. But it is more specifically the two letter versions. You will pay more for the domain name useful.com than you will pkktpw.info because it is more useful and can be put to that use. These templates are sort of like web addresses too, and the two letter ones are among the most valuable, not suitable for low use, low understood, and low functionality(!), templates. ~ R.T.G 15:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • General keep per Frietjes: The two-letter ones are ambiguous, and could be deleted and salted like {{Ar}} and {{De}}. {{En}} was kept for use in only file space, to support Commons' usage, which has nothing to do with this category. I don't know that en.wikipedia needs the other languages in its file space, except maybe during the translation period. When translating articles from other wikipedias, it is relatively easy to add the icon part. (I do this by userscript, myself.) I think other templates use the icon variety, but that could be handled by a module or #switch, instead, if needed. Some two-letter ones try to support both Commons usage and icon usage, but this doesn't always work right. The two-letter redirects could possibly be deleted, but that is a matter for RfD. Alternatively, they could all be turned into informative error messages. (See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 18#Ar and En) —PC-XT+ 03:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 03:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah... the two letter templates are redirects... which were the templates that prompted me to request review, and those should be deleted for other more common purposes (speed dial). However I would still point out that this WP is in one language and, these templates do not add "icons" that you suggest. They add one word in brackets in the English language... So there are probably about 150-200 actual templates without the two letter redirects... Proposal Let's delete the two letter ones and inform others that they are available for speed dial of other functions, and add little flag icons to the xx-icon versions to actually make them valid... We could ask WProject Languages to suggest flag icons for ones that are difficult, and come up with something neutral to add to ones with no appropriate flag. ~ R.T.G 12:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
And that is a hand up to volunteer to add the icons as well if you like. It's simple enough. ~ R.T.G 12:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I understand, these should not have any images added to them, per MOS:FLAG, or they would have them, already. I meant that adding " icon" to the template code, converting to use the en.wikipedia template, is easy. The redirects should probably be deleted or turned into error messages, but that is a matter for RfD. They should probably not be used for other functions, at least not immediately. If there are no problems with others recreating them, etc., maybe they could be repurposed. —PC-XT+ 21:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
An example of a template that was apparently successfully repurposed is {{No}}, even though I have still occasionally seen it used instead of either {{No icon}} or {{lang-no}}. Most editors see this doesn't make sense, and fix it, themselves. —PC-XT+ 22:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
If we are going to change such a swathe of content, let's do it properly. There is definitely a lack of polish to these templates. Here is an icon designed for this purpose years ago, and not a flag at all so okay by MOS, Other languages icon.svg (File:Other_languages_icon.svg so it is informative on hover over too), but currently it languishes in userspace. The closest I can find similarly purposed is the Wikiproject Languages image Globe of letters.svg, but it is obvious the other one is designed for this purpose and even goes kind of artistically with the grey text. We could even add the word language or in xxx language. Like:- " (In Sindhi language) Other languages icon.svg "? If these templates are clear it will help certain readers to decide wether or not to follow a link. I added it there with non breaking spaces which should probably also be used in any template work. ~ R.T.G 23:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we should keep these to the same standard as the other citation templates. When provided with |language=en, {{Citation}} shows (in English). I don't think we should be adding images to citations in bulk. I believe the general consensus is that citations are better using only styled text, due to images in citations being too expensive and distracting. —PC-XT+ 00:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess you are correct about the images. On some pages the template would repeat dozens of times. ~ R.T.G 09:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep but modify as needed: Images get moved between here and commons quite regularly, and language templates need compatibility between the two sites so that things aren't broken by the moves. In particular, as we accept content free in America, but not in its source country, we will regularly get content that hasn't quite cleared its source country, but which has translations using the language templates.
However, it would be entirely appropriate, I think, to make them dummy templates: So long as they return {{{1|}}}, they will maintain the functionality, without adding the undesireable marking up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:21, 26 September 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.

Violation of copyrighted images[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) 01:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Banner (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Team data Borussia Dortmund (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Banner/core (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Bannericon (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Bannericon/core (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Team data Dortmund (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Team data BVB (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Team data Werder Bremen (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Team data Bayern Munich (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Bannerright (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Bannerright/core (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
User:Template:Team data Bayern Munich - rouge page, now a redirect, created in the process of moving page.

Templates add copyrighted images in violation of wikipedia policy and has no use outside of that. LRD 16:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Unused. Kante4 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

My intention is to build a free banner/logo template system like the country flag one but for all the other images which do not fit there. With easy syntax which will overcome the bad filenames on wikimedia like: My-first-Picture.svg - btw main sport tables would become quite pretty with then easy to paste, use and alter team banner pictures because of the team data templates (e.g. german wikipedia uses team banner pictures on score tables but without template system ... so most of the files have bad non standard file names which are a pain to use) Berni2k (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Berni, start to copy these templates into your WP:Userspace quickly before they are deleted and when they are complete, add them back to the template areas and it can be seen what they are... ~ R.T.G 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment Berni has now moved several of the pages to his personal space, meaning that the redirects left behind would make anyone able to use the old links on articles for the same effect. LRD 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the TfD pages at their original links. LRD 01:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


thank you RTG you were the first user who was helpful, before today I did not know there are user spaces like that, sadly LRD is only after removing others work he does not like, no idea what I have done to him or maybe he is like that all the time who knows, I moved the 3 team data pages from my banner template system and wanted to delete the original ones afterwards but that was not possible, so I thought one of you would do it, but instead LRD came and restored them ... which was only a move against me as he could have easily removed the redirection link from them instead, now he added my templates I created for point tables, as there were no point tables on wikipedia before I created them I had to create a template for their coloring too, I know they are not perfect so far because I was not finished with them but the Banners took all my time so far, I say so far because I lost any motivation now to work on with them, all this complaining without helping is not what wikipedia is about I think, wikipedia should be about working together creating new content and not about destroying others work where possible because you don't like it, I think others would find my stuff useful, but not with me anymore (because the natural reaction to LRD would be to search after his work now and complain about it as much as possible, but I do not do things like that) Berni2k (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
oh btw just if anyone wonders I recreated all 3 banner images in question (from the 3 teams in the data templates) by my own, with an open source svg editor I found on google code and released them by my own under cc-free public domain, so the original problem is long gone in my user spaces, I will edit the originals one last time so no one can say I left before removing all things in question, but I think LRD will come again and bring it back to blame me again, maybe he finds such things funny, I do not, but this will be your problem then because I'm gone Berni2k (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have only restored the versions at their respective TfD pages, removing the redirects in the process. It means that those that you have moved into your personal user pages were left untouched and would not be affected by any page deletions. That, in fact, makes me help you instead of working against you. The templates are listed for deletion for good reason, and you were informed per protocol and have the right to make your defence of keeping them. As mentioned, the problem is not with any coding, but with violation of the fair use policy pertaining to copyrighted images. I do not see how those templates might improve any articles at this point in time, and you might make them work and are welcome to spend time on them. I just feel you should consider the strict policy regarding copyright content and the consequences surrounding it before you proceed to spend valuable time on them. LRD 04:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

He just added all my other templates which have no copyright violation or copyrighted images in or connected to them, so I will undelete them now as I think it was an error. I did/do not complain to the things you posted in your last post but you indeed did not read my post so we just talk side to side which makes no sense. Berni2k (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The four templates have been removed from the list since they were included mistakenly for copyvios. LRD 07:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The next place you should go, Berni, is the relevant wikiproject, (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football), because they will usually have the last say on how the articles look. ~ R.T.G 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all - This will only encourage users to add non-free images to articles (and other places). – PeeJay 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all as per PeeJay EddieV2003 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • delete all over-templating. Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all, because, even though I applaud Berni for being bold in trying to improve the encyclopedia, these templates have too many problems, and I believe that, according to userpage guidelines, non-free images are to be deleted immediately from user space, so userfication is not an option. —PC-XT+ 03:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —PC-XT+ 01:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all as above. GiantSnowman 15:53, 21 September 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:POTD commons[edit]

Template:POTD commons (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This is currently almost two years out of date. While I do think that salvaging it would be nice, if we're going to fail this spectacularly at keeping it up to date, I think we should at least mark it as historical. It's just displaying Commons POTD from November 2012, and has been doing so on a loop ever since then, from what I can tell. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment This template just needs some sort of script to update it. And of course the script needs a programmer and a slave, but... Don't delete it anyway... Unless there is a problem with cross site linking. ~ R.T.G 22:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, this is templates for discussion, after all. We do need to find a solution to this one... Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • substitute, mark as historical, and then move to project space without redirect. Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I second Frietjes' !vote if a bot isn't found to keep this updated. —PC-XT+ 04:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am planning on writing up a bot task for this purpose in the upcoming week. Jason Spriggs chat 22:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Bishops of Mthatha[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 merged by nom Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Bishops of Mthatha (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

The Template:Anglican Bishops of St John's and of Mthatha inludes the information in this template, and provides continuity, I see no advantage in having both. Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

AgreeBashereyre (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment If they are the exact same for the exact same articles just redirect one to the other and if they are slightly different but for the same purpose for the same articles, merge, and then redirect one to the other... I recommend using the longer name as the redirect. If they are sort of like what I just said, but there is something just a little bit different, let's hear the different... ~ R.T.G 22:39, 16 September 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.

September 15[edit]

Template:Football clubs listed by honours won[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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Football clubs listed by honours won (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

A template, which includes a majority of redlinks and unverifiable articles that are currently PROD'ed or AfD. JMHamo (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as serves no useful purpose as a navigation box, being mainly redlinks and non-notable articles. GiantSnowman 15:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • keep, after removing the redlinks. if after the AfDs are finished, we are left with fewer than four, then renominate it. Frietjes (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • keep, for now, same as Frietjes, above, except that there is no hurry to remove the redlinks - Nabla (talk) 20:20, 26 September 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:Strikethrough[edit]

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

Transcluded content is: "<s>{{{1}}}</s>". Redundant to just using the <s> tag directly; using the {{S}} alias is one character shorter, but the value of that is doubtful anyway. Keφr 02:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - what purpose does deleting this serve? Will < s> < / s> no longer work? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Avoiding unnecessary resource drain? Decreasing chance of hitting transclusion limits? (Also, using a template entails all sorts of syntax problems you do not have to worry about when using <s> directly — how do you strike a piece of text containing an equals sign?) Keφr 03:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep replaces direct HTML use with wikicoding. Shouldn't we be avoiding HTML when writing wikies? -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • If I go back to <table> will that solve the complexity limit and make editors happy with all the new HTML? -- 70.51.46.146 (talk)
    • No, we should be using whichever syntax is the most understandable and convenient for a given purpose. If two syntaxes are equally convenient, we use the one which consumes fewer resources. If that means HTML, we use that. Keφr 06:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • indifferent. my philosophy is that a good template should implement a specific function, so that the implementation can change with the result being the same. for example, if it is decided in some future version of HTML that the strikethrough tag is deprecated, we can replace the implementation with css (e.g., this which uses <span>...</span> instead). however, I suppose we could have the backend software do that instead, and view the stikethrough tag as being wikimarkup (like the ref/gallery/... tags) if that ever happens. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The HTML committee does not seem very keen on deprecating anything, so I think you need not worry here (<s> has been un-deprecated in HTML5, actually). Keφr 06:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak subst and delete as redundant, though weak because it can be changed easier than the software handling of the s tag. —PC-XT+ 02:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to !vote straight delete, because I don't know of an instance where template syntax is preferable to tag syntax, (there are often rather too many curly braces,) and there are already so many uses of the tag that the template could only do so much. —PC-XT+ 05:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. People use it. I personally use it – probably just because I find it easier to remember and easier to understand (when reading the source) than the alternative (and I wasn't aware that it was exactly equivalent). If there is some technical reason that it needs to be deleted, then OK. Otherwise, why remove something that a substantial number of people find useful? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: Will this break all extant uses of the strikethrough template if we delete it? Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure a bot will substitute it, first. I'll specify that in my !vote, though. —PC-XT+ 01:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete Not serving any useful purpose. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: It doesn't hurt any to keep it, and it's used on some doc pages. --Rob Kelk 02:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It is poor 'usability' for people desiring this functionality to have to look up and use HTML tags instead of using a template, since templates (and not HTML markup) are what we use. By this logic, we should deprecate '''this''' in favor of the HTML tags. Reventtalk 07:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. {{s}} is neat (until something else has a more persuasive use for it). Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Use questions It this appropriate to use for decorative lines in {{Eschatology}}? To indicate rescinded awards in several templates including {{Grammy Award for Best New Artist}}? --  Gadget850 talk 17:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Editors who are not HTML-savvy would most likely try to find this prior to even understanding the existence of HTML code. Best to leave all aspects of Wikipedia friendly to editors of all technical levels, and not make learning HTML a requirement to contribute. Steel1943 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Additional comment: However, I do highly support substituting all current transclusions and all future uses. In fact, I would even go as far as say that the substitution requirement should be added to the doc page, as well as create an error in the syntax if the template is not substituted (after all currently existing transclusions have been substituted.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: arguments against this are unconvincing. A handful or maybe a substantial number of (current and future) users will be affected by deletion; the number of users who will be affected by keeping the shortcut is exactly zero. Don't make things difficult for no reason. Ivanvector (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Euphemisms[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) 01:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

No page links to it and it does not seem to have practical use in a encyclopedia. Skronie (talk) 15:17, 7 September 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) 00:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Does not seem very popular indeed, but WP:EUPHEMISM is a part of the MOS, and a rather agreeable one. However, this is such a trivial problem that fixing the article on the spot takes less time than affixing a maintenance tag. Delete. Keφr 04:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{tone}} or {{copyedit}} -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If kept, suggest rename to something like "Cleanup-euphemisms" (or maybe "Contains euphemisms", "Too many euphemisms", etc) as "Template:Euphemisms" likely to be read as being a template about euphemisms rather than as a warning/cleanup template. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I second this renaming suggestion, if kept. —PC-XT+ 02:43, 16 September 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.

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.

  • None currently

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]

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/terms.php November 15, 2013 version, accessed Aug 2 2014.