Page move-protected

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, Topic, or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Closing instructions

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

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:

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

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

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]]
    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. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous Tfd without brackets|result of previous Tfd}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

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

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

{{subst:tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
III Notify users.
Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

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

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

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


Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.


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

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

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


Current discussions[edit]

September 25[edit]


Template:Example? (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

unnecessary frontend. Frietjes (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aspects (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion was clearly lost in the shuffle when the heading was mistakenly deleted when a Delete comment was added to the preceding discussion, [1].


Provides a link to operational reports from airport users which is not an encyclopedic subject and without a template would not be added to the article as it adds no value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

September 24[edit]

Template:Africa Cup of Nations Best Player[edit]

No evidence this is even a real award, let alone a notable one. Looks like WP:POV to me. GiantSnowman 20:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not know what I have to change in this article, I created a whole day, and the moderator wants to delete my work, I do not understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eemiratess (talkcontribs) 20:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Checkbox (clickable)[edit]

This is a completely pointless template. Regardless of the fact that the code itself can be vastly improved for functionality, I cannot see a single reason why a user would want to have a clickable checkbox that doesn't actually do anything. In other words, you can check/uncheck the box, but the results do not get saved anywhere. Hence, pointless. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: Does it matter if we keep such a template. If it can be improved then let's do it! Anyway I'll make a userspace copy of it so that I can atleast keep it! VarunFEB2003 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
If it doesn't do anything useful it causes confusion, particularly including it in the "See also" sections of existing templates. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
VarunFEB2003, the code itself can be improved, but that doesn't matter if the template itself cannot be used. Please tell me when this template would be useful. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
See also technical advice at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 149#JavaScript. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Primefac Ya sure! If you see I was developing a new template Log In Form with parameters so that users can easily tell what problems they are facing. It can be viewed in my Sandbox the template is used there. VarunFEB2003 17:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Primefac and David Biddulph: Repinging as prev. ping didnt work VarunFEB2003 17:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I shall add a paramter soon to provide check/uncheck ability. Please do not delete VarunFEB2003 17:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - The place for developing things is user space, not template space. Delete this template, & the link from real useful templates. David Biddulph (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: You can delete it. But after I have completely made it can I bring it back in Template space? Thanks VarunFEB2003 17:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
VarunFEB2003, it doesn't matter where it is or how complete it is, if it has no use then it will not be in the Template space. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless wrapper around functionality from the InputBox extension. Creating isolated form elements outside of a proper form has no conceivable purpose and is bad practice from an accessibility perspective. Joe Roe (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Festiniog Line Boston Lodge diagram[edit]

Orphaned and out of date with no foreseeable future use. Safiel (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Key to colours[edit]

Only two transclusions (1 article, 1 user page). Make a normal table or use a {{Legend}} list instead. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
13:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Countrylist Guide Template[edit]

Unused navigational template. Aspects (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

September 23[edit]

Template:Automata theory[edit]

The color is distracting, it's not obvious that it's clickable and it does not add anything not already listed in Template:Formal languages and grammars. If deleted, the image should probably be deleted as well. Cic (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The template isn't redundant to Template:Formal languages and grammars, which is an order of magnitude larger in terms of listed entries, can't fit in the lede of an article, and doesn't contain the helpful illustrative image. This template is integral to the lede structure in the five articles it transcludes on, so at the least this discussion should be listed on the talk pages of these articles. If that doesn't happen, I'd suggest a procedural speedy keep, and if it does – provisional keep per my reasons above. Uanfala (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 16:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Capital Kings[edit]

A navigation template for a band with six articles seems hardly necessary, particularly when nearly every article has a link to the others already (primary topic and discography do; album articles link to at least one and usually two of the album articles) Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - Navbox has at least 5 links, four of which do not connect to all of the other articles. This is the exact purpose of a navbox, to connect related articles that would not otherwise be connected for an ensemble that is still producing music. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 16:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Daily Politics[edit]

No cast and crew in navboxes. See WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, better to navigate through the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:BBC News personalities[edit]

No cast and crew in navboxes. See WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Propose merging Template:Pygmalion with Template:My Fair Lady.
Fair amount of duplicate links. May be beneficial to merge the two, with perhaps a little bit of a trim... Duck, You Sucker!? Honestly? Rob Sinden (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC) games[edit]

Useless. WP:NENAN. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

September 22[edit]

Sort mode templates[edit]

Unused templates whose technology is no longer supported by current MediaWiki Javascript. This could also include Template:Smd (Q14402248) and w:zh:Template:Smd. (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


unused "joke"; created by someone who has not edited here for five years Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • An odd harmless bit of wikipedia humour. Given that it doesn't serve any purpose at present, I recommend moving to the userspace of the creator, without leaving behind a redirect. Deleting it would really be a matter for MfD. Uanfala (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • As I said, the ceartor "has not edited here for five years". And as this is a template, we can delete it after discussion at Templates for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, if we wanted to be so precise, this "template" is for all practical purposes a userbox, so the proper place to discuss it would be MfD. Uanfala (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Best Motoring[edit]

No cast and crew in navboxes. See WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, better to navigate through the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Florida Sports Hall of Fame[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX. Is this really useful as a navigation aid? Are readers really going to need to navigate between Hulk Hogan and Nancy Hogshead? Better off left to categories and lists. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, better to use a category and the list article. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Philadelphia Phillies Radio and TV Network[edit]

Unsuitable navbox topic. Seems to be (although there is no article to back it up) a list of radio stations that broadcast Philadelphia Phillies content. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is an article. Link added. And it's a navbox of affiliates of a radio network. Those are closely related enough for a navbox. oknazevad (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Not really - If you're going to have a navbox for this, you might as well have a navbox for all the radio and TV stations that broadcast Premier League matches, etc, etc. It's really not a suitable topic for a navbox. Best left to that list article you linked, if it's even notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, the principles of WP:NOTTVGUIDE apply. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Penn State Athletics Radio Affiliates[edit]

Unsuitable navbox topic. Seems to be (although there is no article to back it up) a list of radio stations that broadcast Penn State Athletics content. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Philadelphia Eagles Radio Network[edit]

Unsuitable navbox topic. Seems to be (although there is no article to back it up) a list of radio stations that broadcast Philadelphia Eagles content. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

News anchors and similar[edit]

No cast and crew in navboxes per WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, better to navigate through the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:PERFNAV --NSH002 (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Barker's Beauties[edit]

No cast and crew in navboxes per WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, better to navigate through the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:D1 Grand Prix[edit]

Do we need this template? It's the worst one I've come across - very close to 50% of its contents don't have articles. It hasn't been well maintained and I feel it's ripe for deletion. Rayman60 (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. How about if the "Personnel" section is removed? Other than that it seems to provide valid navigation between the seasons. And maybe lose the magazines but keep the video games? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Redundant to {{Taxonomy/Progymnospermopsida}}, which is correctly named. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, clearly created by mistake. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Multiple countries at the Olympics[edit]

Recently created templates that are redundant to Template:Infobox Olympics Australia (and equivalents). These are non-standard template and all countries (with and without these templates) have the Infobox templates. The infobox has more information than this template. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep These are standard navigation boxes used in many articles throughout Wikipedia. Per WP:NAV "A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." and that is precisely the function of these templates in these articles. They are fully compliant and located where the reader would be expected to be looking for them. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates multiple linkage systems are encouraged. These templates are created after the example of {{United States at the Olympics}}, which was kept after a TfD in 2012, so that template should be included in this Tfd. --Wolbo (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • weak keep, seems fine, connecting a sequence of articles. Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

September 21[edit]

Template:FireEye, Inc.[edit]

All of the FireEye-specific links ("products") are just sections in the main FireEye page.

"Key People" would be useful if any of them had Wikipedia pages. "Investors" could be covered in an infobox (or in prose, as it already is) LFaraone 15:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. No useful navigation. A template with repeated links to one relevant article. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough relevant links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: This appears to be an attempt to shoehorn an article into a template, and I can't realistically see a beneficial use for it to be placed on any other article than FireEye. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, provides no useful bidirectional navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete VarunFEB2003 13:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, better to navigate through the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox academic[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox academic with Template:Infobox scientist.
Largely overlapping. Many scientist are also academics & vice versa. Examples in the documentation of {{Infobox academic}} include "discipline = Physicist" and "Academic discipline - Sub-atomic research", while {{Infobox scientist}} has various parameters for the subject's students. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support A side-by-side read of the templates' parameters shows a great deal of overlap, with only a couple of specialist parameters currently in Template:Infobox scientist but not Template:Infobox academic (namely botanical and zoological author abbreviations). As an aside, Template:Infobox academic is also missing Citizenship (alongside Nationality and Residence), so this may need including. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Academic - would support merge into academic - as this is the more inclusive term. i.e most scientists are some kind of academic, however large numbers of academics are not scientists.:: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Nothing else to add. Good luck with the merge!--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least for historical scientists. It's not the case that historically scientists were academics. I've just been copy-editing Niklas Westring, for example. He was a customs officer, with an amateur interest in zoology. James Eustace Bagnall was a noted botanist, but couldn't be described as an academic. Were John Ray, Gilbert White, Erasmus Darwin or even Charles Darwin academics? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Academic. I think that it would be fine to merge into the more inclusive term, just so long as all of the parameters from both templates are preserved. As for historical scientists, the name of the template does not display on the page, so there is no problem with appearing to label them as academics, and a proper merge will preserve all needed parameters. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as they're almost duplicates. As for what would be the most inclusive name, of course it doesn't matter too much since infoboxes are not categories, but I'd suggest {{Infobox scholar}}, which encompasses scientists and non-scientists, professionals and amateurs, etc. Joe Roe (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that merging under the title "Infobox scholar" is much better than merging under the title "Infobox academic". Titles do matter, even if redirects are provided, since they convey information as to purpose. Finding that "Infobox scientist" redirects to "Infobox academic" would be misleading to many editors, particularly new users of the infobox. Template names act as documentation in wikitext. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Scholar. I support Joe Roe's point of view: every academic is (or should be) a scholar/scientist, but not vice-versa. Summing up I agree with the merger, but I think the name "scientist" should be preserved or the name "scholar" should be adopted as more general and descriptive ones.Daniele.tampieri (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • One way of "merging" while preserving the name "scientist" as you suggest would be to have a "/core" template called by both {{Infobox scientist}}, {{Infobox academic}} and perhaps {{Infobox scholar}}. This would met the requirement of reducing redundancy and thus easing maintenance, while allowing for the possibility of a few parameters being specific to one role or the other. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
      • This would have us maintaining four templates, rather than the current two (plus one redirect). What would be the benefit of this additional maintenance burden? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are differences between academics and scientists; while many scientists are also academics, most academics are not scientists. There are separate infoboxes for philosophers, economists, engineers etc, but they can also be academics. Scientists do a wide range of jobs (from working for the government to medical companies to being independent). One could suggest that the infoboxes for classical composers and playwrights could be merged under writer but there are definite differences between the two which warrant separate infoboxes. I say that it is a good idea to have these different infoboxes and to keep the academic infobox for those individuals involved mainly in academia/university work. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • comment I think the problem is the name of the "superinfobox(es)". We kinda know the subtle differences, but there is mainly a technical perspective. If you look on wikidata many languages just massively use one or the other with a clear overlap. Maintenance requires flexible infoboxes when possible. An infobox that unifies "everyone that has produced scientific or academic work" is still a reasonable goal. My advice: let's stop here and open a general discussion, with all the possible minor infoboxes. Maybe even on wikidata with all the other languages. It would be long and boring, but we might actually produce something robust out of it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above, much WP:IAR would be needed to put Darwin in an "academic" infobox. In general, make-work proposals without a clearly defined expected benefit are undesirable. One example where different templates is useful is that "religion" was removed from the scientist infobox to avoid pointless arguments about whether the field specifies the denomination of the school attended by the scientist, or whether it should indicate something more central to their work or life. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • No "Ignore All Rules" would be required. And, if an editor currently wishes to include the religion of scientist, they can simply use {{Infobox academic}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merge. The templates are highly overlapping. A scientist is by definition an academic; academic is simply a broader term which also covers scholars in other disciplines than natural sciences/medicine. (In many other languages than English the term for scientist would refer to any scientist or scholar regardless of discipline). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merge. The subjects overlap almost entirely. While not all scientists are academics, there is nothing stopping us using "Infobox scientist" as a redirect for those cases. (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are significant differences between academics and scientists; some scientists are not academics and many academics are not scientists. Duncan.Hull (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are some scientists who are not working in an academe but are doing purely research in non academic institutions through out their lives. Their only involvement with the academe are being alumni of such academic institutions or resource speakers but they donot directly contribute to the prestige of the institution as an academician. Academician may be a great President, Chancellor Vice Chancellors ,, etc and some of them are not involved in outstanding pioneering or one of a kind research as a scientist but mostly excellence in multi varied managerial work. (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry for being clueless, but what are the savings of having one template less at hands? Is this a property heavily used in searching? Purgy (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • That's a good question, and I used to wonder about the same thing. The answer is that, from time to time, Wikipedia decides to update or modernize how stuff appears on the page. The more templates there are, the more templates need a person to fix them in parallel with the changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Duncan.Hull, Johnuniq and others. Anyway, where's the gain? Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I think one benefit is reducing the maintenance load. For example, I've often been frustrated that {{Infobox academic}} still doesn't have templatedata, which amongst other things means it can't be used easily in the Visual Editor. Somebody did the work for {{Infobox scientist}}, but because we have two almost identical infoboxes to support a subtle semantic distinction, it has to be duplicated. Similarly, if they are ever migrated to wikidata, the same work will have to be done twice, etc. etc. Joe Roe (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Sure, reducing maintenance and creating greater modularity are good goals, and doubtless why Andy Mabbett proposed the merger. But when two categories are conceptually distinct, like academics and scientists, a full merger would be a step too far, which is why I suggested instead factoring out the common core into an auxiliary template – a standard move in cases like these. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Yep, I think that's an excellent solution. Joe Roe (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
          • If we don't merge them (my preferred outcome), we could reduce both of these templates to small modules - their unique parameters only - to be used in {{Infobox person}}. I think ether would be considerable work to convert existing transclusions though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Responses Whichever name is chosen for the merged template the other would redirect to it. Claims such as "there are significant differences between academics and scientists" are lacking substance if they do not include a reason why separate templates are needed; or do not address the many individuals who are both academics and scientists. The benefits of merging such highly-similar templates are explained in Wikipedia:Template consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think a merger would be little benefit (or perhaps some benefit to very few individuals), and create confusion or hardships for other users. This seems like a solution in search of a problem, and IMO a small amount of template overlap is justified for the sake of convenience (while bots and scripts have their role, Wikipedia is still largely driven by humans). --Animalparty! (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that a lot of the editors opposing the proposal are doing so on the basis that, if we were discussing a category or text on a page or a title at the top of an infobox, it would be important to distinguish between academics (or scholars) and scientists. But that concern misses the point. This is the template for an infobox, and the template name does not get displayed on the biography page. If the same parameters are filled in, what readers would see on the page is exactly the same whether we call it academics or scientists. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You may not have seen the interminable battles regarding labeling scientists with a religion. For a taste, see January 2009—the same issue has been raised many other times. Opening up the infobox to allow anyone to fill in every possible field just wastes time. An example is diff where Richard Dawkins had "Religion: Anglican (pre-1956) No religion/Atheist (post-1956)". Of course articles should discuss the religion of subjects where appropriate, but a label in an infobox is often highly misleading and is the source of pointless drama. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      • As I have already pointed out to you above, ", if an editor currently wishes to include the religion of scientist, they can simply use {{Infobox academic}}" (or, for that matter, {{Infobox person}}. Maintaining the two separate templates under discussion does not prevent that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
        • If an infobox has a field, people will try to populate it—that's what wikignomes do. Ripping an infobox out of an established article and replacing it with a different one would require quite a lot of boldness, and would attract scrutiny. By comparison, adding nonsense like "Religion: Anglican (pre-1956) No religion/Atheist (post-1956)" to an existing field is common. The current system allows a central discussion to choose what fields are useful for the infobox of a scientist, whereas the grand vision of merging all templates into a master provides no guidance or control or standardization, and requires interminable arguments on individual pages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I don't understand how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. If the templates are merged, the consensus to not have a "religion" field can simply be extended to the consolidated template. Joe Roe (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
            • Why not leave the current situation which does not require the imposition of complete uniformity on the two infoboxes? If there is a good reason to remove religion from the academic infobox, that can be done. Otherwise, it can be retained. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Your claim is easily refuted by the number of instances of each of the two templates under discussion, which do not use all the available parameters. Nobody is proposing "Ripping an infobox out of an established article and replacing it with a different one"; to claim otherwise is either FUD or reveals a base misunderstanding of what is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tryptofish: the name of a template acts as documentation for editors, particularly new editors. Articles are often started by using an existing article as a template. Labelling Darwin an "academic" in wikitext would still be misleading. Using a more appropriate redirect is not a long-lasting solution; there's a considerable band of editors who spend their time going round changing redirect wikilinks to direct ones. But this isn't the only reason not to merge: merging implies that for all time we accept that the two categories will have exactly the same parameters, and as Johnuniq points out, this is not necessarily the case. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      • "the name of a template acts as documentation for editors, particularly new editors..." Which is why redirects exist. The proposed merger will not change one character of the wikitext of the article on Charles Darwin. All parameters are and will remain optional, for all subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reply, Peter. The way I see it, it's certainly true that the template name is seen in wikitext while editing. For readers, that does not matter. For new editors, as Andy points out, the problem can be dealt with by a redirect. It's true that new parameters may be added in the future, but that's only a problem if other parameters are removed. And if the parameter needs change a lot, it's possible to re-split the templates, although that's relatively unlikely. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
        • @Pigsonthewing and Tryptofish: you must both have very different watchlists to me. I'm always seeing gnomes replacing redirects by actual titles. In practice, redirect wikilinks should be treated as temporary, except on a well-watched page where watchers enforce MOS:RDR (I used to try, but it's just too time-consuming in most cases, so now I let a lot go). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Perhaps you could provide some diffs? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
            • A change involving templates that I've seen quite a bit lately is the one in this dif. I've also seen a bunch of {{main}} → {{main article}} edits, but can't find a dif right now. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Well, Peter, for me, templates are just not that big a deal. I've said what my opinion is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose.This would be a labyrinthous task with confusing dissections (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The claim that "this would be a labyrinthous task" is utterly without foundation. Please provide evidence, if you dispute this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • This is another overlapping strategy where it would mask the individual's title as a scientist. Being a scientist is an end product of a person's scientific success not his school. Also you are not aware that you are hiding the other essentials of people you are talking about like in Johann Wolfgang von Goethe has an Infobox as a writer but he is a scientist with his pronouncements that a "Leaf is Plant" much ahead than our modern molecular biologist. Therefore with such amalgamation of templates you are in the process of hiding selfishly the best type of Infobox template for the persons concerned. (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Due to difficulty of differentiating individually scientists from academician e.g. for instance if one is awarded a royal academy of..... inspite of the fact that he is never connected with a university in the span of his career, I would suggest that to get rid of these two templates- Infobox scientist and Infobox academic and stick to Infobox person. Outside of this infobox he or she will be introduced in one line as a scientist or a schizophrenic writer or whatever and a cascading chapters of information will follow. (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some people who are classified as scientists are not academics. The most notable example I can think of is Bill Nye. I think it merging the two would have the potential of spreading false information. Biglulu (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Scientists and academics are independent concepts. You can be an academic without being a scientist and you can be a scientist without being an academic (and of course you can be both at the same time, which is frequently the case). Famous academics such as historians and literature professors are not scientists and to classify and label them as "scientists" would be ridiculous. The alterative (to label all scientists as academics) is just wrong. There are lots of famous scientists who are not academics. First you have the historical ones, such as those employed by royalty, but you also have the non-academic scientists employees employed elsewhere besides universities: observatories, governments, private labs, military, and so on. Many famous scientists did not even have degrees and a quick google search will find lists such such things. I think this proposal was made too hastily. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You cannot be a scientist without being an academic, in the broad sense used in the title of the infobox in question, meaning anyone engaged in scientific/scholarly activities. Academic is simply a broader term in this context. If a biography uses an infobox for scientists/scholars/academics, it is without doubt because the subject is notable for academic(/scientific/scholarly) work. The discussion of terminology also misses the point, which is whether we need one template for academics/researchers in natural sciences and related fields ("scientists"), and one for academics/researchers in other disciplines than natural sciences ("social scientists", "scholars" etc) who are traditionally not called "scientists" in English (as opposed to most other languages, in which the word for "science" doesn't refer specifically to natural sciences, e.g. German Wissenschaft). The template is (or should be) intended for people who are (overlappingly) called scientists, social scientists, scholars, academics, researchers, and a number of other terms. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't believe this. If you go to the educational history of past scientists, they mostly learned their craft by self. There is even one who took his doctorate from an unknown or probably from a bogus school for 1 week (check it at wikipedia) but he is consistently a scientist. Others had degrees not related to science but they excelled in the field as scientist by experience and enthusiasm. Is that what you mean by academics? (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Roman–Gallic Wars[edit]

Propose merging Template:Campaignbox Roman–Gallic Wars with Template:Campaignbox Roman–Gaulish Wars.
It should be merged because the two are almost identical, with the battle of Mutina being different, one of them is the battle of mutina in 193 one is of 194. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support The two templates appear to deal with the same campaign. The differences between the two boxes are minor, and there doesn't appear to be any reason for the difference. Our article on the wars is called Roman-Gallic wars, so the campaignbox should probably be under that title too for consistency. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

September 20[edit]

Template:Bakersfield Blaze roster[edit]

The template should be deleted because it is a roster for a baseball team has become defunct. Subsequently, the template is no longer used. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, team is defunct, so there is no current roster. Frietjes (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Michael Paynter[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, we can connect three articles through standard in-article linking. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Current TNA Champions[edit]

I am nominating this template for deletion because...well, it has the same issues like the current WWE Champions:
1. A template listing all the current champs is not helpful at all.
2. The current champions template will have to be updated every time there is a title switch.
3. It will also have to be removed from the one wrestler's article and added to the new champ.
It's a maintenance horror and the reason we chose not to list the current champion in the navbox a long time ago. Nickag989talk 08:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, as with the WWE template. oknazevad (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.LM2000 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Propose merging Template:PlanetMath with Template:PlanetMath reference.
My merge of these templates, which link to the same target website, has been reverted. Having all transclusions use a version which wraps {{Cite web}} makes the latter's benefits (including error checking and categorisation; and use of COinS) available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose There is a problem it that the two templates are used in different context. {{PlanetMath}} is intended for external links sections an styled accordingly
Gamma Function at
{{PlanetMath reference}} is for a reference using CS1 reference style.
"Gamma Function". PlanetMath. 
The reference format does not really work external links sections. See Aristotle#External links to see how the style matches styles for other sources. --Salix alba (talk): 14:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC).
We have plenty of templates that are used in both of those contexts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Salix Alba - the "reference" format is not ideal for external links sections, and does not match other external links. On the other hand, PlanetMath is not a very good reference, and should only be used as such in unusual circumstances (better references are published books and papers). There is no reason to general reference data (e.g COINS) for external links, which after all are not references. So I would oppose the merger. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • COinS is not "general reference data"; it is bibliographic data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Which is not needed when the goal is to insert a web link, rather than a printed reference. COINS is general reference data - it is general data about references - but external links are not references. Similarly, there is little need for "error checking" and "categorization" for external links; the "what links here" already shows which articles use the PlanetMath template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Still wrong: COinS is not "general reference data"; it is for data about bibliographic objects, in any context. You are welcome to point to any limitation in its specification, restricting its use to references only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The two templates have different sets of parameters for good reasons: in an external links section, the extra bibliographic cruft should be minimized, so the extlink template (planetmath) only parameterizes the url and title of the link, while the template intended to be used in a references section (planetmath reference) includes other information that should be included in a references section (author, version, and access date) but should not be included in an external links section. Merging the two templates would encourage editors to fill out all the parameters in all uses, a bad idea that having separate templates would help us avoid. For the same reason, contra Pigs, cOiNs data (or hOwEvEr it is supposed to be capitalized) is claimed to be useful in references (although I have never actually seen a use for it) but completely unnecessary cruft in external links. So Pigs' changes to the planetmath template to make it use a citation template, generate CoInS, and add an accessdate parameter should all also be reverted. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • My name remains "Andy". COinS is capitalised, correctly, exactly as I wrote it, and as can be seen in the article to which I linked the first time I did so. Your "would encourage editors to fill out all the parameters" claim is FUD, with no evidence whatsoever, as is your "unnecessary cruft" claim about COinS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
      • There's no need I can see for access dates on external links (which are not references), as far as I can see, and having a parameter for them does seem to just encourage editors or bots to try to fill it in. I'd rather have separate templates for separate tasks: reference templates for references, external links templates for external links. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Confused. Wait, what? Back in the day, the difference between these two was that one was simply a reference, and the other was an attribution: it was worded something like "This article contains material copied from planetmath article blah, according to the license blah-blah". What happened to the attribution? (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Never mind. I see I was thinking of Template:PlanetMath attribution. (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see compelling arguments in all three oppose opinions above and it seems there is clear consensus against merging. Now, an alternative would be to still merge them but have the type of output (citation vs.external link) be governed by a parameter, but that seems like it will make the templates less easy to use. Uanfala (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


Single-site Bible link templates. Redundant to {{Bible verse}}, which offers a neutral lookup service. {{Bible chapter}}, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment {{Bible chapter}} is an infobox template and therefore quite a different beast, but {{Bible verse}} looks like a template that could be extended with the functionality of {{interlinear}}. Uanfala (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Most of these look like they could easily be incorporated into {{Bible verse}}. However, given how (potentially) widely used some can be, I'm wondering if won't make sense to keep them as specific wrapper templates (for example, {{Niv}} could be used as a shortcut for {{Bible verse||NIV}}). I'm thinking otherwise only for {{Interlinear}}, whose title I'd really want to usurp for a much more general (but unrelated) template for formatting interlinear glosses. Uanfala (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I like the wrapper idea, it'd be easier to use these than have to use an extra parameter for the version.--JFH (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: I have just added {{Rsv}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 09:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Question Why are they sending traffic off-wiki? Wikisource has plenty of versions, s:Bible. Rewrite to use Wikisource. Cabayi (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • That would be an issue for the talk page of {{Bible verse}}, once the nominated templates are deleted and replaced with (or redirected to, if we must) that one. Or indeed now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
{{bible verse}} is not so easy to change because it uses a tool that is not being maintained. The template should be rewritten without the tool, but that will be very difficult because the tool did a lot of work to get a wide range of reference styles to link. There are similar problems with changing {{bibleref2}} to point to Wikisource: it is designed to point to BibleGateway, which uses certain abbreviations and reference styles. I think right now it might be a good idea to keep {{KJV}} and point it to Wikisource. Similarly, {{Esv}} could point to while {{Niv}} and {{Nasb}} could point to as these have much fewer ads than BibleGateway.--JFH (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep {{KJV}} and rewrite for Wikisource. Neutral on the others. They could be rewritten for better sites than Bible gateway if kept, but they aren't versions of the Bible that need to be used frequently on Wikipedia. --JFH (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need a bit more comment on the WikiSource idea and how that relates to merges into Template:Bible verse.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with merging to {{Bible verse}} is that it uses a Tool Labs tool, but the maintainer is no longer active. The tool allows people to use a wide variety of abbreviations and reference styles. I am not capable of rewriting {{Bible verse}} to make it do what the tool did without breaking some of the thousands of transclusions. For that reason, I recommend we rewrite {{Kjv}} so that going forward users have an easy way to link the Wikisource KJV. I have written a KJV Wikisource template in the sandbox. The sandbox specifies book, chapter, and verse as separate parameters. I think this is a better approach because it will allow easy changes to the template to adapt to a change in the Wikisource reference style or a different website if we need to do that in the future. I can go through and fix the existing transclusions of {{Kjv}} --JFH (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Non-standard user warning template without "uw-" in the name which is redundant to the correctly-named Template:Uw-subst. Refers to a template name that has not been used since 2007 as an example. Pppery 17:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, although I would have thought that this was certainly a T3 (duplicate) speedy candidate. MSJapan (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:Uw-subst and keep as a redirect with history as it was created a year before the target. Uanfala (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


non-standard user warning Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Question: What does non-standard mean? Hyacinth (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{uw-tilde}} to which it is redundant (unless a need is demonstrated for the brevity in the message). It would then be an {{R with history}} so I'd oppose deletion. Uanfala (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The template has only 20 transclusions. It would be better to Subst: them - thereby preserving the content of signed talk page messages which include them - than to maintain a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, given that this template contains a (user) talk page message and is hence of the kind that is supposed to be substed, I don't see the transclusion count as a relevant metric. Uanfala (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 04:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Non-standard user-warning. Contains cultural reference that may not make sense to the reader. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Harmless and humorous template to remind people not to bite Newbies. WCMemail 14:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: There are a prior TFD in May 2012. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per the nomination; as well, it has few uses and duplicates the standard user warning set. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note Only 14 transclusions, which should be Subst: - thereby preserving the content of signed talk page messages which include them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 04:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep It's charming and directs users to an extremely well-written, important guideline. Really, go read it (again)! A parameter that removes/replaces the "cultural reference that may not make sense to the reader" would be welcome (and/or documentation informing would-be users of an alternative template), but I see no sound justification for outright deletion. --Elvey(tc) 18:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The template(s) to which this one is redundant ({{Uw-bite}}, for example) also link to that guideline. It would be pointless to undertake additional work to add coding to this template, to make it even more like those templates. The fact that the string ""Although newbies may be delicious served with some Fava beans"" occurs only seven times on user talk pages (less than four for each person saying "keep" here; and some of those are not actually warnings, but meta discussion) shows a - welcome - lack of community uptake of this template. It also appears that the template has not been used since 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Single use Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  • This a specific-source template that produces citations to an online Cebuano language dictionary. We normally have such templates for authoritative dictionaries of major languages, so I'd say keep unless presented with evidence for this specific source's unreliability. Uanfala (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Please explain why we need such a template for a single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
      • If we only went by how often something was used, then any template with a "single use" would get deleted by a bot and we wouldn't need to be wasting our time here. I think I've given enough evidence why we generally want that kind of template and I'd support deletion only if there's anything wrong with this particular one. And all that is a question of potential for use, rather than what happens to be the actual use at this point in time. Or is there something I'm fundamentally misunderstanding about TfD? Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


The only use of this template on Wikipedia is on Leucaena leucocephala, where it is in:

[[Cebuano language|Cebuano]]: ''byatilis'' or ''luyluy''<ref name=WCED>{{cite-WCED}}</ref>

which citation renders as:

Wolff, John U. (1972). A Dictionary of Cebuano Visayan. 

The only other mention of "Dictionary of Cebuano Visayan" in the whole of Wikipedia is an 'External links' entry in Cebuano language, which reads:

and which is thus not suitable to use the template. We cite thousands of books, many more than once, with no need for a dedicated template for each. I ask again: "Please explain why we need such a template for a single use"? More specifically, please explain why we need this template for this single use? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

We're talking in circles. It's not about this single use, but for its potential for use. And unlike most of the thousands of books that get cited and that are only relevant in a narrow subject niche, a reference dictionary of a major language has a wide sphere of possible use (think of all the place names, items of cultural significance, personal names, titles of films books and songs.. – and all that has to do with an area that we're yet to see the greatest expansion of content). Uanfala (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not talking past you at all. We generally don't keep unused or single-use templates on the basis of some hypothetical potential for use. Even if we did, such potential doesn't seem to exist, given the evidence I presented above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Andy, it seems that we take "potential" to mean two different things: for you it seems to be only about the already existing citations, for me it has to do with the likelihood of such citations appearing in the future. I've tried to argue that this likelihood is high, please let me know if you disagree with that of if you have reasons to believe this wider potential should be ignored. Uanfala (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
You now attempt to dismiss my argument by implying that the meaning I've used is questionable: that's bullshit. I'm fully aware that you have tried to argue that the likelihood to which you refer is high; but your argument, while verbose, consists merely of assertion, and irrelevance such as page counts of this and other sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not trying to dismiss the interpretations that you use, I was just trying to articulate what I see as the reason why no discussion is happening despite all the writing, here and in the previous similar TfDs. If you have reasons to disagree with my interpretation of "likelihood of use", you're welcome to give them. As for the "assertions" in my argument, which ones don't you agree with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talkcontribs) 18:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Eligible for WP:T3 even. ~ Rob13Talk 08:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    BU Rob13, if it's eligible for T3, then which template is it a duplication or a hardcoded instance of? Uanfala (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Uanfala: Check the source code. It's quite plainly a hardcoded instance of {{Cite web}}. ~ Rob13Talk 04:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @BU Rob13:, it's {{cite book}}. But if that were an argument for deletion, we would then need to also wipe out all the other specific-source templates (and there are over a thousand of them, and many are very widely used). Uanfala (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • It's a single-use wrapper for {{Cite book}}, with no evidence for its potential further use. You have yet to explain why we need such a template for a single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry if I hadn't explained clearly enough: I've given what I see as evidence for potential use in the discussion above [2] and [3]. Let me know if you disagree with any of the points raised. Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note My keep !vote above was contingent on this dictionary's suitability as a reference. Now I've had a look at the Cebuano-English dictionaries, and Wolff's dictionary (the one this template formats a citation for) has more than twice as many pages as the next best two: Yap's and Ruyter's. This suggests that it's probably the most comprehensive one out there, add to that its handy online interface and I think this is the Cebuano dictionary that is most likely to be cited here.
  • I realise now there's something I've been taking for granted as general knowledge but that maybe not everyone is aware of. Templates for such online versions of dictionaries save a lot of the fuss of creating the citation. With most other sources you could easily get your bibliography management software to import the citation at the same time as you get the resource (from a library catalogue, jstor etc) and then export that citation (together with other citations) into the generic wikipedia templates. Here on the other hand, the online interface doesn't have a handy "get Bibtex" link, nor does it contain the full bibliographic details, so creating the citation would involve additional searching through catalogues as well as filling out the "url" bit of {{cite encyclopedia}} by hand, and all that put together is a very tedious chore that templates like this one are designed to prevent. Uanfala (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite within[edit]

Unused Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  • At first sight (which probably took me more time than it took the nominator to nominate) it appears useful. So unless demonstrated otherwise, I'd stick with keeping and possibly publicising so that the template could get used.
    On a side note, I can't help thinking that if there's anything wrong with TfD it is that people make one-word nominations and then get touchy when others aren't convinced. Uanfala (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • In what way does this unused - despite having existed for four years - template "appear", to you to be "useful"? Without evidence, your comment appears to be no more than WP:ILIKEIT. Your comment is also unnecessarily personal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Apologies if what I said seemed personal, I was intending it more as a (unnecessarily, I admit) bitey remark about a certain style of TfD nominations. To answer your question: the template allows for the formatting and markup of a sequence of quotes (from different locations) of a single source and this is functionality I haven't seen in any of the other citations templates I've used. On a side note, now that the question of evidence is on the table, who should the burden of providing it fall on? From what I'm used to seeing, the editor nominating something for deletion is expected to make a case why that should be deleted in the first place. And for all I know, "unused" doesn't go much near being a sufficient rationale. Uanfala (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Apologies accepted. There is plenty of precedence for old, unused templates being deleted; even with a (perfectly-acceptable and factual) single-word rationale of "unused". Since a negative cannot be proved, it is for anyone claiming the positive (on his case, "this is useful") to furnish proof. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Well, we aren't swimming in a sea of extensional semantics but we're trying to figure out people could conceivably intend to do with things. A negative is then as easy to demonstrate as a positive. If there's a tradition of deleting unused templates, then it doesn't seem to have made its way into WP:TFD#REASONS. Anyway, if a template serves a sensible purpose and is documented, then the fact that it's potentially useful is obvious whereas the proposition that makes a stronger claim and hence would need to be demonstrated is the one for deletion. And that could happen imho if this template's function is performed better by a different template (or by not using a template). Is that the case? Uanfala (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)



"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".

HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Could I draw your attention to the last part of the sentence you quote? Cheers. Uanfala (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Could I draw your attention to the utter lack of any evidence, or even any argument, from you that the template has any likelihood of being used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm baffled. Do you mean to say editors will never need to cite more than a single location of a source? Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if this could be used, it isn't being used. It's existed for four years, and it's obvious by this point that content creators don't see any strong need for it, as they would have used it if they did. If we keep this, at best, we're forcing a template down the throat of content creators for no particular reason. ~ Rob13Talk 08:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • we're forcing a template down the throat of content creators that's a good point. But given that the template has no incoming links and it's not a member of any category, I don't really see how anyone could have ever known that it existed. Uanfala (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note I've placed a notice about this discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1. I'm not sure this is the best place, but at least it's frequented by the citation experts. Uanfala (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. That said, I might suggest a feature request be made at Help talk:CS1 for this functionality. --Izno (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This functionality can be duplicated by using short-form citations (WP:SFN) that link to the long-form reference, an approach that may better conform to WP:INTEGRITY. But this is a matter of user choice, per WP:CITEVAR. (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Navbox prehistoric caves[edit]

This is an absolutely huge template, so large that it's not at all helpful for navigation, and its scope means that it cannot merely be reduced greatly, because who's to say which entries are more deserving of mention than others? I discovered this template because it was added to Mummy Cave, an article on my watchlist; with its navboxes collapsed, the article, which has WP:GA status, is 2½ times the height of my screen, while the template itself is 5 times the height of my screen. How is navigation improved when we have a box that's this tall, with links to 393 entries (plus a bunch of unlinked names) in 93 subgroups? No opposition to converting into a list or a category, but my first inclination is to delete. A few of the American entries are neither caves nor cave paintings: few enough that removing them won't make the template a useful size, but articles such as Tegtmeyer Site (see image) and Rockhouse Cliffs Rockshelters (see image) are here being treated as caves or cave paintings, and they're rockshelters literally only a few feet deep, not caves or cave paintings by any definition. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Disagree It is large but every effort has been made to concise it with abbreviated text and small fonts. It is collapsible with the default collapsed, so it is only "filling 2.5 screens" if you want it to. Many editors (e.g. @Fraenir, Doug Weller, Wikirictor, and Joe Roe:) have been working on this template and its content and their work is well appreciated by those who are interested in this subject. If it doesn't interest you or you don't like the template, then don't use or navigate it, simple enough. Your POV of dislike cannot be an argument for the many others who like the template and want to navigate using it. There is no ground to delete the hard work of getting as much information as possible available and the links to the various caves triggers useful and necessary edit work, like for example my edits on Cueva Fell, a cave I would not have found without this template. If there are entries erroneously placed; fix them. That is never a reason to delete a template. If your "first inclination" is to: 1 - not discuss first and 2 - to delete the hard work of others, then I'm glad I am not your working colleague. Tisquesusa (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say I dislike it: I say that it's useless for navigation. Like any navbox, you have to uncollapse it to navigate anywhere, and when an uncollapsed navbox is twice the height of a typical article in which it's used, it's overwhelming. See WP:NAVBOX — not all articles within the template relate to a single, coherent subject (as I noted above, several of the linked article aren't caves or cave paintings at all!), the articles don't refer to each other at all, there's no Wikipedia article on the subject of "caves, rockshelters, paintings in rockshelters, and cave paintings", and no editor would be inclined to link to many of these 393 articles in the See also section. Nyttend (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You find it "useless for navigation". Others, who use the template and are actively working towards its improvement, find it useful to navigate. There is no reason why your POV should make it impossible for those interested to navigate at all (brutal "Delete tagging" without discussion first). When the template just was started, I proposed to abbreviate the names as much as possible, an idea I posted there where civilised, constructively collaborating people start voicing their opinions. That was done and even the names are made small.
You are not the one to define "what's useful and useless". People interested in world-wide distribution of those unique evidences of long ago can now navigate through the world, without having to click through various continents or time periods. They can pick the country of liking and read about the caves and rock shelters there and actually be informed about them. With a brutal, non-prediscussed deletion of a template under construction and expansion, yet always with an eye for the reader, you block that path. "No editor would be inclined" is again a projection of your opinions and views on others. So many different people, so many different editors, so many different readers. As said; if there are obvious errors in the template; fix them. Or use the many links to actually click a number of them and improve the articles, that is a constructive way forward. Brutal deletion and thus destruction of all the hard work and efforts is the exact opposite. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Those of you who've composed this template don't even know what these sites are: you've included places such as Tegtmeyer and Rockhouse Hollow that manifestly don't fit the "caves or cave paintings" criteria. Why should we give any weight to people who don't even know what they're talking about? Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
This template is compiled from the perspective of editors interested in archaeology/paleoanthropology, not geology. From the perspective of paleoanthropology, the distinction between caves and rock shelters isn't very significant. What's important is whether or not archaeological work has been done at a sight, or paleoanthropological evidence for prehistoric human activities have occurred at the site in question. Tegtmeyer: did archaeological work take place at the site? yes. Is there evidence of prehistoric human activity at the site? yes. Rockhouse Cliffs: did archaeological work take place at the site? yes. Is there evidence of prehistoric human activity at the site? yes. I've changed the title of the template to "Prehistoric cave sites, rock shelter, and cave paintings" to more accurately reflect the scope of the template - this template is really about "caves/cave-like things (generally rock shelters, and sometimes sinkholes or fissures) of interest to human prehistory" - which is another argument for keeping this template. A hard classification (usually found in categories or lists) will split these sites.Fraenir (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed Tegtmeyer from the list - no archaeological work was performed at the site. However, a few mistakes in curation shouldn't invalidate the validity of the template. Fraenir (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It is only about a month old and has grown quickly. Some entries should certainly be removed, but to delete it all is a bad idea IMO. When you follow the categories in simple steps it is rather easy. Continents - countries - and the locations. It is of course long because it is a global list. At least consider splitting it up, continentwise or chronologically. ATBWikirictor (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete or split, way too big. this is why we have list articles. so why not create one, say List of prehistoric cave sites or List of cave paintings or List of prehistoric cave sites and cave paintings, like we have List of caves. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or split. First, I would like to note that this template is the result of considerable and ongoing effort by myself, Doug Weller, Wikirictor, Fraenir, Tisquesusa and others from WikiProject Archaeology, so I'm disappointed that that Nyttend has apparently not bothered to notify any of us, or the WikiProject, or raise any of his objections on the template's talk page before nominating it for deletion. For example, whether to include rockshelters was a discussion on the talk page, which Nyttend would have been welcome to join.
The original idea was simply to translate fr:Modèle:Palette Grottes ornées which is a normal-sized navbox, but admittedly the template has grown considerably since then. I don't see how a long navbox is ipso facto useless for navigation, however if that is that consensus, the obvious solution would seem to be to split it by continent and/or country rather than throwing away all the work and deleting it. Joe Roe (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Navigability issues can be resolved by making the template collapsible in a nested manner, or hiding certain parts of the template. For the items in this template, I think the template format actually provides for superior navigability vs a list format: admittedly, the current template format isn't the most navigation-friendly, but a list format version of this would be completely unwieldy. As for scope, that's an issue that can be discussed. I currently view the scope to be: "caves and rock shelters of interest to human prehistory". With that in mind, there's also some interesting ways to improve the template such as providing a mechanism for quick recognition of sites that have yielded human remains, sites that have yielded human DNA, etc... compact and quick delivery of key information is something that will be easier to come by via template. Fraenir (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Resolved The only right place to discuss these issues, solved. Tisquesusa (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi! Is the matter resolved or not? Just asking because the Deletion Tag is still active and it makes me admittedly feel uneasy. BTW i want to KEEP the Navbox. ATBWikirictor (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    Wikirictor, the discussion is still open. Tisquesusa has (in my opinion) made an unfortunate choice in template/image to signify that they have fixed one of the issues presented by Nyttend, and has apparently created some confusion. I would invite them to reconsider their template use. Similarly, I have reformatted your comment so that it is not on three separate lines. We can read the bold just fine. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The issue of the user who dumped a tag on a navbox under construction without discussing it first on the Talk page was "it is huge". There are literally hundreds of navboxes on Wikipedia that are huge, so that cannot be a ground for deletion. That issue was solved. The other issue that user had, was that there was content in the navbox that was misplaced. That is also no ground for the deletion of a navbox (the navigation purpose is not hindered by content that shouldn't be there), but has been solved by one of my dear colleagues here. So there is no issue anymore; the navbox is collapsed and can be expanded upon desire, just like many other navboxes are. What "discussion" is there then? Who still wants to destroy the hard work by a number of people here? And why is the decision of 1 user who dumps tags on a navbox more important than of those actually constructing something? Tisquesusa (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the Navbox is collapsed on default and navigable in three simple steps from Continent via Country to Location. It is voluminous because it is a global list, which however (as already stated) is reasonably organized. Wikirictor (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikirictor. Doug Weller talk 05:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Split into separate navboxes for each continent, then Delete. Note that using {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} does not solve the problem of excessive links(*), it merely hides it – which is worse than before, because hidden problems tend not to get fixed. (*) increases quadratically as the number of items increases, if the navbox is to satisfy WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --NSH002 (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite Monumentenregister/URL[edit]

Pointless sub-template that can be substituted into the parent without causing any issue. I will "noinclude" the TfD notice, so as not to break transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Russian city district[edit]

Only used in one article. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
10:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as an unnecessary wrapper of {{Infobox Russian district}} (itself redundant, most likely to {{Infobox settlement}}). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, per arguments covered in the previous TfD. Thank you for reminding that it is only used in one article, though—it seems it slipped Andy's mind to clean up after himself after the template had been retained last time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 8, 2016; 13:17 (UTC)
    @Ezhiki: I'm not entirely convinced, given that this wrapper has one predefined parameter (|type=CD). Everything else is just passed through unmodified to {{Infobox Russian district}}. What's the point? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    13:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
    You are right about the wrapper using just one predefined parameter, but the main point of the template is to prevent displaying the values in the fields which are inapplicable to city districts (but are applicable to administrative/municipal districts of the federal subjects). There is a whole lot of stuff in the regular district template which should not be shown if it is accidentally filled out for a city district (this happened before and, indeed, is what prompted the creation of the wrapper). That predefined parameter serves as a switch. An alternative is to hardcode that switch into the regular template for each individual parameter inapplicable to city districts, but from the coding point of view it doesn't sound like a good idea—it's pretty messy and a nightmare to maintain. (And as an aside, as far as usage goes, there are currently 305 city districts in Russia, all of which should have articles but only a handful currently do). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 8, 2016; 13:58 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Ezhiki--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pigsonthewing. It is not necessary to create a wrapper template to prevent certain parameters from being passed. Just don't pass them to the broader template. They do not need to be forced to have no effect. Pppery 12:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Le Mans FC squad[edit]

Template is outdated as it has not been updated since July 2013. Le Mans FC#Current squad lists 6 notable players as of January 2016. Club currently playing in the 5th tier of French football. Kq-hit (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Query. @Kq-hit: What is your actual deletion rationale? "Needs to be updated" isn't one.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
There are only 6 notable players at the club currently, those who have played in higher divisions before. Playing a match for the club does not make a player notable, as the club does not play in a fully professional league any longer. A squad navigation box does not have much value if there are hardly any blue links. Kq-hit (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 16:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as they don't play in a fully pro league. --SuperJew (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think. Not playing in a fully professional league isn't relevant; what matters is the template having any navigational value. Working from the current squad as listed on, there are seven notable players with existing articles on, which is probably enough to justify keeping. Plus another three players and the manager who satisfy our notability criteria but who don't yet have articles on here; if they had, it'd be eleven notables, which is plenty. I'll update it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
    • One of the players (Alexandre Vardin) that Struway mentions here as satisfying our notability criteria but not having an article yet does not actually meet our criteria, despite the fact he has an article on Their standards only require players to have played for a professional club, whether in a fully-professional league or not, so his 27 appearances in the Championnat National for the professional club Boulogne in the 2012–13 season render him notable there but not here (CN is not a WP:FPL). I've updated the template to show this. BigDom (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Despite my point above, I think the navbox still easily navigates between a large enough number of notable players (9 + manager) to be useful, which is the main criteria for keeping a navbox. BigDom (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Serves its purpose to navigate through the squad with mutiple bluelinks. I don't understand where playing in a fully-professional league makes a difference to navigation. --Jimbo[online] 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Walton Casuals F.C. squad[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).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7. — ξxplicit 06:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually created the template myself, although upon further research have found it is not common due to the lack of links. When created there were plans for a lot of 'notable' players to join in the coming days but for various reasons this has changed. Sixtrap (Sixtrap) 13:25, 20 September 2016 (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).

September 19[edit]


Since BASC no longer exists and arbcom-appeals-en no longer in use, this edit notice can probably be deleted as obsolete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have you notified ArbCom about this nomination? If not, could you? Given that this template is used only by arbitrators, we should ensure they're fine with getting rid of the edit notice. I can't see why they'd want it to stay. ~ Rob13Talk 08:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    Not sure how to do that. Opabinia regalis? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    We should make a template that pings all of us.. Oh god no! I posted a note at WT:AC in case anyone else has input, but I can't think of a reason to keep this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:External link[edit]

Created in 2009 and still labelled "currently for experimental/testing purposes only." Has 1,898 transclusions (a tiny, tiny proportion of our external links), mainly through its use in templates.

In {{Bugatti}}, for instance it uses {{external link||Bugatti Automobiles official website}} where [ Bugatti Automobiles official website], which has 16 fewer characters, would suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete For bots that work on external links (there are many) it would require special handling to parse the template and write it out. My guess is most bots don't know this template exists and the links are passed by unprocessed (such as dead link and archive checkers). The template has no option for |archiveurl= for example if a link is dead. If an external link template is used, preferably it would be {{cite web}} which is better supported by the CS1 standard (including by third party tools). In fact, recommend making the conversion for the 1898 instances with a bot, in {{Bugatti}} to see how they compare:
  • {{external link||Bugatti Automobiles official website}}
‹See TfD›Bugatti Automobiles official website
  • {{cite web |url= |title=Bugatti Automobiles official website}}
"Bugatti Automobiles official website". 
Almost exactly the same (the later has "quotes" around the title). This template has some options cite web doesn't but that could be worked out with a bot that does conversions to plain text. BTW I'm having trouble finding where the template is used due to transclusions 'What Links Here' doesn't work. -- GreenC 12:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment from template creator. This template came about after discussions such as this, this, and others.
    I marked this template as experimental when I wrote it in 2009. No one has apparently ever felt the need to edit its documentation to remove the notice. If the notice bothers you, please feel free to edit the documentation subpage and remove it.
    The template was never intended to be used in place of simple links that could be produced using brackets. I suggest reading the template's code and documentation. If this template is being used in certain cases where brackets would be more appropriate, then it should be replaced in those cases with simple brackets.
    It's also quite possible this template should be renamed. It has uses, but with its current name, it might be prone to overuse. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • For example it duplicates {{official}} (158660 count) and most of its features are found in {{web cite}} such as |language=, |subscription=, |registration=, |type= and |format=. It does have a feature |template= which is useful though not sure how widely used and not critical. -- GreenC 15:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but your arguments are fundamentally flawed. {{official}} does not duplicate the functionality of this template, hence the prior discussions regarding a meta template to handle special case external links.
        {{cite web}} also does not duplicate its functionality and should never be nor was it ever intended to be used for general purpose use for external links. Citation templates have a massive amount of overhead compared to much smaller single/special purpose templates which is why we have both. I'm speaking as someone who is intimately familiar with the internal working of the citation templates. [4] [5] --Tothwolf (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Fair enough re: cite web. Learn something new every day. I've redacted the suggestion. It seems like a fork of {{official}} that I don't understand even after reading the discussion. If you need more than official provides than use a plain text entry (no template). Or work to integrate features into the official template. Question: you mentioned the documentation contains information of how the template is meant to be used but I don't see it (other than syntax). Is it mostly meant to be used from within other templates (which seems to be the cases)? Thanks. -- GreenC 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
          • At the time this template was written, {{official}} was a very very simple link wrapper template [6] with a total of 107 bytes: [{{{1|{{{URL|}}} }}} {{{name|Official website}}}] I'm not really sure {{official}} should have ever been expanded to the point it is now, because it has a very high number of transclusions which will never make use of all the additional functionality and associated overhead. The fact that it was converted from a very simple link wrapper into a complex Lua module itself is somewhat troubling. I'm not necessarily opposed to merging some of the functionality of {{external link}} into {{official}}, its just that I'm not sure this is the best way to go. We had a lot of discussions about this stuff in 2009 spread out over a lot of talk pages. It could be that we should really be looking at going the other way, and simplify {{official}} and have a different Lua-enabled link wrapper template along the lines of {{external link}} (possibly under a different name to avoid overuse) to be used only for the more complex use cases. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • In the former discussion, User:Thumperward told you if the current wording is "never ideal" then it should be changed, not worked around with new flags or template forks or whatever. There is nothing there that justifies the existence of this template. Even so, there is still the issue that a mere 1,898 transclusions in seven years shows that the community has "voted with its feet" on the use of this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • comment, somewhat indifferent to the deletion of this template in the cases that it uses all three input parameters (url, link label, and "at"). when it uses only two input parameters (url and link label), it seems somewhat pointless. I fixed two templates which were using this instead of {{citation}} or with only two input parameters (clearly overkill). so, as a result, the transclusion count has dropped to around 300-350 250-275. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • That's definitely a move in the right direction. {{external link}} was never intended to be used the way it had been used in templates like {{bugatti}}. [7]
      More in reply to Andy above, as far as transclusion counts go, we have lots of useful external link templates with low transclusion counts. For example, {{sourceforge}} (194) and {{freecode}} (134). Even {{dmoz}} (7276) has but a fraction of what {{official}} has. A low number of transclusions does not necessarily mean a template is useless or has no purpose. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
      • My argument is not that the number of transclusions is low, but that the percentage of potential uses is so low that it shows that the community prefers not to use this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Even in cases with all three parameters, removing the template saves 13 characters. What useful purpose does it serve? I've not seen any argument here that it has one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I really thought the template's documentation was self explanatory. Here are a few examples:
    {{External link|url=|name=Example|language=eo}}
    ‹See TfD›Example (in Esperanto)
    {{External link|url=|name=Example|subscription=y}}
    ‹See TfD›Example (requires subscription)
    {{External link|url=|name=Example|flash=y}}
    ‹See TfD›Example (requires Adobe Flash)
    {{External link|url=|name=Example|requires=requires a special plugin}}
    ‹See TfD›Example (requires a special plugin)
    This template was never intended to be used as a general purpose link wrapper. It was intended to be used for these type of special cases. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Or even:
      {{External link|url=|name=Example|language=eo|subscription=y|flash=y|}}
      ‹See TfD›Example (in Esperanto, requires subscription, requires Adobe Flash)
      ...which is something other templates like {{official}} cannot do. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


I propose that this template, which seems to be listing ALL drugs of a certain chemical class, be deleted. It

  • Is not navigationally useful
  • Is extremely large
  • Acts as a list
  • Can be easily duplicated (and probably is) using categories
  • Contributes to pointless navbox sprawl

I propose that this template is deleted and instead we use categories and subcategories to represent this content. I propose this move speculatively and look forward to hearing the opinions of other users Tom (LT) (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep as a pharmaceutical chemist not involved in the creation, I find it very useful. If you don't like it, you can always hold an RFC to have it collapsed by default. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure the template is all that useful. Even though it is large, it only includes a small fraction of the >300 Wikipedia articles about piperazines. I don't know why some are included and most are not. To be useful, I think it would need to be focused in some way. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete: The template isn't divided by relevant topics. I agree, it acts like a list. It looks like just an arbitrary proper subset of piperazines. For mentioning all pages we have on piperazines, a list or a category are better. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, or split up into several smaller templates; this one's just too large to be useful for navigation. Or perhaps listify. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep - it's a useful template, even if it isn't all-inclusive (nothing ever is anyways). I don't see the point to deleting it - just make sure it's collapsed by default. Garzfoth (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Iranian university ranking[edit]

Redundant, no transclusions. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:UTC with local time link[edit]

Created 2011, but only two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Lean toward keep: We're very tolerant of low-use templates intended for user and project space. The site being used to provide the data is free and not covered with ads (I just checked with my ad-blocker turned off), so it's not spammy, just a utility. This would be useful for coordinating things like a local wiki-meetup or cutoff time for processes like RfA. This template can be used as a meta-template, and the underlying site (aside from this template in particular) could be used more broadly, though we'd need another tool (see below) to get at specific hour and minute values to feed into it. At bare minimum this should at least be userspaced to the author, not just deleted.
    Could be replaceable with a Lua module that munged {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} and {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} to get at specific values in them. If we had that (do we not already?), and it were done flexibly, it could be used for an array of template situations, e.g. even to convert one local time silently to UTC then back out again as a different local time, or whatever. The hitch is that WP:MAGICWORDS only gives us {{CURRENTHOUR}} not minute, so doing it without Lua wouldn't be able to account for fractional-hour time zones.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • weak keep, or move to project space. it is being used, but we probably don't need it in template space. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Single use Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep. The purpose of this template is to frame Publisher Item Identifier (PII) codes in citation id= parameters (at least for as long as we don't have a dedicated pii= parameter, as exists in some other WPs). It can also be used in flow text.
The idea is to provide a convenient and consistent (and searchable) output format for all such ids, and to later have some means to adjust this format centrally for all PIIs (and other ids) would this become necessary in the future for technical or cosmetical reasons. It should be added to many other citations rather than be deleted (the template is just a couple of months old, that's why it isn't used in more citations already).
While the template is - at present - only a simple wrapper without much "functionality", in the long run, I see this being converted to use the more generic {{Catalog lookup link}} template internally, and have meta data output and error checking added.
I don't see any of our deletion criteria for templates applying and also I can't identify any other plausible reason why we should delete this.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Matthiaspaul, is there a website for navigating by PII like we have for doi? Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. It's an identifier, sure, but it's a pretty useless one. I'd be in favour of purging PII from all articles actually. Same for SICI.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
in that case, delete as pointless. Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I must have a very different definition of being "pointless", it seems... To me it is just the opposite:
While I am not currently aware of a publically available online service to retrieve these PIIs, one of the benefits of using templates for all such IDs over embedding them as free-flow text is to enable central maintenance. If someone finds or creates such an online service, a single edit to the template will enable online lookup for all of those IDs at the same time. If that service changes later on, a single edit to the template is enough to bring all entries up to date.
Also, templating this information makes it machine readable (in source code, in rendered output and potentially also in meta data), so it helps bots to retrieve that info and thereby helps that it gets incorporated into other databases - to which we can then point the template's link. So, by providing the info in a machine readable form, we help externals to build the resources we can later benefit from ourselves. It's creating a win-win situation.
Having those IDs in a consistent format also makes manual searches via Wikipedia's own search engine more reliable - to the immediate benefit of readers and researchers who look up this information.
Further, with a bit more time at hands to implement a template allows us to add error checking for parameter values, so that typos in IDs can be easily spotted and corrected.
And finally, even if the template only links to Publisher Item Identifier at present, it is much easier to remember and use and much shorter to enter than always having to type these links in manually. So, even a few invocations of a template already justify its existance.
I could agree with the renaming of the template if it would be "in the way" of some other template of the same name, but it isn't. It also does not cause any confusion, so there is simply no valid reason to delete.
In general, we may like or not like those PIIs, but we cannot deny the fact that they exist. There are documents, which have other IDs and no PIIs, which have PIIs and no other ID, or which have several types of IDs. Editors should have some easy means to use them where they see fit, and to have them all in the same (or at least a similar) format (MOS), we have to provide templates for all of them - including PIIs, of course. Having templates only for the most frequently used IDs would undermine the whole idea. Deleting the template would not only be "pointless", but counter-productive.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Matthiaspaul's reasoning and the lack of any rationale for deletion. If there are documents that have PIIs but no other identifiers, then this template is useful. Even if it's a legacy standard, I'd expect there to be quite a few documents that it's easier to get the PIIs for (rather than other IDs), so this is a convenience for editors. Now, if it's necessary to purge PII from all articles at some point, then these PIIs would need to be replaced by some other identifier, and this is going to be all the more easier if these PIIs have already been formatter with this template. Uanfala (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've purged them already, they were only used on one article, and all had more standard identifiers like doi. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I was referring to PIIs that aren't formatted using the templates, or ones that are going to be added in future. Uanfala (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Phillips Haymakers football navbox[edit]

Navbox with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Spring Hill Badgers football navbox[edit]

Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment A third if we count the link to Spring Hill Badgers football. I created both the Spring Hill and Phillips navboxes, so I'm addressing both with this post. They are both historically significant football programs of yesteryear. Spring Hill can be a bit confusing for notability as I believe it was a prep school, but then the same might be said of Carlisle. They are far from the only programs with red links. Still, I tried to at least add one more season for each. Cake (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:2002 Gujarat Violence[edit]

Trivia, BLP violation, people section is entirely objectionable. Do we have any such other navbox? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Hardly trivia. All the entries are notable and have their own wikipedia page. Anyone wanting to know more about the 2002 Gujarat riots through wikipedia pages can do so with the help of this template. The 2002 Gujarat Riots was a significant event in modern Indian history. So Keep. Soham321 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, i am unable to understand how there is any possible BLP violation through the usage of this template. Soham321 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly a notable topic. The template helps navigation and gives an overall view of the pages on the subject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Capankajsmilyo, could you explain why you find the template to be a "BLP violation"? If the people it lists are solely (or almost entirely) known for their role in the massacres, I'm not sure I see why they shouldn't be included. Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." This is what it reads. I doubt all those listed in people section are convicted. Are they? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, the inclusion of these people in this navigational template doesn't imply that they have been convicted, only that they have an association with the events in one way or another: either as perpetrators of the violence, or as victims (like Ehsan Jafri). If you feel that a particular person's involvement in the events doesn't justify inclusion in the template, you're free to remove them. Uanfala (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep quite a logical collection, IMO. "Involvement" does not mean "criminal involvement," and all the individuals listed are very clearly "involved" (according to reliable sources) in one capacity or another. Vanamonde (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Please sign[edit]

Redundant, non-standard user talk-page message template. Only twelve (12) transclusions, after ten years, despite being marked "This template should not be substituted". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redundant to {{Uw-tilde}}. DrKay (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If not need is demonstrated for this particular wording of the text, redirect to {{uw-tilde}} (which it duplicates). I'd suggest keeping the redirect as an {{R with history}} as it was created a year or so before the target. Uanfala (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Adding that, even with uw standardisation and all, typing {{please sign}} is more intuitive than {{uw-tilde}} and that alone justifies having it as a redirect. Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Kana Museve Wode Nyama[edit]

I don't really think what this template was used for. It looks like an article instead of template. NgYShung huh? 11:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G6 as in wrong namespace. Probably others apply. Note also that the author of the book that is being talked about in the "article" is the same as the editor's username. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


Seems to have been created out of process without a matching category and is currently not being used. With a population of 120k it's fairly marginal for having its own stub type. Le Deluge (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Clash of the Choirs[edit]

No cast and crew in navboxes per WP:PERFNAV. What's left isn't worthy of navbox inclusion either. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:NBC News personalities[edit]

No cast and crew in navbox per WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:The Voice (India)[edit]

No cast and crew per WP:PERFNAV. Once these are removed there is no useful navigation function performed by the navbox. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Propose merging Template:Citeplaton with Template:Citeplato.

Minor formatting difference only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 07:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to cite plato as the two templates are almost entirely identical. Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Samford Bulldogs quarterback navbox[edit]

Not enough links for this navbox. Once enough blue notable links are added I would support recreation. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

September 18[edit]

Template:Timeline of Yugoslavia's evolution as a republic (1943-onward)[edit]

Per the WP:TEMPLATE definition, template is a page created to be included in other pages (plural). This template was transcluded into one page until I removed it [8] because it did not serve any purpose. Thus, it is now not included into any other page. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Current WWE Champions[edit]

There are currently two WWE Championship templates, Template:Current WWE Champions and Template:WWE Championships. However, due to a recent discussion, most agree that the former should be deleted because of the following:
1. A template listing all the current champs is not helpful at all.
2. The current champions template will have to be updated every time there is a title switch.
3. It will also have to be removed from the one wrestler's article and added to the new champ.
And that's why I'm nominating for deletion; it's a maintenance disaster and the reason we chose not to list the current champion in the navbox ages ago. Nickag989talk 15:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Likewise Template:Current TNA Champions.oknazevad (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. With templates for separate titles where no names are removed, title changes would require names and templates to be switched with this one, which isn't helpful at all. Sekyaw (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.LM2000 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


Redundant to other, similar, templates, not least {{Busy}} and {{Busy2}}. Only four (4) transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Zalaegerszegi TE sections[edit]

Misleading template, as the backlink is not pointing to the parent club (that has no article) but to the football section. With just two relevant links (out of three possible) it can be replaced by a "See also"-section The Banner talk 11:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Pécsi VSK sections[edit]

Template to navigate between sections of a multisportclub, but there is no article about the parent, making the template swim in the water and losing its purpose. The Banner talk 08:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are plenty of (Hungarian?) templates like this (Template:Vasas SC sections, Template:Zalaegerszegi TE sections, Template:Ferencvárosi TC sections, Template:MTK Budapest sections, Template:Műegyetemi AFC sections, Template:Kecskeméti TE sections, Template:Budapesti Honvéd SE sections, etc.), where there is no article for the parent entity, making look like the football team is The club. I don't know whether it is an issue for the Hungarian sports templates only, but if you think this in inappropriate, you should delete almost all of these templates. And actually for PVSK there is a kind-of-parent site, the Pécsi VSK (disambiguation) page. vampeare (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Linking to a disambiguation page is an even worse idea than not linking at all. With the link (now again removed) is will show up at teh maintenamnce list "Templates with disambiguation links". With just 4 subsections, it can easily be replaced by a "See also"-section. The Banner talk 11:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite nothing[edit]

Unused. Apparently pointless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This was used for performance testing during the Lua citation transition. If no one is using it now, it can probably be deleted. Dragons flight (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I imagine this can be useful for testing, but then it had better be moved to the more descriptive title {{Do nothing}}. Uanfala (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion should center on whether this should be moved to a more appropriate name in the template space, moved to someone's userspace (if anyone volunteers), or deleted outright. At present, it isn't being used in the mainspace or outside of userspaces, which historically has met with consensus it shouldn't remain in template space unless future use seems likely.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 04:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • [As nominator] This should be deleted outright; the only argument for keeping it is that one person imagines it may be useful in the future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If there's consensus against keeping it in template space, I'd volunteer to have it at User:Uanfala/Do nothing. Uanfala (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete if it doesn't cite or do anything, then it has no good reason to exist. This being unused doesn't surprise me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


Serves no purpose and barely used. This verges on a T2 speedy. We do not need a template declaring why an article has the title it does. The effect, if not explicit purpose, of the template would be to discourage anyone from using normal WP:RM process if they think an article is not correctly named. Templates like this encourage WP:OWN behavior and will just inspire the creation of more "claim-staking" tags ("This article follows WikiProject Foo's preferred way of punctuating", yadda yadda).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Social Media Presence[edit]

Per WP:External links#Minimize the number of links and WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, having this is too many links for an infobox. Just a subject's website is enough there. We don't need to overstuff infoboxes with excessive links as infoboxes are meant to be concise instead of exhaustive. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • keep There are a few instances when I believe this template usage is appropriate and beneficial.
    • Firstly, as per WP:External links#Minimize the number of links, multiple external links are permissible in circumstances in which the links are not otherwise accessible via an official website. One such example would be Cenk Uygur, who does not have an official website. Both his facebook page and twitter page offer unique content not otherwise accessible, and which relate directly to his notability as a political commentator. His official twitter is currently linked in the external links, but his facebook page is not. Rather than cluttering up the external links section with multiple lines of text links to these resources, I believe the page would be better served by just including this template in the infobox, which takes up less space and is clear to any user what it is.
    • Secondly, we already have templates such as Template:Infobox YouTube personality, which can include, among many other things, links to multiple official youtube channels, even when the article may also contain an external link to an official website. The use of this template with just the youtube_channel parameter is therefor less cluttering and links to less official links than than the current Template:Infobox YouTube personality does.
    • Thirdly, I see this template as a small concise way to avoid the need to develop larger, more cluttered infobox templates for things such as an "Instagram Personality" following in the youtube box's footsteps. Even worse would be articles that could be considered both youtube and Instagram personalities using both modules to create an insanely huge infobox.
    • Furthermore, the guides to external links are not written in stone and do allow for exceptions. I believe there are cases in which multiple external links, provided in a small, clear, and clutter-free form via this template would benefit and article while not conflicting with the REASONINGS by the guide of keeping external links to minimum. Take the Grumpy Cat article for example. The cat's social presence is fundamental to its notability. Chances are, viewers of this article would be interested in the Instagram/twitter/facebook page without having to navigate through an official website. Providing these links would produce a safer browsing experience, as these large social sites likely have better security features than a random web host of the official site. Providing an easier and safer method of access the cat pictures on both Instagram and Facebook has little risk of "putting undue emphasis on what the subject says" (one of the key components in the minimizing external links reasoning.) Lizzymartin (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Even for instances when a subject only has an official Facebook or Twitter without his or her own website, it's best to just include one (or maybe both) of those and list them in the "website" parameter with something like "on Facebook" or "on Twitter" so people don't confuse it with a separate website. Anything more than that is rather much. It probably takes up less article space to do that than to have multiple icons for each social media site. There is also the option of listing such sites in the "External links" section of articles instead of filling the infobox with social media. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant; after replacing any transclusions wit the relevant individual templates (i.e. {{Twitter}}, {{Facebook}}, etc.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant and WP:NOT. —IB [ Poke ] 10:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie poster[edit]

Single use Wikisource-link template, created 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep there are lots of similar single source templates see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sister_projects#Wikisource. Each is useful as it remove the complexity of hand-crafting the link to the book on Wikisource, and if the book is moved there is only one place it has to be changed on Wikipedia instead of possibly thousands of pages as would be the case with {{EB1911 poster}}. In this case it is a sister template to {{Cite ADB}} and like its big brother it links to the German version of Wikisource that few editors know how do do. User:Pigsonthewing please explain why you think that single use Wikisource-link template are undesirable. -- PBS (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I didn't say "single source", said "single use". The reason such templates are undesirable is explained in Wikipedia:Template consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @User:Pigsonthewing, if this template is used again would that remove its status as "single use" and invalidate this request or is it then "dual use" and open for deletion? How many times does it need to be used before you would not put it up for deletion? -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment If you mean at the moment there is only one instance then if there is another instance will that suffice for you to withdraw this request? The reason for these poster [box] links, is because once an article has more modern sources then the use of the Wikisource as a citation becomes redundant. But rather than just deleting the link this template can placed into external links and used in place of the citation now redundant citation while keeping a link to the sister project. -- PBS (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, pending examination of this class of templates. I'm skeptical that the rationale PBS gives is sufficient reason to keep this series of templates. If the work in question is being cited as an actual source, then it belongs in the citations. If it was used for actual content in the article, then it needs a different kind of template like {{EB1911}}. If neither is happening, there is no reason to to apply such a template in the manner this one is being employed in right now. It simply is not relevant to our readers that WikiSource has some old book scanned that has some material about the subject of the WP article. WP articles do not exist as a vehicle for advertising other projects. If we would not also provide a link to the same work at Google Books or Project Gutenberg in the "External links" section, we have no reason to provide the WS link. A completely different kind of case would be WP article about a notable out-of-copyright work; then a WS link to a free copy of it would be pertinent to reader interests.

    That said, unless and until that series of templates is TfDed (remembering that the D stands for discussion), I see no rationale here to delete this particular member of that set of templates, since the work in question is a biographical encyclopedia, thus potential for additional use of this template in particular is very high. I.e., there is no present consensus to not use templates like this, so we should not selectively remove ones that are likely to be reused (even if I think consensus should be against the use of these templates). It's a lot like trying to delete infoboxes from classical composer articles because one hates infoboxes and has some influence in the classical sector, by way of analogy. Either we should generally have them or generally not have them; we should not be trying to get rid of the one, in particular, for composers.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

    • This discussion is about one template, not a family of them. The rationale for its deletion is that it is single-use, and that applied equally to the many single-use infoboxes I have previously, and successfully had deleted at Tfd. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has nothing to do with a family of templates. It has to do with the fact that this particular template is being used once. There's nothing wrong with another template within this family that is being used many times. The rationale for keeping that has been advanced is that we can more easily change the output if something changes than changing it on multiple articles, but that obviously doesn't apply here since it's being used a single time. Compare this to the plausible and related case of an in-article table (such as a season record table for a sports league). We regularly substitute and delete such templates if they're single use, but that doesn't mean we delete all of them, as some are used on multiple articles. ~ Rob13Talk 02:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, better to just use cite ADB, rather than a large floating box. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

September 17[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).

The result of the discussion was Keep (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:APOD with Template:Cite APOD.
I recently made the original {{APOD}} a wrapper for {{Cite web}}. User:Tom.Reding then moved that to {{Cite APOD}}, and recreated the old {{APOD}}. Since only one template is needed, I redirected that to {{Cite APOD}}; however, Tom has reverted me.

I reiterate: only one template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, nom has failed to read the documentation for each template. {{Cite APOD}} is only used for reference purposes, wrapped in {{Cite web}}. {{APOD}} is used for non-reference purposes and is used to simplify, and standardize, APOD external links only. Both will be populated over the next few days.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You know nothing about what I have or have not read; desist from pretending otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
      • The templates' functions are clear from their documentation. Because, as you reiterated, "only 1 template is needed", I suggest that you re/read their documentation, which then precludes the need for this frivolous TfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  22:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I have already read the documentation, which you recently wrote, and disagree with the need for it; or for more than one template. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tom.Reding basically, and WP:TROUT Andy for bring this to deletion. The templates have clearly different purposes, much like {{cite sbdb}} and {{JPL small body}} have different purposes. One is for citations, the other for external links. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep seems obvious. Clearly different functions that, I believe, could not be satisfactorily combined. Huntster (t @ c) 20:53, 19 September 2016 (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).

Template:Do for every Dutch province[edit]

Overly specific reimplemnation of an old pre-lua version of Template:For loop used only in the creator's userspace. Pppery 00:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • move to userspace Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2016 (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.


Geography, politics and governance[edit]






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.

That sounds like a good place to hold the conversation. Primefac (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:Toei Animation television has been created/populated with the shows found in that section. Primefac (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

Archive and Indices[edit]