Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, 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 and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. If it is an unused, hardcoded instance or duplication of another template, tag it with {{Db-t3|~~~~~|name of other template}}.
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).

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • For deletion: {{subst:tfd}}
  • For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:tfd|type=sidebar}}
  • For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:tfd|type=inline}}
  • For deletion of a module: {{subst:tfd|type=module|page=name of module}} at the top of the module's /doc subpage.
  • For merging: {{subst:tfm|name of other template}}
  • For merging an inline template: {{subst:tfm|type=inline|name of other template}}
  • If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the Tfd notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019_February_20#Template:template_name.css */
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.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors[edit]

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

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that an template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets, such as "T3" for hardcoded instances.

Notifying related WikiProjects

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

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

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

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.

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

Twinkle[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

February 20[edit]

Korean Broadcasting System drama templates[edit]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 12#Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation navboxes and various other similar navboxes recently deleted for the same reason. --woodensuperman 15:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Seven templates listing programmes only loosely connected by being shown at the same time and day on the same channel + one template linking to the other seven. Nigej (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

JTBC drama templates[edit]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 12#Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation navboxes and various other similar navboxes recently deleted for the same reason. --woodensuperman 14:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Four templates listing programmes only loosely connected by being shown at the same time and day on the same channel + one template linking to the other four. Nigej (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Simpsons episode with Template:Infobox television episode.
Infobox Simpsons episode is one of only two episode infoboxes that have a separate show-specific infobox. In being a separate infobox, the template has not been kept up-to-date with the changes of the main episode infobox:

  1. Missing the |teleplay= and |story= parameters, which episodes such as "Black Widower" and "'Round Springfield" should use.
  2. Missing the |multi_episodes= parameter, which episodes such as "The Great Phatsby" should use.
  3. Missing |photographer=, |editor= and |runtime=.
  4. Missing short description.
  5. Non-standard episode numbering - while ~10k articles use a numbering style which is based on the episode number of a current season (as in season 30, episode 2), this uses the total number of episode in the show (as in 641). This gives much less context to the reader and there is no reason to deviate from the norm here.
  6. Inadequate documentation (including no TemplateData).
  7. No real maintainers, as can be seen from Category:Pages using infobox Simpsons episode with unknown parameters, compared to {{Infobox episode}}'s category.

Additionally, this infobox has some unique features not present in {{Infobox episode}}:

  1. A complete season episode list - which per this discussion has been removed from all episode infoboxes and should be removed from this one.
  2. A complete season list which should be removed as well, as it duplicates the season list that already appears in the navbox template at the bottom of every episode article.
  3. Using |show runner= parameter instead of a |producer= parameter, which per a recent discussion consensus seem to be against having a show runner parameter in the infobox.
  4. 3 unique parameters - |blackboard=, |couch gag= and |commentary=. The 3 unique parameters can either be added to the standard episode infobox, be used in a sub-infobox template or be removed. It's worth noting that a lot of other TV series have unique episode-specific features, which aren't represented in the infobox: Lost could have "Flashback/Flash-Forward/Flash-Sideways", "Featured character" and "Day" parameters; Star Trek: The Original Series can have a "Star date" parameter. The Simpsons is not a unique show in this aspect. Worth noting that the "Featured character" for Lost and the "Star date" for Star Trek: The Original Series are already represented in their episode list tables (yet are absent from the infobox). Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Rewrite the base template to allow custom parameters and make the Simpsons template transclude the television template with those custom parameters accounted for. We also have to take Who Shot Mr. Burns? into account as a multi-part episode that is stretched between two seasons. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:NXT UK Women's Championship[edit]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 09:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Two is too soon, whatever the merits of the other merits of the case. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:NXT UK Tag Team Championship[edit]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 09:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - One event is clearly too soon. Serves no useful purpose. Nigej (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Era[edit]

Wikipedia:Editor review is defunct. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:See also if exists[edit]

Nearly duplicate modules, only difference is that Module:Category see also if exists hardcodes category namespace. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, it seems like bad code design to me that neither template is a wrapper around the corresponding template without the "if exists" suffix, and instead hardcodes its text. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (as creator of both). No, that's not only difference. {{Category see also if exists}} does not require the "Category:" namespace prefix when linking categories. Thousands of uses will break if this is required.
See these examples:
  1. {{See also if exists|Category:Spain}}
  2. {{Category see also if exists|Category:Spain}}
  3. {{See also if exists|Spain}}
  4. {{Category see also if exists|Spain}}
Also, {{Category see also if exists}} displays a warning if none of the items exists. {{See also if exists}} gives no warning.
It would save everyone a lot of time if @Pppery did some WP:BEFORE and actually examined and tested modules&templates before nominating them as near-duplicates. This nom replicates the lack of homework in Pppery's nomination at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 29#Template:Cat_main. I just hope we don't have the same levels of bluster and obfuscation as Pppery displayed then. Face-sad.svg --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not proposing merging the templates, I'm proposing merging the modules while having the two templates still do their separate things, which can be done without breaking thousands of uses. {{category see also if exists}} and {{see also if exists}} will continue to exist, and both will use the same module, passing it different parameters which the module can use to distinguish between the two cases. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Still no acknowledgement that you had not spotted the key difference, nor any clarity about whether/how you propose to retain the distinctions. Just like last time. Face-sad.svg
@Pppery, for the avoidance of drama, why don't you simply:
  • withdraw this nom
  • design the merged module in a sandbox, so that you can actually show that what you propose is possible without creating unwieldy code
  • if we agree that it works, then we can just boldly merge. If not, bring it back to TFD.
Personally, I think that this whole thing is waste of time, but if you do want to spend your time this way, then I don't see why you would object to demonstrating your proposed code before an XFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I've written a merged module at Module:See also if exists/sandbox, with Template:Category see also if exists/sandbox and Template:See also if exists/sandbox calling it. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Pppery: please don't make me do the spadework. Please do a sandbox for both templates, and demonstrate them with a set of testcases like I did above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Done. Both tests are green at both Template:Category see also if exists/testcases and Template:See also if exists/testcases and both Template:See also if exists/sandbox and Template:Category see also if exists/sandbox call Module:See also if exists/sandbox. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Divisional Secretariats of Colombo District[edit]

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template {{Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Western Province}}, for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 04:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Divisional Secretariats of Badulla District[edit]

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template {{Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Uva Province}}, for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 04:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Divisional Secretariats of Galle District[edit]

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template {{Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Southern Province}}, for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 04:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Divisional Secretariats of Kegalle District[edit]

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template {{Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Sabaragamuwa Province}}, for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Divisional Secretariats of Kurunegala District[edit]

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template {{Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - North Western Province}}, for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Divisional Secretariats of Jaffna District[edit]

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template {{Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Northern Province}}, for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Divisional Secretariats of Anuradhapura District[edit]

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template {{Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - North Central Province}}, for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Divisional Secretariats of Ampara District[edit]

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template {{Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Eastern Province}}, for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Divisional Secretariats of Kandy District[edit]

Propose deletion of the above district-based templates. They are now merged into the singe province-based template {{Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka - Central Province}}, for neatness, less clutter, and easier navigation. Usages have also been updated accordingly. Rehman 03:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

100 of people have 100 of opinions. If possible I'd ask to delete what I have created in en.wiki. No offence and please do not response to me. Delete them all! --AntanO 15:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Central Railroad of New Jersey S-line templates[edit]

Deprecated and replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Central Railroad of New Jersey. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is this template being proposed for deletion? There is great historical significance for these component lines, the railroad had a 139 year history prior to its being absorbed by Conrail. There was no rationale given to delete the template.Dogru144 (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It's just an outdated template style. Mackensen has developed Module stuff that's above my head. It's not deleting any of the information attached. Mitch32(My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.) 07:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Correction: Szqecs and Jc86035 have written module stuff that is above your head. Mackensen just converted the old template style to the new module style. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, since the data has been migrated and the templates are now unused. Jc86035 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Fake-bot-shutoff[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 Delete; deleted as G3 by JJMC89 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 07:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Serves no purpose; the user that created this appears to be impersonating a bot. Should probably be deleted. Aspening (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Some kind of joke with no punchline. Ifnord (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete blatant hoax; I have tagged the article for CSD per WP:G3 --DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete What in the world is this? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2019 (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:Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode with Template:Infobox television episode.
Only 8 uses. No need for a separate template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose If the editor had actually researched those eight articles, they would find that the different layout requires a separate infobox. -- /Alex/21 05:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Alex 21: and if the responder had actually attempted to assume good faith instead of assuming I was just drive by editing they would understand that those additional parameters are not needed. Every TV show could have a custom fork for the couple custom parameters but that violates WP:INFOCOL. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The layout of this template is in fact quite different (particularly the episode chronology section) from the regular television episode infobox template. - Brojam (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Alex and Brojam. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above. It does appear the nominating editor has not thoroughly researched these template uses, simply looking to how many uses they have. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agree with above users. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge - a few issues here. First is the assumption that Arrowverse is the only TV series that has crossover episodes and is somehow unique (which means that even if this is not merged, all the hardcoded instances of the Arrownverse name should be removed). The second is that this can't be merged as they are completely different. The only unique parameters are the season and crossover chronology, while all the regular episode parameters are there. Merging will allow the crossover episodes to recieve any update that the main infobox gets and will allow other kind of crossovers episodes, that might need one of other parameters not available in the current corssover templates, to be able to use the template without any change. I see no issue at all with merging these. --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Gonnym: thank you for pointing out the absolute absurdity of the oppose comments... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Zackmann08, at least Gonnym has proposed a merge and how to go about it. Please remind me where you did so. -- /Alex/21 09:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
        • @Alex 21: Right here when I nominated the template to be MERGED. As for how to go about it I didn't mention it because it is pretty self-explanatory and is handled once the page is moved to the holding cell. Your objections so far have basically been to either say that I'm just blanket nominating pages so based on that alone you object, or to say that you don't understand how the templates could possibly be merged so you object. Neither of which make sense. The question here is not about HOW the templates get merged, but about whether they should. The how is handled elsewhere. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • merge per nom and Gonnym. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support generalising this template, no opinion whether as a {{Infobox crossover episode}} or as extra options in {{Infobox episode}}. DaßWölf 23:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose currently, but a generalised {{Infobox crossover episode}} may be preferable if similar examples from other shows emerge/already exist. Having said that, this is an unusual situation in being an annual occurrence of consecutive nights of The CW's broadcast schedule telling a single story (which are the articles' subjects) on different shows, hence the multiple chronologies being warranted. I wouldn't want to encourage any users to be using a multiple chronology on more usual crossover episodes, e.g. "The Simpsons Guy", which is an episode of Family Guy and not an episode of The Simpsons. U-Mos (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious merge candidate, and infobox episode would benefit from the ability to display crossover information. Forking widely-used and well-supported infoboxes just creates more work for everyone. Mackensen (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per nom. Difficult to believe that this series is so unusual as to require its own infobox. Nigej (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Jane Austen character[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Jane Austen character with Template:Infobox character.

Per WP:INFOCOL. 30 uses. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Disagree for moment. There are lots of unique fields in Jane Austen character that aren't in character infobox. How will all those fields get merged?--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Some of these (|Height=, |Income=, |LondonResidence= for example) are fancruft and should be discarded. The rest would be included, as in any merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Tom (LT): I tend to agree with what Pigsonthewing said. Can you be most specific than lots of unique fields? Which specific fields are you worried about. Certainly don't want to delete important data, but I think most of the fields in question are WP:FANCRUFT. Let me know your thoughts. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Tom (LT): bump... Can you expand your comments? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Sure. You have stated these could be merged, without providing any details about lots of fields which are different. Andy has said in a general way that lots of the varied ones can be discarded and you have said that you agree. I feel the main point of this particular merge is ideological, however I don't think in this particular circumstance it's practical given the wide discrepancy. I think it will make the reading experience worse and because of the discrepancies, also make the editing experience more confusing. I support other mergers of a similar ilk but for stated reasons oppose this one at this time.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and not merge - Most of the unique parameters here are trivia and uselss for an infobox such as |Height=, |Income=, |Education=, |LondonResidence=, |FavoritePasttimes=, |Age=. These should be removed and not added. Similar, |Birth= and |Death= were not included in the current infobox and it seems this was done on purpose and should not be added. --Gonnym (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree Most of the fields in the character infobox are irrelevant to Jane Austen characters and will only make life more difficult for prospective Austen editors. I agree that some of the Jane Austen fields are unnecessary. e.g. age, birth, death are unhelpful; height irrelevant; romantic interest and favourite pastimes are probably fancruft. Income is relevant, I think, as this is a major feature in Austen's writings and is indicative of social status, which is also very important. Family tree type info could benefit from addition of other significant relatives. Petrosbizar (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Petrosbizar: is there a reason that this information cannot simply be displayed using |data1=, |data2=, etc? That is the entire point of having those parameters on {{Infobox character}}. Every series/show has a few custom parameters so those were added so that EVERY character type doesn't need its own infobox. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Zackmann08: 1. Thanks for your comment. That sounds perfectly reasonable. 2. What you say seems to reinforce the idea of merging with, say, similar groups of novels but not with the overly large one at present suggested. 3. In practice, I'm finding the Austen Character box to be inconsistent in management (that may be my lack of experience with infoboxes). For example, in the Fanny Price infobox there is a line available for Guardian. It is filled in with the name of Sir Thomas Bertram, but this does not appear in the box. Advice?Petrosbizar (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Petrosbizar: at the end of the day, the more up-merging we can do, the better. There are times where overgeneralizing can get back, I don't think this is one of those cases. {{Infobox character}} is more than capable of displaying all the needed information. As for why guardian doesn't display, {{Infobox Jane Austen character}} doesn't have a parameter |Guardian=. That is why it doesn't work. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. All of the extra parameters, including |Income=, seem quite crufty to me. But any detail deemed appropriate can certainly be accommodated with the |dataX= parameters.— TAnthonyTalk 16:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox former subdivision[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox former subdivision with Template:Infobox settlement.
I'm curious as the whether it makes sense to simply merge this to Infobox Settlement. it seems like the majority of parameters overlap. The few that don't can quite easily be added. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The "former subdivision" obviously pertains to a country, not a settlement. Merging into {{Infobox country}} could be considered (but is not proposed so cannot be concluded). -DePiep (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @DePiep: Interesting. I actually didn't think that this did obviously pertain to a country until you mentioned it. Just curious how two people can read the same thing and see things differently. Your note about merging to {{Infobox country}} is a great point. Personally I don't see any reason that can't be discussed here? No that wasn't what I initially proposed, but if that is a more appropriate solution I think it absolutely warrants discussion. I'm curious whether others in this thread would support that solution. I'm happy to discuss it here, or just let this TFD play out and then submit a new one. Either way. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Me saying "not proposed here so ..." is my idea of due TfD. {{Infobox country}} could be brought in maybe, but by then all existing argumentations here are confusing (directed at an other proposal, the first one). After such a change of proposal, it is hardly possible to have the !votes rewritten/reconsidered. IMO if this proposal does not lead to changes, soon after a new different merge proposal can be cleanly proposed. -DePiep (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
      • And below, as a Comment, I have described my preference to stick to the useful intuitive concepts of "Settlement" and "Country", also for derivatives like 'subdivision of' and 'former'. -DePiep (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above user's reasoning. This shouldn't be done. - R9tgokunks 09:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    User:R9tgokunks There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. Only a few parameters regarding dissolution/death are the difference. Why an extra template in case of subdivisions? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose While convincing, this is just not enough justification to get rid of this infobox. I am seeing great potential for this infobox. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose IB former subdivision has a clear scope of application, where using settlement would not be appropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge The original objection, and those following it, are based on bogus reasoning; subdivisions are not countries (we have {{Infobox former country}} for those) and Infobox settlement is for "settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Note that {{Infobox subdivision}} redirects to Infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't see how they could be merged without making significant changes to IB settlement, as they have many different fields that are necessary in one template (such as all the year_start, event_star fields on IB former subdivision) but completely missing from the other. It would require a major rework just to absorb the ~2000 transclusions of former subdivision.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
      • |year_start= is called |established_date=, |year_end= is called |extinct_date=. --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I see six event fields, and all the 'preceding and succeeding entities' fields take up at least a paragraph. Has anyone made a sandbox version of IB settlement that shows how they would be added without major changes? If not, what are we !voting on?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing Please clarify how the first argument is "wikt:bogus reasoning". So far, it is only unqualified drive-by judging, not adding an argument.
Re your partial quote from documentation. For starters, by template names, "settlement" pertains to "settlements", and "country" pertains to "countries". Probably this documentation detail is substandard, and not a normative point anyway just descriptive especially not re other templates. In this guideline (i.e., a much tougher policy), it says "country subdivisions (states or provinces), such as States of Austria, ...", the link redirecting to Administrative division, which to me very clearly and flawlessly says it is about country organisation, not settlement features. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
"only unqualified drive-by judging" I believe you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist. Andy Mabbett (); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing "unqualified" is a judgement of the argument you used (while accusing another editor of being illogical without base, so far). So please reply. -DePiep (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Several of these subdividions were subordinate state and provinces, while "settlements" is supposed to covers cities, towns, and villages. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Not so, as I have already pointed out above: Infobox settlement is for "settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Dimadick, ""settlements" is supposed to covers cities, towns, and villages" - can you specify what you mean? 77.183.135.113 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per DePiep's logic. —Ntmamgtw (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge, per Pigsonthewing. There's no reason to have separate navboxes for current and former subdivisions. Note that Template:Infobox former country and Template:Infobox country were merged in December of 2016.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No, it was merged 13 August 2018. But the TfD was in December 2016. It took two years before it was merged because it was two completely different templates, and now infobox country is a two-in-one template. Christian75 (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For all the excellent "Oppose" reasons already presented above. Mercy11 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge - since {{Infobox subdivision}} already redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} and has most of the parameters, including ones for an end date of the settlement, it seems that if there are missing parameters there are very few and could be easily added. The main difference is in the names of the parameters themselves - that makes this merge even more important as having articles about the same topic differ in the naming style makes editing harder for no reason. The merge would also ensure that all articles on the same topic would have a consistent look and any updates would be gained for all articles. --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose That one calls the other is not material because people use the two templates on different types of articles and it is counter-intuitive to look for a template settlement when writing about a former county or district of Whateverland. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    • And again: Infobox settlement is for "settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Also, {{Infobox county}} redirects to - your guessed it, {{Infobox settlement}}. As does {{Infobox district}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
      • And again: the documentation is incorrect. "settlements [and] other administrative districts" (italics added): "other" states that settlements are "administrative districts" too. But that is not part of the concept. "Settlement" = where people live together. The admin organisation is not a requirement, just an non-defining property. -DePiep (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
        • A longer quote, without ellipses, is "for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
          • My point is right in there!: why "other administrative districts" while settlements are *not* an administrative district? How or why "other"? That is like: "elephants and other motorcycles": two different concepts. -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, about concepts of "settlement" and "country". We have good concepts of both "settlement" (say, a unity inhabited by people) and "country" (say, an administrative geographic region). While hard to define, they are easy to grasp, to distinguish, and are intuitively recognised by article editors. Sure there is an overlap area (eg, when a city is a administrative region), but this is not prohibiting their distinctive concept. From this, it follows that we should build supportives (like templates) on this concepts.
    There is no use in making a super-generic template "place on earth where something happens", because well, 'a city is also a subdivisdion of a country'. Instead, we are helped with templates that handle for "settlement" also 'subdivision of' and 'former'. (They might be merged into their concept parent, but only when helpful for the editor and article; no use for a 500 parameter template). Same with a "country" set. Nor does overly smart fusion of parameter sets help. Instead, parameters and their names should easily follow from or be associated with the concept.
    With this, there might be a topical overlap in an article between "settlement" and "country" (eg, municipality borders). This already is covered by having similar parameters in both templates (like pop density), so editors can pick the most obvious concept template for an article instead of having to rethink a "city" being a "country subdivision". -DePiep (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • TL;DR: Infoboxes for Settlements and their subdivisions and historical ones should be tied to the concept of "Settlement".
    Infoboxes for Countries and their subdivisions and historical ones should be tied to the concept of "Country". -DePiep (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • TL;DR: Your wishes are at odds with both current practice and current consensus. This is not the place to change either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No not "wishes", description. I did not create those concepts. (Please stop turning, after a third time now here, my arguments into personal jabs or throwaways. You are supposed to engage on content). BTW, why do you use this TL;DR construct, a special meaning? -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A settlement is different from a regional subdivision, and is different from a country. Parameter overlap should not be a requirement for merging, because different infoboxes have different parameters and purposes not used by the other infobox. -Mardus /talk 10:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    • And again: Infobox settlement is for "settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Former subdivision means a change happened in that place and the article is about the change, e.g., the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. Former subdivision infobox suits that article perfectly. Infobox settlement is about a place now in existence, its features and its history, like Chicago or Detroit. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Already good reasoning given by many. It seems quite clear that the documentation for Infobox settlement needs appropriate changes. Jazze7 (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The documentation for Infobox settlement describes how it is used. As I said above: If you wish to change the way Infobox settlement is used - and has been used for over a decade - start a discussion on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion If it will be merged, can we use bots to substitute one infobox for another? If this is the main concern of changing 2000 infoboxes, then a bot can solve it (I believe). :)--Biografer (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No need; we would simply make the template a redirect, and transclusions in articles would continue to work as at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talkcontribs) 19:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment So I don't have a strong opinion either way on the template merge, but I don't think that "this is how we've always used this template" is a fair argument for merging. Our job as editors is to create content based on how it should be, not based on how it is. If there's not a good reason why Template:Infobox settlement has been used to represent subdivisions for over a decade, then we should change our usage; if there is a good reason, then that reason for the tradition should be the basis of this discussion, not the tradition itself, and the reason should be stated here, not on a separate talk page. Someone the Person (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • To me this comment makes some more sense when read as a reply to Andy's describes how it is used-post two bullets above. -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No-one is arguing based on "tradition". There are indeed good reasons why we use the same template for various types of settlements and administrate districts (note least that many of our articles are about subjects that are both settlements and administrate districts), and we do not need to re-litigate them every time someone objects to merging very similar templates. As I said above, if an editor wishes to change the way we use, or describe, Infobox settlement, this is not the place to do so. I note also that no proposal to do so has been made, on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I find the merging of these Infoboxes unintuitive, unnecessary, and likely to make a mess. No matter how similar the templates are, merging templates with 2 different subject matters will make a mess when it comes to actually merging them, and will be confusing to those unfamiliar with the merge. Overall, it feels counterproductive to spend effort merging 2 templates to have 1 template for a bunch of things but with hundreds of different variables, when there's plenty of space for both to exist. Hecseur (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • You might find it "confusing", but those of us who have been merging templates for more than a decade, including many into {{infobox settlement}}, do not. And after the merger instances of {{Infobox former subdivision}} will work just as they do now, so no "mess" will occur. We have plenty of precedence for this. There are not "hundreds" of variables involved in the proposed merger. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
      • re Pigsonthewing. "those of us who ... do not": please do not speak for others. I have been merging just as well and not merging all those years, your statement does not hold. Hecseur is to the point when saying that this merge proposal is confusing (not so-called "confusing") because it is about "2 different subject matters". That is confusing, especially for the article editor who is invited to actually use the infobox (and let's not forget those having to write the documentation for such a chaotic situation). Describing a city with a country infobox is trying to square a circle. And yes those unnatural parameters and their presentation is unintuitive, unnecessary, and a mess. I'd still like to read why merging two different concepts is a good idea, other than 'was done before' and 'documentation says so'. (We are not talking about a merge like {{Infobox UK school}} into {{Infobox school}}, obviously). -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
        • "Describing a city with a country infobox..." Readers will note that not one person has suggested doing this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I repeat, for thos unwilling to understand: 1. Speak for yourself, 2. Yes it is about mixing up concepts. What's next? Infoboxing vulcans as a country subdivision? You still have not replied to this fundamental issue information. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
            • As I have already said above: "you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
              • Just a comment on this argument, I'm pretty sure warning a user with bold letters and using the fact that they were warned before against them really isn't addressing the problem of the conceptual division. Anyway, as I see it, the problem of different parameters is still a huge deal. The documentation states that the template is to be used in "any subdivision below the level of a country", having the names of the upper and lower houses of the legislature in a settlement infobox, doesn't make sense by that regard, at all. If there are so many variables in common, Template:Infobox former subdivision could be rewritten with Module:Template wrapper. But in my opinion, an outright merge isn't a good idea, especially since that merge isn't necessary, and isn't as obvious as it is to you to others. Hecseur (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Hecseur what is your point? The only difference is having information about the end of the entity. Dissolved, date, reason. ~ 500 000 articles use the IB settlement. It is a standard, a lot of editors know the template. Why to have an extra one for the same type of entities (type: territorial entity)? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't really understand what you're trying to argue. Just like infobox settlement is used for settlements AND subdivisions, infobox former subdivision is used for subdivisions AND countries. The matter of fact is, you don't add variables which are specific for countries, such as for the upper and lower houses of the legislature, to a template that should never be used for countries. It's like having a variable for kilowatt hours in an infobox about fungi species, it doesn't make sense for it to be there, and therefore it shouldn't. If I misread your arguement, because I didn't really understand it, let me know. Hecseur (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
        • {{Infobox former country}} redirects to {{Infobox country}}; articles on former countries should use that template, and not {{Infobox former subdivision}} (indeed, the documentation for the latter says: {{tq|"It is based on Template:Infobox former country adjusted to suit subdivisions of former countries"). Which articles on former countries use {{Infobox former subdivision}}, and how many? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose just too many useful and unique parameters that will end up deprecated in the proposed target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Mr. Guye "just too many useful and unique parameters" - which? The difference between current and former entity would normally only be, that the latter has fields relating to its end, all the rest would be the same. Not? 77.183.135.113 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. As clear by the first sentences of each template’s article, both templates are for the purposes of all non-country human settlements, just one is for former and one is for current. Why the distinction between current and former needs to be made is beyond me. Benica11 (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • A country is not subdivided into settlements. The country is about administrative geographical organisation (and so are its subdivisions), a settlement is a place where humans live together. Just reusing overlapping parameters is not a "merge". The documentation page(s) corrupt these concepts which can not work out well. -DePiep (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @DePiep: What exactly are you trying to refute from this argument? A country may not be "subdivided into settlements," but it is clear that the purpose of the template is to provide an infobox that universally serves the needs of every subdivision, province, state, department, and standard settlement with status below that of a country. Benica11 is not arguing that country subdivisions "are" settlements.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 09:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
        • re Molandfreak (ec). "purpose of the [target] template is to provide an infobox that universally serves ...": this describes the problem. The idea of a country is some administrative organisation, geographically defined (subdivisions are provinces, regions, overseas areas, ...). A settlement is where people live together, with scales like metropolitan area, neighbourhood, ...). All this also applies to "former" ones. But a country is not "devided" into settlements as a pizza is devided into constituing parts.
Now stuffing all parameters and formatting and layout and priorities for two different concepts into one template does not help anyone. It's good enough to use similar parameters (like population number), but that does not mean they should be applied the same (eg, order position in the infobox). There is no need to do so, it only leads to compromises that are unhelpful for the reader (and also confusing for the article editor having to trawl scores of parameters with wide descriptions & limitations; and that is when the documentation is up to date & complete). What is the end? One "universal" infobox for the whole of enwiki, and let the editor search?
The notice that 'documentation says so' and 'it's being used like that' is not an argument, but a bug. Why would a province be primarilly described as a settlement? Why would a cross-border metropolitan area (=settlement) be primarilly tied to a single country?
The opposite, an example. I work with templates {{Infobox drug}}, {{Chembox}}, {{Infobox element}}. All for chemicals, and no one seriously wants to merge them. That is because sure there are similar parameters (think, in a Venn diagram), but design requirements are different by concept (e.g., for a drug, chemical poperties are way less important so are below). -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Infobox country, Infobox settlement, Infobox former subdivision - each is meant for a territorial entity. The differences are small. In the case of the latter, it is only adding information about the end of the entity. There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per Andy's convincing argument and refutations.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  17:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: there is a difference between where subdivision IBs are used in comparison to where settlement IBs are used. GN-z11 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • User:GN-z11, that is NOT true. Template:Infobox settlement is used for all kinds of territorial entities, except for countries. The proposal simply is to have "former subdivisions" be handled by the same template. Check out Template:Infobox settlement and its inclusions. There is only Template:Infobox person, no Template:Infobox former person. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Your explanation basically debunks your claim. If you take a closer look, the former subdivision IB is one for former countries. As you said, Infobox settlement can't be used for countries. Per DePiep's comment, Infobox former subdivision could be merged with Infobox country. Plus, comparing settlement IBs with person IBs is really weird. GN-z11 18:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
        • User:GN-z11, that is NOT true. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox former subdivision lists East Berlin, East Prussia, Dakota Territory, Alsace-Lorraine, Zamboanga (province). Furthermore I did NOT say "Infobox settlement can't be used for countries". There is only Template:Infobox airline, no Template:Infobox former airline. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
          • No, GN-z11 is right. Note that they wrote "Per DePiep's comment", i.e., as I described it. And interestingly, again you debunk your own argument: four out of five of your examples are subdivisions of a country, not of a settlement. QED. And of course, with the template documentation being imprecise (or corrupted), bad examples like East Berlin creep in. Still this (documentation effect?) does not prove nor support the suggestion that concepts "country" and "settlement" are the same. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
            • User:DePiep you talk rubbish. I didn't claim the examples to be subdivisions of settlements. I only mentioned them, because User:GN-z11 claimed "the former subdivision IB is one for former countries" - no it is not. There is Template:Infobox country for former countries. 78.55.20.3 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
            • User:DePiep you talk more rubbish /that concepts "country" and "settlement" are the same/? What? You claim so? Anyone else? Where is the diff? 78.55.20.3 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
              • "rubbish", sure, or maybe you could read closer? Let me spell out your own self-defeating argumument: East Prussia, Dakota Territory, Alsace-Lorraine, Zamboanga (province) are (former) subdivisions of countries, not settlements; and so supports GN-z11's claim "the former subdivision IB is one for former countries". -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
                • sure rubbish: /four out of five of your examples are subdivisions of a country, not of a settlement./ - yes, and that means they are not countries, exactly what I wanted to show, because User:GN-z11 did claim the "the former subdivision IB is one for former countries". It is not. 89.12.84.122 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
              • I think DePiep has made my (and their) point quite clear for you. Otherwise I suggest you don't use phrases like "you talk rubbish" and just explain your side of the argument properly. GN-z11 12:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
                • You can make your point clear and still talk rubbish. 89.12.84.122 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Your claim "there is a difference between where subdivision IBs are used in comparison to where settlement IBs are used" us utterly false, and has been debunked several times already in this discussion. And here it is yet again: Infobox settlement is for "settlements [and] other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country"; per its own documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. There is little that prevents Infobox settlement from being appropriate to use on former subdivisions. Many of the arguments seem to be more about the name of the template than its function. --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: An overview table, showing the two dimensions 1 class (country / country subdivisions) 2 existence (former, current, proposed).
Usage of infobox templates for articles in Category:Administrative territorial entities
Namespace Category:Administrative territorial entities by type Category:Former administrative territorial entities (Current) Category:Proposed administrative territorial entities
Category Category:Countries Category:Former countries Category:Proposed countries
Template {{Infobox country}} {{Infobox country}} {{Infobox country}} {{Infobox country}}
Category Category:Country subdivisions Category:Former subdivisions of countries Category:Proposed country subdivisions
Template {{Infobox settlement}} Two infoboxes are used:

{{Infobox former subdivision}} - less than 2000 transclusions[1]
{{Infobox settlement}} - at least 79 calls by other templates (wrappers cf. Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement), ca. 500 000 transclusions

{{Infobox settlement}} {{Infobox settlement}}

77.13.148.190 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion for this seems to still be ongoing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral I would like to say that I don't think it's really important whether they are merged or not merged. However, I would like to request that someone help me find someone who would import the "other_name" parameter from 'Infoxbox settlement' into 'Infobox former subdivision' so that I can add some of the old names of Hankou on that page in the way you see other names in the infobox on pages like Beijing and Chongqing. Also, under the normal English meaning of the terms, I don't consider Hankou primarily as a "former subdivision". Hankou is a living, breathing geographical concept in modern Wuhan, despite the fact that it is no longer an official subdivision. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Andy and the IPs. The opposers' arguments don't convince me. — JJMC89(T·C) 08:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Worth noting that according to this very simple query (pages that are within Category:Former subdivisions of countries AND that use {{Infobox settlement}}), there are 25,609 that currently use settlement, compared to the 1,799 uses of {{Infobox former subdivision}}. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support based on the table and the query. Aside from many of the parameters being the same in both templates, the templates are clearly used for the same purpose, so it makes sense to merge them, regardless of any pontifications about how the "former subdivision" template's name means that it can't possibly be merged. In any case, {{Infobox settlement}} is already used for many first-level subdivisions like Guangdong (population 108 million). Jc86035 (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Germanic diachronic[edit]

One transclusion. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep better as a template, too complex in my mind to be placed just in an article - easier to edit if separate.--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per my comment above about Florida; this is huge enough to make the rest of the page harder to edit, and if you add or remove a character by mistake and don't notice it instantly, you won't know the difference because the code isn't simple. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the argument that "it is easier to edit if separate" is not a valid reason for creating or keeping a template. The purpose of a template is to be able to reuse code. If this is only used on one page, no need for a template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Inhumans IMAX[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Inhumans IMAX with Template:Infobox television episode.
only 3 uses. No need for a custom template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Did the nominating research view the articles at all? What basis do they have for "No need for a custom template"? This just seems like a mass deletion because they personally don't like forks. -- /Alex/21 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Alex 21 Has stated in another discussion that his position on this matter is now neutral. U-Mos (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    I have not. I still oppose the deletion, but am not worried about the result of the discussion. Do not put words into my mouth; consider this a warning. -- /Alex/21 10:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
So being used in relatively few articles doesn't matter again now? Interesting. U-Mos (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I can smell the straw... -- /Alex/21 11:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Alex, I'd advise caution with your interpretation of any non-keep result, as based on your comments in another thread, you are intent on ignoring the outcome decision, if it isn't a keep. Your alternative solution was not one of the options proposed here by anyone, and for what it's worth, I oppose it. --Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Luckily, that it not what is being discussed here; what's being discussed here is to delete the wrapper that holds the content of this template. -- /Alex/21 14:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
You are free to interpret it as you wish, but what is discussed here is merging/replacing the infobox used, as can be seen by the comments. If you replace this infobox, with a different infobox, that will be gaming the system, which I don't recommend, but do as you wish. --Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I see no merge !votes in this discussion, and only one comment mentioning the word "merge". -- /Alex/21 15:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as with Alex 21, please look at the template documentation. It is not simply a fork for a fork, but clearly spelled out that this is a custom infobox pulling formatting and parameters from {{Infobox television}}, {{Infobox television episode}} and {{Infobox film}}. nearly all the parameters are duplicates of the parameters in Template:Infobox television episode: yes, for the most part, but not all. As currently used, if merged, 7 of the parameters used to show data related to this unique content would not be valid, thus, rendering the infobox incomplete. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Plenty of television shows have also had film-style premieres; a forked infobox which would only ever be used in three articles seems like the wrong outcome. Alternative solutions would be using a separate, smaller infobox for the film premiere, or simply not presenting that data in an infobox. Another possibility might be modifying {{Infobox television episode}} to accept an embedded infobox as a separate parameter for situations in which episodes had theatrical releases. The original Battlestar Galactica comes to mind as possible use case; Saga of a Star World was both the pilot episode (typically shown in three parts) and released theatrically in various markets, with some editing. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Mackensen: I can't think of any other example such as the Inhumans case where the intent from the start was to release the episodes theatrically before broadcast. The example you provided isn't quite the same, as from my reading of the article, it was only done to recoup production costs, not with the intent on the onset to be a joint theatrical release and television broadcast. And yes, other series have had "premieres", but more so as a screening. So this is still a wholly unique instance where this custom infobox is warranted. I also very much disagree with your suggestion of using a separate, smaller infobox for the film premiere, or simply not presenting that data in an infobox because why should the info need to be split or removed, when this singular infobox covers it all? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Favre1fan93: a single-use or limited-use infobox is an unreasonable outcome and should be avoided at all costs. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
        Mackensen, policy or guideline that states as such? -- /Alex/21 03:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
        • @Alex 21: I'm not aware of any policy or guideline which commands such an outcome (this would be a much shorter discussion if there were). WP:INFOCOL is neither, but there is much in it which is sensible and carries some weight at TfD. Maintaining a fork of an infobox for a single article imposes an inordinate maintenance cost. Maintaining a fork to represent a couple pieces of information which are easily discussed in the main text does not, in my view, justify that cost. Mackensen (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposing for now per Alex 21 I've taken a look at the use of the template and although it is single use it's different enough to keep. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Mackensen. The article in general needs to decide whether its subject is primarily a film or a TV episode, and exist accordingly rather than attempt to straddle the boundary with a bizarre one-use hybrid template. From a cursory glance, looks like TV to me (ABC Studios/Marvel Television are the production companies listed) - and there'd be no tangible drawback to using the TV episode infobox and putting any other information in the theatrical release section. U-Mos (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I disagree that The article in general needs to decide whether its subject is primarily a film or a TV episode. As has been pointed out, yes it is episodes for a TV series, but it's unique production (with IMAX Corp.) and release (on IMAX screens) warrants how it is focused, plus the infobox that has been created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There is no need for a single-use template. If there is some really particular information that you can't shoehorn into an infobox, that's why you have text in an article. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 17:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'm leaning to agree with the supports here. While this episode was released in theaters, it was still always meant to be a two-part television episode. This was only done for a promotional boost. Out of the 7 unique parameters that {{Infobox Inhumans IMAX}} has: |country= and |language= are relevant for any episode infobox. If |starring= is relevant here, it is relevant for any episode (which the episode infobox has decided against). This just leaves: |executive_producer=, |distributor=, |gross= and |budget=. However, if we want to treat this as a film, then {{Infobox television}} is already setup for this. Bottom line, this template can use either, but it really shouldn't create a new one just for this. --Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Updating my vote: Just to make it clear, that the resulting infobox from this discussion should replace the infobox on the page. --Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support per nom. Seems to just 1 use and it is difficult to believe that this one is so unique that it requires its own infobox. Nigej (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: This looks like a copy of the "Television episode" template. -Mardus /talk 19:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:No personal headings[edit]

Superseded by Template:Uw-npa [Username Needed] 14:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

    • If so, then redirect. However, where does {{Uw-npa}} mention section headings? Hyacinth (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Hormone levels with intramuscular estradiol benzoate[edit]

Template with one transclusion using line charts pictures. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

    • Keep - Transcluded in two articles now (and possibly a third in the future). Also useful to have as a template for direct linking from outside of Wikipedia. And would be a lot of code to include in the body of the article – cleaner to have compartmentalized. Medgirl131 03:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox spacecraft[edit]

The template documentation says it is being phased out, but I don't see the deletion discussion. If it's being deleted, it should be actually replaced (as per the template doc) with either {{Infobox spaceflight}} for articles about single spacecraft or {{Infobox spacecraft class}} for articles about multiple spacecraft and then deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep , same reason as in Tfd Template:Infobox aircraft + its still used in some articles. --Denniss (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • delete if there are better infoboxes then nuke it. Looks like there's only 5ish real articles using it the rest is sandbox/userpages. -Ravedave (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete convert all remaining transclusions to use the proper template. Denniss your comment completely misses the point of the TFD... You don't keep a template just because it is still in use... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The person who edited the template to indicate that it was "being phased out" gave no hint why, and he retired from Wikipedia four years ago, so we cannot ask him. "Spaceflight" and "spacecraft" are two distinct things, so this template has a role to play. And it's not as if it disrupts Wikipedia in any way. — O'Dea (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Did some digging around to find when and why this happened. Here is the discussion which did have the consensus of the relevant project editors and has not been challenged in over 5 years of the deprecation template being added. Also for 35 articles that still use this, changing to one of the others shouldn't be a problem and would help other editors more easily decide what infobox to use. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox online music service[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox online music service with Template:Infobox online service.
Don't see any reason for separate templates. The missing params can easily be merged. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

February 19[edit]

Template:WWE Women's Tag Team Championship[edit]

Does not aid in navigation. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 21:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Asian Americans 2007 metro estimates[edit]

Unused template, has been substituted into the page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I see the content from the template(s) was moved to the article Demographics of Asian Americans in this edit, by the nominator. That transclusion preserves the data that would have been lost if the template was just deleted. That said, I don't get why this was done, as the template was being used in the wikilinked article, mentioned above. So it only became unused with the actions of the editor who is calling for the deletion. I can see the logic in the actions, but don't see why the actions were necessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Because single-use templates are generally discourgaged on Wikipedia. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Mars crater[edit]

Unneeded wrapper templates. All transclusions can simply use {{Infobox crater data}} directly. Precedent already established with Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_11#Template:Infobox_Venus_crater Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Fb overall competition[edit]

Unused template which seems to be part of the set of other Fb templates which are being deleted. Gonnym (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:England conurbations[edit]

One transclusion. Per the template's introduction, it was created to separate the template from the article England to protect it from vandalism. However, this template has not been edited since 2010, and it is not even transcluded in England; it is transcluded in Geography of England. If vandalism ever becomes a problem again, the page where this information is can be protected, especially considering that vandals can still affect whether a template is transcluded or not. Per this information, substitute and delete as unnecessary to be a template. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and completely repurpose. (I'm happy to do the work.) I agree with what's said above, but at the moment I believe we don't have any navboxes linking these largest-conurbation articles, and a navbox linking the metro areas currently on this template would be useful. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Serbia and Montenegro Squad 2006 FIBA World Championship[edit]

per prior consensus, non-medal-winning squad Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

UKBot[edit]

The English Wikipedia does not run this kind of bot-scored competition, so they are all unused with little possibility of use. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 19#UKBot {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: As the creator, I need to maintain an English version of the templates anyways since I cannot translate them directly from Norwegian to Basque and Finnish. Of course I can keep the English version somewhere else, but it's quite convenient to keep them here since they are then interwiki-linked, the documentation is easily readable, and it comes with the bonus that the bot can easily be enabled at English Wikipedia if anyone's interested in using it for article contents here. – Danmichaelo (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:URLWD[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 Delete; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 07:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unused, but even if it were used I would nominate it for merging with Module:URL {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Support: Since Module:URL returns "{{URL|example.com|optional display text}}" when its arguments are empty, but Module:URLWD returns "Script error: No such module "URLWD"." (i.e. nothing, so that an infobox will suppress the row), the different functionality will require some modification to Module:URL. However, that extra functionality will be trivial to implement, so we could then delete Module:URLWD without losing anything. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2019 (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:Mars quadrangle[edit]

Proposed deletion - Unused and seems to be replaced by Module:Celestial object quadrangle. Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Venus quadrangle[edit]

Proposed deletion - Unused and seems to be replaced by Module:Celestial object quadrangle. Gonnym (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Lunar quadrangle[edit]

Proposed deletion (and sub-templates) - Unused and seems to be replaced by Module:Celestial object quadrangle. Gonnym (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Anna Sui[edit]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 13:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote list modules[edit]

Propose merging Module:About-distinguish, Module:Distinguish and Module:Main list.

Nearly duplicate modules, sharing the core component of taking an unlimited number of parameters from template arguments and converting them into a list using Module:Hatnote list. All of the other features are frills that could easily be implemented in Wikitext. I've written a merged module at Module:Sandbox/pppery/sentence list hatnote (distinguishing this from the previous TfD, when no merged module was available), and written templates that use it in Template:About-distinguish/sandbox, Template:Distinguish/sandbox and Template:Main list/sandbox. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Pinging participants from previous discussions: @Nihiltres, SMcCandlish, and GreenC: {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Module:Cat main is intentionally excluded from this nomination, because (a) it has several unique features like bolding the title and (b) there was some talk about making it not a hatnote at all. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable. I'm in favor of consolidating code like this whenever practical to do so.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support merger in principle, oppose current implementation - instead of writing the the actual text hatnote in the template and having all templates access the same module entry point, create a different entry point for each different style (then continue the code as normal, with all entry points accessing the list() function). As I've commented in a previous discussion, if we go with a module design pattern, then keep all the code there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I deliberately modeled my code in Module:Sandbox/pppery/sentence list hatnote after Module:Labelled list hatnote, which similarly takes all its arguments from wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    If that is indeed the already used practice, then I don't oppose that anymore. Question, I looked at the code in Module:Labelled list hatnote and am wondering why does your module code copy so much of that code, instead of letting the Labelled list module handle it? Is there a reason I'm missing why it can't handle it? --Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Because Nihiltres opposed merging with Module:Labelled list hatnote in the July 5 TfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Amazing. Well, in that case there is not a lot to do. It's very silly to duplicate over 90% of a module, but it seems that there is no other way. --Gonnym (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Feel free to propose a merge of the two modules after this discussion concludes (I would support it). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I feel that you took me too literally on that; there's obviously enough commonality between the two to propose an expansion that would reuse most of the code directly in a DRY manner by refactoring monolithic code into separate functions. I opposed the July 5 one on the grounds that it didn't make sense to bloat Module:Labelled list hatnote to support {{Distinguish}} alone, but I did explicitly mention the possibility of rearranging the module structure to accommodate the idea. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 07:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Specifically, I oppose the implementation for {{about-distinguish}} that puts its Wikidata functionality in wikitext, because I oppose splitting template logic between modules and wikitext. It's one thing to supply simple text labels on the wikitext side, and quite another to supply conditionals; it's a needlessly confusing practice. I would suggest instead a simple "wrapper" module that added these conditionals by injecting their result into the input of the main function. The rest is okay I guess but could use a bit of tweaking; I haven't looked over it as thoroughly as I probably should.

    More generally, and let me make it unequivocally clear this time: Pppery, I find your practice of introducing template changes through TfD to be unwiki and unconducive to collaboration with you. I find it stressful to see nothing for some time, then be pinged on a TfD where I must—as a result of the format—argue these changes pass/fail rather than talking through the merits of different approaches. Please, use the talk pages and talk about your plans (and I'd appreciate if you ping me there), so I and others can comment and work with you rather than this adversarial-feeling approach. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 07:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:Vandal-m[edit]

Propose merging Module:Vandal-m with Module:UserLinks.
Same core function: Providing links about a specific user. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:WikiProject Central America/convert[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 Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT 03:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The bot task that once used this module finished running a year ago. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Pppery: You can just userfy this to my userspace, if you like. I prefer to retain it because I may run future bot tasks based off of this code, if I'm asked to. ~ Rob13Talk 03:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @BU Rob13: Done, to Module:Sandbox/BU Rob13 (the de facto equivalent of userspace for modules). Off to tfd the next module ... {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2019 (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).

Module:Wikidata/References/Types[edit]

Data page with no corresponding lua module (Module:Wikidata is something entirely different) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:Wikipedia Requests[edit]

Given that no Template:Wikipedia Requests subtemplates exist that could be reached by passing more than one parameter (and furthermore, doing so is unreliable because named parameters have an undefined order), this is an unnecessary lua module that could be implemented in Wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:Wikivoyage[edit]

Redundant to Module:Wikidata, see Module talk:Wikidata/Archive 1#getSiteLink {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:Wiktionary[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 Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 21:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfinished module, which in its current state returns nothing. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I can't remember what I was doing with the module, so I support deletion. — Eru·tuon 03:01, 19 February 2019 (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).

Module:Year[edit]

Unused module, redundant to Module:String {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Not sure if this is meant to be merged or deleted, but either way, both seem good options. --Gonnym (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Deleted. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:AVN Best New Starlet[edit]

An unnecessary cross categorisation. The award is minor and lacks a stand-alone article. Compare with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 9#Template:Pink Grand Prix: 1989. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:Utility[edit]

Unused {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment I originally created this module (translated from fr:Module:Utilitaire) as one of the necessary supporting components for translating fr:Modèle:Bibliographie. The latter has been supplanted by {{cite Q}}, so this module is no longer necessary. I suppose if it becomes useful for something else, an admin can always undelete it. Peaceray (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

February 18[edit]

Module:Str endswith[edit]

Propose merging Module:Str endswith with Module:String.
Consolidate string-related module functions under Module:String {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support string-related Lua function. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:Text count[edit]

Propose merging Module:Text count with Module:String.
Consolidate string-related module functions under Module:String {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support function should be called reps or repetitions. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Don't like that name, too similar to the pre-existing rep. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Pppery: Does times work? BrandonXLF (t@lk) 00:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Still seems like it could be misinterpreted to mean the same thing as rep. How about count In any case, this name bikeshedding is independent of the merits of this TfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:String count[edit]

Redundant to Module:Page and Module:Text count (Version using those modules written in Template:String count/sandbox) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Replace usages and delete module - the code in the sandbox template shows that the module code is duplicated by other modules. --Gonnym (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with Module:Text count or Module:String BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:Listify[edit]

Only used on several unused templates, redundant to Module:String {{#invoke:Listify|input|x|yyxyxyy}} -> <ul>{{#invoke:String|replace|yyxxyy|x|<li>%1</li>|plain=false}}</ul>. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Not sure Module:String is the correct location. This is not a simple string, but rather a list, so maybe Module:List can work with this better. --Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not suggesting a merge, I'm suggesting a deletion because the functionality in this module can already be implemented using Module:String. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't remember why I created this module. I tend to agree with Gonnym that the "string" module isn't really the most obvious name. Shrug. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Railway line header[edit]

Propose merging Template:Railway line header, Template:BS-header, Template:BS-table, Template:BS-table1 and Template:Infobox route diagram with Template:Routemap.
These templates have been deprecated since the creation of {{BS-map}} in 2011, and should already have been replaced by {{BS-map}} or by {{Routemap}} (which is newer than {{BS-map}} and has several advantages and additional features). A majority of route diagrams on the English Wikipedia use {{Routemap}}. {{BS-map}} is also currently nominated for merging with {{Routemap}}.

As the nominator, I support replacing the templates with {{Routemap}}. If the discussion is closed with a consensus to merge, the templates should be replaced manually after using the Routemap module to convert each diagram; fixing errors and stylistic issues should be expected. I would also support manual replacement of the nominated templates with either {{Routemap}} or {{BS-map}}. Bot replacement would be unusually difficult due to the use of the pre-2011 templates through {{Infobox route diagram}}, especially if there is an expectation to update diagrams to current conventions (navbar, continuation icons, text placement/size, etc.). Jc86035 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Useddenim (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support replacement with {{Routemap}}, as the former is tagged as superseded. --Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant to Template:bs-map, leaving the issue of whether to convert to Template:Routemap to a later discussion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @Useddenim, Gonnym, and Pppery: I've added {{Infobox route diagram}} to the nomination. Jc86035 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Support that as well. --Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the sort of conversion that is proposed. It has exactly the same problems that I mentioned at 23:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC) below, i.e. the syntax being weird and non-intuitive. If any conversion should be done, it is from {{Railway line header}}/{{BS-header}}/{{BS-table}} to {{BS-map}}; this is not difficult (example), and the syntax for the actual rows of the RDT is exactly the same as with Railway line header etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: In defense of {{Routemap}}, the original syntax was opaque to begin with, and I personally find the Routemap syntax more intuitive because it has an explicit separation between icons and text and doesn't require named overlay parameters. Newer users – particularly those who joined post-2015 – are also likely to have only learned how to use {{Routemap}}. Jc86035 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    All editors (other than those using VisualEditor) have to learn how template paramaters work. The point Redrose64 is trying to make is that {{BS-map}} maps use the same syntax as all other templates do, whereas {{routemap}} uses its own entirely new syntax that one has to learn separately. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Pppery: Yes, I'm aware of that, and it was the main point of discussion in the 2016 RfC, but I was referring to the template as a whole (i.e. including the icon naming system).
    As noted below, introducing {{RDTr}} would ease a {{BS-map}} transition; but the end result would probably be that a few years down the line someone nominates that template for deletion because it's functionally completely unnecessary since it just makes Routemap code, and then we're right back to "convert all of the templates to Routemap". It's like artificially creating a middle step. Jc86035 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Doing so would segregate the discussion into two phases:
    1. should routemaps be generated using Lua or Wikitext
    2. should the syntax for generating routemaps be using templates or using {{routemap}}'s backslash-and-tilde syntax
    . I would support the first step but not the second, and therefore think they should be done independently of each other. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) @Pppery: I don't think it's likely that all of the current {{Routemap}} diagrams will be converted to use {{RDTr}} or something like it (I would oppose that, because I'm familiar with the current Routemap syntax, as are most of the other Routemap users on the 37 other WMF wikis where the template exists), so deleting/deprecating {{RDTr}} as well as the pre-Routemap templates is pretty much the only likely outcome of any successful attempt to institute a single diagram format.
    I also think {{RDTr}} could be viewed unfavourably as a bad compromise, because a new set of templates wrapping {{RDTr}} would have to be created to replicate the functionality of the original templates (and imperfectly at that). Jc86035 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:R to AfC namespace[edit]

Proposed deletion - unused redirect template, marked as deprecated ~4 years ago. Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:FCC history cards[edit]

Proposed deletion - This template was deprecated last year by its creator and only contributor as the FCC stopped updating the HTML page which this template links to. If a link is needed, it should be replaced with a direct link instead. See User talk:DrChuck68#FCC history cards and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Template:FCC history cards for more details. Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:BS-map[edit]

Proposed replacing {{BS-map}} (and its supporting templates) with {{Routemap}} - since 2015 this template has been marked as superseded by {{Routemap}} as the newer template has shorter loading time, smaller template size and displays correctly on mobile. Since there is no point in maintaining two templates which do the same thing AND as mobile usage has grown in those 3 years, current usages should be converted to the newer template. Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Archive 11#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format. Pinging participants at that discussion: @Jc37, Jc86035, Sameboat, SMcCandlish, Redrose64, Useddenim, Epicgenius, Mjroots, and Lamberhurst:. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous consensus that editors are free to use whichever they prefer, and that diagrams should not be convereted from BS to Routemap format without good reason (usually technical). Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • That isn't what the previous discussion resulted in so please do not present it as such. Also, as stated in the template itself, there are technical reasons why to convert - this template loads slower and displays incorrectly on mobile. --Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • The technical reasons I was referring to are where the diagram is so large that it cannot be handled by BS, but can be by Routemap. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Also, templates using {{Routemap}} are easier to modify, as it is not necessary to change the supporting templates when columns are added/removed. Useddenim (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not yet. @Gonnym: It would be more appropriate to deprecate and replace all of the BS-table templates ({{BS-table}}, {{BS-table1}} and {{Railway line header}}) first, as they have been deprecated since mid-2011 (originally to be replaced by {{BS-map}}). Overall, {{Routemap}} is now used more than the BS-series templates (despite only being introduced in mid-2015), being used directly on 5,127 pages, whereas the older templates are only used directly on 4,418 pages. {{BS-map}} is used directly on 2,642 pages, and the BS-table templates are used directly on 2,079 pages. (All counts are approximate.) While I would personally still prefer the complete replacement of the BS-series templates, there are a small but significant number of editors who are much more familiar with the older templates (as demonstrated by the 2016 RfC, which I initiated). Furthermore, manual replacement would still be required for almost all of the templates (despite the existence of the Lua conversion function) due to changes in diagram style/icon conventions over time and small incompatibilities in function between the templates (e.g. inline text, slight icon overlap differences). The issues with mobile devices would probably remain, though mainly because no one has implemented a fix yet. Jc86035 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    The replacement should be done to all sub-templates at the same time as they are all dependent on each other. Regarding the manual operation, no-one said this would be done by a bot if one cannot do it, but by placing it in the holding cell, it would mean more eyes on it and eventually get done. --Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Gonnym: The only overall dependency, as far as I'm aware, is that all of the old templates require the {{BS}} series of templates to function. {{BS-map}} only requires those row templates and is otherwise functionally separate from the pre-2011 templates. Jc86035 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    That might be, but that isn't one template. Looking at the first 5 templates - that's {{BS}}, {{BS2}}, {{BS3}}, {{London-railway-routemap}}, {{BS10}}, {{BS5-2}}, {{BS3-2}}, {{BS-2}}, so I wouldn't say there aren't more dependencies. --Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Gonnym: I don't understand what you're saying in the above comment. {{London-railway-routemap}} is just a documentation template that happens to be on the same page and has nothing to do with the diagram code. Individual diagrams would have to be replaced all at once, of course, but the replacement and deletion of the other subtemplates (assuming the consensus is to replace {{BS-map}}) would have to be dependent on the replacement of the deprecated pre-2011 templates which are used in conjunction with them but which don't use {{BS-map}}. Jc86035 (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - both templates are still in common use. Deletion proposals should only occur once content has been migrated. Neith-Nabu (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Neith-Nabu: This is a merger proposal, or at least it appears to me to be one (and the procedure outlined by the nominator would suggest that). I think it would be inappropriate to close the discussion procedurally now just because it doesn't contain the word "merging", considering the number of editors who have participated. Jc86035 (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry if by not placing the word "merger" there was some confusion. By reading the template documentation I understood that the new template is a complete replacement, meaning that there really is no merger (of code) needed, only of replacing one usage with another. I've also not written the word "delete" in the proposal so not sure why you thought that was what I proposed. --Gonnym (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Still way too many templates in use right now. Cards84664 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Cards84664: As above, this is a merger proposal, and I think it's appropriate for the discussion to occur now. Jc86035 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the goal but not this tactic; deprecate and replace dependent templates first, per Jc86035's detailed explanation. This is a WP:THEREISNODEADLINE matter. Not everyone is 100% happy with everything about the technologically better base template, so let's give the community time to work on it, adjust, hash out more pros and cons, etc. PS: I also agree that some early opposers are misrepresenting the earlier discussion (not out of ill will, but just taking away from it what they want to hear). The actual amount of participation in it was too low to be statistically meaningful anyway. Regardless, a "no consensus" RfC cannot possibly be "previous consensus" against this TfD or the underlying idea. That's like concluding that your neighbor is your best friend simply because he's not tried to kill you.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Whether to have routemaps generated by Lua and the exact syntax of the input are being falsely equated here by the opposing side. Nothing prevents someone from writing a templates that output {{routemap}} syntax but takes the {{BS-map}} parameter style (exactly like what happens when BS templates are currently substituted, but is transcluded rather than substituted), No arguments have been presented against routemaps using {{RDTr}},and a RDT using that template should satisfy both the support and the opposition. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Updated to take into account the existence of {{RDTr}}. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Pppery: I created {{RDTr}} years ago for this purpose but it doesn't seem to have been used by anyone. However, if a unified format is desired then that template would also eventually have to be deprecated, especially considering how much easier it is to draw complex overlays in Routemap syntax (and given the lack of a conversion function from Routemap to the old format).
Furthermore, there are some small incompatibilities which would prevent a transition based around replacing {{BS-map}} through this method (it would be impossible to replace the pre-2011 templates like this). For example, overlays in {{Routemap}} work slightly differently: in the old templates, all icons to the right are placed over any icons to the left, but in {{Routemap}}, this is not true for icons at the bottom layer (i.e. icons to the left can be placed over some icons to the right). Jc86035 (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose when constructing an RDT, the format of the {{BS}} row templates is easy to deduce but the syntax of {{routemap}} is weird and non-intuitive. This is the sort of conversion that is proposed. Then there are the problems encountered when I am doing something out of the ordinary: with {{BS}} etc. which are written in Wiki markup, I can trace through the code step by step and resolve the issue. However, Lua is way beyond me: I simply cannot trace the code through to find out why something that I wish to achieve is not behaving as I would wish. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but reserve - I am with SMcCandlish that if the issue be brought to the wider community, we are likely reaching the consensus to completely deprecate the BS templates in favor of Routemap. But not until the usage of the legacy BS templates are down to a very small number, perhaps transcluded in fewer than 100 articles. -- -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Deleting it would break pages. Either replace all instances of BS-map, or have Routemap read BS-map syntax. Ythlev (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Ythlev: As usual, no one is suggesting that the template should be deleted without replacement. Jc86035 (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    What Jc86035 said. --Gonnym (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Christian leader[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) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Christian leader with Template:Infobox religious biography.
Almost all other religious leader infoboxes have been merged and time has come for this too. Plus WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 03:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep I see no convincing reason reason to merge these two infoboxes. The Christian leader infobox has lots of unique parameters and seems to do a good job of what it intends, fitting a square peg into the round hole of the major infobox to me has no benefit other than making things harder for readers and editors alike. WP:INFOCOL is an essay only. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would make sense to use the religious biography for Christian leaders, but at the moment they're radically different; you'd have to modify the use of a good number of parameters (e.g. I suppose the "lineage" would represent a bishop's apostolic succession, but I'm unclear), and a good number of other parameters in the Christian leader don't have anything corresponding in the religious biography. The templates have comparable subjects, but the current structure is very unfriendly to a merge. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - In theory, theory and practice are the same: and in practice, they're different. The Christian box is very different from the more general box, for good reason (there are masses of Christian-only structures in the world), and there is no good reason for or advantage to be gained by changing it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep - way too much that's unique and per yttend and Chiswick Chap. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - the two templates are different as elaborated above per Nyttend and Chiswick Chap, and are not similar enough to be merged. One seems to be a broad or general infobox while the other is an elaboration that applies to individuals such as bishops as opposed to religious superiors and the like. The two are just too different to be merged, since there are some parameters in one that cannot be applied to the other template either due to irrelevance or incompatibility. Both templates do a good job of doing what they were created for separately, and I see no credible reason to merge the two since they are far too unique, and work well apart. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep so many parameters specialy for christian leaders.... Olivier LPB (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - for all the reasons given above. I occasionally come upon the use of a more generic infobox when it is clear that one a bit more specific would be much more informative. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (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:XBIZ Best Actress Couples[edit]

An unnecessary cross categorisation. The award is minor and lacks a stand-alone article. Compare with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 9#Template:Pink Grand Prix: 1989. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Minor award in minor awards. We don't need templates for everything. Nigej (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Little useful navigation in a non-defining niche category that does not confer notability. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

February 17[edit]

Template:Nutsection[edit]

Redundant to {{nutshell}}. As for the “This section” display, it can easily be replicated with the “title” parameter of that template. Only transcluded on 3 pages. Delete/redirect and replace remaining uses with {{Nutshell|(text)|title=This section}} PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 23:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Replace/Delete - Unused in mainspace. Nigej (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft[edit]

The documentation says this infobox is deprecated. If it should be deleted, then it should be deleted and not be kept in this limbo state. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - As noted in the infobox documentation. "It is primarily intended to allow the infobox to display correctly in when view the history of older articles, and not for general use in articles." For those of us who occasionally have to troll through aircraft article histories for whatever reason, having a working infobox is useful. The current delete notice has broken the infobox, resulting in this mess in the history, which would be permanent if the infobox is deleted. - BilCat (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Seems strange that out of the thousands of templates on Wikipedia, only this template needs this workaround. Why is it even helpful to see how the infobox looked at least 2.5 years ago (when the deprecation notice was added)? --Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It's been deprecated longer than that, probably since 2008. The old infobox is a relic, and was updated to use modules at about that time. Since we can't update the history, we kept tne infobox around. I realize it might not seem useful to you, but as long as one person finds it helpful to have a working infobox in the history, isn't that enough? - BilCat (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
        • No, not really. Templates are pieces of code, which means that for you, it might be a deprecated template used to view history when needed, but for others, it's a working piece of code used in Ambrosini SS.4, Mil V-5, Mil V-16, Mil Mi-30 and 88 other pages. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace all remaining transclusions with Template:Infobox aircraft begin, and redirect there. Complete deprecation requires that all remaining transclusions be resolved, so let's just get that done already. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As Infobox aircraft begin "acts to provide common formatting for other aircraft-related infoboxes." per the documentation. When the remaining transclusions are replaced with Infobox aircraft begin, would it not be possible for Infobox aircraft begin to be moved to Infobox aircraft and maybe use a bot to rename Infobox aircraft begin to Infobox aircraft? Just think its a bit weird having "begin" in the title. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • That shouldn't be a problem if the template doesn't have an Template:Infobox aircraft end partner (which it doesn't). Once this is done, you can start a RM for this. --Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Permian–Triassic extinction event graphical timeline[edit]

One transclusion. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:List of cult films[edit]

Article text transcluded across multiple articles should use LST instead of templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Navbox subgroup[edit]

Replace with {{Navbox}} - this template was deprecated over 2 years ago in favor of {{Navbox|subgroup}} since it was less efficient, but still has too many pages still using it. Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • keep, the efficiency problem has since been resolved. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kraose (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:The Television Drama Academy Award Best Supporting Actor Award[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:The Television Drama Academy Award Best Actress Award[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom Nigej (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kraose (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:The Television Drama Academy Award Best Actor Award[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 14:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom Nigej (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kraose (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:East Central Minnesota[edit]

Navobox for a very loosely associated group of pages. Article on topic was recently deleted per AFD here[2]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, for the same reasons as the article it was based on was recently deleted for. Synthesis with no firm definition of what constitutes "East Central Minnesota". --Sable232 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above Nigej (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kraose (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Element color legend/metal–nonmetal range[edit]

Delete - The "Element color legend" template series has been deprecated for over 5 years in favor of {{Periodic table legend}}. They are all marked as deprecated and unused. Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. None is used in mainspace. (I have created the replacement {{Periodic table legend}} back then, and deprecated these). -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom Nigej (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Being Human summary[edit]

Subst and delete - This template is always created in the "List of episode" article and then transcluded to the main TV series article. In this case, it should be placed in List of Being Human episodes and transcluded to Being Human (UK TV series). There is no reason for this to be different. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete - Per nom. Standardise. Nigej (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:TOC-Xiaolin Showdown[edit]

Delete - unused template that I can't even tell if it was ever used in mainspace. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Seems to be an abandoned attempt relating to episodes of Xiaolin Showdown and dating back to 2005. Nigej (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Red vs. Blue characters[edit]

Subst and delete - this template is used only in Red vs. Blue and uses a standard table which a lot of other television shows use. No need for a template, when this code is always placed in the article itself. Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete - per nom Nigej (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Jodi Number One[edit]

Place information in relevant places and delete - The template is only used in one article, the "judges" and "presenters" section can be placed in the {{Infobox television}} template (which is setup for that) while the winners should be written in prose in the lead. No need for a template for that. Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete - sort of pseudo-infobox. Support suggestion: use real infobox where possible, add rest and delete. Nigej (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:HarveyBirdmanEP[edit]

Replace with {{Episode list}} and delete - This episode template creates a non-standard non-accessibility compliant episode "row". Uses of this template should be converted to the standard {{Episode list}} template. Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Town AT[edit]

So far as I can tell, this wrapper only exists to facilitate the use of a large number of non-English parameters. I can't see any reason that every one of these transclusions cannot simply use a direct implementation of {{Infobox settlement}}. (WP:INFOCOL)

I also think it is worth noting that of the 2,411 transclusions, 2,328 of them contain unknown parameters. To be clear, the unknown parameters issue is NOT a reason alone for deleting the template! Not saying that it is, but I think it might be indicative of the larger issue. Use the standard template and you won't have so many unknown parameters. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong support for replace and delete. A template very suited to merge with the settlement infobox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support replacement and deletion - this infobox is a mess and is an endemic problem with these wrapper templates. --Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: it has more than 2400 transclusions, I think that's enough to have a dedicated infobox wrapper template. Will the population subtemplates {{Infobox Town AT/key}} and Category:Austria subdivision population templates still work after substing? About the "unknown parameters", most of these are actually recognised by the infobox (e.g. "Höhe", "Fläche") so I don't know why they were listed as "unknown". Note that much of the content of the infoboxes was copied from German wikipedia. Markussep Talk 19:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I assume the intent was to subst all of the population templates too. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Markussep: as part of the subst/replace process all necessary code would be converted over. From the front end perspective, nothing would change. The same information would be displayed. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I hope you (Pppery) are wrong, that would mean that the populations would have to be updated manually every year. Up to now, we could copy the data from German wikipedia into templates like {{Metadata population AT-6}} Markussep Talk 20:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
        • @Markussep: that template is a whole different can of worms. Personally I think it is an absolutely disaster that should be removed. That being said, there is no reason it cannot still be used with a direct call to {{Infobox settlement}}. What you are talking about is a separate issue. To be clear, this specific TFD is NOT discussing removing the use of {{Metadata population AT-6}}. That would be discussed in a separate TFD. So if that is your only concern, that you need not worry about it. These pages can simply make a direct call to that template. If that doesn't make sense let me know and I can show you an example of what I'm talking about. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm not so fond of how it is done here with {{Infobox Town AT/key}}, which looks up the municipality code, personally I prefer the way it is done at {{Infobox German location}}, where the code has to be given as an infobox parameter. Still I think these metadata templates are a nice way to store and reproduce population data in a controlled and verifiable way. Anyway, I guess you have a point if you want to replace wrappers that only serve a few dozen articles, but this is something else. I'm leaning towards keep. Markussep Talk 08:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessarily complicated. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. 77.13.146.241 (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:String[edit]

Propose merging Module:StringFunc and Module:String2 with Module:String.
No need for three separate lua modules containing string functions. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • As long as all current uses continue to work and proper documentation is added, I don't think this is an issue. A working sandbox with testcases should be created before any change happens. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Support - with caveat that the module protection is reduced to Template-protected (OR is it possible that a new Module-protected level can be created?) so previous creators can still editor and maintain their code. In RexxS's specific module, the last addition was specifically something that I asked for at Wikipedia talk:Lua, so without him being able to edit the module, I'd either not have that piece of code, or it would be in a new module, which brings us here again. --Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems like a very sensible suggestion. The only reason I can't support with the current wording is that the three modules have different maintainers and different levels of protection:
    Module:String is fully-protected and is maintained by two or three admins;
    Module:String2 is template-protected and is maintained by me;
    Module:StringFunc is unprotected and has been maintained by Falconjh.
    If String2 and StringFunc are merged into the fully-protected module String, none of the template-editors will be able to maintain them, unless the protection level of the merged module is altered. --RexxS (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    The fact that none of the modules has been edited in two months suggests they don't need much maintenance. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's true: they don't need much maintenance. But when they do, it's not a good idea to prevent the editors who know them best from editing them. I assume that whoever performs the merger will clean up all of the #invokes that will break? --RexxS (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support makes it easier to find the functions you need (and to maybe add new ones). BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:Bots[edit]

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext using Module:String ({{#if:{{#invoke:String|match|{{{1}}}|MassMessage|ignore_errors=1}}|[[Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery]]}} {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

comment from creator Could we implement the potential alternative at {{Bots}} and see if it indeed works before deleting the module? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, at {{bots/sandbox}}, and it works. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Question How many #invoke:Bots will be broken and need fixing as a result of the deletion? --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
one. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Move functionality to template and delete Should be easy to do (fwiw, search insource ignores all non-alphanumerics, so you can simplify your search). --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Partido Argentina[edit]

Unneeded wrapper. Just use the standard {{Infobox settlement}}. The precedent has long been established (for example: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_14#Template:Infobox_Argentinian_Department). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:September 2008 image loss[edit]

Template used for a short period in 2008 and is unused. Should be deleted, as there is no reason to keep it for historical reasons (there isn't even a page on Wikipedia dedicated to this event, which shows how notable it was). Gonnym (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

February 16[edit]

Template:Sanlih Drama Awards Viewers Choice Drama[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 19:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sanlih Drama Awards Best Screen Couple[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 19:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sanlih Drama Awards China Wave Award[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 19:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sanlih Drama Awards Best Actor[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 19:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sanlih Drama Awards Best Kiss Award[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 19:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sanlih Drama Awards Best Actress[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 19:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:KKBox Music Award for Top 10 Singers of the Year[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 19:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - KKBox#Development mentions the existence of the awards but no details are given, certainly not a list of winners. Fails the basic requirement. Nigej (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Golden Melody Award for Best Female Taiwanese Singer[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 19:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Golden Melody Awards#Categories mentions the award but we don't seem to have a list of winners. Hence, the template fails that basic requirement. Nigej (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Golden Melody Award for Best Male Taiwanese Singer[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 19:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Golden Melody Awards#Categories mentions the award but we don't seem to have a list of winners. Hence, the template fails that basic requirement. Nigej (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:TaipeiFest Best Feature Film[edit]

award without article (link leads to the festival, not the award) The Banner talk 19:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Kinema Junpo Award for Best Foreign Language Film[edit]

award without article The Banner talk 19:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Kono Light Novel ga Sugoi! light novel rankings No.1[edit]

unclear what the purpose of this navigation template is. The Banner talk 19:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This template appears to show the #1 ranked light novel from each year according to Kono Light Novel ga Sugoi! (an annual light novel guide book published by Takarajimasha). For 2005... the #1 ranked novel was Haruhi Suzumiya, for 2006... it was Zaregoto series .... I am not sure what can be done here to make the template less confusing nor do I know the notability of this guide book's notability. I will wait for others to weigh in before making a decision. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ahnentafel-chart[edit]

Propose merging Template:Ahnentafel-chart with Template:Ahnentafel.
Standardisation. Shouldn't Template:Ahnentafel suffice? PPEMES (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

{{Ahnentafel-chart}} is a generalisation of {{3gen}} which was proposed for merger last April (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_24#Template:3gen) The prosal was turned down. As I suggested in that discussion I rewrote the template to allow for more than three generations. I based the code on {{chart}} so the same tree can be built using {{chart}} but that is more difficult (see Help:Family trees#Chart template).

Ahnentafel of Herzog Ludwig (bottom to top)
Ahnentafel of Trapp (right to left)
  • Oppose The display that template Ahnentafel creats is not a standard used by all secondary sources, it is an American format for Ahnentafel trees. Other formats which are more typically Continental European (such as an tree with branches (example in Help:Family trees#Chart template) and in the first image to the right (the second shows an Ahnentafe tree built the opposite way from the wikipedia Ahnentafel template). If someone is willing to recoded the {{Ahnentafel}} template to display top to bottom, bottom to top and right to left, then a merge would be possible, but not while it can only display left to right (American style). -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not paper based, keeping this template allows the option to use it, and it does not interfer with anything else. -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure. The question of a possible standardised presentation, and if so which, still remain, though, doesn't it? PPEMES (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No it does not because while there has to be consisteny withing an article, there is no reason for consisteny across articles: hence "Orange (colour)" and "Green (color)" with different spelling of colour and colour within the articles. -- PBS (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, let's see how other commentators evaluate that comparison. I still think reader's convenience merits a consideration leaning towards some kind of standard (if not for exceptionate reasons). PPEMES (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
You have suggested a merger. If they are to be merged then you (or someone who wants to write some code) will have to add code to do the merge. If that is not done then what you are doing in eliminating other editors choices to use different styles. Why should all articles use an American style Ahnentafel tree? If other editors agree with you then they can choose to use {{Ahnentafel}} but that is no reason to remove {{Ahnentafel-chart}} and remove that choice before {{Ahnentafel}} has been altered to allow European style displays.-- PBS (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above comments. No strong need for a merge, reflects diversity of use here with no convincing reason to standardise, and allows articles to better reflect regional variation.--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Blogger[edit]

Delete after converting (edit: or redirect) to {{Official}} or another appropriate generic external website link template.

There is no point of making a dedicated template just for linking to this (one of many) blog hosting services. In most cases, which service hosts somebody's website is not a relevant aspect of the article about them. (I noticed this e.g. here, in an article about a writer). We would not normally otherwise mention who hosts a website, unless it is germane to the topic. All we are doing by having such a template is providing free advertising for the hosting provider. Sandstein 11:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support merge to {{official}}. I see no prior discussion on the blogger template to justify distinguishing it from the more general template. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for the moment. If this template is being used for promotional purposes, eg. linking to blogger when itsn't a notable part of the articles, then uses should be removed. However I can see that it could make the editing experience easier and I think the large number of uses are evidence of that. So although I can see there is an ideological reason for deleting, which I am partial to, I think there is a pragmatic reason for keeping. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, for a foobar.blogspot.com the web site feed d:Property:P1019 is a known pattern foobar.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss and {{blogger|foobar}} would be all it takes to create the statement. With {{official website|foobar.blogspot.com}} it's minimally more convoluted, something in the direction of "is there a dot blogspot dot substring in the URL", not necessarily followed by com. Not really difficult, any bot owner intending to get thousands of web site feeds into WikiData will manage it, eventually. OTOH, is that a case of WP:AINTBROKE, what exactly are you trying to fix? –84.46.52.45 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and modify so that the visible text only says "FOO on blog". I noticed this TfD when I tried to use this template {{blogspot|soodvikram}} which gave the result "Vikram Sood on Blogger". I think User:Sandstein's suggestion that we must not be advertising blogspot makes sense. So why not just rename "blogger" as a generic "blog" and solve this issue. I dont agree with merging with {{Official}}. IMHO I feel this template is useful for cases when the subject does not have an official website but still has a personal blog. --DBigXray 12:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    Makes sense, but it's not the same thing as "any blog". Technical details for Blogspot vs. Wordpress vs. "DIY" differ and can be relevant, e.g., what's the feed URL, is it Atom or RSS, who can comment, and can the blog appear as ordinary webpage foobar.org. Same idea as for a Wiki, I'd want to know if that is MediaWiki or something else. –84.46.53.251 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Songkick[edit]

External WP:SPAMLINK: also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM. KokoPhantom (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not spam. Not in violation of WP:LINKFARM. No argument supporting either accusation has been made). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It's clearly promotional, and goes over the line of What Wikipedia Is Not. KokoPhantom (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. External links to encyclopedic information are ok, even when they are commercial sites, but tour dates in the near future are surely not encyclopedic. Nigej (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Lira[edit]

Propose merging Template:Lira with Template:Pound (currency).
{{Lira}} is redundant to {{Pound (currency)}} because the origins for the words "pound" and "lira" are the same. Additionally, there are already currencies named "lira" in the Pound (currency) template. There should only be one template for currencies named pound, lira, livre, or similar. Eyesnore 15:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Replace/revert and delete Lira template - {{Pound (currency)}} has all the currencies in {{Lira}} except the Italian Lira which was removed from it by an IP user on 6 September 2017. The Lira template is quite new: 25 November 2018‎ and has 9 transclusion, made by the same user at the same time, who deleted Pound (currency) from those articles where he found it. Article Lira still has the Pound (currency) template. Seems logical to simply replace/revert the 9 uses of the Lira template with Pound (currency) and then delete it, to get back to where we started. All a lot of wasted effort. Nigej (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Nigej: I just restored the Italian lira link to the {{Pound (currency)}} template. Eyesnore 16:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Maldives[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Maldives with Template:Infobox settlement.
Nothing of any added value here that cannot be easily provided by direct use of {{Infobox settlement}}. Another incarnation of this template (Template:Infobox Maldives atoll) has already been removed via This TFD. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • No merger necessary; delete the Maldives box after replacing with Infobox settlement, through substitution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: @Pigsonthewing and Zackmann08: - it is used on physical islands. Are islands to be covered by IB settlement too? 77.183.150.15 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Note that Infobox Maldives is already a wrapper for Infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: that was a reply but no answer (to my question). To phrase it differently: The wrapping might be wrong? 77.183.150.15 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: - haven't seen it before, per doc of IB Maldives "island", like "atoll", seems also to be an administrative territorial entity (ATE). 77.183.150.15 (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete My concerns about the confusing name of the template aside, getting rid of all these wrappers will make the main template easier to update. Concerns about this new IP editor raised below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox settlement wrappers[edit]

Unnecessary wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

See also recent batches of similar wrappers, which were all deleted: 2018 November 23, 2019 February 6.

Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". That is practice for over a decade, it is used on ~ 500000 articles. 77.183.150.15 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all after replacement by substitution as appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete My concerns about the confusing name of the template aside, getting rid of all these wrappers will make the main template easier to update. Also, does the sudden intensity and complicated nature of the IP edits raise any eyebrows around here? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

February 15[edit]

Template:RussiaTimeZone[edit]

Template documentation says it should be used by {{Infobox Russian federal subject}}, {{Infobox Russian district}} and {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} but these don't use it. It is not used by any other template or page. Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:Find sources template pages[edit]

Overcomplicated, see no reason that this information needs to be in module data pages rather than the wikitext of the template itself. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

All relevant code changes to accomodate the new style of been written to the sandboxes. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate? What templates should the code go into? what sandboxes have you edited? --Gonnym (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:Find sources, Template:Find sources mainspace, and Template:Find sources video games, with changes to the backend modules at Module:Find sources and Module:Find sources/autodoc (to be renamed Module:Find sources/template) to match. I've edited the sandboxes of all of those pages {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The advantage of the current system is that it is known to work. It is more complex than required because it's creator aimed for generality with an extensible system, although not much has been needed since creation. As usual, Pppery poses an enigma whereby each onlooker would need to spend half an hour working out what templates/modules are proposed to be replaced with what templates/modules. What existing pages would be deleted? What new pages would be created? What existing pages would be edited? (I can work out some of that, but the information should be presented clearly.) What is the proposed benefit of this turmoil? Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    The existing pages that would be deleted by this are exactly the ones I listed above, as they will be rendered obsolete. No new pages are created by this TfD, and the edits made are to sync the sandboxes of Module:Find sources, Module:Find sources/autodoc and all three templates that invoke it (Template:Find sources, Template:Find sources mainspace and Template:Find sources video games). One can't exactly say that my proposed system is not known to work, given that it exists in the sandbox without producing any errors. (Template:Find sources/testcases is yellow because of a trivial encoding difference of a literal space versus &#32;, it's HTML entity form) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One thing to be wary of with putting the config in the templates themselves is that it will increase the post-expand include size. I remember there were problems with the daily AfD log pages going over the limit, which I helped to fix by converting Template:Find sources AFD to use Module:Find sources. Also, parsing the template parameters in wikitext will be slower than using the config modules, as a) parsing Lua tables is generally quicker than parsing wikitext, and b) the config modules are only loaded once per page with mw.loadData, although the post-expand include size is probably more important. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    I don't seem to be able to reproduce any significant change in post-expand include size via testing. (A page containing only "{{find sources}}" uses 2,130 bytes, whereas a page containing only {{find sources/sandbox}} uses 2,139 bytes. ) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm, looks like you're right. I think what must be happening is that parameters to #invoke aren't counted towards the limit. 5 bytes of the 9-byte difference can be attributed to the the use of &#32; instead of a regular space, and the extra "q" before the start of the template (I'm guessing the "q" was just for testing something). The other 4 bytes, I'm not so sure. But 9 bytes isn't something to be worried about, I agree. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • leaning oppose - If a template has been converted to use a module, then it is more correct to have that module handle everything, with the template just being used as an access point. In the case of Wikipedia template code, for me, that makes it an even stronger case, as template code is much harder to read than module code. Why can't these be under Module:Find sources/data if the 3 separate sub-modules are the issue? --Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    The module is still handling all of the logic of creating the find sources links, and each template is an access point. While you may be right about the readability of Lua vs. Wikitext as a general rule, in this case, |introlink=google is just as readable as
    introLink = {
    		code = 'google'
    	}
    
    and all this TfD does is convert the latter to the former. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    If the template passes data then it isn't only an access point. Design pattern-wise, if we already have a module, let the module handle everything, including a sub-module for /data information. That's at least how I view them. Regarding the readbility of the template code, when you have only one line, then maybe they are the same, but here it becomes harder to read, while the lua code stays the same. --Gonnym (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Including lots of extra curly brackets and quotes is not "more readable". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    That is your opinion, mine is different. --Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Metadata population AT-9[edit]

Horrendous way to maintain population data across multiple pages. This used to be used by Template:Infobox Vienna District which has been deleted via this TFD. As part of that conversion process, the use of this template was removed. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Quarterbacks coaches of the Big 12 Conference[edit]

Fails WP:Navbox guidelines 2, The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article, for instance nobody cares that Lincoln Riley also is the OU QB Coach 4, There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template as there will likely never be a list of Big XII football coaches and and 5, If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. Furthermore, a person does not meet GNG for being a QB coach at an NCAA school therefore, it is also not a defining aspect of the members of the navbox. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Lua[edit]

Given that Wikipedia talk:Lua used primarily to discuss general programming issues with Lua rather than the page Wikipedia:Lua itself, the editnotice serves no useful purpose. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Uw5[edit]

This template intends to be a level-5 warning template for users who have vandalized past a level-4 warning, informing the vandal that they have been reported to administrators. I claim that this template is unnecessary. In such an event, the block message (like {{uw-block}}) that the administrator would eventually leave (if the report was properly submitted) serves as the "level 5". Repeatedly sending warnings may actually be counterproductive for chronic or extremely persistent vandals: see WP:DENY and WP:RBI. Mz7 (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per DENY as in nomination. Telling a vandal-only-account "You have been reported to the administrators" will just confirm their opinion that Wikipedia deserves vandalism. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes by wealth normalization[edit]

Violates project consensus that inflation will not be used. Discussions have taken place here and here. Inflation values should not be given for storms considering they can't be calculated for areas outside of the US. Not to mention differences in calculations (pop. density, building codes, etc.) that would make such calculations impossible. Both discussions also raise valid points as to why inflation adjustment should not be used. NoahTalk 01:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The point of this template is wealth normalization, not inflation adjustment. You can very well calculate those for non-US regions, in fact Wikipedia has dozens of lists with countries' GDP (i.e., its current flow of wealth) denominated in US Dollar, even though that isn't the currency those numbers originated in. Those numbers come from agencies like the IMF, the CIA, the Worldbank, and others, who have an army of economists figuring those numbers out. I don't know where this alleged consensus of not using inflation- and/or wealth-adjustment was established, but it's one moronic decision if there ever was one. The only thing this template needs is an update to Weinke et al. (2018). --bender235 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template contains useful encyclopedic information, which is an attempt to rank hurriacens by most costly to the society at the time. It's used in several articles so serves its purpose as a template. It shouldn't be deleted just because of a content dispute, ie. an argument about which way of comparing costs is best. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tom (LT):Might I inform you that wealth normalization has been removed from EVERY TC article except some (not even all) of the ones on that list. The project quit using wealth normalization a few years ago because it is misleading. NoahTalk 11:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If there is a project consensus not to use it, I'm not sure why the 5 transclusions can't be deleted/replaced manually. Nigej (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Nigej. Would support deletion if these weren't actually used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Where was this consensus established, and what was the main concern with using wealth normalized damage figures? Sure these numbers aren't perfect, but comparing hurricanes by nominal GDP damage is utter nonsense. If we want to delete those "most costly hurricanes" rankings, we should start with the ones that use nominal damage. --bender235 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Im going to ask about the specific consensus later since I am out of town, but your post (second to last) here shows exactly why wealth normalization is not even close to accurate. All it is is a PREDICTION about what that storm would cause TODAY, not what it ACTUALLY did. To have a list of these in an article is simply misleading. This either needs a serious explanation to clear up that this isn't inflation adjustment or simply removed to alleviate confusion. NoahTalk 02:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: LOL, of course these numbers are estimates, but so are unadjusted damage figures. How do you imagine these are established? You think someone from the NOAA roams around Texas and Louisiana after a hurricane and collects receipts from repairs?
I'm still waiting to see where this supposed consensus to not include adjusted damage figures was established. Until then, these templates stay put. --bender235 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
PS: I've updated this template to 2018 using Weinke et al. (2018). Also, I've tried to trace back this supposed "consensus" not to use wealth normalization or any kind of adjustment of nominal damage figures. What I found was the unilateral removal of the wealth normalization table from List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes. I will re-add the (updated) information immediately. --bender235 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

February 14[edit]

PennDOT S-line templates[edit]

Unused s-line templates for the Parkway Limited; the now-deleted Conrail templates filled this function until the creation of Module:Adjacent stations/Conrail. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Module:Module link[edit]

Redundant to Module:Separated entries; The closure at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019 January 14#Template:Mli rejected the use of this module. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Tokyo Broadcasting System drama templates[edit]

The navigation template was left with only one link after the others were deleted in other TfD discussions, rendering this one unnecessary. Gonnym (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Hunan Television Golden Eagle Theatre[edit]

What is the purpose of this navigation template? The Banner talk 20:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete - There is no article about the Golden Eagle Theatre so this is entirely unreferenced. Gets lots of mentions in succession boxes, eg In the Name of the People (2017) (see bottom), also unreferenced. Difficult to recommend anything but delete given the lack of content. Nigej (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Picture[edit]

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Japanese Movie Critics Awards currently only covers 1991, although the Japanese wikipedia has many more. This is all backwards. Create the content, then a navbox might be suitable. Nigej (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Not against a notable award having a navbox for award winners, as that is accepted practice, but I agree with Nigej. First create the article with the content, where it is also sourced, then create the navbox. As it stands, this is basically unsourced information which might not be even correct. --Gonnym (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Director[edit]

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Animation Feature Film[edit]

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Animation Director[edit]

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Actor[edit]

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Actress[edit]

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Supporting Actor[edit]

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Japanese Movie Critics Awards for Best Supporting Actress[edit]

navigation template for an award without article The Banner talk 20:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox YouTube personality[edit]

I propose that this infobox is deprecated, selectively changed to already existing infoboxes by manual review, and deleted. In this nomination, I will first provide arguments that all (semi-)exclusive fields that this infobox provides are either not exclusive to this infobox, or are unnecessary/harmful. After that, I will examine the arguments in the last discussion. Finally, I will provide examples on how to do the merging. Just a note that I am not nominating {{infobox Twitch streamer}} here in order to minimize the possibility of a "no consensus" close, and that I will nominate that infobox for similar deprecation if this proposal succeeds. Also note that this infobox is often used as a module, and my arguments will hopefully be convincing enough that this infobox is not useful/helpful even as a module. This infobox has previously been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube.

The more or less uncontroversial stuff first. {{infobox YouTube personality}} is similar to many other infoboxes e.g. with |name=, |logo= and |logo_caption=. One of the fields present in other infoboxes is |website=, where we get to the first violation of other infoboxes' standards because the YouTube infobox has |website= AND |channel_url= AND |channel_website= which all three generate different fields in the infobox. {{infobox person}} says about |website= the following: "Official website only. Unofficial websites should be placed under ==External links== in the body of the article." {{infobox company}} should obviously have only one website listed, as listing its YouTube channel(s) would almost run afoul of WP:NOTSPAM. {{infobox television}} has both |website= and |production_website=. Now about the biographical parameters. They are all already in {{infobox person}}. I also count |pseudonym= as biographical, and it has obvious solutions in other infoboxes e.g. |other_names= in {{infobox person}}. I didn't talk about the fact that the YouTube infobox has both |logo= and |image=. This is the same as in {{infobox company}}, while I think it is either unnecessary or runs into copyright problems elsewhere. |location= can also be found in other appropriate infoboxes so it's easily assimilated. |creator= and |presenter= are nothing when compared to all the parameters of {{infobox television}}. |years_active= is from {{infobox person}}, {{infobox television}} has better alternatives of |first_aired= and |last_aired=, and other infoboxes also have the ability to accept some form of "start year" and "end year".

Now onto the parameters created specifically for this infobox. |genre= and |associated_acts= need to go away even if my proposal fails. YouTube is not music, and other than at {{infobox musician}} and similar, these two parameters do not belong anywhere. They aren't at {{infobox scientist}} or {{infobox person}} even though they are at least as useful as on the YouTube infobox. Don't forget that the YouTube infobox is the last place you'd put |associated_acts=, since this single infobox parameter has generated hundreds of talk page debates over its use on various infoboxes. I can imagine |genre= becoming similarly contentious sooner or later, as editors have strongly opposed my proposal to create a list of YouTubers by genre. |catchphrase(s)= is unencyclopedic and per WP:NOTQUOTE Wikipedia is not WikiQuote. |network= is not something I'd be extremely worried about, as there are alternatives at {{infobox television}} and {{infobox person}}. YouTube networks are almost a thing of the past now, and most YouTubers had a network for just a short time. Not to mention that these networks don't make much difference to one's channel. YouTube Play Buttons are very controversial and almost always come too late, so I support removing them from any infobox. We are left with only the number of subscribers and views. The number of subscribers is unreliable (as explained at Talk:Mark Dice and at WT:WPYT), often useless, often spam, but what can you expect when YouTube constantly lies about everything and only admits fault when it's too late. Maybe in the future we can revisit this, but Internet popularity numbers are not a metric I trust too much, and they change all the time so we can't provide a reliable source to satisfy the verifiability policy. The number of views that a YouTube channel has is of little relevance to all but the most popular channels. The problems are also the same as those about subscriber counts, and neither of {{infobox film}} or {{infobox television}} supports a similar field. In short, WP:NOTSTATS.

The previous discussion had many similar arguments, and I will try to answer the keep !votes. An argument is that being a YouTuber is an occupation. However, that occupation is extremely diverse, which is shown by the uselessness of the term "content creator" which was a proposed rename of this infobox. Here I bring much more arguments than last time, because the previous nomination wasn't convincing in my opinion. There was the argument to delete because this is unnecessary branding of YouTube. I agree with that, and it may be useful to come up with some infobox that covers people popular for their content on the Internet, if this proposal fails. Many of the arguments boiled down to whether some infobox parameter was useful or not, but that is not a very good argument.

The already existing infoboxes that I believe cover all instances of this infobox are the following: {{infobox person}} (or an appropriate infobox from Category:People and person infobox templates or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes, which will almost always be more useful than the YouTube infobox), {{infobox musical artist}}, {{infobox company}}, {{infobox television}}, {{infobox podcast}}, some infobox from Template:Film- and television-related infobox templates. {{infobox presenter}} will be very useful. Articles about groups of people who have a YouTube channel (e.g. Dude Perfect), as well as articles about YouTube channels that are synonymous with a group (e.g. Sorted Food and Hat Films), should employ a biographical infobox. I'm not exactly sure about articles like ChuChu TV which are only about the YouTube channel, but I believe that {{infobox television}} or something similar will suffice. Webseries already use {{infobox television}}. wumbolo ^^^ 17:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Can you explain what you mean by "harmful"? Natureium (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I was referring to e.g. |catchphrase(s)= and |associated_acts=. The first one violates WP:NOT, while the other one provides little value yet cause a lot of meta-discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 17:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I remain unconvinced by the unnecessarily long wall of text above. The template provides a necessary way to handle the information that other templates do not and does so in a matter that works. Saying that this box duplicates the work of eight other templates shows you miss the point on why it is needed. Nihlus 18:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete it is superfluous and unless youtube would like to contribute to wikipedias fund I see no reason to give them their own infobox on multiple pages when a simple change to the current infobox and some hyperlinks will suffice. -Bigbrainuser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B004:F20:AC9A:7E9F:4461:7BD1 (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment At minimum we get rid of number of subscribers. It's a bullshit statistic. I probably subscribe to a dozen channels that I haven't watched in years because culling my youtube subscriptions adds nothing to my life. valereee (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep but get rid of the subscriber statistic. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Subscribers and views are the main pieces of information people expect in an infobox for YouTubers, and a lot of notability is that they are among the top 100 or so non-music YouTubers in the world by subscribers. As for other things like pseudonym, I agree that those are fairly useless as the common name is in most cases going to be that stage name / pseudonym. Catchphrase I agree is fairly useless as people just coatrack any kind of frequently used quote or recurring gag there. But those are detailed fields concerning the infobox rather than questioning whether the entire infobox is useful. Keep in mind that it is also used as a supplement module for infobox person. . AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Except as Barkeep49 has pointed out, there is literally no accurate way to measure them and the numbers are subject to a lot of manipulation. They’re also rarely covered in RS, which from a NPOV point of view tends to mean sources don’t care. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
        • How are they manipulated? Any editor can go to the YouTube channel specified and click About to get the current number of views and subscribers, and when they update they have to specify the date refreshed. Are you saying they would have to be sourced by Social Blade or some other place as with List of most subscribed YouTube channels? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
        • My point again, is that if there's to be a YouTuber infobox or module, the counts are among the most searched for information. Someone looking for PewDiePie and reading that he's the most subscribed YouTuber will want to know that up front. And someone who's like the 73rd most subscribed, well, what does that even mean for counts? If it isn't there, it will likely be in the lead paragraph and frequently refreshed as with Gangnam Style (music video) and other ones. A preponderance of edits for YouTubers are towards updating those counts, infobox or not. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep As at least a couple of people in this conversation know, I have been banging the drum about getting rid of subscribers and views so by all means delete those parameters. They are unreliable and manipulated across social media platforms. I have a draft RfC I have been planning to roll-out in the next couple of days that would cement that use not only in this infobox but other places. That said, I do think that a YouTube personality has a distinct set of characteristics and so while subscribers and views should not be included, there are other kinds of information that is worth noting in infobox in a way that using other templates would make difficult or impossible. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd like to see examples where the YouTube infobox can't be replaced by a better infobox. No examples have been provided in the above few keep !votes, but the onus is on them to prove the infobox's usefulness. wumbolo ^^^ 18:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually the onis is on the nominator to show why a widely used template is not useful. Because it iswidely used by many editors it is presumed useful until shown otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • As an example of a page where I think it's used OKish: The Slow Mo Guys. I think, minus the play buttons section (which is hidden by default but should be deleted as just a more subtle version of the problem I describe above), that it would be hard to put the rest of info in a way that's helpful to readers. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Below is my attempt at using {{infobox person}}. It uses |employer= instead of |network=. If {{infobox television}} could be embedded into {{infobox person}}, it would be more flexible here. The only other difference is that {{infobox person}} doesn't support |origin= which I replaced with |birth_place= in this situation. Also |website= is different but it makes it look better in my opinion. wumbolo ^^^ 19:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Alternative infobox
The Slow Mo Guys
The Slow Mo Guys Logo.jpg
The Slow Mo Guys logo
Born
  • Gavin David Free
  • (1988-05-23) 23 May 1988 (age 30)
  • Thame, England
  • Daniel Charles Gruchy
  • (1988-07-28) 28 July 1988 (age 30)
NationalityBritish
Other namesGav and Dan
OccupationEntertainers
Years active2010–present
EmployerRooster Teeth
WebsiteYouTube channel
  • Delete. Have to agree with the originator of this request here. The YouTube statistics are vapid information, and once removed, the infobox is merely another non-standardised variant of so many other entity-style infoboxes on Wikipedia. At a minimum, remove the nonsensical YouTube statistics and standardise around actually encyclopaedic content. IntrinsicallyBroken (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I personally believe this is another example of a majority of people discrediting YouTubers. There are genres of YouTube videos and channels, so the previous argument that a genre is only related to music is nonsense. Also, associated acts means the same as frequent collaborators. Saying these can only be related to music is discrediting to the many online influencers that have Wikipedia pages. (e.g. Lilly Singh, Shane Dawson, Gabbie Hanna, David Dobrik, Josh Peck, Tana Mongeau, Joey Graceffa, The Dolan Twins, etc.) The subscriber and view counts are not invalid because they do not and (to my knowledge) have never required an exact number, so those statistics are valid and have been for as long as the template has existed (with a credible source). The motion to delete this template would force us to have to look at many other templates that are also useless. We can all admit that in the entire list of infoboxes there are countless other templates that can Bebe deemed unnecessary on a more just cause than this one. Thank you. Logano (VU) (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I am sorry that you believe that there is some nefarious motive behind deleting this infobox. Notice that e.g. {{infobox mathematician}} redirects to {{infobox scientist}}. Does that discredit mathematicians? I don't think so, and I only want to make articles about YouTubers better by having more professional-looking infoboxes. Dumbing down all YouTubers to one pseudo-profession is what hurts this diverse group of people in my opinion. wumbolo ^^^ 15:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with above, especially on the point that the YouTube stats were always a rough number, and the subscriber count serve as a rough indicator of popularity, especially within the YouTube community. Template can be cut down, especially the "Play buttons" section as it is already covered within the rough "subscribers" number. However it is worth mentioning that some YouTubers have a seperate Website from their channel, so it may be useful to keep that field. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 08:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I do agree that the play buttons are redundant with counts, and should be removed. Discussion about when YouTubers reached those milestones can be put in their biographies, and not as Awards/nominations section. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above comments. Having this template makes editing easier and helps readers see relevant information. Discussion about specific parameters can be had at the template's talk page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Unsure but very sure that we shouldn't keep track of YouTube subscribers. They suggest that the YouTuber has that many viewers, but leaving aside the fact that these can almost certainly be bought, I'm one of many who watch hardly any of the channels I subscribe to. Doug Weller talk 10:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it is trivially easy and cheap[1] to buy views and subscribers. In 2012 Youtube cut billion of fake views from music company vids[2] but the view sellers are in an arms race with youtube coders. Legacypac (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not like the counts represent unique subscribers and of course they are subject to inflation, or that people have multiple accounts. The numbers are what they are. Social Blade doesn't adjust it for those issues when it comes to putting out List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Its hard to keep it accurate, may never in fact even be accurate and I am not sure that in a world were 1 million represents less then 1% of a total audience that kind of figure is even meaningful.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep but Rework per comments already made above. I do see a need for infoboxes like this and believe there is no real reason to delete it. However, I would like to see some reworking done on this one. For example, there is really no point in having orgin AND birthplace since they are basically the same thing. I can see how this infobox is similar to other ones, but I know it could be altered in a way that would help show more personalized and relevant information. Again, deletion is really not the solution here. Handoto (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep because Youtube Statistics is a metric used to envaluate the performance of youtubers. It is important that they remain in the infobox of the articles. Manipulation of these statistics is rather rare, and so removing them from articles should be on a case-by-case basis. Also the style of this infobox is quite nice. Emass100 (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Emass100, what makes you argue that manipulation of these stats is rare? I'd say the opposite. see here valereee (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This 2018 article on the subject describes the problem. It states that "YouTube says fake views represent just a tiny fraction of the total", and that it is actively combatting the problem. From my understanding, the main offenders are music labels, and that the vast majority of youtube channels do not purchase fake views.Emass100 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Emass100, that article, entitled "The Flourishing Business of Fake YouTube Views: Plays can be bought for pennies and delivered in bulk, inflating videos’ popularity and making the social media giant vulnerable to manipulation" is literally ABOUT how easy it is to manipulate the stats and how common it is. The fact Youtube says fake views represent a tiny fraction of the totals and that they're actively combatting the problem is Youtube on Youtube and not remotely relevant. Show me some reliable independent source saying that. valereee (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there are any recent independent studies on the issue. But whether it is easy or not to buy them, it doesn't matter much for our purpose if the fake views get removed a few months later, as there is an arms race between coders and youtube on this issue, as even the people selling the fake views claim they can't be permanent. I don't see why we need to remove this information for all youtubers is only a small minority of them constantly manipulates them.Emass100 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Emass100, what reliable independent source is saying only a small minority of accounts are manipulating stats? valereee (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. However, remove subscribers as that is information that currently includes people who are subbed to the channel but don’t actually watch the videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benica11 (talkcontribs) 03:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant, after replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete — I've noticed this in articles a couple times and it struck me as out-of-place spam/obsessed-fan data. Not to mention that it gives a special status and promotion to a proprietary, commercial Web site, which is utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – per the above !votes, being a YouTuber is a unique career and therefore the YouTube infobox is therefore better fit for these articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. As it is already said above, this template handles necessary information common to all YouTubers. And there's no substitute. If the template is deleted, there will be no way to present some essential information in a simple and visually accessible format. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template is both useful and widely used. It can be improved according to some of OP's suggestions (Play buttons and catchphrase should certainly be removed, I agree). It still does the job better than a more-generic replacement. E.g., the example replacement infobox in this section above, for the Slow-Mo Guys, has the creators' names under "Born:", and calls them "entertainers." The former demonstrates an imperfect fit, and the latter is vague enough to be useless.--MattMauler (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    @MattMauler: are you aware that the YouTube infobox also has the creators' names under "Born:", and calls them "entertainers."? wumbolo ^^^ 10:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
... You're right about "Born," and I was not aware of that when I wrote the post, my bad. When it describes a single YouTuber, it doesn't stick out ("imperfect fit"), but when I saw it in your example above applied to more than one person, it just seemed confusing, which is why I referred to it in my !vote. Regarding "entertainer," I have yet to see an article about a YouTuber that calls them an "entertainer" in the infobox unless it's in a string of other roles that are better (more specific) (such as "YouTuber" or "vlogger") ... but I see now that this is not an essential part of the template but something editors choose/modify anyway. Striking through my !vote above.--MattMauler (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment — I see that as a bad reason to delete this template, 2600:1008:B004:F20:AC9A:7E9F:4461:7BD1. I would keep this template, as it is used in many articles and also has some parts that are not included in other templates. From America, TheSmartPersonUS1 (TSPUS1) (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please keep it, just like each celebrity and singer templates, but can do some improvement. (Sculture65 (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC))
  • Keep There are many unique properties that relate to YouTubers that don't relate to other types of celebrities which are catered for by this template. It has been argued that things like subscriber numbers and views are flawed, but it is not up to Wikipedia or its users to determine that unilaterally. These numbers are regularly referred to in the traditional media when talking about YouTubers, and the numbers are verifiable, and even if they include some "spam" subscribers and views they are useful when comparing to other YouTube personalities. It is true that YouTubers move off the platform and on to other things, but that is an argument to remove and replace infoboxes from individual articles when those people become more notable for things that are not YouTube. Additionally, it was argued that the website link shouldn't be to the article subject's YouTube channel, and therefore the channel link properties (which could do with tidying up, but that's a separate issue) which are unique to this template. This argument seems flawed at best. Finally, whilst not directly related to discussing deletion, the rationale from the OP read to me to be very bitter about YouTube and the creators on the platform, and seemed to want to discredit the whole ecosystem. What I think is clear is there is no clear consensus to delete the template, but also no other template that can currently cater for the specific and widely used properties related to YouTube personalities. Andymmutalk 01:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a great and useful template which is applicable for dedicated youtubers, if removed, this would harm so many youtuber articles. 49.178.16.16 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC) 49.178.16.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC).
  • Strong Keep - There's alot of group channels like Smosh and Dude Perfect. There's not really any other infoboxes that fit for group personalities like these. Unless you found a way to modify the music group infobox, but I doubt that.-K-popguardian (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    There is no "music group infobox". There is {{infobox musical artist}} which is for both groups and individual artists. {{infobox person}} is perfectly appropriate for groups of people. It's the same for {{infobox comedian}} and almost all other biographical infoboxes. wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  • Keep - There is no alternative for this and it would break so many articles. It is needed here on Wikipedia. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @AwesumIndustrys: No alternative? What about {{Infobox person}}? Nothing would break from deleting this – if it is deleted, we would convert every article to use a different infobox before actually deleting it. –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, or at least, convert to an embed-only template. In many cases, using this template means that we don't get to include some pertinent details, as it has far fewer parameters than {{Infobox person}}. While there are some people who do nothing outside of YouTube, there are plenty of others whose YouTube channel is just one part of their career. You can use {{Infobox person}} as a child template, yes, but this is incredibly awkward; e.g. look at how goofy the "Alma mater" field looks way down at the bottom of Tom Scott (entertainer). There is a huge variety of people on YouTube; we'd need to copy just about every parameter in {{Infobox person}} to cover every case.
Scrolling through a few pages of the transclusions list for this template, it seems to me that most YouTube personalities are famous for more than just their YouTube career. In my opinion, this template limits what is presented about those people, and gives undue weight to their YouTube career. Creators like Arin Hanson and CGP Grey are very active on YouTube, but also do much more work outside of YouTube, and I feel their infobox is overly focused on their YouTube career. Meanwhile, people who actually are focused entirely on YouTube, such as iJustine and Casey Neistat, are actually using {{Infobox person}} instead, because this template is so lacking in parameters. If we are going to keep this template, I think we should configure it so that it can only be used as a child/embedded template – it is almost always a subpar solution when used as a standalone infobox. –IagoQnsi (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox district of Iraq[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox district of Iraq with Template:Infobox settlement.
I don't see any reason for a custom wrapper on 9 transclusions. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  • It's not clear what there is to be merged. Simple replacement should suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A (country) district is not a settlement. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @DePiep: you understand that currently :{{Infobox district of Iraq}} IS using {{Infobox settlement}}... It just is a wrapper. So your argument doesn't really make sense. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, I understand that. I oppose. What actually does not make sense is that people keep mixing up objects' definitions. A country is not a settlement, and so are not their subdivisions nor their historical parts.
        The notion that you claim "but wikipedia does so" is OR, nonsense actually, and indicates more bad stuff. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I happen to read this guideline just now (not a user's perception then, nor a /doc suggestion): "(MOS:when article name in plural)": Articles on groups of country subdivisions (states or provinces), such as States of Austria, States of Nigeria, States of Mexico, Provinces of Sweden. (That is, by shortcut: our Guideline notes that country subdivisions are classes. Settlements are not). -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
          • (Zackmann, you might know SAP software? They keep abstracting things into "number of people", mathematicaly very correct and unusable. In WP this would trranslate to: "One meta infobox with all parameters we might need". OTOH, it is called "orthography" in Wikidata: define objects by asking the right questions. Then organise (=relate) these objects by more questions. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC))
            • @DePiep: I think this is a case of agree to disagree. lol. It seemed (in Italics because I now see it is more than that) that your objection was that the template is called a "district" so it shouldn't use "settlement". My only point was that it already does use the settlement template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
              • I do not disagree about current Wikipedia facts. I claim that these WP situations are misguided. Even {{Infobox region}} is misguided. One cannot deny real life facts (i.e., the diff between objects 'human settlement' an 'administrative org'). -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
                • @DePiep I completely agree with you about this fact. It's illogical to the template titled settlment when in fact a better title would be {{Infobox populated area}} or something like that. If you there's every a discussion about this please can someone ping me as an interested party. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
                • As I have told you elsewhere: "if you wish to change the way {{Infobox settlement}} is used - and has been used for over a decade - start a discussion on its talk page." Your continued objection to mergers of the template's wrappers and similar on this basis in the face of over ten years of such consensus, is highly disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
                  • No. I write this argument in the TfD discussion(s) where it is relevant. So far, you are only trying to silence me and shout me down, BTW. In bolded distractions and WP:PA's and even. Diffs will be there. (I'm still waiting for an argument). -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
                    • This is the third time in recent weeks that I have had cause to remind you: "you've been warned before, more than once, about making unwarranted insinuations of bad faith against fellow editors. Desist." You're skating on very thin ice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note on precedent: see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_6#Infobox_settlement_wrappers for an established precedent. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace Just 9 transclusions. Most Iraq districts don't use it. eg Erbil District, Al-Manathera District etc etc. Nigej (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep given that this is a wrapper, I think it will be confusing for editors to have it replaced by an infobox titled 'settlement' when this is in fact about a district. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Tom (LT):.... {{Infobox district}} itself redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} so it has long been decided that district IS a settlement. Additionally the fact that this would be "confusing" contradicts that fact that such templates as {{Infobox state}}, {{Infobox Chilean region}}, {{Infobox neighborhood}}, {{Infobox hamlet}} and {{Infobox Cambodian district}} ALL redirect to {{Infobox settlement}}. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
      • ...and it has been used in ths manner for over ten years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Zackmann08, Pigsonthewing, DePiep I support merging or redirecting these templates to the main one, but I don't support replacement and deletion. I definitely see the benefits of centralisation here. I just think it's confusing to have a template relating to a district etc. replaced by one relating to a settlement. I think that prima facie districts and settlements are not the same, and I think this fact is true whether or not there has been incremental agreement for merging over the past 10 years. My main issue is with the name of the template {{Infobox settlement}} being confusing to editors. I don't think it's a good look for new or future editors who want to edit our articles to start by seeing something that is clearly wrong and wondering what's going on around here. I also don't think it's useful for current editors because of the confusing title. Clearly DePiep shares these concerns and the fact that there are so many templates out there must mean some creators of said templates were similarly confused and couldn't find a logically titled template to do the job. I hope you can understand my point and that there is some way to compromise here... should we move this discussion to another venue? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
        • My point is, Tom (LT): not even Wikipedia can change and even mix up the concepts of Settlement and Country (-parts, -subdivision, -historical, -whatever.). A "region" is a country-thing (per concept, so what a bad thing is this {{Infobox region}}!), and a 'metropolitan area' is settlement by concept. The argument that "is has been done at enwiki for over a decade" makes it even worse, as does "the documentation says so". (Sure we could do with one {{Infobox thing}}). -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Your point-making has become tendentious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
            • Pigsonthewing, comments like this are not constructive. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
            • DePiep it is true that these things are different conceptually but I do see a benefit in having a single infobox, particularly if the parameters are the same. As I see it, the options are (a) maintain status quo, (b) rename template to something more logical, or (c) create a region template and merge regions down there (although the parameters are likely to be the same or very similar) --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
        • In that case, please explain what "merging" or "redirecting" would entail, that replacement and deletion would not, in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Benefits would be that an infobox remains with a logical title that editors can use, however the coding is contained in a central place that can be more easily updated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
            • I didn't ask you to enumerate what you perceive to be the benefits; I asked you what, in your view, such actions would entail. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Have come around to your point of view. Regardless of my feelings about the title, the template as it is could be simplified considerably if lots of these wrappers were removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:SBS Weekend Dramas[edit]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE, template without base article The Banner talk 15:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:SBS Variety Programs[edit]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE, template without base article The Banner talk 15:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:NSFW[edit]

This isn't really a template, but a pseudo-redirect. The original NSFW template was moved to to {{UFW}} and this does nothing. It has no history or old code to preserve. While it is tagged with {{historical}} there has been no discussion on either page that supports it. It should either act as a real redirect or be deleted. The deletion option is supported by the discussion at Template talk:UFW#Requested move 14 August 2018, where editors raised the concern that NSFW is already well known as "Not safe for work", which has nothing to do with this template. I personally support deletion. Gonnym (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - NSFW=Not suitable for Wikipedia. It is unused in main space. Article NSFW redirects to Not safe for work and WP:NSFW redirects to Wikipedia:Pornography. All a bit confusing so seems to me that it would be best to delete rather than redirect. Nigej (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy Redirect I am the creator. The NSFW was chosen specifically because it is easy to remember. It was only intended for draft/userspace in the AfC process and would never be used in mainspace. The template lead to a inclusion of the Reject option in AfC so no one is using it anymore. While I was away from regular internet access another user took it upon themselves to create the other template and instead of moving this one, replace it, which delayed deletion of a whole bunch of junk pages and caused other issues like this. There are a bunch of incoming links from discussions still. I don't think anyone should be confused by this template. Eventually this can be deleted when we the procees we used to get to Reject is futher in history.
    A now blocked sockpuppet messed around with this and changed all the translutions over after a move discussion. The correct thing to do is place a proper redirect to Template:UFW which gives me attribution and preserves the usefulness of incoming links. If you look at Template talk:UFW you can see the move discussion and that that page is really belonging to this page before it was moved. Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Your attribution is still preserved in the edit history of {{UFW}} as it was a proper move and not a copy/paste. This template, on the other hand, gives you none of that. I would also not call 10 articles a bunch. These can all be changed in less than 1 minute to the new template if that is what's wanted. --Gonnym (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • No he changed a while bunch - some of which I've gone and G13'd manually now. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per comments. Very confusing, particularly given this is for a very non-standard use of the terminology. I support delete as per Nigej to resolve this confusing situation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • No this was the correct state before the sockpuppet messed with it [3] Legacypac (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking at the use of {{UFW}} on Draft:Swaralipi (film) I'm wondering why we need that template anyway. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

February 13[edit]

Template:Black Sabbath (album)[edit]

With only four links, this brings no additional benefit to navigation than what Template:Black Sabbath already does. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD#T3 as all links are included at {{Black Sabbath}}. Also WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 11:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Great album!! But not such a great template, it's not common to list every song on each album side anywhere except in the article space. Ajf773 (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Per CSD#G5

Template:GTMO-phone[edit]

One transclusion. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete - Another Guantanamo Bay template. Whatever its original justification, it has now lost its purpose. Only used in 1 article. Nigej (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per nom --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Uyghur detainee[edit]

Replaces article prose with a transcluded template. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 16:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete - Whatever its original justification, it has now lost its purpose. It starts "He is one of approximately two dozen Uyghur captives accused by security officials of membership ..." but is only used in 2 articles. Nigej (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per nom --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

National football team squad navboxes[edit]

Long established consensus on WP:FOOTY and past TfD discussions (example here and here) to only have international squad navigational boxes for the men and women's: World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and each continent's top level competition. None of these five tournament navboxes meet that criteria. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and past consensus. GiantSnowman 15:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per previous consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:DetroitMetroCensusPop[edit]

No transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Defunct Airlines of Russia[edit]

Propose merging Template:Defunct Airlines of Russia with Template:Airlines of Russia.
Unnecessary duplication. Airlines of Russia template has a defunct section. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

GMA navboxes[edit]

We do not need to use navboxes to list every single show that has ever been produced by a network. Connection between the series are generally tangential. We have {{GMA Network (current and upcoming original programming)}} for the current programming, and whilst that is also probably unnecessary, that should suffice. We don't have entire navboxes devoted to BBC drama series or ABC sitcoms, etc, etc. This can all be dealt with by categories and lists. --woodensuperman 14:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep easy navigation for shows under the same genre that aired in thesame network.TheHotwiki (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've always thought those templates are a great example of "what not to do". If we look at WP:NAVBOX, while these templates do tick #1 and #2, they fail miserably at #3, #4 and #5. The articles do not refer to each other in most cases; There isn't an article on the subject of the template (no GMA variety shows, GMA talk shows etc.); and there would be never a reason to link to many of these in a "See also" section, as readers aren't likely to use that to navigate to other shows on that network. I'd also say that the "main" templates of this type, such as {{GMA Network (current and upcoming original programming)}}, are also bad templates. There is a reason there aren't templates for film studios, as those lists would become giant pointless lists. No idea why people feel TV is different. --Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - We have List of programs broadcast by GMA Network and List of programs aired by GMA Network (not sure why we need both). Also List of GMA Network drama series. However these are all lists of TV programmes, only loosely connected (i.e. broadcast on the same channel). Surely there's no point having a template which simply replicates these lists. Nigej (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    • According to the leads, "List of programs broadcast" is for current airing programs, while "List of programs aired" is for previous airing. However, both of those should only list original (first-run) programs, and not everything that once aired, but that is for a different discussion venue. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - it will be confused to all if this will be deleted and merged into one, and its kinda messy to find if this will merged into one. That's why it make all of those navboxes so that the viewers of this encyclopedia will know how to see. It is very easy to find separately, but it's up to you to decide. My decision is 50/50. Movies Time (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Artista Academy[edit]

Not enough relevant links to warrant a navbox --woodensuperman 14:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Just two links in the template. The template appears in two other articles even though the template does not mention them and those two articles do not mention Artista Academy either. Seems the template was intended to expand but the program only ran for 1 series. Nigej (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Fuji Television drama templates[edit]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE --woodensuperman 13:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Nippon TV Sui'yō Dorama[edit]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE --woodensuperman 13:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Nippon TV drama templates[edit]

This is a navbox used for templates and has 3 links, with 1 of them not even using this template on its article page (as it isn't a template). 2 links don't really need a template and a "See also" can be enough. Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete A template than has no links in main space, just two in other templates. Templates in templates. All too complex. Not enough links anyway. Nigej (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:TheFinalBall[edit]

Per a request at the Administrator's noticeboard here as the template is protected. Deletion of the source on which the template is based is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TheFinalBall. Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • To expand my deletion reasoning, it's a user generated site, and not a reliable source. As such, we shouldn't have a template directing Wiki readers to this unreliable site. Which is the same reason we deleted the Transfermarkt template a few years ago. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep: at least in the case of Portuguese (or Portugal-based sportspeople for a long period of time), it's quite informative. I do agree it's not to be used as a reference in an article (i.e. in body of text) as it is user-generated, but as a harmless external link it provides useful information.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is not a reliable source as it is user-generated. Compare it to Transfermarkt (a similar user-generated site) which was determined not to be a RS here and whose own template was deleted here. It should not even be used as an external link. GiantSnowman 15:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • delete should be rare used because it is a unreliable source Hhkohh (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: as an external link (it's main use on the pages) it is harmless and provides more information than most websites. There is a reason Quite A Character writes about the Portuguese reality, it's probably our main way of seeing the players clubs, stats and other informations. Only then we complete the info with references. Again, we use it as an external link, please consider keeping it. Blahhh23 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the logic and previous consensus to delete the Transfermarkt template. There is nothing wrong with editors using the site as a resource to generate background info on a player, but we don't actually need to link to it in order to do that. The presence of the link sends a signal that it's an acceptable reference. It isn't. Nzd (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nzd. Not a reliable source. Does not warrant inclusion in such a regularised way. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gives a misleading impression of official Wikipedia community support for links to an unreliable source. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: Finalball is a major source for Portuguese sports articles, and removing it is a nightmare to replace, if not impossible. I used it for it's intended porpouse, to reliably show the statistics of a player. I can't tell who inserts the stats, but the whole website is owned by ZOS,Lda, in Porto. They also provide news and bets. Knowing wikipedia, the decision is already made, and having two featured articles who rely on finalball for it's recent players stats, it's my problem to replace it per wp:burden. Just hope someday, other user generated stats sites used in featured articles like www.stretfordend.co.uk or www.lfchistory.net, will get the same destiny.--Threeohsix (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
ForaDeJogo is a decent alternative to zerozero. SLBedit (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
StretfordEnd is an official website. LFCHistory may or may not be considered a reliable source by the community (we can have that conversation elsewhere if you'd like), but I don't agree that it's user-generated in the same way that TFB/ZeroZero is. "I can't tell who inserts the stats" is the key point here. In testing, I was able to create an account, submit a data change without having to cite a source, and have that change accepted within around 20 minutes. Whether anything was done by TFB to verify my change before accepting it is unclear. This is what makes the site unreliable. Nzd (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:The Dream Makers[edit]

Only three links. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The three links relate to the three articles where the template is used, Not needed since each of the three has a "see also" section mentioning the other two, as well as mentioning them elsewhere in the article. Nigej (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Star Awards for Young Talent[edit]

Only two recipients have articles. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Trolleybus systems[edit]

First, this navbox is effectively redundant to Category:Trolleybus systems by city and Category:Defunct trolleybus systems by city (and to some degree List of trolleybus systems), thus violating the template namespace guideline that "Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or 'See also' section list can perform the same function." Second, the subject is too broad. As stated in the articles Trolleybus and Trolleybus usage by country (with references), there are approximately 300 existing trolleybus systems around the world, and more than 500 defunct systems have existed in the past. This template misleadingly lists only a fraction of the systems its title covers, but if it were to list all of them, more than 80% would be red links (the two categories mentioned above show that WP articles exist for about 150 of the 800 systems) – with the vast majority not likely ever to receive articles. Even among just the approx. 300 existing trolleybus systems, only around 80 have Wikipedia articles, a large number of which are stubs, mostly created in 2011 and never significantly expanded in the eight years since. Russia alone has around 85 existing systems, and almost none of them have Wikipedia articles. The template misleadingly lists only one Russian system (Moscow, and that single-sentence stub is not actually about the trolleybus system), but if it were to list the others, it would mean an additional 80+ red links in a template already replete with red links. SJ Morg (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not contest the criteria for deletion. Under the template namespace guideline cited above, the following templates are also effectively redundant and should be considered for deletion as well:
There may be others, but the three cited above were part of the reason that I believed this was a relatively uncontroversial addition. The Trolleybus systems template was created as a means to more quickly navigate between related articles. It is cumbersome to jump into the category or list article, then select a specific article covering a city, especially when the main list article has sub-main articles covering specific countries; however, as noted above, this template does not meet the criteria and I will not contest the request for deletion. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, better to navigate by category for something this large. Frietjes (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too large to be effective as a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Numtext[edit]

Propose merging Template:Numtext with Template:Number to word.
They are completely redundant to each other. They do the same thing and use the same module and function! Template:Number to word should be kept due to the more descriptive name and higher usage (475 vs. 135). Could someone kindly tag the templates as I don't think I'm allowed to. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 05:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge or redirect Most of the Numtext usage is in old editions of WP:SIGNPOST. eg "‹The template Numtext is being considered for merging.› twenty-two featured articles were promoted." (compare: "Twenty-two featured articles were promoted." using Number to word). Redirect is less effort and probably effective. Nigej (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and Nigej. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge (or just replace, if there really is nothing to merge) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Templates weren't tagged until now. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Younger[edit]

Not enough links; fails the WP:NENAN rule of thumb of five links. -- /Alex/21 03:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete - An article Lizability has been created for episode 60 of Younger (TV series) (currently the last episode). The previous 59 episodes do not have articles. As such the template is useless. Nigej (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Nigej. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talkcontribs) 12:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - while I absolutely love this show, it does not merit a navbox. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

February 12[edit]

METRA templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)