Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

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

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
  Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
CfD 0 1 32 17 50
TfD 0 0 1 5 6
MfD 0 0 7 1 8
FfD 0 1 6 0 7
AfD 0 0 0 4 4

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 a 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_December_10#Template:template_name.css */

Protected pages: If you are incapable of tagging a page due to protection, please either leave a note on the page's talk page under a {{edit protected}} header, or leave a note at the Administrators' noticeboard, requesting tagging of the page.

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]

December 10[edit]

Template:Cocktaildb recipe[edit]

This part of the website gives 404 errors. I suggest orphaning and deleting. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:IRC NQNS[edit]

Unused external link template with destination website shutdown. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

December 9[edit]

Template:Navalranks[edit]

Propose merging Template:Navalranks with Template:Military ranks.
Seems redundant. However, feedback would be welcome on how to deal with the sections and their headings of the merging template. PPEMES (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose; one is general with broad detail, and another specific with more fine detail. They fill different niches and I don't see how that's a problem. Gimubrc (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

December 8[edit]

Template:German Empire Corps[edit]

Propose merging Template:German Empire Corps with Template:German Empire Armies.
Please see below. PPEMES (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:German Empire Divisions[edit]

Propose merging Template:German Empire Divisions with Template:German Empire Armies.
Would this be possible in order to accomplish something along these lines (but in Wikipedia template presentation)? PPEMES (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Last updated 2[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 20:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This template has no documentation and the usage is not the same as its title. The template says, “Source: [citation needed]” -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 08:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as template creator, not necessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:58, 8 December 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:Sailing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs[edit]

Unused; Content merged into the Sailing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:CueTracker player[edit]

Also nominating:

The template in question creates an external link to pages on our WP:BLACKLIST (see MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist). Whilst unreliable sources wouldn't be an issue if it were just unreliable, why should we promote external links to pages on our blacklist and have to go through these templates?

Currently used on a lot of pages, however if the site is considered to be on the spam blacklist, there should also be no need to replace the external link. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Also nominated" pages were not tagged
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 05:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

December 7[edit]

Template:2015 J2 League table[edit]

Unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus in prior deletion discussions and at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Sydney New Year's Eve[edit]

Template specific to individual articles for a single event. All individual editions are currently up for deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09, which found that individual instances of this event are not notable. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • This could have been speedy deleted when all articles have been deleted at AfD. Anyways, delete only after the articles are deleted, not before. --Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Adams operas[edit]

per discussion on my talk page with Jay and per prior discussion at WT:WikiProject Opera, the sidebar opera templates are now deprecated and are being replaced by horizontal navboxes. This nomination includes most/all of the sidebars where there is a horizontal navbox with the same set of links. please feel free to point-out/add any that I missed (if there is an existing horizontal navbox with the same links). Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Random checks (Adams, Balfe, Bernstein, Birtwistle, Bizet, Chabrier, Cherubini, … Walton, Weber) shows that at least some of these templates are being used. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • When the new templates (horizontal) were created and placed in the article, the authors should have removed the old one but they did not - Jay (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    WP:TFDH exists for a reason ... * Pppery * it has begun... 05:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete – Redundant, 2 opera navigation boxes. Listed above are old templates. The new templates have been created and placed at the bottom of all articles and were supposed to replace these. However, some of the old templates were not removed from the articles - Jay (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not aware of any particular discussion that declared that obvious navigation was inferior to obvious, clearly-identfiable navigation, but more importantly, shouldn't we at least try to preserve page history for archival reasons? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 06:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Adam, many of old templates were created by me. For the past 6-7 years, I have received nomination for deletions (2-3 a year) and am sure will receive more future nominations every year. I support the deletion because we already have the new format of navigation templates now. The old templates are now redundant or no longer in-use. The last nomination was last week for Template:Purcell operas and Template:Mascagni operas. I posted this tFD in Project Opera talkpage for discussion. - Jay (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, whatever the intent, at least a number of these are still in use so Oppose such bundling. They aren't labelled on the pages they're being used on as being up for deletion, so this could easily go against consensus on at least some pages. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 08:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
          • Agree with your point on that part. Some templates are still in-use although there are redundant with the new one at the bottom of the article. Perhaps we will have to do the clean-up by removing it from the article. - Jay (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:TFD#REASONS2 and prior consensus from WikiProject Opera and original creator. Yet again we have editors who voice their "oppose" opinion without caring to even read or understand how TfD works. at least a number of these are still in use so Oppose - how does that even matter? We routinely delete templates that are still in use - that isn't a reason for not deleting them. As the nominator pointed out, the reason they are still in use, is because they are redundant, as in, they duplicate another template on the same page. Also I'm not sure which page you saw was missing the TfD notice, but I've just checked all templates and they are all tagged. --Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposed I agree with Adam Cuerden and strongly oppose deleting these old templates. It is not a good idea to do so, because it degrades the History function of the Wikipedia. Old versions of pages which use this template will no longer be displayed correctly. Instead of deleting them, I would suggest labelling these templates as "deprecated" at the top. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - in several of the cases I've checked, the footer templates with which these are being replaced are not "opera navigation" boxes, but rather much larger templates covering a composer's life, other works, etc. In that context I don't agree that opera-specific templates are redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Also noting that the ongoing mass-removal of these templates from articles is also removing the title italics and in some cases the article's only image of the composer, both of which are supplied by these templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
If the image is important, I'd think it be important to mobile users also. These templates don't appear on mobile, which means that the image doesn't either. Better use the relevant infobox where needed. Gonnym (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The mass-removal of these templates left many article titles without italics; that's not an improvement. I also agree with Nikkimaria's observation that the full composer's template is not always a better replacement. This ought to have been decided for each article, but that train has now left the station. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose to deleting these templates and I also fiercely object to the way they have been bundled together like this. I saw the Meyerbeer template had a notice that it was being considered for deletion and a note to click to go to the discussion page. But there was no discussion page, so I took the notice off. These should be discussed one by one, if at all, not together like this. There are some I don't care about but I have written and maintained lots of the Handel and Meyerbeer articles for years and I consider what has happened to them vandalism. The editor did not wait for discussion, he just went through and deleted the templates leaving the articles with no leading image. It took me ages to find this discussion, who would think to look for Handel operas under a template for Adams? Contemptuous behaviour. Smeat75 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all This is causing a lot of disruption and should be withdrawn to allow any actual problem to be calmly discussed. Recent edits to remove {{Handel}} from articles have damaged articles and in a manner similar to WP:ARBINFOBOX, it is not helpful for template editors to force their view onto the content editors who maintain the articles. The most recent discussion at Template talk:Handel was in August 2016. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all. The 'new templates' (at the foot of the page) do not serve the same purpose as some of the old ones. E.g. for Giacomo Meyerbeer the 'old' template was designed to give a pic of GM himself or a pic related to the opera concerned together with a list of all GM's operas at the head of the page (so that users could quickly look up any of the other operas). The 'new' template simply contains the same list of operas, but is without a picture and not immediately locatable as it is at the foot fo the page. Deleting the 'old' template unthinkingly deletes an image which is part of the aricle (which in the case of Robert le diable is a GA). If you are going to delate any of these, it should be done on a one by one basis and not wholesale.--Smerus (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Vehicle manufacturing in Ukraine[edit]

Just three links but two of them are to non manufacturig articles. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Banks of Ukraine[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX, see similar discussion. Störm (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, thank you for valid argument. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • delete per last discussion. Frietjes (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

December 6[edit]

Template:Emerging technologies[edit]

Template is still incomplete (see Category:Emerging technologies), but it is currently too long (a sort of mess), and does not help in navigation.

Solution: Split the template into child navigable templates on related topics. Störm (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Fourteen Holy Helpers[edit]

Propose merging Template:Fourteen Holy Helpers with Template:Catholic saints.
Please see immediately here below. PPEMES (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Not Sure, is this group notable enough for its own section (probably after 'Virgins' and before 'Related')?, it's already linked in Related so maybe just leaving it as separate templates would be best depending on weight-of-topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since the designation of a saint as one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers is nothing on par with the saint's designation as 'confessor' or 'virgin' or 'martyr.' It's a title, determined by history, by which a certain group of otherwise unrelated saints are venerated together. It should remain separate. — AJDS talk 05:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Catholic protection[edit]

Propose merging Template:Catholic protection with Template:Prayers of the Catholic Church.
Seems like rather mergable content? PPEMES (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Monastic glossary[edit]

Propose merging Template:Monastic glossary with Outline of the Catholic Church.
Seems like a rather odd way of going about. Better merge with article realm entry Outline of the Catholic Church? PPEMES (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • PPEMES, the second template doesn't exist. are you proposing to merge with the article? Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. PPEMES (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
PPEMES, then you should change what you wrote above. Frietjes (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
OK. I tried to, although not sure it follows the rules to tweak it that way. PPEMES (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:AFLLadderLine[edit]

unused after being replaced by Module:Sports table Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:AFL Ladder/1897[edit]

Unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus in prior deletion discussions and at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Template:AFL Ladder is not a template and should either be deleted or moved to a /doc page of the Sports table module. --Gonnym (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Lnep and Template:Lnep/begin[edit]

There is no reason why these template forks cannot exist as the actual templates that they call. -- /Alex/21 14:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Note that there are also {{Lnep/@midnight}}, {{Lnep/conan}} and {{Lnep/conan2}}. --Gonnym (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, I planned to nominate those after these basic two templates, dependant on the outcome of this TFD. -- /Alex/21 14:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    Leaning support - unless someone has a strong argument for keep. --Gonnym (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd personally prefer keep these templates, but it's not something I care enough to fight for. In the likely event these templates are deleted, I would strongly insist that the special fields (|Guests= |MusicalGuests=), as well as (|LnAirDate=) be added to the be added to the main episode template. It would make editing the respective articles that these templates are made for substantially easier. I can foresee confusion from users having to rely on auxiliary fields and tweaking the title field to keep the pages maintained. Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    Grapesoda22, if there's consensus for that, it could certainly be arranged. -- /Alex/21 05:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wug·a·po·des​ 15:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • delete if |Guests= and |MusicalGuests= are added to the main template or keep if they are not added to avoid confusion per Grapesoda22. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

December 5[edit]

Template:Cakevandal[edit]

Outdated, much better vandalism warning templates exist. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete per nom. Also noting its sparse usage (only a few times in the last decade). czar 03:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:2019–20 Argentine Primera División aggregate table[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus in prior deletion discussions and at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:24, 6 December 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).

December 4[edit]

Template:In defensum castitatis[edit]

Propose merging Template:In defensum castitatis with Template:Catholic saints.
While admittably it is a large template, shouldn't this be estimated one of the larger excepetions for a descent overview? Better keep it together? PPEMES (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose this one. The first template is large enough and is a specific enough topic for its own template. Let it stand as is. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge - there is no article for "In defensum castitatis" which fails WP:NAVBOX#4, so this is pure WP:OR which cannot be WP:V. Merge as secondary option. --Gonnym (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Associations of the Christian faithful[edit]

Propose merging Template:Associations of the Christian faithful with Template:Catholic laity.
New, forked template. Largely overlapping content, it seems, though. Why not merge? PPEMES (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Haven't studied it so will not comment for now. Too many nominations at once. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    • replying to a nearly useless comment. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • support, most of the links are already in the {{Catholic laity}} template, so a merge seems sensible. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think {{Catholic laity}} is ultimately a hopelessly broad navbox. There are simply too many categories of them with too many instances in each. It's a bit like having a navbox that tries to list all "Schools", "Hospitals" or "Parks". The more articles are created, the more untenable the broad navobx will become. If anything, {{Catholic laity}} should be split to each type of lay organization. Each of those can be potentially expanded many-fold. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Theoretically, possibly, but past years doesn't show a rapid expension getting out of hand, does it? PPEMES (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding completely useless relist comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Albany Empire roster navbox[edit]

The Arena Football League has folded, so current roster templates are no longer applicable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:1986 FIFA World Cup qualification – OFC[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus in prior deletion discussions and at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:27, 5 December 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:Austria squad UEFA Euro 2020[edit]

Tournament does not start until June 2020 and the template is blank, clearly WP:TOOSOON. Can be recreated once teams announce their final tournament squads. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, far too soon. GiantSnowman 13:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:50 largest Russian banks[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX, see similar discussion. Störm (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

December 3[edit]

Template:2019 Major Arena Soccer League Eastern Conference table[edit]

unused, not clear where it would be used since there are already tables in the article Frietjes (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Party flag[edit]

Unused templates. Seemed to be the start of a political party flag template system, but was not adopted or expanded. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Mascagni operas[edit]

duplicates navigation found in Template:Pietro Mascagni, Template:Bohuslav Martinů, and Template:Simon Mayr which is now the format preferred by WP Opera. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'm the creator of Mascagni template. We (Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera) have created a new format of template for Opera navigation list to replace the old one. The new template is positioned at the bottom of all opera articles, instead of on top right for the old one. This template (the old) is now redundant. - Jay (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Above comment applies to Martinů and Mayr templates as well -Jay (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:2019–20 Luxembourg National Division table[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:18, 4 December 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:ITF junior profile[edit]

Propose merging Template:ITF junior profile with Template:ITF profile.
The International Tennis Federation have merged their ITF and ITF junior profiles, so this template is now redundant. As the URLs continue to work with the old IDs (take note, WTA!), I suggest that we merge the 2 as the junior profiles no longer exist. IffyChat -- 11:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

December 2

Template:Strife

[edit]

Only two albums and one member have articles. WP:NENAN. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, the articles can be easily connected through a "see also" section. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Arcade

[edit]

Only two releases have articles. Related bands just filler. WP:NENAN. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:KGC

[edit]

Only one album. WP:NENAN. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Line

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Line with Template:Dialogue.
Never used, see the What Links Here. Also redundant to {{dialogue}}. dibbydib 💬/ 22:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:RTD Bus & Rail

[edit]

This template is redundant to Template:RTD stations navbox, which is already in the same articles. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment The template was improved during this TfD by reverting the unexplained deletion of most of its content. Of course, that doesn't stop it being redundant. Certes (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • merge with Template:RTD stations navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment if any of the templates maintainers reads this and cares. Both templates have multiple issues regarding duplicate links and linking to sections of the same article. A link should appear only once in a navbox. A navbox is not here to replace a list or an article, and is not here to explain this thoroughly or give an overview. It's here to provide navigation. Adding duplicate links makes the template larger for no valid reason. The station template also has a serious issue with color WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Links should be blue, not white and with the black background color, even the underline is barely noticeable. --Gonnym (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

November 28

Template:Hiberno English editnotice

[edit]

The linguistic term "Hiberno-English" refers to the vernacular spoken varieties of English in Ireland, not to standard English as written in Ireland. No Wikipedia article has ever been written in Hiberno-English, nor should it be. Fut.Perf. 15:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Future Perfect at Sunrise, Then we can just make it a redirect to the Irish English editnotice. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 17:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Is there one? I didn't find it. I wouldn't mind renaming (and rewording) this to "Irish English" though. (That said, I'd still consider the entire template pretty much useless, since on the level of the formal written standard language there is virtually nothing that distinguishes Irish Standard English from British Standard English, but apparently that case was made at earlier XfC's and people still wanted these kinds of templates all the same.) Fut.Perf. 20:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Convert to Irish English Couldn't find an Irish English notice either, but all the article tagged should have an edit notice so might as well convert to a Irish notice. This would also be consistent with {{Use Irish English}}. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, most of the pages using this edit notice aren't marked with {{Use Irish English}} (or any other "use" template) so it seems as though this isn't really providing accurate information. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Completed discussions[edit]

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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

collapsed discussion just to keep things readable
  • Wouldn't this be solved by just making all of them auto-substitute? The templates are so simple that they're already substituable. --Trialpears (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    That is certainly possible for most of them. I do highly suggest you actually read through the discussion before just slapping a one-size-fits-all solution to almost 300 templates; some of them are not direct wrappers and some of them have extra content that may need to be considered. Additionally, all of them have a commented-out section giving the language - this should not be subst'ed. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have read it and will check that they actually are only a direct wrapper (using regex). before adding auto substitute, but if that is enough for 90% of them that's what I'll do after dealing with the unprotected templates. I also wonder what I should replace them with. I feel like In lang would be the best choice, but since this wasn't even a redirect an hour ago and there were so many opinions about it I thought it would be best asking you. --Trialpears (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry if I implied that you were going to rashly jump into this; thanks for being cautious. I would say that for anything that isn't protected and/or has <50 uses, {{language link}} would be fine to use in the wrapper (i.e. they can pretty much stay unchanged). I'll have to have a think about the higher-use ones, though; in particular, I'm going to look at the {{ill}} merger and how we dealt with combining multiple templates with very long names. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    {{in lang}} with rudimentary documentation created.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know what a substitution forcer file is, but I would suggest that if the list at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9/Link language wrappers § Templates with above 100 transclusions is intended to identify templates that should be substed from one template to another template, then that list is flawed. There are templates listed there that are also listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9/Link language wrappers § Non-standard templates.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    AnomieBOT require templates with over 100 transclusions to be added to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force for them to be auto substituted. I thought it would be useful having a list when that time comes. The first step will of course be fixing the unusual templates before starting substituting them. --Trialpears (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Is that even the right tool to use? Substing {{de icon}} templates will return {{link language|de}}<!--German--> (I'm not sure how categories are handled in these kinds of cases). But, if the intent of this whole thing was to replace the icon templates with a more appropriately named template (which {{link language}} is not) then how is the AnomieBot task the correct task? One task to troll through and subst all of the various icon templates and then another to subst all of the {{link language}} templates? Is that safe? Are there cases where {{link language}} is used natively where changing those transclusions to {{in lang}} would be the wrong thing?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I was planning on doing an AWB run to make sure all templates are only transcluding {{link language|langcode}} or whatever redirect we decide on using and then let AnomieBOT substitute it, which I think would do the job. The categories are handled by the template and removing the comments would not affect them. I'm not sure what's happening with {{in lang}}. It was only a redirect to link language a couple of days ago and I thought that was the intent based on the closing comment. Why do we have two templates doing the same thing now? Updating the original template would be better if you want to implement new features. --Trialpears (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    The only consensus reached is for removal of the wrapper templates: the various {{<xx> icon}} templates change to something. The close doesn't say to what those templates are to be changed. One might infer that they are to be 'unwrapped' to reveal the inner template which may not necessarily be {{link language}}; I suspect that to be the most common (and likely only) template that has been wrapped for this application. The use of {{LL}} as a redirect is addressed to the extent that a WP:RFD is required to do anything about it (an implicit no consensus). As a result of this RFC, {{in lang}} was created as a redirect to {{link language}} but never used for that purpose (redirect because no consensus to rename {{link language}}). I converted that redirect to a template as a way out of the mire that the fourth bullet item and definitive no-consensus declaration leaves us in:
    explicit consensus to remove (from article space) {{<xx> icon}} wrapper templates (first bullet point in the close)
    explicit no consensus to delete the wrapper templates (fourth bullet point in the close)
    consensus / no consensus not stated with regard to deprecation of the wrapper templates (implicit no consensus)
    What point is there to removing the wrapper templates from article space if we don't have a consensus to do anything with the wrapper templates themselves once the transclusions are removed from article space? We don't have a consensus for deletion yet the wrapper templates are marked with {{being deleted}} templates which contradicts the fourth bullet item in the close; both conditions cannot simultaneously exist (deleting something that we don't have consensus to delete). The close is mute on deprecation so apparently we don't have consensus for that either.
    So, a new template with enhanced features and different categories to replace any-and-all uses of the wrapper templates. This, I think, meets the single consensus we do have, to remove the wrapper templates from article space. A new template is not constrained by the contradictions of the close. The wrapper templates are left to be deleted in dribs and drabs as anticipated in the close.
    To answer your question: Why do we have two templates doing the same thing now? Yeah, there are two templates doing similar things; the original is constrained by the decisions (and lack of decisions) of an inconclusive RFC. The new is not constrained by that RFC and can be used to replace the wrapper templates in article space in compliance with the one consensus decision achieved by the RFC; the new template has features that the original does not: |link=, |cap=, multiple language support; the new template fills different categories; the new template name is consistent with what it does (preceding text – may or may not be a link – refers to something that is written in <language name>); the new template does not support |cat-lang= for the reasons stated at Template talk:Link language § the cat-lang parameter.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Since there has been no further comment I have done these things:
    1. written Monkbot/task 15: normalize lang icon templates
    2. created as a test bed:
      1. Category:Articles with non-English-language sources – parent category for sub-cats:
        Category:Articles with Abkhazian-language sources (ab) et al;
      2. Template:Non-English-language source category – documentation template for sub-cats;
    without objection I shall:
    1. start a WP:BRFA for Monkbot/task 15
    2. create additional sub-categories in Category:Articles with non-English-language sources according to those categories in Category:Articles with non-English-language external links that are not empty
    3. when approved, run Monkbot/task 15 to replace {{<xx> icon}} and redirects with {{in lang|<xx>}}
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't approve of having both {{link language}} and {{in lang}} doing the same thing. {{link language}} should be updated and then {{in lang}} be redirected. Other than that I think it sounds good. --Trialpears (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    Nor do I approve, however, they are not doing the same thing. It is true they are doing similar things but {{in lang}} is about sources and allows multiple languages to be references whereas {{link language}} is for only external links (which "sources" might be considered to include) and does not allow multiple languages. The latter also has a few issues with some extra parameters allowing strange categorizations. So in shorts {{in lang}} was resigned without the historic constraints imposed upon {{link language}} allowing it to be more flexible and potentially more things (if it is ever widely deployed to so such). If anything, after most of these transclusions have been updated to use {{in lang}}, {{link language}} could be updated to use/redirect to {{in lang}} (or just be deleted outright with the rest of the templates targeted by this RFC decision). 50.53.21.2 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm confused. You start out by saying Nor do I approve but then appear to talk yourself around to suggesting that the {{in lang}} should be deployed as I have outlined above. So which is it?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Trappist the monk There are now four templates using cat-lang after I fixed the easy ones a while ago: {{bal icon}}, {{ilo icon}}, {{nan icon}} and {{ksh icon}}. I think there are really two ways to handle this, either starting a CfD to change the names of these categories or modify Module:Lang. When this situation is dealt with we should sync with your improved link language template and then make sure all templates subsitute properly and then finally use AnomieBOT to mass subsitute these and then delete them. --Trialpears (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Your posting above is merely pro forma since you have already set AnomieBOT to work?
    I think that you meant {{bla icon}} not {{bal icon}}.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    I set it up for a few templates all with few transclusions. It was mearly for testing and if there's consensus to do it some other way it can be reverted. Based on those tests it worked exactly as expected. I'm ready to do the rest if you think my course of action is suitable. --Trialpears (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Apparently we are at deadlock because you object to {{link language}} (which, it appears, you wish to retain) and {{in lang}} existing simultaneously. I object to continued support of {{link language}} (which I want to go away) because the text that {{link language}} associates with in article text is often not a link. You think that all of the wrapper templates should be subst'd to {{link language}} and I think that the wrapper templates should be replaced with {{in lang}}. You did write above when discussing this topic with Editor Primefac: I also wonder what I should replace them with. I feel like In lang would be the best choice, but since this wasn't even a redirect an hour ago and there were so many opinions about it I thought it would be best asking you so perhaps we aren't at deadlock and are talking past each other.
    Still, at the moment, I don't see any consensus here to do anything there being only two of us participating.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    Why is it a problem that not all uses of link language are associated with a link? How would that problem be solved by using in lang? Since they have the same output I don't see any reason to keep them separate. I intend on starting another deletion discussion exclusively dealing with very low transclusion wrappers to gain consensus to delete wrappers under 50 transclusions. The arguments for keeping the wrappers don't apply to these and would be helpful for getting rid of a significant chunk of them. --Trialpears (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    The problem is one of semantics. These are taken from Amazons:
    * A. Klugmann, ''[https://archive.org/details/dieamazoneninde00klgoog Die Amazonen in der attischen Literatur und Kunst]'' (1875) {{de icon}}
    * H.L. Krause, ''Die Amazonensage'' (1893) {{de icon}}
    These sort-of-work for both cases because {{de icon}} isn't specific about what kind of text precedes the template. Change {{de icon}} to {{link language|de}} and the first example works because there is a link to a German-language source. The same cannot be said for the second example because there is no link.
    Change {{de icon}} to {{in lang|de}} and both examples work because {{in lang|de}} does not refer to links but does refer to the language of the sources. Editors are often 'literal' and are confused by template names that do not accurately reflect what the template does (one of the reasons that {{de icon}} and similar are not well named – template doesn't produce an 'icon', this is the sort-of-works that I mentioned above) so an editor reading the wikitext of the second example where {{de icon}} has been changed to {{link language|de}} may be confused by that because the second example does not have a link.
    Isn't it first necessary to decide what those wrappers under 50 transclusions are to be replaced with before you charge off and delete them? Why are you in such a rush?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    I am fine with using in lang as the template name. If we turned {{in lang}} into a redirect that would indeed be my optimal outcome. Can we start working on removing the last few cat-lang uses so we can redirect it now? Regarding the TfD: The main reason is that I kind of messed up yesterday CSDing 4 unused templates thinking there was an exception to the deletion no consensus for unused templates. A TfD would be a solution to this, but I guess they would also fall under T3. I will discuss with the deleting admin (Justlettersandnumbers) to see what they think I should do. --Trialpears (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    OK, I was pinged. Were those mistaken nominations, Trialpears? If so, they can easily be restored – just say the word! (oh, and give me the page titles if you have them handy). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    Justlettersandnumbers Yep they were mistaken, the discussion didn't actually reach a consensus to delete any of the templates, not even these unused ones. I think they would fall under WP:T3 and will probably tag them so they can be deleted after the 7 day hold. Please undelete {{Av icon}}, {{Arn icon}}, {{Ak icon}}, {{Als icon}} and {{Ajt icon}}. --Trialpears (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
     Done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    If you are fine with using in lang as the template name, what is the point of redirecting it? If we are settled that the template name shall be {{in lang}}, then the task ahead is to replace all instances of {{link language}} (and all of its redirects) with {{in lang}}. Deletion of {{link language}} (and all of its redirects) as unused to follow. What then, is the point of a making {{in lang}} into a redirect?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    If you prefer to redirect in the opposite directions that's by all means fine by me. As long as the end result is one template. --Trialpears (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Just to move this along, I support Trappist's proposal of replacing the icon templates with the new one. --Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    I still think that Trappist's solution is more complicated than necessary, leaving the inevitable merger of these identical templates for later will cause more work overall and replacing it with another template is a bit dubious when the consensus was "Merge to Link Language". I'm however confident that the end result will be basically the same either way and won't block the proposed implementation. --Trialpears (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    With regard to:
    {{bla icon}} see Talk:Blackfoot language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{ilo icon}} see Talk:Ilocano language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{ksh icon}} see Talk:Ripuarian language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{nan icon}} see Talk:Taiwanese Hokkien § language naming inconsistencies
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC) (bla) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC) (ilo) 17:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC) (ksh) 14:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) (nan)
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages § language naming inconsistencies
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    Trappist the monk, So now the cat-lang issue is fixed? Are we ready to start replacement? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

As a first step, I've verified that every game linked in {{Solitaire}} is now also linked in {{Patience}} (adding links to the latter where necessary) with the following exceptions: Perseverance, Seahaven Towers, One-handed solitaire, Aces and Kings and Tri Peaks. I haven't added them to {{Patience}} as I haven't been able to categorise them yet. Of those five only Seahaven Towers and One-handed solitaire have any references; so the others should be checked for notability anyway. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Bermicourt I doubt that there will come anyone else qualified to categorize these will come along and I would be happy with you just using your best judgement. Thank you for helping out with the merger though; it's always nice to see people going the extra mile to do a good job! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Trialpears, I'll make a note on the talk page for now of what needs doing and that releases {{Solitaire}} to be a redirect or whatever's best. Bermicourt (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

  • None currently

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

  • None currently

Transport[edit]

  • None currently

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

Could I claim this merger? I would like to convert this into my first module. It may take some time though since I have zero lua experience. --Trialpears (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Go for it. Just makes sure you sandbox heavily and maybe have one of us check it before you go live. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

To convert[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

  • None currently

To substitute[edit]

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

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

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

  • None currently

Ready for deletion[edit]

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices[edit]