Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

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

Closing instructions

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

  • Stub templates
    Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
  • Userboxes
    Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
  • Speedy deletion candidates
    If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if 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).

I Tag the template.
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • 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.)

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

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]

July 26[edit]


July 25[edit]

FIFA Club World Cup winning squad navigational boxes[edit]

Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 110#Template:Inter Milan squad 2010 FIFA Club World Cup and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 106#Winning FIFA Club World Cup squad templates, these templates are not notable and overkill. Tournament squads are not used on the club level, only for major international football competitions (World Cup and main continental competitions). There is also a longstanding consensus to not have championship winning squad templates in football, as there are too many competitions for this to be viable. Articles already exist for all of the squads at each tournament (e.g. 2016 FIFA Club World Cup squads). S.A. Julio (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-money[edit]

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 06:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-San Marino[edit]

This isn't true. See c:Template:PD-San Marino. Magog the Ogre (t c) 02:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Public transport in Adelaide[edit]

Recently created template; purpose already served by Template:Adelaide public transport and Template:Adelaide Metro railway stations. Also redundant (at a lesser extent) to Template:TramsAustralia and Template:Closed Railway lines of Adelaide. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Nick and I both identified a need for a similar template, only a bit over a week apart, and it turns out neither of them is complete (as both contain links missing from the other). I support Merge {{Public transport in Adelaide}} into {{Adelaide public transport}}. This new template has not been applied anywhere yet as it was created for the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide#Trams which is an ongoing discussion about restructuring the cluster of tram articles. --Scott Davis Talk 13:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge per ScottDavis. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 20:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Template:2017 Wabash River football standings[edit]

Unused. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Torku Konyaspor roster[edit]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Best Balıkesir B.K. roster[edit]

unused and duplicates Best Balıkesir B.K.#Current roster Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox map[edit]

since the last discussion, this template has been replace by (1) introducing a second parameter in the infoboxes for file/image-based maps, (2) replacing the infobox map call with calls to {{location map}} and InfoboxImage, (3) replacing any x/y dot maps with other maps (mostly location maps). the last discussion closed as "no consensus" mostly because this refactoring/replacement was happening during the discussion. but, now that the refactoring/replacement is complete, this template can be safely deleted. Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035, Hike395, Jonesey95, and JohnBlackburne: who participated in the last discussion. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, but we'll need to be careful to check and fix incoming links, like the one at Template:Infobox mountain range/doc. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • fixed. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I do not see any more incoming links that would be confusing to editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • support Seems all the refactoring/replacement that needs doing has been done. Links are not a problem, anyone following a redlink should see the reason it was deleted and can if they want investigate further based on that. Apart from subpages of this template the only transclusion now is a user’s test page that they can take care of if they wish to. Nothing else needs doing before deleting it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski[edit]

Per WP:FILMNAV we should only be including "primary" creators in navboxes. In terms of films, this is usually taken to being the director, so if we trim the film writing we would be left with just two links. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I do not agree: They more than qualify for having a navbox, having written, directed and created multiple media properties. This comes off as a very narrow use for navboxes, not showing the breadth of a creator's output, and I ask the moderators to reconsider. --SavageEditor (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Invalid reasoning. They have directed, and plenty of director's navigational templates include "writing only"s and an assortment of other items. And their work is "plenty" primary. And the tool is useful. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality[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 resolved Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There is something wrong with Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality when using the Photomontage with the image_skyline, check this article for instance Khabarovsk compared to Trujillo, Peru when using Template:Infobox settlement. Amorite Mercenary (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Amorite Mercenary, it seems like you aren't proposing anything for deletion or merger in this discussion? I fixed the problem in Khabarovsk, so can we close this thread? normally, we discuss particular problems with Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality at Template talk:Infobox Russian inhabited locality and not at TFD. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: you can close this thread, for sure ! Amorite Mercenary (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2017 (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).

July 23[edit]

Template:Euro coin copyright tag[edit]

Unused, redundant (as an overly specific version) to {{Non-free currency}} FASTILY 00:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox historic site[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox historic site with Template:Infobox ancient site.

The distinction between these two seems to be unclear (the former is described as being for "sites which have been deemed worthy of protection by local, state, provincial, national, or other governmental bodies.", the latter for "historical and cultural locations"), and many of the parameters are similar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, long overdue. – Joe (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Historic sites and ancient sites have different needs entirely. This is a solution looking for a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. If there is consensus to merge, I would prefer Infobox ancient site merged into Infobox historic site, not the other way around. Something "ancient" can also be "historic". I do not believe most editors think that that the Palace of Westminster, Statue of Liberty, and many other sites are old enough to be considered "ancient". Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Whatever their descriptions, a look at the fields and the articles which use them demonstrates why they are different. Infobox historic site is really all about heritage listings of extant (or recently lost) specific buildings (possibly including gardens and outbuildings) generally with well-defined boundaries (as there is usually some associated legal protection); the fields are all about the designations (and loss of designation) for the heritage listing and the architecture-related fields. Whereas Infobox ancient site is much more about far older sites usually with a large archeological component (my random sampling has most of the articles using the term archelogical site in their first sentence), which tend to be over larger areas (and under other things) with less well-defined boundaries and not really about a specific building as a centrepoint (although obviously some do) and may not have any framework of legal protection. Generally if something is less than 1,000 years old, it turns up as a historic site and it's older, it tends to turn up as an ancient site. Certainly if we did merge them, I agree with Zzyzx11 that the name should be historic site rather than ancient site, since I don't think any of the 1700-ish articles I've done on the Queensland Heritage Register properties could be regarded as "ancient" (typically built 1820-1970). I agree there are a few articles that could be regarded as both and that merging would simplify the need to choose between the infoboxes. But all in all, I am not seeing how we benefit from a merge. Kerry (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Kerry has stated the difference well. Infobox historic site is geared toward present-day preservation status, which is not an inherent feature of ancient sites. Came here from Babylon, an ancient city to which few of the historic site parameters apply and some of those that might are not known with infobox-factoid precision. Maybe add other parameters to I.h.s. if needed for explaining hill forts with historic preservation status. groupuscule (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It appears from its use on the article that equally, few of the parameters of the ancient site template apply to Bablyon also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Very fair point. My main concern is that (within the infobox, which of course tends to occupy prominent real estate within the overall article) information about historic preservation status will unduly (disproportionately) overwhelm information abut the place itself. Perhaps this outcome is avoidable.
        Or perhaps it is inevitable, or, more optimistically, not related to the template merger. In fact it's already occurring; for example at articles like Xochicalco the infobox (ancient site, not historical site) tells me a lot about historic preservation and not a lot about architecture or history. So maybe my complaint belongs in another forum. groupuscule (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The two templates aren't similar at all. I agree with above comments the infobox ancient site is geared towards archaeology (excavation date, period, archaeologists etc.) - not architect/architecture. Many of these sites are prehistoric (Neolithic etc.), I'm working on an article now for a site the dates back to 6000BC, it's a cave with pottery and shell beads and a flint arrowheads. We shouldn't call it a historic site because it is way out of the scope of anything historians would reasonably study. I don't see any benefit to merging these. Seraphim System (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • "not architect/architecture" No; the "Ancient site" template (which, as noted baove, is described as being for "historical and cultural locations"; emboldening added) has |architectural_details= and |architectural_styles=. As also noted above: The general benefits of merging are explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Some of the specific benefits are addressed by Rod. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Enough legitimate reasons for keeping separate templates have been articulated above. Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both templates serve very different purposes as mentioned in the above comments. Merging would create a very unwieldy template with many, many parameters. It'd even complex to come up with a list of most used parameters since it would depend on the whether the site is a building, an archeological site, a protected site, etc. If the problem is how to reference 2 different sources on hillforts, then just add a section into the appropriate template. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Tobyc75 (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I admit that I am new to these templates, but don't understand why a historic site should not also have room for ownership, and don't understand what "ancient site" is supposed to mean, anyway. - Where I come from, I'd often wish I could describe a theatre or a church in an infobox with detailed parameters for both an organization and a building. Not all parameters need to be filled. In {{infobox musical composition}}, we have (after a merge with infobox hymn) a subset with the few parameters for hymns in the documentation, and the merged template accepts the parameter names from both former templates, so no major changes to articles were necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Honestly, I don't care - but can we get rid of the ugly "this template is being considered for merging" message being splashed across articles? Simon Burchell (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Discussion of parameters[edit]

A comparison of the parameters in the two templates suggests that a number of the above objections are based on a false premise, regarding the supposed difference between the two templates. Furthermore, of those parameters in one template, but not the other, many are applicable to both types of site; are simply the same parameters with extra ordinal numbers (e.g. |designation3= to |designation5=), or are synonyms (e.g. |architecture = vs. |architectural_styles=; |built= vs. |founded=; |elevation= vs. |altitude_m=; |owner= vs |ownership=; |governing_body = vs. |management=; the map and native name parameters).

Parameters only in Infobox historic site[edit]
Extended content
  • |architect =
  • |architects =
  • |architecture =
  • |beginning_date =
  • |beginning_label =
  • |coord_ref =
  • |current_use =
  • |demolished =
  • |elevation =
  • |embed =
  • |end_date =
  • |end_label =
  • |etymology =
  • |events =
  • |formed =
  • |founded =
  • |founder =
  • |gbgridref =
  • |governing_body =
  • |height =
  • |image_map =
  • |image_map_alt =
  • |image_map_caption =
  • |image_map_size =
  • |image_size =
  • |map_dot_mark =
  • |map_relief =
  • |map_width =
  • |native_language =
  • |native_language2 =
  • |native_language3 =
  • |native_name2 =
  • |native_name3 =
  • |nearest_city =
  • |original_use =
  • |other_name =
  • |owner =
  • |pushpin_label =
  • |rebuilt =
  • |restored =
  • |restored_by =
  • |sculptor =
  • |visitation_num =
  • |visitation_ref =
  • |visitation_year =
  • |visitors_num =
  • |visitors_ref =
  • |visitors_year =
  • |year of event=

(excluding numbered parameters such as |designation5=)

Parameters only in Infobox ancient site[edit]
Extended content
  • |abandoned =
  • |alt =
  • |alternate_name=
  • |altitude_m=
  • |altitude_ref=
  • |archaeologists=
  • |architectural_details =
  • |architectural_styles =
  • |circumference =
  • |condition =
  • |cultures=
  • |dependency_of =
  • |diameter=
  • |discovered=
  • |epochs =
  • |excavations =
  • |hillfort =
  • |management=
  • |map_size=
  • |map_type=
  • |material=
  • |native_name_lang =
  • |nhle =
  • |notes =
  • |occupants =
  • |other_designation =
  • |ownership =
  • |part_of =
  • |public_access =
  • |region=
  • |relief=
  • |volume=
  • |width=

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Partial support: I suggest keeping the "Historic site" name and creating a "wrapper" for the content that is primarily useful for "ancient" sites, however defined. While we are at it, there may be a need to consider wrappers for different nations too... not sure. But "historic" and "ancient" aren't the same thing, so some ability to tweak parameters is needed. Montanabw(talk) 21:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

July 22[edit]

Template:Multi-channel network[edit]

Delete as articles have no direct relation, as per WP:NAV. Category:Multi-channel networks and List of multi-channel networks already covers this. Alizaa2 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cleaning companies[edit]

Such a broad definition is better suited by a category than a navbox. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:San Beda Red Cubs 2013-2014 NCAA Junior Basketball Champions[edit]

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymiss fortune 05:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep These templates are being used as records for their season/championship pages (Ranbill Tongco and Javee Mocon) Linsanity (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, navbox cruft. junior squad templates have been deemed not notable in prior TfD threads. Frietjes (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:San Beda Red Cubs 2011-2012 NCAA Junior Basketball Champions[edit]

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymissfortune 05:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep These templates are being used as records for their season/championship pages (Ranbill Tongco and Javee Mocon) Linsanity (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, navbox cruft. junior squad templates have been deemed not notable in prior TfD threads. Frietjes (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:San Beda Red Cubs 2012-2013 NCAA Junior Basketball Champions[edit]

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymissfortune 05:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep These templates are being used as records for their season/championship pages (Ranbill Tongco and Javee Mocon) Linsanity (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, junior squad templates have been deemed not-notable in prior TFD discussions. Frietjes (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Season 92 juniors' volleyball match-up results[edit]

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymissfortune 05:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Season 92 juniors' basketball[edit]

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymissfortune 05:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Season 91 juniors' basketball[edit]

HS tournaments and awards are usually non-notable and not shown in articles. Babymissfortune 05:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Disputedguidelinetag[edit]

Unused and redundant to {{disputedtag}}. KMF (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Disputedguideline[edit]

Unused and redundant to {{disputedtag}}. KMF (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Rolf Geese M65 World Record Score[edit]

now merged with the article, so it's no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Schools in Mueang Nakhon Ratchasima District[edit]

unused, almost all redlinks Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Fire and Rescue Department of Malaysia[edit]

only used in one article, mostly unlinked plain text Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Only two links, and fails EXISTING. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 22:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, due to lack of links to notable articles. Ajf773 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hotels in Algeria[edit]

Template is an indiscriminate list and contains only a few notable buildings. Ajf773 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Terr-FedRep[edit]

Unused template. This is left over from the 2000s, when an attempt to navbox Canadian parliamentarians by province or territory went nowhere due to an inability to agree on the template design -- however, they're now navboxed by political party, with the result that all of the provincial templates were deprecated and deleted years ago. For some reason I can't quite suss out, however, this doesn't seem to have been deleted with them, but has just lingered unused. (And if you want proof of how unused it is, the MPs line hasn't been correct for two full elections now.) Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee[edit]

Only two useful links. Host should not be included per WP:PERFNAV and the "related" shows are tangential at best. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: a WP:3O is open about this template's content (which could potentially have, and in some revisions does have, more links) and about the template's relationship to the Samantha Bee article, and the relationship of both to Category:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. Comments on this TfD might be best deferred until after the 3O is completed, hopefully today. I'm awaiting responses from the two disputators (or whatever real word belongs there) that the questions to address are correctly identified.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Done [1]. I ended up needing to do both 1) a nearly top-to-bottom analysis of wording problems (conflicts, inconsistencies, confusions, unintended consequences, and likely intent) in WP:PERFCAT, WP:PERFNAV, and WP:FILMNAV; and 2) a cat.-by-cat., article-by-article review of the de facto consensus on how to handle talk/variety shows and presenters who are integrally associated in the public mind with certain of them. I hope this will be used to improve the guidelines' wording and help prevent many future flamey editwars like the one that preceded this TfD and the 3O.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Template is utterly essential for navigation. As mentioned in the note above me - the template had several links, which the user requesting to delete this template removed without reaching consensus. For comparison, please see Template:Last Week Tonight. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, but make it a combined bio/show navbox. This should be done the same way as Template:Howard Stern Show. It's an exactly parallel case, will prevent any attempt to create two infoboxes, and will make the protracted, multi-page edit-war over this template, category, and articles evaporate as moot.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a good idea. To make it a {{Samantha Bee}} template would address my concerns, and allow for inclusion of The Detour (TV series) which she also created, making it a much more useful navbox. Thanks also for your lengthy WP:3O consideration. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename Change it from "Full Frontal with Samantha Bee" to simply "Samantha Bee" - you would lose no content, but open the possibility to include much more information fairly quickly. -Gohst (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

July 21[edit]

Cyprus football templates[edit]

Each of these only link two articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So what is the rule? To link at least three articles? Xaris333 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NENAN, five is a good rule of thumb. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Really Frietjes? Most still only have links to one or two relevant articles, a couple now have three at most. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
They all will have at least three articles. I am creating them. Xaris333 (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
my threshold for a navbox is lower than the number provided in the NENAN essay, and the removal of the related European competitions is controversial per the discussion at 1958–59 in Cypriot football. Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is at all controversial. These are incredibly tangential inclusions. See my comments below.  :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

That was the actual template before User:Robsinden change it. Xaris333 (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

At the time of nomination, 1969–70 Cypriot Cup had not been created. Also, note that 1969–70 European Cup and 1969–70 European Cup Winners' Cup are tangential to Cypriot football and should not be included in navboxes of this kind. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This is your opinion, not a rule. For example, 1969–70 European Cup also is at Template:1969–70 in English football, Template:1969–70 in Spanish football, Template:1969–70 in Scottish football. We can have a discussion about all the templates with this "problem" and not just to delete it for Cypriot template while all the other templates still can have it. Xaris333 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It is a rule not to have tangentially related articles linked in navboxes. It's not even the national team, it's a club side that was knocked out in the first round. 1969–70 European Cup wouldn't even belong in the template {{Olympiakos Nicosia}} although an article such as Olympiakos Nicosia at the 1969–70 European Cup would. An article such as Cyprus at the 1970 World Cup would belong here, but anything else is clearly too tangential. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you have the same opinion about Template:1969–70 in English football, Template:1969–70 in Spanish football, Template:1969–70 in Scottish football. Because you didn't remove the links of them. You only remove it from Cypriot templates! We need a discussion about it. Not here. Somewhere were many users, familiar with sports articles and users familiar with templates to say their opinion. Meanwhile, pls stop remove the links. Xaris333 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely I have the same opinion about these navboxes too. The links should be removed from these also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
And why your and not doing it? I am sure you will only remove them from Cypriot template. Xaris333 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There is so much wrong with those other navboxes, it's difficult to know where to start! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
As I have said, you will not do it... Xaris333 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

European competitions links must be in these templates. And to the templates about football season in every European country templates. There are Cypriot clubs involved, hence they are part of the Cypriot football season. User:Robsinden have removed the links only from Cypriot templates. So, two things may be occurs:

1) He is not really believe that European competitions links must be remove from the templates. He just removed them so everyone will vote for deletion since there will be less than five (that the number he gave) links in each number. He just want to delete Cypriot templates.

2) He may think that European competition links must be remove, but he know this is may not correct. So he is afraid to remove them from templates for countries like England, Spain etc because other users will stop him. And he is afraid to start a conversation about that (maybe in WikiProject Football) so everyone who want to say his/her opinion. I don't think users know that we are discussed that issue here.

Xaris333 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Fear the Walking Dead ratings and related templates[edit]

Full list of templates

Per these two discussions in June and April, these templates are unrepresentative, repetition and get easily crammed. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 00:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all -- excessive. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per previous discussions. -- AlexTW 05:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Given that the keep !votes are all based on the same reasoning (or lack thereof), after not reading the past discussions that fully support the deletion, I'd say that the consensus is pretty clear here. -- AlexTW 07:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - All is useful to have. Can't see no problems with these. - AffeL (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Naturally. The above editor opposes anything Game of Thrones-related that's listed for deletion, and apparently has not read any of the previous discussions linked. Also, another discussion. -- AlexTW 08:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It's the other way around for you. I mean, what's the point with deleting such a good template that gives these informations to the readers? I'm not just talking about Game of Thrones, but all of the shows mentioned above. - AffeL (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. If something important got GoT was requested for deletion, I would oppose it. Again, you've clearly not read the discussions. All of this information is available in the episode tables, especially ones where the season articles are transcluded and they're all in a nice unbroken line. It has the GoT template in it, that's why you're opposed. Something crowded like {{The Walking Dead ratings}} is more detrimental to an article than it is helpful, especially with a full season coming up, and possibly more in the future. -- AlexTW 08:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
That's why you where the only person that was for the deleting of the article of Carly Wray. But moving past that, i'm not talking about the season articles, but the main articles of these shows. So if these templates get deleted, will it instead be used just once in the main page of these shows? - AffeL (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't important. Nice you remember old our dates, though. These templates aren't typically used on the main articles of series', but rather on the list-of-episodes articles, where the information already exists. -- AlexTW 09:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
But for many they are, for Game of Thrones it is used in the Viewer numbers section. I do not care if it gets removed from the other Game of Thrones pages, But it should still be on the main page, where it's not repetitive. - AffeL (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The basis argument for not requiring any of these templates applies to all articles. But now that you are WP:HOUNDing me, I'm sure that no valid contribution will come out of this. -- AlexTW 09:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Stop accusing me of something you are doing. - AffeL (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Not related to discussion. -- AlexTW 10:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Just replying to the comment you made. I still think a template like this is good to have for some shows. - AffeL (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "I think a template is good" is not an argument and has no basis or support. -- AlexTW 11:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I am reiterating Alex's above comment. AffeL, please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 21:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I said, try to read the comments I have made above. - AffeL (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
And then read the guideline and see how it applies to your situation. It's exactly what you're saying. -- AlexTW 22:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It's exactly what you said. It's written right in the WP:IDONTLIKEIT#It's useful section: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it should include useful encyclopedic content. But many useful things do not belong in an encyclopedia and are excluded. Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. You need to say why content is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies." Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
No it's not what I said, I believe that graphics like this a useful and important to see how TV shows popularity changes over time. - AffeL (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, excessive stats, and per prior discussions. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete excessive and crowded. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all excessive statistics. --Muhandes (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In case the discussion results in the deletion of the templates, shouldn't {{Television ratings graph‎}} be deleted as well? Else, we might end up having the same discussion in the future. -- Radiphus 23:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Callmemirela: Please add tfd tags to every template nominated. Pppery 23:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pppery:  Done I am the one who added most of them and i forgot to do that, sorry. -- Radiphus 00:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Radiphus: Except that you put them in noinclude tags. Tfd tags for templates of this size shouldn't be noincluded. Pppery 00:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pppery: Does it matter? I am really asking. Should i remove 'noinclude', and why? -- Radiphus 00:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Radiphus: So people who don't happen to look at the template page notice it has been proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 23. In that case, the argument was primarily about small inline formatting templates like {{braket}}. For larger templates, the disadvantages pointed out there don't apply as much whereas the advantages still do. Pppery 00:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't follow this discussion very much. I just noticed more templates were added. Also, I included noinclide tags because Twinkle said that the tags don't interfere with the article, so that's what I did. Should they be removed? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 00:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, for the reasons I stated in my previous post. <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags should only be used for substed templates (per Wp:Tfd#Listing a template step 1, or (in practice) for templates that produce output that isn't interpreted as wikicode (for example {{CURRENTSECOND}}) or displays something very small (like {{braket}}). None of the above properties apply to any of the nominated templates. Pppery 00:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I probably didn't properly read what Twinkle said. I've removed all of the noinclude tags. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 14:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pppery: Thanks for letting me know of this discussion, though i see no consensus was reached on this issue. I personally believe the tfd tags would be disruptive to all those "List of ... episodes" articles. The 'noinclude' tags have been removed. I thought that big red box would be placed inside the articles, but the notification that was added is quite discreet. -- Radiphus 14:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought that too, but it's not showing up. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 14:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Radiphus and Callmemirela. One large set of templates struck off User:Pppery/noinclude list ... Pppery 14:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see a reason for deletion. Ratings information is important to assess the popularity of a TV series, and the template format is just a convenient method of keeping data consistent across articles.  Sandstein  14:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I strongly recommend reading the three previous discussions. Ratings information is already available through the episode list, and the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes, and given that there's no guidelines to curb this, it has become more detrimental than useful. -- AlexTW 14:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. What are the reasons to delete it, ratings is a huge part of television.

Judor92 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The most important reason why these templates should be deleted or replaced is that they do not fit the needs of all the TV series in which they are used. A typical example is the series The Office (a template i created myself) consisting of 201 episodes. In order for all the episodes' ratings to fit into the graph, I had to position the bars right next to each other, being limited by the maximum allowed width of 1600px. If the series consisted of more episodes, I would not have been able to do even that. And if the graph can not be used everywhere in a way that fulfills its purpose, then it is better not to be used anywhere. A graph like this could be a design alternative, provided that it will not contain data for a single season, but for all seasons of a TV series, but it does not solve the problem of data repetition. -- Radiphus 14:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why not usong these template french wikipedia [2]? Judor92 (talk) 11:23 am, Today (UTC−4)
    • Although this is the English Wikipedia, the templates used on the French Wikipedia are just as bad. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (especially template:television ratings graph) as useful and informational for readers.

    Nominator claims that each and every template nominated here is "unrepresentative, repetition and get easily crammed." However, she provides no explanation for these claims. How are they unrepresentative? Are they using unsourced data? Are they inherently incorrect in some way? That the graphs use data from elsewhere in the article doesn't make them repetitive; seeing easily in one place the relational highs and lows over the course of seasons is more beneficial to readers' understanding than trying to remember an entire season's (or series') ratings as they scroll by and mentally do what these graphs are doing for them. As for "getting easily crammed", that would depend on a lot of individual articles' factors and cannot be used to paint all these templates equally (especially the originating template). — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

    I quote myself again. I strongly recommend reading the three previous discussions. Ratings information is already available through the episode list, and the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes, and given that there's no guidelines to curb this, it has become more detrimental than useful. -- AlexTW 08:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    "Ratings information is already available through the episode list" I addressed that in my comment.

    "the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes" I don't know what you mean by "gotten way out of hand", and I don't know how many episodes is "too many" for you, but {{Mr. Robot ratings}} doesn't look "out of hand" nor does 22 episodes seem like it should be "too many".

    "given that there's no guidelines to curb this" Given there are no guidelines curbing this, it doesn't strike me as needing curbing.

    "it has become more detrimental than useful." I addressed these templates' usefulness in my comment, and I do not see any evidence of them having detrimental effects on readers. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

    @Fourthords: Please take a look at the graphs I've created below: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 10/TV Graphs Examples

    As you can see, attempting to create a graph containing anything more than 200 episodes produces a mess. There are examples of shows with that many episodes, like The Office (201), Law & Order (456), The Simpsons (618) and most late-night talk shows like Conan (1053). So, i believe we agree that this graph can not be used in every television series article on Wikipedia. However, as Alex said, there are no guidelines to curb the excessive use of this template. Therefore, there should be a discussion on how to deal with this potentially harmful template. Users like me, who think that a graph showing the ratings and trends of a TV show is not redundant, are likely to suggest the replacement of the template or the imposition of restrictions in its use. Users who think that this is a case of data repetition and that the episodes table is sufficient, are likely to suggest the deletion of the template. What you can't do, is say that everything is fine and no action should be taken. -- Radiphus 22:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

    First of all, please don't take offense to my minor reformatting of your comment. I couldn't find any possible way to keep your reply (and mine, and all below ours) in line with MOS:LISTGAP while keeping the subpage transcluded here. So I turned the transclusion into a basic link and brought everything into a single bullet (I could've prefixed your second paragraph with a "*:::" too, but I didn't know which you'd prefer, so I used my own default).

    You said that graphing "more than 200 episodes produces a mess." Obviously, a "mess" is subjective, but with the browser and monitor I'm using right now, all of your examples below "4 seasons - 100 episodes - 800 width" simply add a horizontal scrollbar for the content that can't be seen initially. Are you saying that such a scrollbar is inherently "messy", or are you seeing something else?

    "So, i believe we agree that this graph can not be used in every television series article on Wikipedia." I don't know whether a 1053-episode-wide graph would be beneficial to readers of a given article; that would be up to the editors of that article to decide. Can these graphs be used for every TV series with an article? Since they obviously can be (given I've seen no limitations to the template design, and I assume the resulting horizontal scrollbar would be functional), I don't agree with this claim.

    "[T]here are no guidelines to curb the excessive use of this template. Therefore, there should be a discussion on how to deal with this potentially harmful template." Define excessive use in this instance. I'd define it as implementing it without regards for its pertinence and relevance to the specific article at hand—a decision to be determined by the editors of that article. Whether {{Prison Break ratings}} (to choose one at random) is "excessive" for the article its in (apparently Prison Break) is up to the readers and editors at Talk:Prison Break. As for "harmful", that definitely needs an explanation as for how it actually harms the wiki or the reader.

    "What you can't do, is say that everything is fine and no action should be taken." There is no systematic or conceptual problem with these graphs that warrants deleting all 45–47 of them, and that's what's being discussed. I haven't looked at every single one of these templates' implementation (and I'd wager most editors discussing them haven't either) to know whether "everything is fine", but the fact of the matter is that "everything isn't wrong", and that's the premise from which this discussion is based. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. They're not really "ratings", just a regurgitation of the viewership columns in episode list tables above them. There was a time in multi-season main television articles that an overview table contained premiere and finale viewership columns with an additional "average" column. This was much more effective and simpler. Another thing to factor in are the screenload times. While I'm all for a nice bar graph, these tables at the bottoms of list articles add to their loadtimes, while also extending past the margins for some series pages, shrinking some tables above them, and stretching the pages on some devices. — Wyliepedia 19:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Having read the previous discussions, I will say I still have no idea what Alex means when they say that these templates are "unrepresentative" of the show, but I nevertheless can see the other substantial issues here. To begin with, I question their basic utility. For the most part, the ratings info contained within them is only going to be truly germane to one article (the main article for the show), and those details can (and almost certainly will) be included in that article already. Sshoehorning the ratings info for the entire run of a show (via the template) into the auxiliary articles (be they for a given season, episode, or subtopic) is almost always going to be excessive and inappropriate. When you combine this lack of realistic function with the clutter and other technical and pragmatic complications inherent in these templates, the matter approaches a WP:SNOW determination with regard to how obvious the call is here. Snow let's rap 23:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all excessive statistics. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - They are one of the main reasons I visit the episode pages. Probably for some others as well. - seismologist76 (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    That's not a reason to keep them. It's essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 03:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep {{Television ratings graph}} and establish guidelines such as:
  1. Only for multi-season programs (should not be used for programs with only one season)
  2. Only used for programs with less than 20 episodes per season
  3. Only used for programs with less than 100 total episodes (after which should be converted to alternative graph)
  4. Should only be included in parent television series articles (not in list of episodes or season articles)
While I do agree that the majority of these templates are detrimental and that another graphical representation should be created for the series that do not fit some established guidelines (along the lines of this [3], possibly using something like Wikimedia SVG Chart), I personally feel this is an amazing and a very useful template for TV series. There is no reason to delete something like {{Game of Thrones ratings}}, which we know for a fact will have a total of 73 episodes and the graph helps visually show the growth of the series, which is in itself rare since the majority of series decrease in ratings and not grow. A graph like this is far more effective than writing in prose the season premieres, finales and spikes in ratings to explain the growth/decline in viewership for a series. However, something like {{The Walking Dead ratings}} will become far more detrimental to an article than helpful, especially with the showrunners having confirmed their desire to have 20 seasons. - Brojam (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's put aside the idiosyncratic nature of your proposed guidelines and the fact that many of the editors who would want to implement these templates would disagree on where you want to draw the line. Even if you could get these editors all on the same page, it would be virtually impossible to constrain templates to these standards thereafter; per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:Advice pages, the editors of each individual template would not be compelled to follow suit. Are you going to use the WP:PROPOSAL process to create a WP:Guideline on this incredibly niche issue? Seems unlikely.
You say that a simple graphical representation of the ebb and flow of ratings can be much more effective in representing that aspect of a shows popularity than a long section of prose, and that's fair enough. I personally don't know that it does much for examination of a show as an encyclopedic topic, but no doubt some readers will value it. Which is why any graphic that might appear in one of these templates is probably a reasonable addition to a show's main article. But crammed into every article remotely connected to the show, it becomes a kind of WP:FANCRUFT, and one that creates potential technical and viewing issues for readers on certain platforms (see WP:CHOKING), which are not justified by the return they give to our readers.
If a reader really wants this highly particular data, it will always be available to them in the main article (I don't know of an article for a single major television series of the last couple of decades that doesn't have a ratings section, and if these graphs can be created for a template, they can be created in those sections, and in most cases already have been). But the templates themselves are an ill-conceived means of trying to plaster a detail that a niche group of viewers fixate on across a mass of articles where they are not particularly germane or useful, creating clutter and headaches. Snow let's rap 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me, Brojam, when I wrote the above, I had somehow missed the last qualifier on your list, of only adding these templates to the main articles for a series. But I am now confused: if you want these details only in those main articles, why not just add said content into such articles? (Or more accurately, I think you will find they are already there, in the vast majority of cases). The entire point of this discussion is that the duplication of this content into a template inevitably leads to it being plastered across scores of articles where it doesn't really belong. So why have the template at all, if you're in agreement that this should only be in the main article for a show? Snow let's rap 20:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: The same could be said for {{Television Rotten Tomatoes scores}} that only goes on season articles like Game of Thrones (season 7). I've since added a bar_width parameter to the template to make it less of a "mess" and made it possible to display more than 20 columns of episodes in the table. This would eliminate many of the restrictions that I had originally proposed. See here for examples using it. - Brojam (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Those comments don't really address the question I was asking: Why have the template at all, if you're in agreement that this content should only be in the main article for a show, and it can be added into the main article (and in almost every imaginable case, already is int he main body of the article)? And yeah sure, there's WP:OTHERSTUFF that also get shoved into questionable templates, but that's not an argument for retaining the particular content in question here. Snow let's rap 16:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So you're fine with keeping {{Television ratings graph}} and deleting the rest, just to recreate them in each specific article? While I don't have a big issue with that, having them in separate templates will help reduce the vandalism that often occurs with ratings data. - Brojam (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Basically, yes, that would be the solution I think works best. Though again, I don't think there will be many cases where that material has not already been added to the main articles (ratings sections, complete with infographics, have become pretty ubiquitous in the main articles for television shows made in recent decades). I'm not sure what might be your reasoning for assuming that there will be less vandalism if these graphs are presented in the main body of the text, rather than in a template. I'm not sure there is a whole lot of vandalism in this area at all, but (if anything) the content is safer from vandalism in the articles than in the templates, by virtue of the fact that more regular editors work on the articles (and thus will notice the vandalism quicker) than on templates. Snow let's rap 20:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I can see advantages of having individual template for each show. For example, some people are concerned about sources, but if you include a large number of sources for the figures of the graph that may give excess bulk for an article that is already big. But if you put all the references in the template (but references not transcluded), then you have a way of showing sourced data in a simple graphical form without adding excessive bulk to the article. As for the vandalism issue, most casual editors won't know where to go to edit the template, and vandals are often casual editors, and people randomly changing numbers is a problem with many articles (I'm not specifically talking about TV ratings, it an issue I've seen with many other pages). Hzh (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep provides useful information to the reader. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You don't represent every Wikipedia reader out there. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep they provide easy to digest information about tv series. Individual templates that have gotten too big could be nominated for deletion in a case by case basis. --Freddy eduardo (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems ludicrous to keep the charts for some articles and not others. Either they're all gone or they all stay. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 21:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The graph is the easiest and most convenient way of providing useful information to readers. Readers can understand in a simple glance the trajectory and extent of the show popularity all through the entire series. Rating is an important part of the TV shows and is of interest to many readers, therefore an easy to read format should be kept. Hzh (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    I quote myself again. I strongly recommend reading the three previous discussions. Ratings information is already available through the episode list, and the graphical format of it has gotten way out of hands for series with too many episodes, and given that there's no guidelines to curb this, it has become more detrimental than useful. And also the rest of this discussion - all of your pointers have already been addressed. -- AlexTW 09:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    I do understand the issue with too many episodes (I mentioned it myself in the Walking Dead template here), but that is a problem with how to represent data rather than the graph itself. For example you have graphs like these - [4] (a few thousand data points), now the issue would be how to implement something like this in Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    If people are so insistent on these types of graph, it is best to start from scratch, no? There are obviously issues with the templates per the last two discussions. If Grey's Anatomy, Criminal Minds, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, etc., we're looking at a large template because of their overall episodes. It's best if we establish consensus first (following a deletion, if you ask me) and then implementing the templates as the community has requested. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    Seems like adding a bar width parameter may resolve some of the issues - with narrower bars you can add more episodes, 2-300 episodes may well fit a single graph. I don't know how easy it is do to that since I have only ever made minor adjustments to template, but if that can be done, there is no need to start anything anew. Hzh (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    The more narrower the bars, the more difficult it is too read. At that point, it wouldn't even be a bar chart anymore. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not really sure if I understand the argument. I can certainly make them out even if the bars touch each other. If you look at The Office (U.S. TV series) ratings with over 200 episode, if I reduce it to 67% (by zooming out) it is still perfectly readable (that'll be the equivalent of around 300 episodes), it's only when you get to 33% when you think it might be difficult. Appearing as discrete bars in any case should not be an issue, it would simply be like the example I gave above (that solved the problem by giving info when you hover over the data point, but I should think implementing it would require quite a bit of rewriting). Alternatively you can split the graph or simply scroll it, which requires no rewriting of template at all. Hzh (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Hzh: I've added a bar_width parameter to the template as suggested. See here for examples using it. - Brojam (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent work. The Office ratings template actually now looks much better. I think for those who complained about excessive data in a page, the simple solution is to have a collapsible option for the data table since the graph itself should give most of what you need to know (but you can see that actual data by clicking show on the data table), and a single graph does not really take that much space and should not be an issue. A graph is a simple and elegant way of presenting large amount of data. Hzh (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree; changing the size of the bar widths and keeping the same number of bars still makes it excessive data, as proven by the other examples of such graphs that were previously given. The large amounts of data are already presented in a simply format, and that's through the episode lists. If they were to be included, they would need to be on the list of episodes article; anywhere else, and it would be unsourced and allowed to be deleted. -- AlexTW 14:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There is really no such idea that data found in one page cannot be presented elsewhere, for example in the case of the main article, in a summary form (and you can see the graph as an easy-to-read summary). A summary is never excessive. The numbers in the episode page in any case is not easy to read, since you have to look through the entire article to get an idea how a series performs overall in its entire run, even then it is not as clear as a graph that can tell you how a show performs from a simple glance. Hzh (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, there is, as if it's included on an episode without the sources for the viewer counts, then the content is unsourced and cannot be backed up on that article. Simply because we can have a summary, doesn't mean we should. Why do we not have graphs for the ratings of a series and its episode, why only viewers? A series' performance is not solely on its viewer count. -- AlexTW 15:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Sourcing is an entirely different issue, and should not be discussed here. The Office ratings for example appear to be entirely sourced, so how is that relevant? You haven't presented a case for why they shouldn't be included. TV ratings are important, certainly to TV companies (certainly more important to them than critical reception - many well-received series were cancelled because of low ratings), and to readers as can be shown by the websites dedicated entirely to TV ratings and the frequency they are reported in the media. Hzh (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Why only viewers? Well because it is the only data included in {{Episode list}} and not ratings. - Brojam (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It should if it directly affects where the content should be added. If it's anywhere but the list-of-episodes articles, then it's unsourced and should not be included in the first place. I have present many a reason as to why they shouldn't be included, having actually read and participated in the multiple discussions related to and links in this discussion, and I support the reasons given by those who have proposed the deletion of the templates. Ratings and viewers are different - why do we have a graph for one and not for the other? It seems to be original research that ratings and viewers are the sole reason for cancellations; however, this does not a sufficient explanation for the graphs of viewers - do the heads of television companies visit Wikipedia to look at them? Very highly doubtful. And ratings are typically also included in an episodes or season article - why can we only use information from the episode table? If you look at List of Doctor Who serials, you'll see the Appreciation Index values - you don't see a graph for those, because having graphs to display already-available data is unnecessary. -- AlexTW 16:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm surprised at the presence of appreciation index, it has little merit and should not be present in any article. IMDb ratings are probably more useful and we don't include those. You should call for that to be deleted. What we do include in many articles are aggregate review ratings by professional reviewers (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes). The Doctor Who article in fact shows how messy the ratings look without a graph. I'm not even sure what you are arguing at the moment, who is arguing that TV company heads visit Wikipedia for ratings? I said it as an example why ratings are important. I'm also surprise that you question the importance of ratings to a show survival (I didn't say sole reason though, you added that), given that this is the received wisdom of websites like TVByTheNumbers that use ratings to predict which shows would get cancelled, e.g. here. I don't think you'd find many people in the TV industry who would question the importance of ratings, it's almost like questioning the important of sales for any commercial products. Hzh (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I most certainly will not call for them to be deleted, given the importance of those ratings, how they have been included for several years, and how I have absolutely no issue with them. Messy? I completely disagree, they are lined up in a perfectly neat fashion, making the information available for comparison with a quick scroll down the page. If you don't like it, that's your job. If IMDb ratings are more useful, then why don't we have a graph for those to? Because it's not necessary. And I quote you when I say I'm not even sure what you are arguing at the moment. I never said they weren't important at all, I said that they aren't the sole reason. And I've primarily been talking about viewers, not ratings, so the importance of those ratings is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Now, shall we get back on track about viewers? -- AlexTW 16:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There are different meanings of ratings. Look in BARB you will see that what they refer to as ratings are in fact viewer numbers. The American rating system is more complex, because they use a number of different ways of measuring viewing figures - by individuals, households, age groups, etc., and present them as shares, ratings, and absolute numbers. The media tend to report different kinds of figures at different periods, but the total number of individuals has been the most common one for many years, even when they use the term "ratings" in the headlines - e.g. [5] and no rating figure is given. Rating is pretty much synonymous with viewing number in the popular media (the actual rating figures are usually only found in specialist websites). Also I did not said that it was the sole reason, and as you went off on a tangent about something I never said, so excuse my confusion. Hzh (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Going back to the point of the sourcing since it never occurred to me but is an important issue. If the graph is in the list of episodes, then no sources are required but if the graph is on the main series article then couldn't we use TV Series Finale for many of the series? Example: Scandal S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6. - Brojam (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I think sourcing is essentially a how-to-do-this issue rather than anything directly relevant to whether a template should be kept or deleted. The numbers are sourced, so it's about how to include references when transcluding a template, there are probably instructions or guidelines on this. Hzh (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all I note that these templates are included in Featured Content (e.g. Game of Thrones (season 1)), and, as such, define the current optimum presentation of information. This deletion discussion is too broad in scope, and too many of the delete !voters are asking new folks to see the previous discussions--when, in fact, a broader advertisement has brought in editors who disagree with those WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussions. This is an ongoing problem with TV-related style issues, and I note several familiar faces who would prefer small discussions apply broadly to all TV on Wikipedia and have taken stances that appear to be disdainful of the editors who actually edit the articles in question, or the readers who actually benefit from the articles in question. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep For reasons already stated above. Calibrador (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's excessive and unnecessary to show the data in a graph. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all These graphs are many times the only reason, I check tv-series sites on wikipedia, because I'm interested in popularity statuses. I would really miss them. Frankdrebiin (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    That is not a valid reason to keep them. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 21:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Honestly? This isn't even worthy to be a vote. You need solid reasoning, not just "I like it, I want it there" - this site does not serve to the benefit of you, you need to present reasons as to why keeping it would benefit the readers and site as a whole. -- AlexTW 02:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep For professional use. I work in television (outside the US) and these graphs especially save a lot of time and effort for us. Yes, the content might be redundant because the ratings are already listed elsewhere, but having the visual really helps when we are making presentations when we are considering purchasing formats. Without these graphs it literally takes me hours sometimes to put together the same information on a chart. Even if the show doesn't have it's own graph the template allows us to mock a chart ourselves (without actually putting it on the page) and really saves us from grunt work. No offence, but it really seems like the majority of pro-delete users are coming to this from an engineering viewpoint and generally engineers are notoriously bad at UX. Camilleopard (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
We are not here to serve at the purpose of people who work in the field, which, I would note to the admin, would seem to be a major conflict of interest. Nor do we keep redundant material for a use that is not related to Wikipedia - this site comes first. -- AlexTW 13:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Alex, that is not remotely what WP:Conflict of interest means on this project. Camilleopard was just making a utility argument based on their insight to the value they see in this content as a particular sort of reader. They weren't involved in the origin of this content, nor trying to promote some kind of material for a company they work for. That would be a conflict of interest; saying "readers of type X, find content of type Y useful" is not COI, not by even the most generous reasonable reading of our policies on the topic.
Now, there are pragmatic arguments to counter the one presented (for example, I would point out that the ratings graphs can and will still be included at the main articles for the show, which is really the only place that they have the WP:WEIGHT to belong and the templates are therefore by definition excessive. I !voted delete and I think it's problematic that the discussion is starting to lean keep, but I can tell you from many years of involvement in deletion discussions that this strategy that you and Callmemirela are employing of responding to almost every keep !vote with an attempt to disqualify their perspectives is likely to have the opposite of the impact upon the "Admin" (by which I assume you mean the closer) than the one you are hoping for. Pick your battles, restricting them to areas where you know you are on solid ground (the above "COI" argument should not be one such example) and even when you are absolutely certain you are "in the right", repeat your objection to a specific argument against one (maybe two) editors at most. Anything more just makes it look like you are trying to chase down everyone who disagrees with you, which doesn't enhance your position when the consensus is moving against you. Snow let's rap 16:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not responding to every keep !votes for one. Most of the comments I have made relate to IDONTLIEKIT. Very few keeps have actual arguments and make good points, whether I agree or not. Two replies I have written were in relation to keep certain templates and delete if the rest (somewhere in those lines) and replying to a user, who wrote to Alex, about IDONTLIKEIT. That's about all I have done. I haven't gone out to "disqualify" votes like you say. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 16:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I meant that between you and Alex, you've replied to nearly every keep !vote here. But you've raised the issue of your frequent reference to WP:IDONTLIKEIT--that's something I had thought to add to my previous post, but I omitted for the sake of brevity in an already crowded discussion. But since you're leaning in to it again, let me say this: you're absolutely right, there's a huge amount of IDONTLIKE-style arguments going on in this discussion. And guess what, that includes every last argument you have made here. I've been watching this discussion since the beginning and I haven't see you, or Alex, or any other editor support their position to delete with so much as a single reference to one word from a policy or guideline. Your arguments have been entirely off-the-cuff and pragmatic, which makes them no more or less IDONTLIKEIT than most of the editors who have !voted to keep the templates. If anything, your burden of proof on a pragmatic rationale is higher, because you are asking the community to delete a large number of items simultaneously, on grounds without explicit reference to policy/broader community consensus.
I happen to think the position to delete has the better pragmatic arguments here (which is why I !voted to delete along with you and Alex and numerous others), but it doesn't change the fact that the debate is being conducted entirely along those lines. So I think you need to keep some perspective before throwing that particular link at others here. If this were an AfD discussion and you nominated more than fifty items for deletion without mentioning a single policy or piece of concrete community-wide consensus which those items violated, your proposal would almost certainly be closed immediately as a WP:SPEEDYKEEP. But this is TfD, and I would defend your decision to launch this proposal by saying that such moves are sometimes made here, based entirely on new pragmatic arguments, because we don't have the same body of guidelines for what makes an acceptable template as we do for articles. I support your nominations and I've !voted in support of them, but I do think you need to chill out with the IDONTLIKEIT comments, because your own arguments are common sense (not guideline) arguments, and thus no more or less enshrined by policy than the utility arguments being made by most of the keep !votes. Again, you have the better array of practical arguments working for you, imo, but you can't pretend you are coming at this from a stronger position of broad community consensus, because you aren't.
Also, even if you did benefit from IDONTLIKEIT here, I'd still be advising that you guys scale back the number of !votes you respond; even when you are right on the nose with policy, there is a point of diminishing returns on the number of times you can make even the right argument in a content discussion before it starts to back fire and do more harm than good to the position you are advocating for. Just my two cents from experience though--take it or leave it as you will! Snow let's rap 18:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Any kind of discussion, whether it may an RfC, deletion, move, etc., should not involve personal and/or professional reasons as to why you want this to keep. We are not here to make your lives easier by "sav[ing] a lot of time and effort for" you. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I have simply stated my personal reasons for wanting the template kept. I didn't want to repeat anyone else just to receive the same cookie cutter counter-arguments. And I truly think that the charts are not redundant because they provide a striking visual for many people who can't just go from numbers listed on the right side of tables which are too many and too spread out from episode descriptions to actually comprehend the data. Can you honestly tell me that you can understand in one read-through that which episode was the highest and lowest in a season and how the ratings for each season compared to each other (such as a rising or falling trend)? Because that is exactly what the chart provides, it translates a bunch of numbers (which are too spread out on the page to be actually seen together) to a simple\ easy to understand graphic. Now you haven't really given any other reason for removing them other than they are "redundant" I mean do they actually demand a lot of server space that makes this a costly expense? Honestly at least the chart takes up such a small space in one section of a whole bunch of pages connected to a show that just being redundant doesn't make it a good reason for many of us to remove all of them. I do agree with you on that some aspects of the chart could use some work especially when used with shows that have a lot of episodes and seasons, but at this stage where only a certain amount of cable shows' episode lists use this template how redundant is this? Does it require you to spend your free time putting together all of these charts or do volunteers willing to do them make them? Honestly I just can't necessarily understand your vendetta against them really.
[Also Wikipedia by design is literally there to make life easier for anyone trying to access information. That is the whole point of this site. I remember before Wikipedia and the Internet in general that I had to rely on outdated encyclopaedias for information and more often than not I would turn up empty handed. I don't know why you decided to become a contributor (I can't say I contribute all that much), but the website itself is an inclusive learning medium that is there to assist people. So saying something like "we're not here to make your lives easier" might be true for you and others personally, but that does defeat the whole purpose of this website. Honestly I don't want to continue writing about this because I might offend you or others who feel this way and I don't want that to take away from my point about the templates.]Camilleopard (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all I don't see how these are "excessive" at all. They all exist below the episode table, they are neat, concise, and very easy for readers to understand. When I hear the term "excessive", I interpret that as meaning "too much information"; I don't see how these charts could be considered "too much information". There isn't any additional sourced information being included here, its very simply just taking the information that's already in the article (via the episode tables), and synthesizing it into a clear, easy-to-understand format - which in itself provides encyclopedic insight that the episode tables themselves cannot. While on the surface it could be seem as "repetitive", there actually is additional information in these charts that is unique from the episode tables. Looking at American Horror Story for instance, there is a clear pattern of high ratings for the premiere and a drop off in the subsequent episodes - this clear patten is visible in the last 5 seasons, yet the impact cannot be as seen as easily when just looking at the episode tables. We allow tables for DVR ratings, and we allow similar tables for Metacritic ratings, and those are apparently not considered to be "excessive", so I'm not sure what it is about this table specifically that's crosses the line. If anything, this discussion should be about putting guidelines in place for how these should and should not be used. Maybe for shows with 200+ episodes, we use the season averages rather than individual episode ratings in order to "curb" any potential excessiveness? Or maybe we only use them for cable shows whom all have shorter seasons? Rswallis10 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we add Template:Pretty Little Liars ratings to this group and tag it? Similar to all these other templates and has just been inserted into a couple of the Pretty Little Liars articles [6][7]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    I have just added it to the list of templates. Please let me know if you find more so they can be added. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 23:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Callmemirela: Basically, you want to make sure all of those search results have been listed. I just checked and the only one missing was Template:Pretty Little Liars ratings, which was created today. -- Radiphus 00:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The sources are in the articles, and all the data are already present in the list articles. Christian75 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Not if it resides on a series' parent article, where no sources for the viewer numbers exist. And if all of the data exists, as you say, why duplicate it? -- AlexTW 09:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The question of sourcing can be resolved in a number of ways, for example, you may placed it in the template itself, you can choose to, or not if that is preferred, transclude the references. Sourcing is not an issue here. Hzh (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This is spoken like someone who never has to deal with IP vandalism of things like ratings at various TV series articles. Sourcing is 100% the issue. The current versions of these templates are a vandal's paradise as they are likely to be little watched, and easily subject to malicious changes to ratings figures with no oversight. And let's be honest – no one is ever going to source the ratings figures for most of these. As long as they are unsourced, I will be a "delete" !vote. I also am unconvinced that these need to be templates at all. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I mean. This is a matter of where you source the content - it is possible to put in the template or in the article itself, how you do it is a different discussion. Because the template is not easy to find for the casual IP editor, it is in fact less prone to vandalism. Hzh (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep - visualize information which is spread out over several screen pages, e.g. it summarize a lot of infomation into one graph. The data should (of course) be sourced. And of course its some kind of a "ILIKEIT" argument, but thats the nature of the problem, and apparently MOS hasn't any "solution". Its like discussing the colour of an infobox, you can't find any external sources dictating which colour to choice. Problems with individual articles should be discussed on that articles talk page. Christian75 (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there's already a consensus on how to pick an infobox's colour in the WikiProject Television. We could summarize everything number-based with a graph, but we only seem to do it with viewers. Why not Nielsen ratings as well? Because it's too much. The Doctor Who serials article doesn't require a graph for the AIs. Including them should not be based on "some kind of a "ILIKEIT" argument", it should be based on facts as to why they are necessary, nor liked or wanted. -- AlexTW 09:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Using Doctor Who as an example doesn't help your case, it is probably the worst-looking article on episodes I have ever seen. The appreciation index is rarely reported in the media, and it is completely irrelevant to most casual readers. Viewers numbers in contrast however are widely reported in the media. You should not compare something relatively unknown to another that is well-known and well-used. AI should be deleted. Hzh (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Your personal opinion on the topic has been noted; however, we digress, and should actually get back on topic by giving valid reasons on why these templates should or should not be kept, not just what one editor wants. -- AlexTW 14:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Fine that the group has consensus on the colours. Which external references did you use to decide the colours (except that the colours should be readable - which btw. can be checked with external references). Christian75 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Home media art, and the most prominent colour of it (using something like TinEye), as long as it is AAA compliant per WP:COLOR. However, we digress - shall we get back onto the topic about the templates? -- AlexTW 01:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per policy objections raised by delete votes. Excessive ratings cruft, pure statistical data without the necessary context to make these charts relevant. Unsourced. Visualized data is not necessary to be standardized. Per the outcome of the other ratings template discussion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - these graphics provide useful information how a series' viewership changes over time. I.e. I just saw the Game of Thrones#Viewer numbers chart and that is an excellent chart showing in one easy to understand graph how the show's popularity has increased over time. And I found such a chart no-where else, so deleting it would deprive readers of a useful and unique feature. noclador (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yet another "keep" !vote with an ILIKEIT-based reasoning... I wonder when they will end. One can easily do that through the episode tables, since you can just scroll through the viewer numbers at List of Game of Thrones episodes. A vote should be given with a technical reason, not just because "they look good". -- AlexTW 07:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You didn't read my comment, and you went for an ad-hominem attack. I said: "provide useful information". And scrolling through the viewer numbers as you suggest is again a sign you did not read my comment. I said "showing in one easy to understand graph how the show's popularity has increased over time", this you cannot see if you scroll through the list you linked. In short, your attitude and rudeness, and your refusal to read my comment properly, show that you're unfit to contribute to this discussion in a professional manner. I said and I will repeat "Strong Keep" for the usefulness to get an overview in one glance, which is a thousand times better than scrolling through a list. noclador (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that it's nothing more than an "ILIKEIT" argument to provide a colourful diagram on content that can be read elsewhere. Given that I've been a major contributor to this discussion, I think I'll let myself decide on whether I'm unfit, professional or not. Cheers. -- AlexTW 15:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
As you are harassing every "Keep" voter with a comment, and as you are patrolling this discussion, you are clearly diametral to this discussion. I wanted to comment and move on, but your rude attitude and crusade to have this discussion end your way are a sign that you need to step back from this discussion now. Also: again, I did not say I like the graphs, but I find them useful. Many other editors have argued the same way, that these graphs are useful, yet you dismiss all of them as "ILIKEIT". This is not how it works. noclador (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
That would be due to the fact that I have had to deal with the issues that have come with this template through new and unknowledgable editors, and edit-warring editors, who decided that it was best to use this template for every Tom, Dick and Harry series that they thought of, even when it wasn't compatible to do so. I didn't come to here because I saw the deletion notice on one of my pretty graphs, and I am not the only editor sick of seeing "keep" !votes stating that it's useful with nothing solid or technical to back this up. -- AlexTW 15:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
If you have to deal with issues with "new and unknowledgable editors" etc, then the solution ins't to just delete all templates. I have never edited one of these templates and came because for all wikipedia users a graphic representation of data is always much easier to comprehend than a list. Your dismissal of the argument that these graphs are useful shows you're acting in bad faith. Go to List of Game of Thrones episodes and make an experiment: see how much time it takes you to find out through the list which episode is the most watched and then compare that to the time to find the same information by looking at the graph. The latter takes a 20th of the time. Therefore deleting these graphs is a making it more difficult for wikipedia users to find and comprehend data, and it's reduces the quality of the articles. And that is my final word. noclador (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
"As you are harassing every "Keep" vote with a comment", so far from the truth. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Invaluable for seeing, at a glance, the popularity of a TV show over time. 184.64.110.38 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all – Repetitive, not WP:ACCESS-friendly, unnecessary for each and every show to have its own template... excessive statistics of dubious value. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet[edit]

A non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation. Per recent discussion at Notability:People: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross recipients, the awarding of the Knight's Cross was deemed not to confer notability on the recipients, and the template thus does not serve a useful navigational purpose and is indiscriminate. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 26th PD[edit]

Insufficient navigation -- only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Jim Stafford[edit]

unused and the three singles are already connected through the succession links in the infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

    • While the template may not be essential at this point, not even half of this artist's singles have articles so far. However, interest in the artist's work continues to mount, as reflected in the view counts of all existing articles. Therefore, other song articles may follow, as well as at least one album. The template should be left in place for this reason, as the work to create it would only have to be repeated later as more is written. - JGabbard (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- excessive. Not everything requires a template. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:NI21[edit]

Only 3 navigable links apart from the head article NI21 (a short-lived political party). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:19th-century English photographers[edit]

Selective list. Better left for category navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep although can use work...Modernist (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Scewing (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems useful and interesting. SarahSV (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the reasons given above. Coldcreation (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This reads like a textbook example of WP:ATA. No-one has given a valid reason to keep. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: This template provides an excellent vehicle for users and editors alike, to quickly access associated objective material. Can this template be improved? Most certainly! It is time to stop nominating for deletion templates that simply should benefit from minor improvements. That is where our time and energy should be spent, rather than on responding to deletion requests. And since Rob Sinden is seemingly motivated, she/he should be on the front line of those attempting to improve templates, rather than remove templates. Coldcreation (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This cannot be improved, as a list of unconnected people who have nothing in common other than era and profession is not an appropriate topic for a WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an excellent layout for seeing at a glance the names of a group of "19th-century English photographers" of which the Wikipedia editors feel the reader should be apprised. In close proximity to one another, the names are arrayed with merely a bullet point separating them. One can, for instance, notice the names of apparently female photographers. If one is trying to for instance jog one's memory for "Julia Margaret Cameron" because one had previously heard something about her, the particular visual layout of Template:19th-century English photographers makes this particularly easy to do. One could similarly click on unfamiliar names while bypassing names with which one is already familiar. A great advantage of this page is that all names can be seen at a glance. We should not overlook that the names are simply arranged alphabetically. This is obviously advantageous. Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NAVBOX: Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links. See Category:19th-century English photographers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
That sentence should read: "Alphabetical ordering alone does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links." It would not be difficult to group the entities into "clusters, by topic, or by era, etc." WP:NAVBOX reads "The article links in a navigation template should be grouped into clusters, by topic, or by era, etc. Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links." There are 43 entities at "Template:19th-century English photographers". I think it is debatable whether so few entities calls for separation into clusters. I think we should do so only if such clusters would make sense, that is, that such a breakdown would be meaningful or somehow helpful. In this instance I find the mere ordering by alphabet to be useful. By that I mean that I would not argue for or support an initiative to put in place a random ordering or some form of ordering that specifically does not take alphabetization into account. Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Victorian children's literature[edit]

Selective list of children's authors from the Victorian era. Not a suitable for a navbox, better left for categories or lists (List of 19th-century British children's literature authors, List of 19th-century British children's literature illustrators). ~~Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep valuable tool for editing related articles...Modernist (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
A navbox isn't here to be a tool to edit articles, it is for navigating related articles. The relationship here is purely tangential and fails the majority of the points at WP:NAVBOX --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
And clearly your interpretation is totally wrong, sorry...Modernist (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Read WP:NAVBOX. It is clearly your interpretation that is wrong if you think it is a tool to benefit editors, not readers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Use WP:UCS please, clearly I have spoken as an editor and yes, it absolutely helps our readers to have access to the template...Modernist (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Modernist's arguments. Dimadick (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, as above. I can't see any reason to want to delete this. SarahSV (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Modernist's arguments above. Coldcreation (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The "keep" comments are textbook WP:ATA. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to vote Keep. The collection of entities are exceptionally readable. This is a very compact page. Each entity is merely separated by a bullet point. And the page is subdivided into several logical sections, one of which contains a link to a wp:list of items that fit into the same general area of subject matter. It may be imperfect in that it may include some items that others might dispute and it may omit some items that some editors may argue warrant inclusion. But the reader knows that there is no hard-and-fast rule for what qualifies for inclusion in this subject area. Culture is highly subjective. The reader can be assumed to be highly opinionated. Template:Victorian children's literature is merely a sampling of Wikipedia's offerings in that area. Objectivity is hard to come by in the humanities. Bus stop (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Modernist, Bus stop Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Erika Messner W65 Weight Pentathlon[edit]

unused and it appears this record has been surpassed per the US records article. Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Modernism[edit]

Like so many of these kinds of navboxes it is problematic, as it is selective and subjective with no defined inclusion criteria. Who chooses who should be included here? Best left for categories. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep important and informative; should be absolutely kept...Modernist (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Please address the concerns I raise above. What you are saying here is little more than WP:ITSIMPORTANT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? What don't you understand about the visual arts? You have attacked nearly all the templates related to the visual arts...Modernist (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a helpful response. As an example, by which criteria was it decided that Ingmar Bergman should be included here, and not, say, Robert Altman, etc, etc? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I repeat - what is your problem with the visual arts? You attack every template that you encounter...Modernist (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
My problem is with navboxes which do not adhere to the guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You may also want to have a read of WP:CANVAS. "It appears that the visual arts is under attack..." is hardly neutral. I see you're canvassing a few other editors who are not involved and are likely to take your side too... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Clearly your interpretation of those guidelines are incorrect; and you seem to be in violation of WP:STALKING...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
And please read WP:THREAD too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, inclusion is subjective. if we were to include everyone and everything, then it would be way too big. so, better to use categories. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It is precisely because it is selective that it useful and a necessary supplement to categories, which aren't. Have there been any rows over what is or is not included? No. I think it is rather too large personally, and I see various people on Template_talk:Modernism agree. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Navboxes shouldn't be selective, as this gives WP:UNDUE weight to certain individuals or artworks over others that aren't included. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is useful. Editors can discuss on the talk page what to include. SarahSV (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Within a very short timeframe Templates associated with the visual arts have become virtually useless and uninformative. I motion that they all be restored to their original useful and informative splendor (i.e., before Robsinden's good faith edits). Coldcreation (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. If a specific entry is questioned or should be added that can be discussed on the talk, - no need to throw this tender baby out ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bloated, but can be fixed. Ewulp (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. We are talking about the humanities. There are no absolute inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consensus holds sway. The reader knows that. The reader is not stupid. The value in the collection of articles found at Template:Modernism is that it gives the reader options. A reader can peruse the suggestions found there and reject some based on their own criteria. The assembled collection of articles found there can jog a knowledgeable reader's mind concerning other articles and subjects that might not be included there. Obviously editors exercise judgement in assembling such a collection of articles, but editorial discretion is of value. When there is disagreement, there can be discussion. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the template is similar to this in terms of dealing with a cultural era by summing up some "prominant figures" in a single template but as mentioned above, it should be turned into a more "basic box" by choosing the most important figures of this era according to an agreed-upon standards (for exemple nobel winners in literature section) --Exmak (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:N-VR[edit]

This information is not specific to any of the pages it appears on. It should be linked from the relevant pages instead. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I came across this template and I wholeheartedly agree with the nom that the information is not specific. I posted on the talk page of the template editor but they did not seem willing to engage following my constructive criticism. Issues of passport validity make the template seem as if it's just a travel guide (which violates policy). However, I do see the merit in including information on Israeli passport stamps as they are often a barrier to entry to some Arab League countries. I don't see the point, however, in including this template to every page because the information is just 'generalised' and it needs to be adapted to that particular article. The template does specify Armenian citizens -- what use is that information on an article relating to Irish, Australian, US or British citizens? I think further consensus and discussion needs to be had before I make my mind up on this template.
One suggestion I would have for the Israeli stamps is to include information on it beside the country that forbids them, i.e. For Visa requirements for British citizens, add beside Iran - Evidence of Israeli travel prohibits entry to the country because of the Arab League boycott of Israel. This would help streamline information and would allow the template to be made redundant.
Similarly, for the Azerbaijan related information, include that under Azerbaijan's section on the article.
We are trying to build an encyclopaedia but I'm not convinced that the template is essential for the Visa requirements articles. st170e 20:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Twofortnights who would have a particular interest in this area of work. st170e 20:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I supported the information on Israeli stamps to be standardized as there was a user claiming there is a conspiracy in the fact that the information was not included in all articles the same way. As for the other info such as that concerning Armenian citizens, I think those need to be thoroughly examined. Anything that is not actually relevant for all the articles where the template is used should be removed.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The template in its current form is specific and relevant to every page on which it appears - and should not be placed on pages where the information it transcludes is either irrelevant or inaccurate.

The alternative is to have very many articles of the form "Visa requirements for Ezamplish citizens" either out of date, lacking important information or grossly misleading. Don't we have a duty to our readers to provide accurate information?

We may not be a travel guide, but the volunteer editors are just not forthcoming to keep more than 200 pages current with the passport validity needed on entry and vaccination requirements changing frequently.

Please note that the restriction on folk with Armenian ethnicity entering Azerbaijan applies to all nationalities (with the possible exception of Armenians who have been naturalized) and is independent of the passport or passports they carry.
Any "Irish, Australian, US or British citizen" with an Armenian name or ancestry (and regardless of what passports they're using) needs to be aware of relevant non-visa restrictions.
Any "Irish, Australian, US or British citizen" with a passport validity of less than 90 days (and regardless of what passports they're using) visiting a country that they are not a national of needs to be aware of relevant non-visa restrictions.
Any "Irish, Australian, US or British citizen" with a passport stamp from Israel visiting many Muslim- majority countries that they are not nationals of needs to be aware of relevant non-visa restrictions.

When any of this changes (eg, in the case of Azerbaijan, after a state of war with Armenia ceases), wouldn't it be better to update one template accurately and promptly rather than 200+ pages slowly and laboriously?

I have no quarrel with the notion that "Anything that is not actually relevant for all the articles where the template is used should be removed." However, I have asked for precise details of that type of information and they have not been forthcoming. In the same way that all humans must breathe air to live, all travellers on a practical level need to comply with the non-visa restrictions summarised accurately in the nominated template.

This economy and efficiency of editor effort is one of the reasons that we have templates. BushelCandle (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: I see the merit in a template for non-visa restrictions -- in fact I support the idea. The information regarding Israeli stamps in passports vary from article to article, so one template is needed to ensure conformity and consistency. Also, please remember I specified Armenian citizens and not Armenian ethnicity - I see the point in including that, but the template should strictly stick to Armenian ethnicity. Nevertheless, I'll vote to keep the template. st170e 14:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is important to highlight that the restrictions are not just towards Armenian citizens. (That's the only real justification for including it in so many pages.) The Armenian ethnicity information in Template:N-VR is included in the subsidiary template Template:Armenian-ethn. The current information included there is
Armenian-ethnicity
Due to a state of war existing between the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan, the government of Azerbaijan not only bans entry of citizens from Armenia, but also all citizens and nationals of any other country who are of Armenian descent, to the Republic of Azerbaijan (although there have been exceptions, notably for Armenia's participation at the 2015 European Games held in Azerbaijan).
Azerbaijan also strictly bans any visit by foreign citizens to the separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh (the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic), its surrounding territories and the Azerbaijani exclaves of Karki, Yuxarı Əskipara, Barxudarlı and Sofulu which are de jure part of Azerbaijan but under control of Armenia, without the prior consent of the government of Azerbaijan. Foreign citizens who enter these occupied territories, will be permanently banned from entering the Republic of Azerbaijan and will be included in their "list of personae non gratae".
Upon request, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic authorities may attach their visa and/or stamps to a separate piece of paper in order to avoid detection of travel to their country.(citations removed)
Do you think the emphasis in the information about Armenian ethnicity is wrong and/or the emphasis misleading? BushelCandle (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@BushelCandle: Transcluding huge chunks of prose onto many pages gives the reader the impression that there is something special to read on each page, when in fact they are just reading boilerplate. Material that is common to many pages should be linked, so the reader knows to read that material only once. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm most terribly sorry, CapitalSasha! I thought I had replied to you on American Independence Day, but I assume that there was some sort of cacheing error which I did not notice at the time... I probably can't reconstruct all of my reply that was lost then, but perhaps I can convey some of the gist:
I think it important that we don't lose sight of the needs of our readers. I doubt that many of our readers would deliberately sit down to read our more than two hundred separate articles about visa requirements, beginning with Visa requirements for Abkhaz citizens and breathing an enormous sigh of relief many hours later when they have ploughed through to the last citation listed at Visa requirements for Zimbabwean citizens.
I suggest that the vast majority of readers of any of the articles into which this template is transcluded just wish to quickly and accurately find out what hoops they have to jump through to visit particular countries. Visas are one obstacle, but they also should be made aware of other, non-Visa restrictions such as having a certain length of time remainiing on their passport. Why on earth should they have to jump from one page to another to find out very pertinent restrictions? Why make it more difficult for our readers to print out all the relevant requirements by having to print more than one page if they want a hard copy? BushelCandle (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In summary, this template is of considerable utility in ensuring that even the little-edited pages of small countries' visa requirements are accurate, up-to-date, and comprehensive while diminishing laborious and repetitive editor effort.

By contrast, none of the usual arguments to delete templates have been advanced, since

  1. The template does not violate some part of the template namespace guidelines
  2. The template is not redundant to a better-designed template
  3. The template is used extensively
  4. The template does not violate a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility

BushelCandle (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines state that "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.", and this template appears to be in conflict with that guideline. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
At the relevant rfc there was discussion about including the modifier "normally". Consensus there indicated that "the second wording (Templates should not normally be used to store article text.) is more preferable due to there being situations that merit exception to the first wording." Relevant comments at the rfc included "... can think of several cases where we've put "text" into templates when we didn't want to needlessly duplicate something across several main space articles - something that wasn't strictly formatting or navigation. The other phrasing sounds like someone wants to use this guideline as a stick to beat people with if they happen to do this."
Deletion of this template would make it more likely that we'll have first and second class articles with relevant information on the non-visa restrictions for various passports being out of date and/or incomplete. BushelCandle (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus isn't very clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 09:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Comparison electric car efficiency[edit]

We have several articles that go in to extreme detail on the costs of electric cars, often repeating the same arguments several times. This is fine to a point, especially when it is focused on generalities, with one or (at most!) two carefully chosen examples. But we do not list a catalog of the street prices of every single product in a market. This table is nothing but a shopper's price comparison guide.

The policy WP:NOTSALES says: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention... Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products"

This was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Operating costs for electric cars? and the consensus is to remove these prices. We could remove the columns with the dollar values alone and keep the EPA economy estimates, but it would remain a thinly veiled shopper's guide. Sketching out the trends in total cost of ownership is more than sufficient, and Electric car does that in extreme and repetitive detail. Electric-vehicle battery rehashes the same arguments, and then many more articles like Tesla Powerwall, Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles, Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States, Plug-in electric vehicle, Chevrolet Volt, Tesla Model S, etc. beat away at the same dead horse with near-identical cost-benefit comparisons.

There has to be a limit to this, and it needs to stop addressing the reader as a prospective car buyer. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete price info - I participated in that discussion and it is pretty much unanimous that price info should be removed, instead providing only efficiency information (ie: km/kw), same as we do for gasoline vehicles. Adding costs per year is definitely against our guidelines. As for why, I will just say per nom, who covers the details well enough. Dennis Brown - 17:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete running costs See below It's not strictly against the guidelines so far as I can tell, but it's against the spirit, also the table becomes unduly US-specific when you do that. Not sure why you went down this procedural route, you could have just done it.GliderMaven (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • There was already consensus to remove the price columns, and I understand the thinking behind that. But now I am seeking consensus to go beyond that because the efficiency and fuel economy comparison columns also constitute a shopping guide. This is why the Chevrolet Volt was removed and replaced with the Chevrolet Volt (second generation). The focus is on stuff you can buy today. An encyclopedic goal would be to aggregate or average the kW·h/km efficiency of all cars by year and illustrate the change over time from the 1990s (or earlier) to the present year. A data point in isolation changes when you turn it into big data. It is both interesting and encyclopedic to compare how the technology has improved and become cheaper. Fuel economy in automobiles does this, as well as making comparisons between countries and other factors. But not a comparison across the latest car models. It's fine to include mpg or km/kw on an individual car model's article, but whether or how you aggregate that data can run afoul of WP:SYNTH, WP:FRANKIE, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTSALES. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleting the whole thing is fine. I"m just saying I'm not against a template that did something else useful that didn't estimate costs or look like a shopping guide. Dennis Brown - 23:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Immediate Speedy keep This is a template for deletion discussion, not an 'edit template discussion'. Literally, nobody is even suggesting the template be deleted, so I !vote this charade go no further. This is dumb.GliderMaven (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    This is templates for discussion not templates for deletion. Pppery 22:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    • That's not what it says at the top of the template; nor does it say that at: [[8]]; in fact it explicitly says this page is not for discussing normal editing. THIS IS supposed to be a deletion discussion.GliderMaven (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Templates for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 09:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Broke with Expensive Taste tracks[edit]

Long standing consensus to delete these redundant templates in lieu of the artist navboxes. Please note there are countless such templates in which should be nominated here. Is there a tool for it? —IB [ Poke ] 08:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Please add tfd tags to all the templates you nominate. Pppery 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
IndianBio, why is {{Future History (album) track listing}} listed four times? Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea, must be a copy paste error. —IB [ Poke ] 13:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 20[edit]

Template:High Desert/ Eastern Sierra Radio[edit]

This template violates WP:OR. The 2014 media market map by Nielsen Audio (formerly Arbitron) does not include "High Desert" but does include the Victor Valley and Los Angeles. Some stations in this template are also included in more geographically appropriate templates like Template:Los Angeles Radio and Template:Victor Valley Radio.

There was a TFD decision on June 30 to approve merging certain small market templates to more geographically appropriate ones per Arbitron. But I cannot find any proper way to merge this one. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Alternative: Rename to Template:Antelope Valley Radio, because I think the area of Kern County excluded from the Bakersfield metero area in the Nielsen/Arbitron map linked earlier is part of the Antelope Valley, which is more defined/specific than High Desert. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • NOTE: We can NOT use ANY information by Nielsen after the great television media market template deletion request about a decade back at their request. Yeah, bad idea. - NeutralhomerTalk • 01:43 on July 22, 2017 (UTC)
    • Aah, I see what you mean:
In that case, the templates should be arranged by the public domain core based statistical areas and counties of California. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Balti people[edit]

Unused, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 18:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:The Hill School[edit]

Unnecessary, most pages nominated for deletion. Pretentious, and created for the sole purpose of promoting the school's prestige, along with the splintering of all the contained articles. Peapod21 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • delete if the articles are deleted, and keep if the articles are kept. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • keepNot sure how a template is supposed to make a school more prestigious. But here is a good example of a template for a school that increases accessibility, which should be a example to emulate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:The_Doon_School Hyungjoo98 (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: All articles except for non Hill School related and routine alumni/head of school pages have been deleted. alphalfalfa(talk) 01:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. All but two of the entries were tangential. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivial navbox, easily replaced by links in article text. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hungary bids for the Olympic Games[edit]

Useless. Only one valid link. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Turkey bids for the Olympic Games[edit]

Only one valid link. useless. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Czech Republic bids for the Olympic Games[edit]

Useless. Only one valid link. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bids for the 1960 Winter Olympics[edit]

Useless. All redlinks. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dangerous[edit]

Unused, overly vague name Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that meant to be substed? – Uanfala 13:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:W3C-valid[edit]

Unused, unclear purpose Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This template is intended to provide a badge and link to W3C validator to validate wiki article for HTML errors. This template could be used especially on portals and talk pages (to place there th result of HTML validation and what can be fixed). See: Help:Markup validation. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 07:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Canada bids for the Olympic Games[edit]

Unused, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only one valid link. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bids for the 2026 Winter Olympics[edit]

There is no substance to this template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Useless. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. These cities are working with their respective NOC's and they may become applicant cities once the bidding process begins and some may be selected or non-selected candidate cities. The new bidding process will start with an extended Invitation Phase to one year where the IOC will take on a proactive role in conversing with these interested cities and their respective NOC's and clarifying referendums on whether these cities will host the Olympics or not and a shortened Candidature Phase to one year. Johnny Brockman (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:EXISTING and WP:WTAF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Leslye Headland[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. See WP:NENAN Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. it appears the articles are already well-connected where it's useful. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete for now since this template used to have writing credits, which the guidelines are against. Two directing credits are not enough to sustain an article. I find three preferable because there is less chance of each individual article mentioning the other two (as opposed to two films mentioning their respective predecessor or successor). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Martha Elizabeth Burchfield Richter[edit]

Now that the entries which were not closely enough related to the subject have been removed, there are not enough links to provide meaningful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. it appears the articles are already well-connected where it's useful. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am working on building up individual artwork pages for notable pieces but have had trouble getting Wikipedia copyright approval even with the proper permissions. This allowed one of the pages to be deleted. Erikaschoene (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:The Royal Collection Department[edit]

A mess of a navbox. There are over 7000 works of art in the Royal Collection, so picking a few to include here is selective and subjective. Things such as the Crown Jewels are better handled with their own navbox {{Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom}}, etc. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Robert Antoine Pinchon[edit]

Template was a mass of external and tangential links. Now these have been trimmed, there is nothing left. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. it appears the articles are already well-connected where it's useful. unlinked entries, and external links can be included in the parent list article as they do not aid navigation but are generally useful otherwise. Frietjes (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and repair...Modernist (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and repair...Coldcreation (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I will soon be writing several articles on particular paintings by Pinchon. Coldcreation (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Théodore Chassériau[edit]

Not enough active links to warrant a navbox. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, but make sure the list of works is in the parent article before deleting. Frietjes (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

The template fails basic Wikipedia policies such WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOTNEWS, and others. Rowan03 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0[edit]

Unused, replaceable by {{Cc-by-3.0}} {{Cc-by-2.5}} {{Cc-by-2.0}} {{Cc-by-1.0}} FASTILY 05:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep; harmless, and useful when images are temporarily transwikied from Commons, since the same template is used there. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Geographic location[edit]

Useless and horrible.

  1. Is a navbox that serves no necessary navigation function, since all this information would (or should) already be in the article text.
  2. Is abused as a non-navbox and inserted in mid-article. [9]
  3. There is no consensus to use this; it only appears on a tiny fraction of geographical articles, and editors frequently delete it when a "decorator" tries to add it.
  4. It's abusing tables for layout, an MOS:Accessibility problem.
  5. It's against MOS:ICONS, using icons as pure decoration.
  6. It takes up a tremendous amount of room for very little information.
  7. It is confusing and misleading, assigning absolute compass points that do not correspond to actual direction in many cases.
  8. Encourages a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE problem, of trying to add something to every direction even if nothing notable is there, or close.
  9. There's no limit to the the abusability of it; nothing constrains to to use only for contiguous places, opening it to PoV use to point toward subjectively "important" places that aren't actually juxtaposed.
  10. It is not coded properly to collapse like other navboxes.

In general, this has a WP:NOT#WEBHOST problem, similar to various decorative quotation-formatting templates that were deleted a few years ago. WP doesn't exist for people's design experiments.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be redesigned, not deleted. This is used on thousands of pages. KMF (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It's awful. Tony (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
And spoiler templates were also used in thousands of places. So were decorative icons before we said "enough" and instituted MOS:ICONS. "Used on thousands of pages" amounts to a "STUFFEXISTS" argument when there's not clear rationale for the use. What we need to address here is whether this actually serves a useful purpose. I've laid out a strong case that it does not.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I edited the template sandbox. Is my version better, since it removes the icons (which are the main thing you're complaining about)? KMF (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
note that there is already an option for suppressing the compass icons. I would not be opposed to making that the default. Frietjes (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, this is misapplying MOS:ICONS. The compass roses are not icons in that sense. Decoration in itself is not against policy. -- P 1 9 9   13:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to admit a certain guilt here, as I added it to nearly 1,000 articles three years ago. But I do agree that infoboxes and navboxes are often overused. And this one is of very limited use, violating many of the principles in WP:NAVBOX; notable neighbours should be described in prose in the text, and maybe with a map, and usually are. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per all previous keep arguments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 5#Template:Geographic Location. It is used extensively and consistently for municipalities in Ontario, Quebec, all of the Philippines and Benelux. These "good" examples show that if the suggestions at Template:Geographic location/doc are followed, most of the issues would be resolved. Moreover, most of the problems listed above are not unique to this template. In fact, every template is open to abuse and misuse, but that is not a deletion reason.
The usefulness of this template is as a navigational tool, linking the articles of the subject's adjacent settlements, it's not meant to be a detailed map. I have added this template to 1000s of articles because I want to be able to navigate to adjacent places in a specific direction. Yes, prose can do this too (to a point), but the template simplifies and facilitates this in the same way that we use other navigational templates. -- P 1 9 9   13:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As I work on Los Angeles neighborhood articles, I have two issues. (1) Use of the template begs the question: What is the "correct" geographic entity to be listed on the Template. On Windsor Square, Los Angeles, a user created a Geographic Location Template listing very large neighborhoods as defined by the Los Angeles Times newspaper. But over on Wilshire Park, Los Angeles, a user created a Geographic Template listing much smaller adjacent neighborhoods as defined by local city signage. This complete lack of consistency is amplified in graphic form, as opposed to simply reading about "adjacent neighborhoods" in text form. It also speaks of the users POV -- do you support the LA Times view of Los Angeles as large neighborhoods or do you see the city as smaller neighborhoods as indicated by local signage. In text form, all adjacent neighborhoods, large and small, can be listed with no implied POV. But try to list all neighborhoods, large and small, many clustered within others, on the Geographic Template and it would be a cluttered mess. (2) And in both of the Los Angeles neighborhoods referenced above, the Template is plopped right in the middle of the page where it is an ugly waste of space. Phatblackmama (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This simply does not serve a useful purpose. The information can much more efficiently be presented with prose. I can be abused to easily and creates confusion.Tvx1 17:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as the nominator said, this looks like a holdover from the era of decorative templates. It can easily be replaced by prose in the (few) articles where this template serves an actual purpose.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Are very often incorrect, or contain redlinks. Not useful for the space they take up; readers can look at a map if they want to see neighboring places. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as per P199. Not sure why my last edit here was reverted... FUNgus guy (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - (edit) I agree with the 10 points in the deletion proposal. As for displaying "Geographic location", all of the pages I checked that are using this template already have maps on them, and if there are pages that don't it's easy enough to bring up a map by clicking on the Lat/Long coordinates. A map conveys the information much more accurately anyway. There is no guidance for scale in the template's documentation. As a result, it's been used haphazardly with some using continental scale and others the next street over. I agree with Tony1 that "It's awful". Mojoworker (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Seem out of place. I've worked on some neighbourhood pages in the Saskatoon area and they tend to be out of date and look bad by stretching the page. Cowman 133 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've never liked this template, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who finds it obtrusive and not useful. Maps and prose descriptions should be used instead. Robofish (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (but!) - I agree with points 2-10. Its use should certainly be banned from the article body as it is not directly about the article but about its geographic surroundings. It belongs wrapped up in a {{navboxes}} template with all other navigational templates, hidden out of the way. See Esholt to see what I mean - this arrangement cuts the clutter and multiplicity of navigational boxes down to one box and streamlines the end of the article. It must be made collapsible like other templates in there, otherwise you are being presented with information without actually choosing to read it. Stuffed Cat (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most of the nominator's objections are objections to common uses, but not objections to necessary uses, i.e. it's possible to use this template in a manner to which these objections aren't applicable, and the rest of the objections are fixable. Many of my points refer to its current use in Rice County, Kansas. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
  1. When used at the end of the article, as here, it provides quick navigation to selected articles that are geographically relevant, as opposed to providing navigation to all articles about a class of places, as seen in the counties section of {{Kansas}}. That section's good for finding a county by name, but one doesn't typically navigate from Rice to Meade or Wallace (directly above and below, on my display) or from Rice to Riley or Republic, more than from Rice to any other article linked in that section. And also, when used here, it's far from maps (which routinely don't label adjacent jurisdictions anyway) and far from comparable prose text. In this article, if I go to the top and hit PageDown to scroll down until I reach the bottom, the page is nine screen-views tall, and the prose is split between screen-views two and three, so the box is six screen-views below the bottom of the relevant chunk of text. Why force the reader to scroll up to find prose, especially when said reader might not know where (or if) it's located?
  2. That's abuse. Abuse isn't relevant as long as proper use exists too.
  3. WP:BOLD; we don't need consensus to start using something. Its frequent use in articles about US counties (many states have it in all their county articles; I checked half of the WV counties, and all the pages I checked used it in an identical manner) demonstrates that editors working in this field generally agree with using it.
  4. WP:SOFIXIT
  5. Ditto
  6. Sometimes this is a good thing, e.g. when multiple jurisdictions are bordered on one side, so you need to have room to place all of them. Otherwise, SOFIXIT
  7. As it's meant to provide only a really quick guide, this is fine. If only a few jurisdictions are bordered, it doesn't matter; Rice County borders two counties to the west (quick unlabelled map), and whether you list them as southwest and northwest (as the article does now) or southwest and west, it doesn't matter. And if there are lots of jurisdictions, again there's no single answer; see what's done at the bottom of Cherry County, Nebraska, for example.
  8. Once again, that's abuse. Maybe this occurs in US county articles, but if it does, I've never seen it. See the western direction in the Rice County article, for example.
  9. Once again, that's abuse. It's good for use with contiguous places.
  10. The whole point is that it's visual and meant to provide quick navigation; as such, an uncollapsed box is better than a collapsed box, because it's more prominent.
  • And finally, WP:OSE really applies to articles and notability discussions. The presence of this template on thousands of pages is a solid argument that it's widely accepted, a solid argument against the idea that no consensus exists for its use. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete. Though sometimes the links make sense more often at least some are wildly inappropriate, an arbitrary collection of things in different directions, sometimes POV or misleading. It takes up too much space and disagrees with various style guidelines. Important geographic relations should be part of the prose of the article, where other relevant information such as distances can be included, this should be deleted.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Nyttend. I use it, useful. --209.171.88.22 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as per P199. I find it much easier to navigate using this template rather than prose (which takes longer to find and understand). As for maps, they often tend to be too detailed, and links are harder to include. The sheer simplicity of this template is a big plus, as long as it isn't taken too literally. Mparrault (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nyttend. I do agree that, visually, it needs to be reformatted to match the standard navbox appearance. Huntster (t @ c) 21:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It would be horrible if eliminated! Not all nearby locations will necessarily be in the text. A case-by-case review is a good idea for such a template. Heff01 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I find it very useful, especially for navigating between neighbouring localities. Improve it by all means but no case for getting rid. User:PeterWerneth

July 19[edit]

Template:Taxonomy/"Palaeornis"[edit]

Unused, misnamed taxonomy template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment It's not a straightforward issue. There are two ways to handle genus names that are in use but are invalid under the nomenclature codes. One is to put the taxonomy template at the invalid name, here Template:Taxonomy/Palaeornis, but then fix the displayed text for the genus name to show "...", which is what I've done (but this doesn't display the quotes at the species name line nor in the binomial name box). The other, which I think is more transparent, is to put the taxonomy template at the quoted name, i.e. Template:Taxonomy/"Palaeornis", and then make the automated taxobox pick up this template. I'd like to know what others think, but it's not correct to say that it's a "misnamed" taxonomy template; it's correctly named but currently not used in favour of the taxonomy template using the invalid name. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Kosovo (UNMIK)[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Audio-pipe[edit]

Hardly used template for the purpose which other templates such as {{Audio}}, {{Audio-IPA}} and {{IPA-all}} fulfill. Nardog (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not clear how the mentioned templates can replace this one, which takes a symbol, a link to a defining article, and a link to a sound file. −Woodstone (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 4th SS PD[edit]

An excessive cross categorisation. The corresponding list articles have been deleted for failing WP:LISTN; pls see sample AfD:

Additionally, I'm nominating the following templates; the concerns listed above apply equally to them as well. Likewise, the corresponding lists have been deleted where they existed. Please see the AfD above on the lists for: 1st SS Division; 2nd SS Division; 3rd SS Division; 5th SS Division, etc:

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since, it's a batch nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:WP Gambia[edit]

Unused and deprecated Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is it "deprecated" please explain? This is supposed to be a shortcut to the Africa/Gambia template. Every country should have a { WP CountryX } shortcut for Talk pages. If it's not reproducing the correct Africa/Gambia Talk page result then needs fixing, not deleting. WP Gambia is a reasonable shortcut for anyone to type on a Gambia article, like WP France shortcut. etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2017 (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 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and mark as subst-only. A bog-standard template that aids in the project tagging of articles. – Uanfala 12:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tram in Algeria[edit]

WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • weak keep, connects several articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This could be expanded (and renamed) to include tram systems in the whole of the Maghreb, incl. for example Casablanca Tramway. – Uanfala 12:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Townsville Crocodiles roster[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) 00:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Townsville Crocodiles is defunct Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (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:Tourist attractions in Thrissur District[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) 00:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

unused, some of it could probably be merged with Template:Thrissur district Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (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:Toronto hospitals[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) 00:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (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:Todd Field awards[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) 00:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

fork of awards already listed in Todd Field Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (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:PD-USGov-SSA[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) 00:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 07:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (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:PD-USGov-SEC[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) 00:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 07:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (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:PD-USGov-PHS[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) 00:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 07:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (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:PD-USGov-NEA[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) 00:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, replaceable by {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 07:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment; there's a few dozen templates that seem all to be replaceable by {{PD-USGov}}. I see you've nominated four of them. Should we perhaps consider them as a group? (Unlike {{PD-USGov-NEA}}, many of them are in use; but that can be cleaned up by bot.) TJRC (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (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:USTop20s[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) 00:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Following the deletion of the list articles in this template, it no longer serves any navigational or functional purpose. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (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:German World War II jet aces[edit]

Template redundant to List of German World War II jet aces, which contains the same information. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:List of Great powers by date[edit]

Only has one mainspace transclusion (viz. in Great power). As there is no reason for it to be in the template namespace, can easily be substituted and deleted. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Letran Knights current roster[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) 00:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

out-of-date and almost all redlinks and generally duplicates the roster in the article. Frietjes (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:08, 19 July 2017 (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:BC Prienai[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) 00:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

unused, out-of-date, and duplicates BC Prienai#Current roster Frietjes (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:08, 19 July 2017 (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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Wisconsin[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 no consensus. , template was moved and expanded Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Only three links, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • keep or rename as "Template:Rock Radio Stations in Wisconsin" if there are other Wisconsin rock stations which are not modern rock. Frietjes (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2017 (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:Modern Rock Radio Stations in Louisiana[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Only three links, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • keep, I have added three more stations. Frietjes (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2017 (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:Gender-neutral[edit]

Promotes neologisms. Can be substed, then deleted. KMF (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • weak keep. Was and may still be useful and does no harm. "Promotes" is a bit tendentious; I would agree with a wording like "facilitates [the use of certain] neologisms". Since this template is only used in talk space, I see nothing wrong with that. To my knowledge there is no policy against neologisms in talk space. But maybe policies have changed, in which case I'd agree with subst+del. It may also make sense to check who used it; if it turns out that it was hardly used by others than me, then I'd agree with subst+del, too. — Sebastian 02:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with talk space templates that facilitate the legibility of particular expressions. However, I think it's better if this is moved to Template:Spivak pronoun or something similar, as these are far from being the only gender neutral pronouns in use. – Uanfala 12:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, "Spivak pronoun" would have been a better name in the first place. But changing it now would affect several hundred pages; not sure if that's worth it. — Sebastian 09:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    BTW, I now recall that the name already changed once when the template was new; probably after a discussion, but I don't think anyone thought of the name "Spivak pronoun" then. — Sebastian 09:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm sure that TfD regulars might have a trick up their sleeve to replace all instances of the template. But even without that, the template can still be moved to a new title, with the old one remaining as a redirect: this won't change existing transclusions. – Uanfala 09:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Chad[edit]

Unused, deprecated since 2008 Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as a standard subst-only wrapper template that aids in the project tagging of articles. – Uanfala 13:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • keep, but mark as substitute only. Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Daytime Emmy Award Outstanding Entertainment News Program[edit]

Precedent of {{Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Musical Performance in a Talk Show/Morning Program}} that we should delete these Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only two programs have ever won the award, so the navigation is negligible. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:East German Republic Day Parades[edit]

Unused, mostly redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • keep, clearly being used. try using "what links here". Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for now: If one follows Frietjes' snarky recommendation, one finds that, of the 10 links, most are there to discuss or maintain the template itself. There are only two actual uses. That said, its redlinks have some use as a reminder of related events, which has value both for the reader and for possible editors. Since the template was only created last May, there is a chance that the linked articles will be created sometime. — Sebastian 09:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Famines in India[edit]

Unused, redundant to Timeline of major famines in India during British rule Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Revise and include at Famine in India. The collapsed segments need to be amplified and combined but a one glance look across the long historical sweep of time is appropriate. There have been reasonable debates about structure and completeness at Talk:Famine in India but this can be salvaged. --Carwil (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 11:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:HighDefMediaComparison[edit]

Unused since 2008, no foreseeable use, no reason to keep historically Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Page was protected with log message No longer used in mainspace. Marked as historical to preserve GFDL and page history. DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE! by inactive admin User:RyanGerbil10. — xaosflux Talk 15:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per admin note. —Locke Coletc 15:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:TNA Albums[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) 00:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

connects two articles, the rest are redirects Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 19 July 2017 (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:Agricultural Universities in India[edit]

There are 73 official Agricultural Universities in India, (see List of agricultural universities in India) and this does not list them all, nor is it feasible to list them all. It does list many which are not official. In other words, it is pointless as a nav template. Muhandes (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Tanzania[edit]

Unused, replaced by other templates Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as a useful wrapper template (that appears to be meant to be substed). – Uanfala 10:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • keep, but mark as substitute only. Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:NSF institutes[edit]

This template duplicates the content of the 'American mathematics' template, which is more general and provides more information about mathematics organizations in the US. Blueclaw (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Surrealism[edit]

Subjective and selective navbox. Best left for category navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep important information about an important subject. Useful in research...Modernist (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
There are over 200 artists in Category:Surrealist artists. Unless this navbox includes all of these, then it is subjective and selective. However, including all surrealist artists in a navbox like this is impractical. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? By what logic would you have us remove blue linked surrealist artists? Your premise is essentially wrong...Modernist (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for removing the red links by the way...Modernist (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Inclusion isn't subjective; most qualify in a very widely known and long lived artistic movement that encompasses visual art, cinema, literature, theater and other forms of communication...Modernist (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    so everyone in Category:Surrealist artists? Frietjes (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Frankly most inclusions in Template:Surrealists that I worked on about 6 years ago were indeed artists, be they poets, writers, painters, cinematographers, etc....Modernist (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. All are well-known by art historians, and many to the general public. Definitely better now without the redlinks. However, I would tend to add sections to the template, much as Template:Cubism, e.g., Leaders of the movements (i.e., Dalí, de Chirico, Ernst, Magritte, Masson, Klee, Miró), important works, influences, major writings. Coldcreation (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as something similar to Coldcreation's proposal is implemented. This template should not be just an index of surrealist artists. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I added some sections per Coldcreation's proposal...Modernist (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
      • These additions are subjective and WP:OR. Who defines who the "leaders" are? Why only include two paintings? --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Reasonable, thanks for removing those...Modernist (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Mountains of Montana[edit]

given that there are "at least 2991" named mountains in Montana, and that List of mountains in Montana is split into multiple articles, it's not a great idea to have a potentially massive navbox with 2991 entries. much better to simply link to List of mountains in Montana or one of the subpages, and to use the existing category system. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 10:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

July 18[edit]

Template:¬[edit]

I can't imagine when this could be useful and there are no uses in the wild now (and that has evidently been the case for over a month). If someone can justify this template, then that should definitely be added to the documentation and some real-life use cases. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The template is subst-only, which would explain why there are no uses to be seen. Its purpose is to assist in the creation of redirects to titles that end with a full stop, and I'm not sure these are anywhere near common enough to justify a template. And certainly not one with such a generic and counterintuitive name. – Uanfala 09:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's short and quick to type. As for the number I can't give you an exact figure or ratio, but it is likely to increase rather than decrease. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC).

Template:Thirtysomething[edit]

Not enough links to be useful. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete It doesn't interlink anything. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:MTV Video Music Awards Hosts[edit]

As a list of presenters of an awards program, this fails WP:PERFNAV. See precedent in similar discussions for Grammy Award hosts, Latin Grammy Award hosts, Guldbagge Awards hosts, International Emmy hosts and Primetime Emmy hosts. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, there has never been any value to these templates. Not every common thread needs either a category or a navbox, and this one strikes me as an unlikely means of accessing other articles - is anyone really interested in finding other hosts of the same annual ceremony via whichever ones they may already know about? That's what a navbox is for, after all - it assumes the answer to questions like these is yes. But my gut tells me this one is a no. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pappas TV[edit]

Navbox with one link. Pretty much unnecessary for a template. Csworldwide1 (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:White Knight Broadcasting[edit]

This template has three links. These links are already listed under the Nexstar template since it operates the stations, making this template redundant. Csworldwide1 (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Contemporary Hit Radio Stations in Hawaii[edit]

WP:NENAN, only 3 links Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, the genre listed in the linked articles is not "Contemporary Hit", probably due to format changes. looking at List of radio stations in Hawaii, we could probably make a useful version of this template, but that would take a complete rewrite. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Conservative Party of Canada position[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) 13:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, unnecessary Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was created as a way to sneak around an editwar over a political ideology label, by embedding it right into the template so that the other side of the editwar wouldn't know how to remove it anymore — but that's not an appropriate use of templates. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2017 (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:Communes and rural communities of Senegal[edit]

Enormously sprawling template, too open ended Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep Disagree, it's very convenient to have them all linked in one place.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ordinarily there would be a template for every region. I'd be happy to break it down to that level. Regions already have their articles and there is a template linking the regions. Agathoclea (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Add to that that the template is not in use so it can definitively be broken up. The only possible advantage I can see that the standalone template has, would be for a specific watchlist. Have a look at the setup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Cities and Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Cities/Bavaria for an alternative. Agathoclea (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:IPA notice in IPA[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 Killiondude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Only used on one page. Userfy. (This technically isn't an userbox, so please don't tell me to put this on MFD.) KMF (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Sorry, at the time of creation I wasn't familiar with template policy. LiamBeaman (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2017 (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).

July 17[edit]

Template:List of chemical elements[edit]

LST-ify Template that is just used to share text between articles. No reason to move it into a template instead of just having the other articles do {{#section-h::List of chemical elements|List}} Pppery 13:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • LST-ify Yep, this template can easily be substituted onto the list of chemical elements and LST'd from there since it takes no parameters. Only three uses on articles. Parcly Taxel 02:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • LST-ify per nom. Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:The Hill School alumni box[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) 13:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I merged this with The Hill School so it's no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2017 (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).

CFA2 group team list 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Following the rename and reorganisation of the Championnat de France Amateur 2 to Championnat National 3 for the 2017–18 season, these team list templates are now redundant. They have been replaced by team list templates for the new competition. Gricehead (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, it appears these are no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2017 (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:Side Pocket series[edit]

Only navigates three articles related directly to the primary topic. The other links are not highly-relevant. Izno (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, the articles are well-connected through see also links. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:BaseballAt1912SummerOlympics[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) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, only one link Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2017 (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:Bad font[edit]

Unused, unlikely to happen Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • keep, usage is temporary since the issue is resolved by correcting the SVG after tagging. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:BSE Sensex Constituents[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) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused and outdated Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 17 July 2017 (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:Arellano University Chiefs current roster[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) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, almost all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:14, 17 July 2017 (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:Anterior view of human female and male - ImageMap[edit]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • move to project space (perhaps WP:MED wants it?) if there is any potential use for it in the future. Frietjes (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral as creator of the ImageMap. The image is in use in multiple location and will thus definitely remain, so I don't see the harm of a 2 kilobyte labeled page that may eventually find some use. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Airports in Northern Cyprus[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. Merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:59, 17 July 2017 (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:2017–18 in Danish football[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:53, 17 July 2017 (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:2018 NFL season by team[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) 00:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:13, 17 July 2017 (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:2018–19 Dutch European competition play-offs[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) 23:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, too soon. Frietjes (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2017 (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:2018 WWE Network events[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) 23:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, too soon. Frietjes (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2017 (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:2018–19 Eredivisie promotion/relegation play-offs 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) 23:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, too soon. Frietjes (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2017 (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:2018–19 NBA season by team[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) 23:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, all redlinks, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, too soon. Frietjes (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes too soon wait til April 2018. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:9F7:D7F7:BA74:B683 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2017 (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:2018–19 Premier League 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) 00:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, WP:TOOSOON Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:11, 17 July 2017 (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:2008 in Malaysian football[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Unused, all redlinks, no parent article Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • keep, not all redlinks and I added it to the relevant articles. Frietjes (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2017 (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).

Completed discussions[edit]

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

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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

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

That sounds like a good place to hold the conversation. Primefac (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey SiBr4, just a ping to see how/if this is coming along. If not, that's fine, but now that 2015 is the oldest year I'm hoping to clear these out soon. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Finishing it has been on my virtual to-do list for a long time, but I obviously haven't been on WP a lot anymore recently. Basically, the module works, and about half of the data pages have been created. I have the remainder mostly readily formatted locally, so it actually shouldn't be too much work to get it into beta. SiBr4 (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To substitute[edit]

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

To orphan[edit]

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

  • 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. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

Archive and Indices[edit]