Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!


XFD backlog
V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 3 122 125
TfD 0 0 0 3 3
MfD 0 0 1 2 3
FfD 0 0 0 7 7
RfD 0 0 0 12 12
AfD 0 0 0 15 15
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed.

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

Shortcut

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

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a 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}}.
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.
Moving and renaming
Use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

Shortcut
  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.

Templates should not be nominated if 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]

Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

Note:

  • 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 or Template editors.
  • 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).

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TfD, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023_September_29#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.

Add this text to the top of the list:

  • 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 in the |text= field of 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 a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

Notifying related WikiProjects[edit]

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 {{Tfd notice}} 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[edit]

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

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

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

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 posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion[edit]

Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.

Current discussions[edit]

September 29[edit]

September 28[edit]

Template:Conferences[edit]

As far as I can tell, this article creation template was used once by the author on their sandbox. The template isn't about conferences in general, but is focused on one topic – Future Directions Forum – that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Pharmacokinetic metrics[edit]

It is really only worthwhile to use this table in Pharmacokinetics. It occurs in 3 other pages Volume of distribution, Biological half-life, and Loading dose under a "Sample values and equations" heading but I think such use is redundant. Subst into Pharmacokinetics and delete. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mathnerd314159: Could you please elaborate why you think "such use is redundant" with valid reasons? — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 03:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:RM-IFL[edit]

Very old (2005) IP talk page template used on just one page. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Areaprogress[edit]

Two uses, neither of which are producing meaningful progress bars. Remove entirely and delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: clear consensus for deletion, but unclear consensus as to what should happen with the transclusions. WikiCleanerMan and SWinxy: you both !voted to subst per nom, but nom recommended removal instead of substitution. Would you please clarify your respective !votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 18:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Closeme[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. We have Wikipedia:Closure requests for the apparent use of this template. Some version of this template could notify or categorize a page, which might be useful, but this is not it. The creation of such a template could be proposed at the talk page for closure requests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep: Ironically, I was about to use this template but couldn't remember the discussion. Anyways, I've seen this template substed before. This template is for listings at RfCr. Concur it needs a massive revamp though. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 19:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete There's no point in a fancy template for this. Pure text or {{initiated}} suffices. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Chess champions 8[edit]

Unused and redundant to {{8TeamBracket-2Elim}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Check category[edit]

No significant uses, presumably redundant to other templates like {{recategorize}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Dangerverse[edit]

Need at least a dozen links for a category or template to be useful. Especially when you consider episode and character lists don't belong on here, this template is useless. It's useless, regardless.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment The widely cited essay WP:NENAN uses five as the lower bound of links to establish usefulness. Discussions at and near the contentious WP:SMALLCAT have repeatedly brought up other lower bounds for categories, but a dozen is a relatively extreme position (my own position is also outside of consensus for navboxes, but in the other direction). No vote; just sayin. Folly Mox (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep pending a valid deletion rationale. No main article, but it has eight links to full articles that fit within the purview of this navbox. This is what navboxes are for. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 27[edit]

Template:DP-genealogy[edit]

Single-use template. Suggest subst and delete. Izno (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think am missing something here. Is this a new policy that a template should be removed despite it being very useful? How else is the complexity of the political parties splitting and reuniting going to be explained? All in words is not a solution. This is too complicated for that. Any other suggestion is welcome. I'm not an active editor anymore. But it pains to see hardword done by me and a few other editors just put off for deletion. I honestly don't see the reason explained here. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 18:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template may be deleted but the content inside the template would be substed onto the only page which uses it. Izno (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And so, what happens when a new political party arises, which happens all the time in Dravidian politics? In fact, two major splits are not yet included there. Like most pages on South Indian politics, this is waiting for updates. That does not mean the information there is wrong, but just not complete. This page needs an editable version of a tree/network. Please get a South Indian editor to look into this. Please avoid the Anglo-American bias here. The political systems are not the same. And I cannot stress that more. This is just a futile effort to undo someone else's hard work. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For your references Amma Makkal Munnettra Kazhagam is not mentioned there, as well as the split and remerger of factions [1] in 2016-2017. The options are that we sacrifice comprehension and get rid of the template. Or make the template uneditable and ensure that it always stays outdated. Or the final crazy idea where we leave it as such. What do you think would be the best unbiased option? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI the substitute page says "will continue to show the old version of the template". How is this editable? Or is that information wrong? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I have a different view to consensus when it comes to splitting out long, complicated, and technical content from a single article into its own template, largely because as a mobile editor, it's much more difficult to navigate the source when there's a giant object like this somewhere in the middle (although this one is only three scrolls long). Having said that, User:Wiki San Roze, substing this template into Dravidian politics won't make it so that no new information can be added to this tree, just that it will have to be edited in place (in the article) rather than on a separate page in a different namespace. No one has suggested getting rid of the information or even presenting it differently: just changing where the wikicode lives. Folly Mox (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Wikiality123, I mistook your username based on your signature. Fixing notification with apologies. Folly Mox (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what is the alternate for this information? It doesn't load well on mobile seems like the worst excuse to remove content. Back in the day we carried this vandalism. Looks like this is part of the policy now. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I replied below in a way I hope is clear, but the thing about "difficult to edit on mobile" is an argument (a weak argument) for keeping the template instead of copying its contents into the one article that uses it. Folly Mox (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind my wiki name being referred to as something else. I wrote a message above but it was meant to be here "FYI the substitute page says "will continue to show the old version of the template". How is this editable? Or is that information wrong?" Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Subst and delete per nom. The rationale for keeping doesn't make sense to me - further parties being created won't change the fact that this is used only on Dravidian parties * Pppery * it has begun... 00:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great. So you think that information can just be removed without thinking about a proper alternate? Honestly people, are y'all trying to make this into a source of information or just deleting things that you "think" is not worthy? You can keep voting to delete it with full knowledge that you are removing content. If that's the ethics of wikipedia now, yeah why not? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I have to make this very clear, are you proposing an alternate way to present this information? If not, this should be kept
    It can't be a policy to delete information. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:Wikiality123, the idea (which, incidentally, I don't support, but the regulars here will) is as follows:
    1. The code producing this tree will be copied from Template:DP-genealogy into Dravidian parties#Factions and reunification genealogy of contemporary Dravidian parties.
    2. All the information will still be available.
    3. The tree can still be edited to include new splits, joins, etc., but this will have to be done at the article Dravidian parties instead of a separate Template page.
    4. The Template page will go away.
    The Help:Subst page says will continue to show the old version of the template, but the old version of the template can still be edited on the page it is substed into.
    Basically, no content will be removed, and the content can still be edited. The only thing that changes is the title you have to edit to update the content. I hope that's more clear. Folly Mox (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see "the old version of the template can still be edited on the page it is substed into". Is this something that should be added in the help page, if it is true? Because the current wording makes it seem like it will freeze the old content. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe Help:Subst does need an update.
    When we subst a template, we make a copy of its output on another page. If the template is later updated, the copy of the output stays the same. If the template is later deleted, the copy of the output stays the same. If the copy of the output is edited, it works just like any other content. Folly Mox (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm going ahead and adding the template to relevant party pages that this template covers. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep There are now multiple transclusions. Folly Mox (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 26[edit]

Template:Philippine current date[edit]

per this discussion Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Israeli spies[edit]

Mishmash of individuals who spied for Israel as agents, were employees of Israeli intelligence as case officers who recruited spies, Israeli undercover officers, and individual accused, but not confirmed, of working for Israeli intelligence. This is a randomly-selected subset of individuals related to "Israeli spies," who are more comprehensively labeled with the Israeli spies, a more appropriate grouping here. Longhornsg (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly useful navigational box, modelled on Template:Soviet Spies, with the same clear inclusion criteria as Category:Israeli spies: "The category Israeli spy includes Israeli and non-Israeli spies for Israel. Israelis who spied for other countries are included under the nationality they served for." The existence of subsets does not make the selection random. Uriahheep228 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't WP:WHATABOUTX. What's the inclusion criteria? Why is Meir Max Bineth, a minor figure who served 2 years in Israeli military intelligence included, but Rafi Eitan, arguably one of the most notable figures in Israeli intelligence is not? The category is far more expansive and properly differentiates between people who spied for Israel and those who worked for agencies like the Mossad. Longhornsg (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I linked to the Soviet template to clarify the inclusion criteria, which is being a spy for Israel, and structure of the template. Working in intelligence is not the same thing as being a spy and there is a separate Template:Israeli Intelligence Community, which from what I can see has no current overlap with this one. Eitan was in charge of an intelligence agency that carried out spying operations, but his article doesn't say anything about him being a spy himself. Bineth's article talks about how he spied on Egypt. Eitan would be an obvious inclusion if Lekem had its own navbox, like how Template:NKVD links to the NKVD's leaders but is distinct from the Soviet spies navbox. Uriahheep228 (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:ND Gorica squad[edit]

Delete per WP:NENAN, lower-division football club which currently has only 1 player with Wikipedia article. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WikiProject Annah Mac Invite[edit]

Invitation template for a WikiProject that never should have been created. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Dingbat[edit]

Redundant. The unused Template:Dingbat is a copy of Template:Unicode chart Dingbats with slightly different formatting. DRMcCreedy (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Servant of the People[edit]

I question whether this template is useful or whether keeping an up-to-date listing of every People's Deputy is going to be easy to maintain. Ideally, at least in my understanding, templates should not need to be frequently updated. Also, this template is simply used on the article of everyone mentioned on it so it doesn't seem to serve an informational purpose when their position can just be mentioned in the article content. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 25[edit]

Template:Mobile view problem[edit]

Merge with {{Template display}} by creating a new option there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Mnptf[edit]

This stale template, used on a few talk pages, links to a defunct task force. Remove all transclusions and delete the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Ministers of Justice of Kazakhstan[edit]

Navbox with no main article and only one link in the body. Not usable for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep I've added the list from the main article about the ministry and linked the main article about the ministry as there is no article for the position of the Minister of Justice. I've also added the navbox to the main article --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Miller Center[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. It has one incoming link from a discussion in 2011. It may have been superseded by a better template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Regional sports teams of Saint Pierre and Miquelon[edit]

Navbox with no main article and only one link to a standalone article in the body. Not enough content for a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree JSwift49 19:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Congress Candidates for 2004 elections to the Lok Sabha from Mumbai[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Zob Ahan F.C. sections[edit]

three or fewer team links, per prior discussion (not counting links to an article about the sport, which doesn't count as a team link). Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: "San Lorenzo de Almagro sections" has three links. Isn't it enough? Is there a specified miniumum for that? Fma12 (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
see this discussion. also, for that one, we have Template:San Lorenzo de Almagro, so no navigation lost. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Substitute and delete. We can move the content in these templates to their respective clubs' articles, to give readers an idea about what other sports the club also have a team for. I'm not sure if that's the best option for all clubs mentiooned above, but it will be suitable for clubs such as Smouha SC for example; an article with the name of a sports club, but mainly discusses the football team only (which is the most notable division of the club). Ben5218 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so, why not have a section which discusses the club since sidebars are not visible on mobile? and what is the source for this list of sports? Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if sidebars (and navboxes) aren't visible on mobile perhaps we should delete all sidebars (and navboxes)? Or perhaps a better solution would be to make them visible on mobile --SuperJew (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting anything new done on mobile sounds simple but never seems to happen.... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding a list of sports the club participates in to a separate section sounds like a good option to me, personally I don't mind it if it can be applied to the majority of clubs mentioned above. Regarding your question about the source for the list of sports for Smouha SC, the example I mentioned, it was the club's website, and various posts from the club's social media accounts published during the period when I created that template. Ben5218 (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete three links are not enough for a template, as per consensuses on previous TFDs for these sections templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 24[edit]

Template:Created with/en[edit]

This isn't Wikimedia Commons. {{Created with}} doesn't use this template, and it's not like localisation is required in enwiki. This template is only transcluded once in what looks to be a sandbox. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) {user page (@ commons) - talk} 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:InternetArchiveBot header/styles.css[edit]

Unused styles.css template. User:InternetArchiveBot/header uses {{Navigation header}} & {{Navigation header/styles.css}} --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:2023 U23 World Wrestling Championships[edit]

Redlinked template. Unused. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Urbana Radio stations[edit]

Text-only template. Unused. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Canada Cup Winners[edit]

Template that consists almost entirely of redlinks. There are only two transclusions of this, one on the main "Canada Cup" article and one on a "List of Canada Cup winners" sublist that's entirely redundant to the first transclusion since it provides no new information that isn't already in the parent article. Both articles, further, are up for a bundled AFD as unsourced, and even in the (unlikely, though I won't say impossible) event that they can be salvaged with better sourcing, this still wouldn't be needed in templatespace, as it could just be subst'd into the main article with the list article kiboshed as an unnecessary content fork. Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 23[edit]

Template:Featured article tools[edit]

All but two of the links are Dispenser links. Dispenser's site is no longer functional, and the user has effectively retired. For replacements of the functioning links, Citationbot can be invoked with the Wikipedia:Citation expander gadget, and the XTools link can be found in either the meta:MoreMenu or the XTools gadgets. SWinxy (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep and update with new links as needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and update. The other tools are still as helpful, especially the alt text toolbox. Though, was there supposed to be Earwig copyvio detecter link there?--ZKang123 (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Close and move discussion on updating the template to its talk page per Nikkimaria and ZKang123. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and update It serves a useful function (or did when it was still working OK. Replacing the dead tools with others is a better path. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and update per the above. The remaining tools may still be useful, and we really should add other links such as the copyvio detector as ZKang123 says. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and update, still useful for reviewers. SounderBruce 06:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Google Books URL[edit]

Replacing actual URLs with this template inside citations' |url= parameters is not even slightly helpful. All that does is greatly impede the ability of editors to fact-check our articles, by "hiding" the URLs, while at the time time increasing the template/transclusion count and parser load on the page. I could see this maybe being kept, if it were redocumented as not for use inside citations, but I really don't see any general use for it. It is much simpler to just paste the URL in than to carefully extract an exact string from it, so as a "utility" template it doesn't actually offer any utility. As far as its use inside citation templates goes, this is quite counter-productive. Update: See also GreenC's comment below about maintenance and correction problems introduced by templates like this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 07:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • KEEP. The use of the template on over 4,300 pages is evidence that other editors do find it useful. For me, a large part of the template's value is that once the editor has identified the Google Books ID, it's plug-and-play; unlike you, I don't start with an URL to "just paste," I start with the template and go to the URL to confirm that the desired page is available. I acknowledge that you have a well-informed opinion and considerable experience, and I submit that this is a case of different strokes. No doubt, your choices are simpler for you and offer greater utility to you. Others find enough value in this template to keep it as it is. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is not such evidence at all. 4,300 pages on a site with millions is nothing. Surely at least hundreds of thousands with GBooks links, and something like 400 more of them are added per day (without this template). And various editors go around robotically applying templates anywhere they think they can without much regard to whether they're making an improvement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    English wiki has 1,974,794 Google Books links ie. the template is used in 0.00217 or two-tenths of 1 percent. -- GreenC 18:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Couldn't the main Google books template serve in its place? Because on the main template, there is the ability to link to the page number when citing a book using the Google Book option. From both template pages using examples of linking or citing a page, Google books: Brackenridge, H. M. History of the Western Insurrection, p. 42, at Google Books; Google Books URL: Brackenridge, H.M. History of the Western Insurrection. p. 42. Both links go the same page and have the same URL. The same link location is also there for the options for the front cover, keyword search, text search, and title page complete with inscriptions. We have two templates that can do the same job. Template:Google books is used on about 14,000 pages. Perhaps this should be merged instead of going for an outright delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It should at least be merged, since it's redundant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This template produces a URL, while the main template produces an entire formatted reference. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Nothing useful is accomplished here - the URL itself describes the book's parameters in a key-value format. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's an opaque and sometimes redundant format, though. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's true of lots of URLs, but they are for clicking on, not for manually examining element-by-element within them by a human.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: The URL isn't "hidden", it's just represented in a way that's easier to understand and edit (e.g. url-encoding q/dq values). That's the priority for article sources! It's rendered articles that are optimized for browsing.
    Also, Google Books tends to push its new UI on users, which produces worse and longer links. {{GBurl}} lets one avoid this, as long as they can find the book ID. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By the way, the TFD tag for this discussion is noincluded, meaning it doesn't show up in transclusions like normal. I'm concerned that this might limit its visibility, but I also understand that this template's deletion is more relevant to editors than to readers. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was necessary, to keep from breaking an F-load of citations in live articles. If you want to increase visibility you could drop a notice about this TfD at, e.g., WT:CITE and WT:CS1.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I feel like I vaguely recall User:GreenC once mentioning something about how google books links are extra susceptible to link rot due to how the service will reformat its URLs from time to time. I might be misremembering this, but I wonder if GreenC might have some input here as a link rot expert. It seems like if my hazy recollection is accurate, this template (which I personally don't use) might be a single point of update in case of a google books URL change, which could save a bot run of length equal to this template's mainspace transclusion count. The comment I'm kinda remembering may have been referring to google books altering its primary keys, rather than URL format, in which case this template seems not helpful.
    Separately, I think I would oppose redocumenting this template to suggest use solely outside of citation templates. I was once cleaning up some article that used this template in "author, page" inline citation style, with the page numbers piped into a URL created from this template. The URLs did not work, so all I had to go on was the surname of an author to try to determine what book they were supposed to reference. After about 45 minutes of searching, I found a work that seemed very plausible, only later to discover that the work was indeed cited in full in the article, in the References subheading, with no citation template. Apart from my own error of not scrolling all the way to the bottom section of the article before attempting citation cleanup, the point is that not documenting the bibliographic information before using this template to return a direct page URL at the top of the article was not a good practice, although the scenario I created for myself through inattention was probably borderline worst-case in terms of failure mode. Folly Mox (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A more common problem is if one of the URLs goes dead. This happens. None of our tools are going to detect it because they don't support the template. This is a general problem with all URL templates, there are thousands. It's cleaner and better to use plain URLs standard tools can parse, not hide them inside special templates no one is checking for link rot. -- GreenC 18:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In my experience, auto-archived Google Books links are almost never functional. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate this makes it look cleaner in the wikitext without all those weird key/values that get copy pasted in. And it has a nice uniform Wikitext standard feel to it. Citation bot cleans up these URLs so that's not really a problem. The 1.9m Google Books figure I gave above does not include the 4,300 that use this template. Because the tool that counts links assumes they are plain URLs and not a special template. This underscores the problem with URL templates, of which Enwiki has many thousands. Tools don't support them because there are too many and hard to program for. They create all sorts of unintentional problems. It's a growing problem. Another example: InternetArchiveBot, Citation bot, WaybackMedic, etc.. they don't support this template, link rot will go undetected and and unfixed. So whatever minor convenience and aesthetic factor this template is used for, it creates real problems longer term with maintenance and whatever else people use Wikitext for. -- GreenC 18:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment If those closes delete, I can write a tool to convert them to plain URLs. -- GreenC 18:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment SMcCandlish raises a good point. And I think that rather than use Google Books URLs at all, we should be using ISBNs and linking Special:BookSources via Template:Cite book. SWinxy (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that it's better if GB links can be avoided entirely, but {{GBurl}} seems like the "lesser evil". jlwoodwa (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After reading this discussion, I support deletion, as per SMcCandlish and GreenC. Kpratter (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Authors often paste Google Books URLs that have extra parameters they don't understand and didn't intend to go in the URL. Using this template is cleaner and helps people understand what they're doing. Additionally, using a template allows changes to be made globally, for instance if Google Books modifies their URL scheme. In fact, Google Books has already done that several times. As an example, if I go to Google Books, search "Encyclopedia Britannica", and click the link for "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" from 2008, I end up with this in my address bar: "https://www.google.com/books/edition/Britannica_Concise_Encyclopedia/ea-bAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=encyclopedia+britannica&printsec=frontcover&bshm=rimc/1". Google Books URLs did not used to have this format. andkore 00:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Replace with {{google books|plainurl=yes}}. I have long been a proponent of URL-formatting templates that actually help stave off link-rot by allowing the maintenance of many links at once, but we don't need this duplication. We have a long history of folks decrying the use of templates in favour of doing everything by hand but eventually we saw sense. —Phil | Talk 14:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep, helps by splitting the Google URL into id and page number, and can be used to avoid nonfunctional archiving. —Kusma (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite as a wrapper to {{Google books}} with |plainurl=yes. We have hundreds of templates that generate URLs. This allows tracking, and more importantly, normalization and reacting to changes in the providers' URL scheme. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:ROW Rybnik sections[edit]

Split from 2023 September 18 per request. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

three or fewer team links, per prior discussion (not counting links to an article about the sport, which doesn't count as a team link). Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Racing Club de Avellaneda sections[edit]

None link to any club department or section. Links that direct to sports articles do not count as "team links". Per this discussion. Fma12 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


September 22[edit]

Template:Chinese Taipei squad 2003 AFC Women's Championship[edit]

Unused. Only four links. Also a non-winning team. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Guam squad 2003 AFC Women's Championship[edit]

Unused. No links. Non-winning team. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:U.S. Near Eastern Affairs Diplomats[edit]

Random and ever-incomplete, hodgepodge of US diplomats who have touched the Middle East. This sidebar could theoretically be double or triple the size based on existing WP articles, and there's no reason rhyme or reason for what qualifies for inclusion here. Better as a category, rather than a sidebar. Longhornsg (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:BSrow[edit]

unused in articles/templates after this TfD. Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. This entire set has been deprecated after the RfC. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Lx[edit]

Propose merging Template:Lx with Template:Pagelinks.
Duplicate functions, but Pagelinks (Module:PageLinks) has more features. Lx is meant to support a broad category of shortcut templates, but they can also be served by PageLinks. (See also the no-consensus of merging a bunch of link templates.) SWinxy (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Merge. Duplicative. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question - will Template:Lx still redirect to Template:Pagelinks? - jc37 22:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Probably? What I'd do is to change its uses (e.g. Template:Lc) to use {{#invoke:PageLinks}} before redirecting. SWinxy (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: SWinxy, the TfM tag seems to be messing up XFDcloser. See Special:Diff/1174719924. I know it's against convention, but perhaps put the TfM tag at the end of the template to prevent this? CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 07:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Should be sorted. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Primefac, the same is happening with {{lx}} at CfD. Could you fix that too, please? CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, fixed. Primefac (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Concern: I tested using Pagelinks instead of Lc at a CFD and it omits the "Category:" prefix from the page name. This is not acceptable in that context. Can Lc be changed in such a way as to retain the category namespace in the page name? – Fayenatic London 08:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How did you test it? According to the testcases, the "Category:" prefix should be shown. Lc will add that prefix when it invokes Module:PageLinks. SWinxy (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: This was previously discussed here. The shortcut templates such as Lc don't need the full namespace to be written out, whilst Pagelinks does, which is why the template doesn't work when they're swapped out unless the page linked is from the article namespace. Happily888 (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment since this merge is occurring... some additional work on it could be done at the same time. Has thought been given on making a separate transclusions link for templates? ({{tl}}) and a separate redirects links for all of them, and a separate non-transclusion--non-redirect links; as these are used on deletion discussions, those would seem to be relevant. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Like, individual templates for (Page+WhatLinksHere) and (Page+Transclusions)? SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) would become Template (edit | talk | history | links [redirects] | transclusions | watch | logs | subpages ) or Talk (edit | subjectpage | history | links [redirects] | watch | logs | subpages ) or Page (edit | talk | history | links [redirects] | watch | logs) or something like that. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know if I get what you're saying. But if you wanted to create multiple templates with slightly varying results, with Module:PageLinks, it's as easy as creating a template with {{#invoke:PageLinks|main|page=Example|separator=pipe|edit|t|h|wlh|w|tl}}. SWinxy (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, almost no discussion on the actual merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Summarize section[edit]

Propose merging Template:Summarize section with Template:Overly detailed.
Semi-procedural re-nomination following a previous discussion; an emerging trend was to merge these two templates, but there was not enough discussion and input for a solid consensus. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Summary style section[edit]

Propose merging Template:Summary style section with Template:Split section.
Semi-procedural re-nomination following a previous discussion; an emerging trend was to merge these two templates, but there was not enough discussion and input for a solid consensus. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Source in source[edit]

No transclusions. Created in 2014, this template has always been an indigent relation of the much more popular {{sfn}} and its fancy friends. It appears that someone has finally put the last few transclusions out of their misery, presumably replacing them with templates that are better-maintained, more functional, or both. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old discussions[edit]

September 21

Template:WikiProject Bible welcome

[edit]

Created in 2009 and never used. It has had a note on it, and the project page that links to it, that it needs to be edited before it can be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Kassidy

[edit]

The two album articles and the main article already sufficiently link to and from each other without the need of this navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:JMG Academies

[edit]

Unused navbox. No main article. None of the links in the navbox lead to articles that are primarily about something called a "JMG Academy". – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - The main article would be JMG Academy, and I have linked it in the template. There is also Category:JMG Academy. The editor has not been around for years. But it looks to me like they were trying to link all articles they believed were part of this. — Maile (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - there is a main article, but given this is about youth football the independent academies are not notable and a navbox is not needed. GiantSnowman 13:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't appear that there's a cohesive thing for the navbox. SWinxy (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completed discussions[edit]

A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".

For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1169640245"