Wikipedia:Templates for discussion
V | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 30 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 21 | 25 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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]
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]
- The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
- The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
- 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.
- 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. 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:
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 Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:
|
II: List the template at TfD. | Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.
Add this text to the top of the list:
If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add Use an edit summary such as 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 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 Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the {{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.
[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]
March 19[edit]
Template:Us-bowling-score-sheet[edit]
Unused. DB1729talk 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:REC US[edit]
- Template:REC US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template is under-used, transcluded on only 35 pages. Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 02:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Project namespace#Wikipedia how-to and information pages 2600:1004:B1A3:76DD:3CA8:346:B245:C0C0 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's underused because, in my estimation, adding it as a standard transclusion to infoboxes (as suggested) is not needed. However, that's not a reason to delete it; there are pages where it could be useful. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
March 18[edit]
Template:DFW Radio/doc[edit]
- Template:DFW Radio/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Beaumont-Port Arthur Radio/doc[edit]
Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Reading List Topicon[edit]
Unused. From what I can gather, this template's only function is to display a download icon where transcluded, but not at the top where topicons go, as implied by the name. DB1729talk 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Growth of solar PV[edit]
Unused graph template. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is unused because the Graph module is still disabled. If we start deleting all charts using the graph extension, there will be no reason to reactivate it and we will miss an essential tool for data visualization Ita140188 (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's unused because it was already removed from everywhere it might have been used. Disabled templates are still transcluded and show up as used. Also, the graph isn't coming back. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and add {{transclusionless}} to the documentation. It is difficult to know whether mw:Extension:Graph/Plans will go anywhere, but this template has a clear use once there is some way to generate graphs again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I very much oppose falsely identifying a template as transclusionless when it isn't. {{Growth of solar PV}} may have been used at some point but the someone or a group of editors have decided they don't want it anymore. Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Winter storm bar gap[edit]
The only content is the documentation of another template and thus it should be deleted. Noah, AATalk 12:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah it's used in Template:2020–21 North American winter buttons and Template:2021–22 North American winter buttons. Not sure if it is really needed, but that is a different issue to what your argument was. Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete it is literally just adding <tr></tr>, this doesn't need a template for it, as it's 8 characters. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Hurricane season bar gap[edit]
The content of the template speaks for itself. Noah, AATalk 21:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:2024 Women's Premier League (cricket) squads[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 11:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Template:2024 Women's Premier League (cricket) squads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unnecessary template that clutters up pages, and is also misleading, because the templates linked aren't specific to 2024 squads. We have separate templates for all 5 teams, we don't need a combined template, as this means that every article has 5 templates linked on it instead of the 1 that is needed in most cases. All the articles currently using this template are already linked by {{2024 Women's Premier League (cricket)}} which is a better template. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Drum Corps Associates[edit]
This competitive circuit no longer exists, as it has been effectively merged with Drum Corps International for the 2024 season. The related page has already been deleted. I wish to retain the category, however, and simply rename it. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Chongqing Liangjiang Athletic F.C. squad[edit]
- Template:Chongqing Liangjiang Athletic F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Same reason as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 16#Template:Bury F.C. squad - the club no longer has any players as it ceased to exist. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as not a current team, there's a precedent from loads of other teams to delete these templates if the team no longer exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Dalian Professional F.C. squad[edit]
Same reason as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 16#Template:Bury F.C. squad - the club no longer has any players as it ceased to exist. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as not a current team, there's a precedent from loads of other teams to delete these templates if the team no longer exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Shenzhen F.C. squad[edit]
Same reason as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 16#Template:Bury F.C. squad - the club no longer has any players as it ceased to exist. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as not a current team, there's a precedent from loads of other teams to delete these templates if the team no longer exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
March 17[edit]
Template:Chadwick Professors of Civil Engineering[edit]
- Template:Chadwick Professors of Civil Engineering (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with one blue link in body. DB1729talk 23:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Chadwick Professor of Civil Engineering also looks like a merge candidate. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Ladakh elections[edit]
Only three links. Not enough for navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:LDS Temple Map North Mexico[edit]
Unused map. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Concur with deletion nomination. Formally used and since been replaced. Dmm1169 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Indian States Ruling Parties[edit]
Unused map. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Lakes in Viken[edit]
- Template:Lakes in Viken (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused and lakes of a former county in Norway. All listed are transcluded through their respective Norway county lakes navboxes. All of which can be found through Template:Lakes in Norway which doesn't include former counties. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, Viken lasted only a couple of years, and as both Viken and its template has been superceded by other, there is no need for navigation within this entity. Geschichte (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Recblock-v[edit]
- Template:Recblock-v (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Same as what I said below, stale and outdated. Kinda feels unneccessary for me. kleshkreikne. T 13:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Recblock[edit]
- Template:Recblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template looks stale and unused. I don't think we need this template. We can report users to AIV, instead of manually reporting them to admins on their own user talk page. kleshkreikne. T 13:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Topicon fakeEC[edit]
- Template:Topicon fakeEC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Creating something that can easily deceive other editors isn't something that should fall under the allowed humor templates. Gonnym (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Unblock-spamun[edit]
- Template:Unblock-spamun (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Unblock-un (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Unblock-spamun with Template:Unblock-un.
For whatever reason, this template looks and feels the exact same as the latter. kleshkreikne. T 07:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Officially used writing systems in India[edit]
- Template:Officially used writing systems in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I researched this thoroughly. Of the scripts include in this info box, only three have any official standing. The rest are just used by convention. PepperBeast (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, it is not the use of the scripts that is officially/legally enshrined, but rather the languages written with them. Nevertheless, for every language that has official status at the national or state level in India, there is an associated script (in a very few cases two scripts). The use of this script is a simple matter of fact for most of these languages, just like English is written in Latin script. I don't think there is an explicit regulation about the latter fact in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada etc., but I'm sure English writing in Cyrillic won't bring you far in an official context (or any other context). So when for instance the lawmakers who passed the Telangana Act No. 9 of 1966 ("Telangana Official Languages Act") wrote: "The Telugu Language shall be the Official Language; and the Urdu Language shall be the Second Official Language", they wouldn't have dared to imagine that their "negligence" to mention the associated scripts could be construed as not having given official standing to the respective scripts. –Austronesier (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how X being
associated
withevery language that has official status at the national or state level in India
means X should have an infobox template. Lots of things are associated with lots of other things; you need to show this specific grouping is more natural, useful, or current in the scholarly discussion than other possible groupings. they wouldn't have dared to imagine that their "negligence" to mention the associated scripts could be construed as not having given official standing to the respective scripts
- But the fact they chose not to mention it is clearly evidence that this is not a grouping or categorization system of interest to them! Our ontologies need to reflect those in the real world; otherwise we veer into WP:OR territory, at best, if not outright irrelevance. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please show us the definition of "official" used in Wikipedia that you are applying here. Please do not create a definition on the fly. Chaipau (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is a whole article on what an official language is! The wonders of Wikipedia. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? We are discussing scripts here, not languages. They are different. Chaipau (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- And? As I've commented elsewhere, I think it's official if it's named in legislation, as a few scripts are. What's the definition you think applies? PepperBeast (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? We are discussing scripts here, not languages. They are different. Chaipau (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is a whole article on what an official language is! The wonders of Wikipedia. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please show us the definition of "official" used in Wikipedia that you are applying here. Please do not create a definition on the fly. Chaipau (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how X being
- Keep. As per User:Austronesier above.
- It is also not true that there is no "official" recognition of the "scripts". The Government of India has actively participated (sometimes in a confusing way) with the Unicode Consortium to create standards for these scripts to be used digitally. Here is an example: Unicode Standard for Indic Scripts UTC #94. This is a letter from a government officer [1]. Caveat—please do not use the Unicode standard to define the Indic scripts. Chaipau (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the Government of India working with the Unicode Consortium has absolutely nothing to do with official status. This argument is patent nonsense. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's just not relevant. There might be some case for content regarding South Asian scripts in Unicode, but that tangential to this. PepperBeast (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Brusquedandelion, why is it patent nonsense? @Pepperbeast, why it is not relevant? I think you are just pushing your case.
- @Pepperbeast, you have been hacking away without any good reason. [2] is an example, where you have removed perfectly academic sources and something that has been extensively discussed and debated. I am not certain you know exactly what the issues here are. Chaipau (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that edit was just a plain clumsy manoeuvre on my part, and we're discussing the issue at hand, not me PepperBeast (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, or potentially move/refine as {{South Asian Writing systems}} or {{Brahmic scripts}}, as discussed Template talk:Officially used writing systems in India § Convert to navbox? and User talk:Pepperbeast § Proposal: Writing systems of South Asia. Clearly ill-conceived and poorly thought out template, much like the corresponding article Official scripts of the Republic of India; while the AfD for the latter regrettably did not receive much attention and closed without consensus, it has since been established thanks to @Pepperbeast's diligent investigation that there's only really three scripts that have any sort of legal status anywhere in India, and not even necessarily by the federal government. This is a poor and paltry basis for any template. @Austronesier argues above that even if the scripts do not have official status in and of themselves, languages do have legal status (Scheduled languages of India) and these in turn are associated with one or perhaps two scripts. That's all fine, but languages are associated with many things. Should we make templates for the Official phonemes of India or the Official clusivity distinctions of India too? No, this is obviously patent nonsense. These things just aren't obviously natural categories that are so important and so worth stressing, as a group, and to the exclusion of other possible groups— and IMO the same is true for this template as it stands.
- Now, as mentioned, I do think one could make a much better case for a much more natural grouping being scripts which are used in India, regardless of official status; or, arguably even better, {{Brahmic scripts}}, which is a way of grouping scripts that scholars actually use and not something some Wikipedia editor came up with one day because they felt like making a template. Again, these alternatives have been raised by at the two talk pages linked at the beginning of this message, as well as at the AfD for the corresponding article, but the creator of this template/article has made no attempt to engage with this suggestion, quite possibly because they realize their proposed categorization is clearly and self-evidently less natural and defensible. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- This. Also, there can be some pretty substantial difference between the intentional and the assumed. The selection of Devanagari by the Union or Meitei mayek script in Manipur, are absolutely intentional, political choices, not just underlining of conventions. And I absolutely agree that this is just not a useful grouping the way that (say) 'Writing Systems of India' might be. PepperBeast (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please note that the scripts used in India are not all "Indian". There is Tibetan script, which is not an Indian script, but which descends from Brahmi script, which is definitely Indian; and there is Nastaliq, which is an Arabic script but used in many Indian languages. Both non-Indian and Indian scripts have support in India, as the PDF I have posted above shows. South Asian is also not right, because the Tibetan script is not even South Asian.
- We look forward to a glimpse of your thorough research on this subject.
- Chaipau (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- This. Also, there can be some pretty substantial difference between the intentional and the assumed. The selection of Devanagari by the Union or Meitei mayek script in Manipur, are absolutely intentional, political choices, not just underlining of conventions. And I absolutely agree that this is just not a useful grouping the way that (say) 'Writing Systems of India' might be. PepperBeast (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Regardless of the language/script debate, this remains unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- This cannot be a good reason because it is the proposer himself, Pepperbeast, who has removed the infobox from all pages. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], ... and so on. Look at it yourself: Special:Contributions/Pepperbeast, edits from March 16, 2024. Chaipau (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Nosection[edit]
- Template:Nosection (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Used only in a sandbox of the creator, this appears to be experimental, and not clear why anyone would want to disable section edit links. DB1729talk 00:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
March 16[edit]
Template:Tyler-Longview Radio/doc[edit]
Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
VTA platform diagrams[edit]
- Template:VTA Platform Layout Blue Green Line Downtown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VTA Platform Layout Blue Green Line Surface Island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VTA Platform Layout Blue Green Line Surface Side (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VTA Platform Layout Blue Line Surface Island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VTA Platform Layout Orange Line Elevated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VTA Platform Layout Orange Line Surface Island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VTA Platform Layout Orange Line Surface Side (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Category:Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority station platform templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Tabular track layout diagrams of these types were deprecated in 2020: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC. That was especially true for simple double-tracked diagrams such as these. Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
[edit]
This may serve as a navbox to former MLB players who have appeared once or twice as guest players for the Bananas but for the rest of the roster, it is a non-functional navigation box. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not delete/Stay. I made this as its creator because while the Globetrotters, much older and more famous internationally, has a player roster template in Wikipedia, the Bananas, much younger and owing to their origins as a college summer ball team, have no roster templates. Only two names are present with their own articles who are have had been active in the pro leagues - Bill Lee and Ryan Kellogg. Eric Jones Jr., who a few years ago was a bullpen catcher for the Seattle Mariners in the MLB before joining the exhibition Bananas, has no article here. The rest of the names are all those who came to the organization from college teams, MiLB and independent leagues in the United States. They too have no article, but are active moreso in social media outlets. This is to ensure that the Bananas fans especially those of its flagship pro team know who's who playing behind the jersey numbers and also that those who have appeared as guest players wearing bright yellow in Bananas games be known to the wider community and sports fans alike. Given the growing popularity of the Bananas' exhibition teams especially social media wise in the United States and internationally, it is best that it will remain. JMRAMOS0109 (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- But the purpose of a Navbox is to link related articles. This only links to retired MLB players and Ryan Kellogg (and even Kellogg’s page only once mentions his involvement). The Savannah Bananas page serves its purpose to inform readers about the team. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NENAN. The "guest players" appeared once or twice as a publicity stunt. They are not members of the team. Everyone else, save Ryan Kellogg, lacks a wikipage, rendering navigation moot. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Uw-cap1[edit]
- Template:Uw-cap1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I was looking for a user warning template about writing in all capital letters, and I stumbled upon this... thing. This is not a legitimate warning template. In fact it contains a brazen insult. Please familiarise yourself with how grammar works in English
... seriously?? WP:NPA anyone? This should be speedily deleteable but I don't think it is unfortunately. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
March 15[edit]
Template:Sabrbio1[edit]
- Template:Sabrbio1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Sabrbio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Sabrbio1 with Template:Sabrbio.
They both serve exactly the same purpose and have almost the same layout. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:NBA Arena Statues[edit]
This template seems to be for statues installed outside NBA arenas, regardless of whether or not the statues depict NBA players. I do not understand the criteria for inclusion, as there are probably hundreds of statues installed outside NBA arenas. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Another Believer, after fairly extensive research, I believe this is the entire list of statues outside of NBA arenas. It includes every single statue, including non-NBA players. The criteria was all-inclusive, in other words any type of statue. It can be organized by category (Boxers, Announcers, etcetera) but not necessary given the size of the list. There are only 30 NBA arenas. Perhaps the list will grow over time but who knows if any new statues will be constructed. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep (creator of template) as it's a concise and valuable navbox. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per BeFriendlyGoodSir's attention and research on the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Then what do we do with Template:Statues of NBA figures? Both created by the same user and encompasses the nominated templates listing, but the only articles are of status of NBA figures at NBA arenas while the rest of the navbox is text with the only links to NBA players, but not articles of said statues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Good point. That navbox is pretty wordy. BeFriendlyGoodSir, are all of the statues on the arena navbox also on the Statues of... navbox? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Statues of NBA figures includes only statues of NBA players at any location (non-NBA arenas included). Some obviously still need article creation but they do meet notability. It does not include statues of boxers, announcers, and so on at NBA arenas. The following are only on Template:NBA Arena Statues: Statue of Oscar De La Hoya, Statue of Wayne Gretzky, and Statue of Luc Robitaille. I should also note that Template:Statues of NBA figures is also the full list of statues as far as I can tell. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Good point. That navbox is pretty wordy. BeFriendlyGoodSir, are all of the statues on the arena navbox also on the Statues of... navbox? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I think Template:Statues of NBA figures should be kept and Template:NBA Arena Statues should be kept. Template:Statues of NBA figures might become oversized 500 years from now just like many other navboxes on Wikipedia. Template:NBA Arena Statues will never be oversized since it is capped at 30 arenas. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep NBA Arena Statues and move Statues of NBA figures to userspace. The latter template for the most part is duplicating the nominated template with the links that already exist in the nominated template. The overlap is one thing, but the rest of the template is text and is just waiting for articles to be created. It isn't ready to be used in article space and has no distinct navigational purpose outside of NBA arena statues. Ultimately we are gonna need one template that encompasses links to articles of NBA statutes.
Template:Latest ARCA[edit]
- Template:Latest ARCA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in April 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Oslo Metro icon[edit]
- Template:Oslo Metro icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template is now unused (other than in one TfD discussion) after I replaced usages with data from Module:Adjacent stations/Oslo Metro (via {{ric}}). Gonnym (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
March 14[edit]
Template:Roman Kingdom Campaigns[edit]
The campaigns described in this template all come from the mythological period of the Roman kingdom, involving men (Romulus most especially) who are broadly believed not to have existed. This is part of a broad set of XFD listings that I intend to commence (AFD). Ifly6 (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: the articles should be deleted before this template. If the pages don't get deleted then this template is fine. Gonnym (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Lists of Lower Saxony MPs[edit]
Navbox with only two blue links in body. DB1729talk 19:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Musical or Comedy Recipients[edit]
- Template:Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Musical or Comedy Recipients (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This is an article masquerading as a navbox. We already have {{Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Musical or Comedy}} covering the films, we don't need this as well. --woodensuperman 13:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Drama Recipients[edit]
- Template:Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Drama Recipients (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This is an article masquerading as a navbox. We already have {{Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Drama}} covering the films, we don't need this as well. --woodensuperman 13:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:BAFTA Best British Film recipients[edit]
This is an article masquerading as a navbox. We already have {{BAFTA Best British Film}} covering the films, we don't need this as well. --woodensuperman 13:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:French schools in Central and Eastern Europe[edit]
- Template:French schools in Central and Eastern Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Very vertical navbox, only tangentially related to one another. No article on the subject. Would have thought better left for category navigation. --woodensuperman 11:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: They are all related to each other in that they are schools for French national children outside of France. The criteria for being listed is being are accredited by/affiliated with the Agency for French Education Abroad (AEFE affiliation = it is a school for French national children outside of France). These templates are divided by region because there are too many such schools for a single template. As for the article about the subject, it is "Agency for French Education Abroad". WhisperToMe (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: No commenting yet on the nomination, but the template can be reduced in size instead of a line per country, where most countries have only one link, to just do [[article link|city or country]] and leave Germany and maybe Switzerland on their own line. Gonnym (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Latin Bible without verses[edit]
Recently created template that replaced usages of {{Infobox book}}. Either restore that template or replace with {{Infobox Bible translation}}. There is no reason to have these unmaintained forks. Gonnym (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Replace with {{Infobox Bible translation}}: the new template is useless. Veverve (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Bahn-Linie[edit]
- Template:Bahn-Linie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused German line template. Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to do roughly the same thing as {{Bahnlinie}}; the German version was deleted in 2010. Mackensen (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Sanamahist term[edit]
Purely exists to present a list of translations/transliterations. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep : This template functions in the similar way like those of Template:Infobox Tibetan-Chinese, Template:Infobox Russian term, Template:Infobox Hindu term, Template:Infobox Buddhist term, Template:Infobox Arabic term, Template:Infobox Chinese, and the template was used in 50+ articles. The deletion nominator removed the template from most of those articles, possibly because of WP:IDONTLIKETHEM.
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason not to delete. I object to use of this template because I think transliterations of Meitei-language proper names into non-Latin alphabets doesn't add anything of value and doesn't square with policy. WP:NOTDICTIONARY.PepperBeast (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- The template isn't for Meitei language proper names. It is for Sanamahism, for which different languages have some of their own way of spellings and pronunciations, which is done in many other similar templates too. Language and religion are different entities. Haoreima (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Christmas-themed literature[edit]
Too wide-ranging and inexhaustable to be useful as a navigation aid, better left for category navigation. Articles are only tangentially related to one another. --woodensuperman 13:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep—Very useful aid for navigating through the various Christmas-themed works of literature, particularly useful to any Wikipedian looking to research said works of literature. Template is narrowly confined to Christmas literature, excluding Christmas songs, films, television, and paintings. Works included are more than just "tangentially related"; said works often include (besides Christmas itself) other similar and overlapping themes, too, such as giving, kindness, and magic, if not similar settings (Winter, snow), characters (Santa), and other motifs rarely found outside of Christmas-themed literature.
- Template is no more inexhaustible than any other media-based template; by this I mean to say that, while more Christmas-themed novels may be written over time and thus added, the same can be said of, e.g., Foo Fighters songs being added over time to Template:Foo Fighters, and I do not believe Christmas-themed novels are being written as rapidly as Foo Fighters songs. (If it is protested that Template:Foo Fighters, e.g., is shorter than Template:Christmas-themed literature, it should be recognized that, even though Christmas has been around for one-hundred-times as long as Foo Fighters, the template is only twice-as-long.)
- Whereas something like Template:Literature with dogs or Template:Literature about love certainly would be far too inexhaustible to be useful, this is not; Christmas-themed literature is far more narrowly delimited, and certainly sufficiently delimited to make it not-too inexhaustible. Christmas-themed works include so many recurring motifs that said works are easily related to one another, which would not be the case with Template:Literature with dogs or Template:Literature about love.
- allixpeeke (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Extremely bloated navbox. Should be added to the main list article or be better used for categories for these articles in the template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and incorporate all of its entries into List of Christmas-themed literature. This is basically a navbox that attempts to contain a category tree of Category:Christmas literature, which is not what navboxes are for. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Latin Bible[edit]
This recently created infobox template was used on pages where infobox book was previously used (compare: Infobox Latin Bible vs Infobox book). Other than adding latin verses to the infobox for some unclear reason, there isn't that big a difference and this creates yet another template that needs maintenance. Revert the replacments and delete this template. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This template was created because the current Infobox Bible translation couldn't be used on Latin Bible articles due to the lack of parameters "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Latin verses are included not due to an "unclear reason" but because this is a replacement for the Infobox Bible translation. Another template, the Infobox Latin Bible without verses, has been created for articles where it's nearly impossible to find the text of the Bible to include specific verses.
- EXANXC (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Merge into Template:Bible translation infobox, per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)- Delete, per nom. Also, I have no idea why the user EXANXC has decided that all Latin Bibles should have the next and previous Latin bible article WP mentioned in its infobox. The user adds those "Preceded by" and "Followed by" bibles without those bibles being related one to the other. Veverve (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Those preceded by and followed by parameters existed in those articles for a long time (previous revision), I did not add those. The "Preceded by" and "Followed by" are determined using the time those translations were published by the Catholic Church. Vulgate (4th century) was followed by Leuven Vulgate (1547), Leuven Vulgate was followed by Sixtine Vulgate (1590), Sixtine Vulgate was followed by Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (1592), it was followed by Nova Vulgata (1979). EXANXC (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- The "Preceded by" and "Followed by" parameters were used because those bibles were officially endorsed and published by the Catholic Church.
- The 4th-century Vulgate and the Leuven Vulgate are not officially published and endorsed bibles by the Catholic Church. Veverve (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Those preceded by and followed by parameters existed in those articles for a long time (previous revision), I did not add those. The "Preceded by" and "Followed by" are determined using the time those translations were published by the Catholic Church. Vulgate (4th century) was followed by Leuven Vulgate (1547), Leuven Vulgate was followed by Sixtine Vulgate (1590), Sixtine Vulgate was followed by Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (1592), it was followed by Nova Vulgata (1979). EXANXC (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
March 13[edit]
Template:Elections in Italian regions[edit]
A bloated navbox in which every link to an election for each Italian region's elections are already covered by a respective navbox for each region. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I could agree that the navbox is bloated (I have long supported and argued for the original, slimmer version), but it is quite useful in order to navigate through the pages on elections in each Italian region or autonomous province. Also, the template is consistent with several templates. It is harmful and useful. --Checco (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Then we could go for that version. Just link the main election article of Italian regions instead. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
[edit]
- Template:Satellite Award for Best Classic DVD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Saturn Award for Best DVD or Blu-ray Release (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Saturn Award for Best DVD or Blu-ray Special Edition Release (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Saturn Award for Best DVD or Blu-ray Collection (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Saturn Award for Best Classic Film DVD Release (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Saturn Award for Best Retro Television Series on DVD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unsuitable to have awards navboxes for DVD re-issues, the subject of the links is the film, not the media release. Would only be acceptable if we had articles on the physical media releases themselves. How many more film award navboxes do we need?!? --woodensuperman 12:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Your nomination is not based in any guideline and is in fact WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As long as the main article exists and the pages linked in the navbox are related, then there is no difference between this and any other award. If you have an issue with award templates in general then start a discussion and get consensus for change. Gonnym (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all. There is a major difference between this and other award templates. The awards shown here are for the DVDs, i.e. the physical media releases, not for the films themselves. If we were linking between articles about the DVD then it would be a different situation, but that is not the case. The films did not win these awards, the producer of the DVD reissue did. --woodensuperman 09:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also to consider is the North American WP:BIAS, as the DVD releases that won the awards are all North American releases. These releases are irrelevant to a worldwide audience so to have these navboxes plastered on the film articles is clearly WP:UNDUE. --woodensuperman 11:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- No bias here. It's a NA award for NA film on a NA article. Completely fine. I'm sure I said this before (even though I created some award navboxes myself), I believe that in general these are really a bad idea (even for Oscars) and would support deleting them all, but won't support removing some by personal taste. Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Except it isn't fine. List of James Bond films and Mario Bava are included in {{Saturn Award for Best DVD or Blu-ray Collection}}, for some examples of non-North American properties. I don't think Mario Bava ever earned an award for a DVD release. Last time I looked La dolce vita isn't a North American film either. At risk of repeating myself, this isn't a personal taste issue. The films/series are not receiving these awards. It's the DVD or Blu-ray package, the extras, paraphernalia, etc., of the physical media product. If the award was to go to, say, The Criterion Collection, or List of Doctor Who DVD releases, then navbox inclusion would make sense. But that is not what we are seeing here. --woodensuperman 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- No bias here. It's a NA award for NA film on a NA article. Completely fine. I'm sure I said this before (even though I created some award navboxes myself), I believe that in general these are really a bad idea (even for Oscars) and would support deleting them all, but won't support removing some by personal taste. Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Gonnym. Another "I don't like it" nomination attempting to delete awards navboxes. These little seen nominations, if done enough times about different awards, will eventually catch a few. But hopefully not these, which should stay as functional and guideline-compliant topic maps. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete These awards are not for the films themselves. It's for the media format. The list articles have each film that was given the award for the media format and several of these awards are not only retired and inactive but are not defining for a navbox that connects articles. The films should be the focus of these film award navboxes not the media format. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Oops - looks like I missed one: {{Saturn Award for Best Television DVD Release}}. Too late to add to nomination now? --woodensuperman 12:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Arie Azis[edit]
- Template:Arie Azis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with two blue links and one transclusion. The subject has no WP article. DB1729talk 12:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Texas League location map[edit]
Unused Minor League Baseball map template. Gonnym (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: template's uses had been disabled due to a problem with a module used by the OSM location map template. That template now avoids the problematic module, so I have re-enabled this map. Waz8:T-C-E 03:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomic authority disambiguation[edit]
Unused disambiguation template. Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Taxonomic authorities do not need to be disambiguated. For plants and fungi, there are standardized, unique abbreviations for each authority. For animals, authorities are cited by surnames which may not be unique, but ambiguous surnames for zoological authorities can be handled by {{Surname}}.
- Plantdrew (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Virusbox/parameter chk[edit]
Unused sub template after the parent template was converted to Lua. Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support straightforward case for deletion. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Military history/bchecklist[edit]
Unused template. Was removed from template here. Gonnym (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Military history/Any[edit]
Unused other than in one old talk discussion. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Military history/NormalizedClass[edit]
- Template:WikiProject Military history/NormalizedClass (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unsed sub template. Was removed here. Gonnym (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Mizzou/doc[edit]
Unused as the parent uses |DOC=auto
. Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Post-hardcore/invite emo[edit]
Unused and no future usage for this as the project moved in 2014 and whoever needed be notified should have been in the last 10 years. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Writing sign up/bulleted[edit]
Unused. Isn't used by its parent Template:WikiProject Writing sign up. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Before I knew about this TFD, I moved this template and its parent and sibling to Wikipedia space, because they were being used only for the WikiProject and they weren't really templates intended for transclusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Youth Olympic games medal count[edit]
Unused. Seems Template:Olympic Games medal table has replaced it. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject talk other/scdecode[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 Moved without redirect to User:Mathglot/Sandbox/Templates/WikiProject talk other/scdecode with comment "Still need to develop this; moved temporarily to avoid autodeletion." by Mathglot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Unused sub template. Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Yesno-yes/fallback[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 11:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Unused template. Seems it never caught on. Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what I was intending to use this for. Tagged as G7. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 11:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:OSM Location map/styles.css[edit]
Unused style template. If added to template during this discussion, withdraw my nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Multiref2/styles.css[edit]
Unused style template. If added to template during this discussion, withdraw my nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I created it as part of this discussion: Template_talk:Unbulleted_list_citebundle/Archive_1#Templatestyles. It looks like the matter was resolved. Anyway, using the templatestyles to fix alignment in different skins was an ugly cludge and best consigned to history. — Jts1882 | talk 14:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Edit taxonomy/styles.css[edit]
Unused style template. If added to template during this discussion, withdraw my nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:2023 Rugby World Cup Pool D[edit]
Unused as it was subst here. Gonnym (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:2023 Rugby World Cup Pool C[edit]
Unused as it was subst here. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:2023 Super Rugby Pacific standings[edit]
Unused as it was subst here. Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:2002 NFC standings[edit]
Unused. A different table style is used at 2002 NFL season#Final regular season standings. Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:2022 Super Rugby Pacific standings[edit]
Unused as it was subst here. Gonnym (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:2015 Super Rugby standings[edit]
Unused as it was subst here. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries imagemap[edit]
- Template:2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries imagemap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused and unlinked from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Baltimore Metro SubwayLink platform diagrams[edit]
- Template:Baltimore Metro SubwayLink Platform Layout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Baltimore Metro SubwayLink Platform Layout/Elevated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Baltimore Metro SubwayLink Platform Layout/Next (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Baltimore Metro SubwayLink Platform Layout/Previous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Category:Maryland Transit Administration station platform templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Tabular track layout diagrams of these types were deprecated in 2020: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC. That was especially true for simple double-tracked diagrams such as these. Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and the other discussions I listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 9#SEPTA layout diagrams. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Framingham station[edit]
Unused in the article space and duplicates {{Framingham (MBTA station)}}. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- No objection. Useddenim (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Island platform[edit]
- Template:Island platform (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Upper platform (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Tabular track layout diagrams of these types were deprecated in 2020: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC. In addition, these particular templates are only used on two articles. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and the other discussions I listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 9#SEPTA layout diagrams.Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
March 12[edit]
Template:IZombie[edit]
- Template:IZombie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only four links to any articles not including the creators linked above. Both characters' links are to the same article but to the respective section on both the comic series and TV series. And the link to the comic series is featured twice.
Removing the non article links in the first section and the one link to the article section, you would have only three links within the navbox. No navigation is met with this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I've cleaned it up and there are four links after the subject plus the two comic book creators. This is borderline WP:NENAN for me, but I've seen far worse. --woodensuperman 10:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing so. But it's pretty bare bones. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Single White Female[edit]
Just three links. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 16:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Weybourne railway station present[edit]
No transclusions of, or incoming links to, this broken railway diagram. Created in December 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence[edit]
- Template:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Substantial duplication, all signatories and other related links already included in the "Declaration of Independence" section of {{Historical American Documents}} so no additional navigational benefit. Alternative would be to split {{Historical American Documents}} into its component parts. --woodensuperman 13:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose, another alternate would be to leave this alone as an important United States founding navbox. The set of Founders signing this important document deserves both its own navbox and links in the overall event navbox, especially since we are now in the 250th anniversary period for the founding events and will have to watch and protect pages from IP vandals let alone the time sink of regular users attempting to delete them. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you not see the redundancy present here? All links are on both navboxes. There is literally a section for signatories of the Declaration of Independence in the other navbox. --woodensuperman 13:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- In this case you are taking redundancy to mean something other than it should. The documents navbox lists the same names, yes, for full coverage of the event. But that navbox is not included on all of the signers pages, which is where the signers navbox does that job. There is no redundancy, just information about the document that belongs on both navboxes in order to fully cover the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL they should be. Why are they linked in the navbox if the navbox isn't transcluded on those pages? --woodensuperman 13:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are linked so readers can click on the links and read one or more of the articles. It is another way of readers finding articles of interest. Taking the policy Ignoring all rules into account (a policy, not a guideline, which would require that removing the links improves Wikipedia) would cover these commonsense links to articles for readers of the topic who would find them this way and not another. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- An identical set of links does not need be listed in two navboxes, especially if only one navbox is performing any navigational function. --woodensuperman 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They both perform as navboxes, and if the link to, say, Benjamin Franklin is removed from the historical documents navbox it is lost to articles on which that navbox is added. May I ask, what does it really hurt to include links to the names? Does it improve Wikipedia or harm it to remove them? WP:IAR is not an abstract concept to be avoided (I recall one user mentioning being proud that they hadn't invoked IAR in their 17 years of editing, as if it were an abstract essay) it's a policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's not perfoming as a navbox if it is not providing the required navigational function. You know that it's not an infobox right? And yes, overproliferation and abuse of navboxes does harm as it hinders a reader even finding the relevant links. You can't see the wood for the trees half the time here. This is why we do not need repitition of exactly the same set of links on two navboxes. --woodensuperman 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- And in my point of view you, in good faith of course, don't even know that a lush forest exists since you spend all of your time looking at one tree. What harm? (seriously, what harm). I explained why the concise navbox is used on the signers pages and not the full documents navbox, and that the links serve a purpose of navigation to the signers of the document for readers who would find it that way. We are all about the readers, and should make finding any article of interest as easy as possible for them in order that they may both learn about the topic or, if interested, edit the page for further benefit to Wikipedia. Removing links to a name which is used anyway on the navbox removes those options and potential improvements. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please see WP:POLICY: Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. --woodensuperman 14:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- ? You've commented on me as an editor several times in this discussion, let alone on others. As for me, feel free to comment on myself as an editor, having nothing to hide. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please see WP:POLICY: Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. --woodensuperman 14:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- And in my point of view you, in good faith of course, don't even know that a lush forest exists since you spend all of your time looking at one tree. What harm? (seriously, what harm). I explained why the concise navbox is used on the signers pages and not the full documents navbox, and that the links serve a purpose of navigation to the signers of the document for readers who would find it that way. We are all about the readers, and should make finding any article of interest as easy as possible for them in order that they may both learn about the topic or, if interested, edit the page for further benefit to Wikipedia. Removing links to a name which is used anyway on the navbox removes those options and potential improvements. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's not perfoming as a navbox if it is not providing the required navigational function. You know that it's not an infobox right? And yes, overproliferation and abuse of navboxes does harm as it hinders a reader even finding the relevant links. You can't see the wood for the trees half the time here. This is why we do not need repitition of exactly the same set of links on two navboxes. --woodensuperman 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They both perform as navboxes, and if the link to, say, Benjamin Franklin is removed from the historical documents navbox it is lost to articles on which that navbox is added. May I ask, what does it really hurt to include links to the names? Does it improve Wikipedia or harm it to remove them? WP:IAR is not an abstract concept to be avoided (I recall one user mentioning being proud that they hadn't invoked IAR in their 17 years of editing, as if it were an abstract essay) it's a policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- An identical set of links does not need be listed in two navboxes, especially if only one navbox is performing any navigational function. --woodensuperman 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are linked so readers can click on the links and read one or more of the articles. It is another way of readers finding articles of interest. Taking the policy Ignoring all rules into account (a policy, not a guideline, which would require that removing the links improves Wikipedia) would cover these commonsense links to articles for readers of the topic who would find them this way and not another. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL they should be. Why are they linked in the navbox if the navbox isn't transcluded on those pages? --woodensuperman 13:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- In this case you are taking redundancy to mean something other than it should. The documents navbox lists the same names, yes, for full coverage of the event. But that navbox is not included on all of the signers pages, which is where the signers navbox does that job. There is no redundancy, just information about the document that belongs on both navboxes in order to fully cover the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you not see the redundancy present here? All links are on both navboxes. There is literally a section for signatories of the Declaration of Independence in the other navbox. --woodensuperman 13:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom because I agree, its redundant since the {{Historical American Documents}} covers it and does so in more detail. But I'm against splitting {{Historical American Documents}}; not really necessary. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- These two are not redundant, the signatories navbox is in alphabetical order and is placed on each page. What you suggest is place the Historical documents navbox on each of the signatories pages - why not both. One an easy alphabetical listing and the other a fuller look at the document and its creators. This is the founding document of the United States, a little leeway in allowing both navboxes to function would be appropriate due to the weight of the topic, especially since they are both long-term navboxes and that nobody (no one, not a reader or editor) has complained before this discussion which shows the acceptance level of such detail and Wikipedia mapping information. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Template:Historical American Documents seems like it could be easily split into four navboxes already, and the signers of United States Declaration of Independence seems to be a large enough subtopic to warrant a split. The others either are not large enough to split out the signers or do not have an article on the topic. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Ruhuna Rhinos[edit]
- Template:Ruhuna Rhinos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Current squad template for defunct cricket team. Pkbwcgs (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Old discussions[edit]
March 11
Tri-Rail layout diagrams
- Template:Tri-Rail platform layout/previous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tri-Rail platform layout/next (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tri-Rail platform layout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tri-Rail platform layout/Amtrak next (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tri-Rail platform layout/Amtrak previous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Category:Tri-Rail station platform templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Tabular track layout diagrams of these types were deprecated in 2020: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC. That was especially true for simple double-tracked diagrams such as these. Mackensen (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and the other discussions I listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 9#SEPTA layout diagrams. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
March 10
Weather infoboxes
- Template:Infobox tropical cyclone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox storm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox flood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
It had been decided in a discussion at WPWX that the infoboxes for tropical cyclones, storms, and floods would be replaced by Template:Infobox weather event since there are a variety of new features as well as ease of editing with the new infobox. I had been told in the past that a TfD was required to formally deprecate templates and that a RfC was not sufficient enough. I would like to point out that around 90% of infobox tropical cyclone's transclusions have been replaced by this point as have a majority of infobox storm's. Noah, AATalk 16:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete after replacing tranclusions with {{Infobox weather event}}. The RfC closed with
consensus to replace the infoboxes with the new template
which should be implemented. Gonnym (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep at this stage.change to depreciate, see below 1999 Sydney hailstorm is a featured article which uses this soon-to-be-'depreciated' infobox, but the new infobox is garish and not suited to the article. The 1999 Sydney hailstorm article will be on the main page as Today's Featured Article in roughly four weeks time. I strongly oppose the new infobox for its garish aesthetics and therefore oppose its depreciation. Note that my opposition wasn't provided at the local consensus WPWX discussion, as no notification was provided to me that the discussion was occurring. Further, there is no 'duration' field in the new infobox that I can see (please correct me if I'm wrong), which is relevant to hailstorms. From what I can also see, 'fatalities' & 'damage' can't be captured in this either - again, directly relevant to hailstorms. Areas affected? What about the caption for the image? Per the spirit of WP:FAOWN, the "depreciation" of infobox storm needs to occur in the context of it being used on existing featured article(s) - if the new template cannot provide the same functionality as the old one, in my opinion it shouldn't be depreciated. Daniel (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)- @Daniel: It is a modular infobox so different sub-templates have to be used. The main template has parameters for the image and its caption. Template:Infobox weather event/History contains a parameter for duration. Template:Infobox weather event/Effects has the parameters relating to areas affected and impact. There are some examples on the main template page documentation. A recent article, January 8–10, 2024 North American storm complex, also shows the usage of various aspects of the new infobox. The real reason why storms needed to be replaced is the infobox is a mess of coding that is hard to modify without screwing something up (TCs infobox has the exact same problem). This means that additional scales (namely additional tornado-related ones) or really anything else couldn't be feasibly added to it without messing up the current infobox. The sub-templates separate out various components which allows for as many scales or other items to be added as needed since they are in different templates. We copied over all the functionally of the various infoboxes and added some additional items (egs. economic losses, Torro scale, IF scale) which wouldn't have been possible otherwise. Another important change was links were moved out of the colored bars for scales to fix accessibility issues with having a link on certain colors. Noah, AATalk 20:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- So my question is, can every single current item in the current infobox be replicated in the new infobox, with the precise same descriptor? I can't see many of them on the various documentation pages, and couldn't when I checked prior to my original comment. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Everything worked except for active and location but those were easily added to the duration and areas parameters to allow those to be used. If there are any missing descriptors from other areas and it is discovered, it can be resolved quite easily as I did with the two I found. Every item from the infoboxes can be replicated but it is entirely possible that some descriptors might not work if they were missed. Please see [9] which I performed on the featured article you mentioned as a test. I reverted my edit once it was performed. Noah, AATalk 22:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. The only two remaining objections from me are: 1) "duration" should either be between "formed" and "dissipated", or at worst after "dissipated". Chronoligcally it makes little sense for it to be prior to "formed"; and 2) I find "Overall effects" header to be both clunky and also a little insensitive given that within that section is fatalities and damage. Can this be coded to allow a custom header (for this article I would go with 'Storm impact' or something similar). If these two changes can be made, I am happy to support depreciation considering the template's colour scheme is gray (the bright colours are morbid in my opinion, but given this doesn't impact the article I am considering as part of my objection, I don't feel the need to focus on that). Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel: I put duration after dissipated to avoid issues with other options such as remnant-low, extratropical, etc. I also added in the ability to change the header for the overall effects. It can be changed by adding the following to the effects portion: |custom = name you want to use . You can see this in action here. Outside of any scale (tornado, tropical cyclone, or winter), all section labels default to gray. The colors for those scales were decided in another set of discussions and aren't exclusive to the infoboxes. Basically, regardless of which infobox is currently in an article, the same colors show up for those scale types I mentioned with the only major difference being the old infoboxes have the colored bars as a type of infobox header rather than a section header. Noah, AATalk 14:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. The only two remaining objections from me are: 1) "duration" should either be between "formed" and "dissipated", or at worst after "dissipated". Chronoligcally it makes little sense for it to be prior to "formed"; and 2) I find "Overall effects" header to be both clunky and also a little insensitive given that within that section is fatalities and damage. Can this be coded to allow a custom header (for this article I would go with 'Storm impact' or something similar). If these two changes can be made, I am happy to support depreciation considering the template's colour scheme is gray (the bright colours are morbid in my opinion, but given this doesn't impact the article I am considering as part of my objection, I don't feel the need to focus on that). Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Everything worked except for active and location but those were easily added to the duration and areas parameters to allow those to be used. If there are any missing descriptors from other areas and it is discovered, it can be resolved quite easily as I did with the two I found. Every item from the infoboxes can be replicated but it is entirely possible that some descriptors might not work if they were missed. Please see [9] which I performed on the featured article you mentioned as a test. I reverted my edit once it was performed. Noah, AATalk 22:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- So my question is, can every single current item in the current infobox be replicated in the new infobox, with the precise same descriptor? I can't see many of them on the various documentation pages, and couldn't when I checked prior to my original comment. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel: It is a modular infobox so different sub-templates have to be used. The main template has parameters for the image and its caption. Template:Infobox weather event/History contains a parameter for duration. Template:Infobox weather event/Effects has the parameters relating to areas affected and impact. There are some examples on the main template page documentation. A recent article, January 8–10, 2024 North American storm complex, also shows the usage of various aspects of the new infobox. The real reason why storms needed to be replaced is the infobox is a mess of coding that is hard to modify without screwing something up (TCs infobox has the exact same problem). This means that additional scales (namely additional tornado-related ones) or really anything else couldn't be feasibly added to it without messing up the current infobox. The sub-templates separate out various components which allows for as many scales or other items to be added as needed since they are in different templates. We copied over all the functionally of the various infoboxes and added some additional items (egs. economic losses, Torro scale, IF scale) which wouldn't have been possible otherwise. Another important change was links were moved out of the colored bars for scales to fix accessibility issues with having a link on certain colors. Noah, AATalk 20:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep {{infobox flood}}. The linked RfC primarily discussed the cyclones template - I'm not sure it's an improvement for that one either but it's pretty much a fait accompli at this point. But because the template and the discussion have both been targeted to cyclones, the template is not well-suited to other use-cases and no strong rationales for the change have been put forward for them. The new template is much more challenging for end-users - as demonstrated by the errors seen in the pre-TfD implementation attempt. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I just wanted to say that the template wasnt targeted towards cyclones but was intended to replace all three of these infoboxes and was developed towards the goal of doing just that. The vast majority of transclusions just happen to be for tropical cyclone and tornado articles since those are the most numerous. In terms of parameters, the new template has more features than infobox flood does which was expressed in the opening comment during the RfC even if it wasnt explicitly mentioned in that part of the comment that it included infobox flood. Specifically, there are effects items such as currency conversion, year, economic losses, missing, evacuated, etc and the ability to mention the maximum rainfall that occurred during the event. All existing items were incorporated into the infobox. There are flood articles such as 2013 Colorado floods which use the infobox already and havent had any issues with it not being suited for usage. Noah, AATalk 19:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at that article as an example, the conversion certainly doesn't seem to have improved the situation - we've increased the complexity for both the reader and the editor. I don't think "havent had any issues with it not being suited for usage" is the right bar when we could easily say the same about the previous template. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
March 8
Template:Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films
Subjective list, should be deleted for all the same reasons the AFI and Sight and Sound ones were. See discussions here and here --woodensuperman 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Huge Oppose (Keep), and let's get the Sight and Sound navbox back which was closed way too soon with very little editor participation. The Cahiers du Cinema's list is one of the two most-accepted lists of all-time best films, along with Sight and Sound. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- But, as the previous discussions point out, they are subjective. They're not even awards. And, the list isn't even shown at the article. Appetite to recreate the Sight and Sound one was not expressed with this more recent discussion. --woodensuperman 06:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Both this and the Sight and Sound polls are considered determinative as rankings of best films. The rankings change in S&S every ten years, which is what makes the concise navbox very navigational and informative (i.e. being able to quickly view the swing of the ranking of a film, such as Citizen Kane, throughout the years). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Where is the data for the "all time" poll even coming from, it's not even mentioned at the article. The article shows the result of an annual poll, which changes over time, that is clearly not definitive. And information belongs on an article, not a navbox. There are enough bona fide awards templates cluttering up articles as it is, we don't need navboxes for results of polls too. --woodensuperman 12:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- You see clutter where others see valued information. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, think I've found the source here. An article from 2008. I can't see any world where the films that were decided by a single publication as the "best ever" in 2008 can be seen as definitive today. Also, there seem to be eleven films in the navbox. We cannot use magazine polls as good material for navboxes. Hundreds of publications publish polls all the time, we cannot discriminate between this and any other magazine poll, like Empire's, etc, etc, etc... --woodensuperman 12:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've added 'per 2008' in the navbox section head which should clear this up. The best of the polls, the Sight and Sound tenannual poll, is the main one that should be brought back and a move review on that one should be next in line (but will wait until the decision on this one, which should not be judged in the nom on the Sight and Sound removal which will be contested). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- You've already tried and failed to get the Sight & Sound one overturned Randy. WP:DROPTHESTICK. --woodensuperman 14:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not true, that was a discussion at a Wikiproject talk page, not an overall Deletion review. Look at the actual deletion nomination (another one of yours), this was in no way a good close - should have been relisted at a minimum - or a full discussion for such an important topic. That's why so much gets deleted here, it's an out-of-the-way Wikipedia backroom niche where major deletions such as this one is tucked away. Many more alerts are needed for controversial topics such as this (and no, an rarely noticed small line at the bottom of an article page is not an "alert" except in the broadest sense, it's more of a tiny footnote that will likely not be noticed, take the low attendence at the Sight and Sound deletion as an example of "major topic but small attendence". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Read the actual discussion Randy, multiple editors pointed out to you it was a good close and also refuted your claims that it was an "out-of-the-way Wikipedia backroom niche" (to which you even agreed that it was a "good point"), and there was more support for the deletion for good measure. WP:DROPTHESTICK. --woodensuperman 14:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not true, that was a discussion at a Wikiproject talk page, not an overall Deletion review. Look at the actual deletion nomination (another one of yours), this was in no way a good close - should have been relisted at a minimum - or a full discussion for such an important topic. That's why so much gets deleted here, it's an out-of-the-way Wikipedia backroom niche where major deletions such as this one is tucked away. Many more alerts are needed for controversial topics such as this (and no, an rarely noticed small line at the bottom of an article page is not an "alert" except in the broadest sense, it's more of a tiny footnote that will likely not be noticed, take the low attendence at the Sight and Sound deletion as an example of "major topic but small attendence". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- You've already tried and failed to get the Sight & Sound one overturned Randy. WP:DROPTHESTICK. --woodensuperman 14:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've added 'per 2008' in the navbox section head which should clear this up. The best of the polls, the Sight and Sound tenannual poll, is the main one that should be brought back and a move review on that one should be next in line (but will wait until the decision on this one, which should not be judged in the nom on the Sight and Sound removal which will be contested). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Where is the data for the "all time" poll even coming from, it's not even mentioned at the article. The article shows the result of an annual poll, which changes over time, that is clearly not definitive. And information belongs on an article, not a navbox. There are enough bona fide awards templates cluttering up articles as it is, we don't need navboxes for results of polls too. --woodensuperman 12:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Both this and the Sight and Sound polls are considered determinative as rankings of best films. The rankings change in S&S every ten years, which is what makes the concise navbox very navigational and informative (i.e. being able to quickly view the swing of the ranking of a film, such as Citizen Kane, throughout the years). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- But, as the previous discussions point out, they are subjective. They're not even awards. And, the list isn't even shown at the article. Appetite to recreate the Sight and Sound one was not expressed with this more recent discussion. --woodensuperman 06:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose (Keep). I agree with Randy Kryn. This is not "subjective". Are Oscars subjective? What is not subjective in the field of culture? This is not an award but it's a recognition by one of the most prominent film magazines in the history of film. Makes sense, gives information about the degree of notability of certain works and puts them into perspective, and is not a big navbox anyway in terms of size. I can't see any actual reason for deletion. (I've read both discussions the nominator is referring their rationale to, and the least I can say is that I am not convinced).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Of course it's subjective, "best of" lists always are, and this is a single list from 2008. It's not definitive --woodensuperman 14:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- And whilst I'm no advocate for awards navboxes, at least winning an award is something tangible, being included in an opinion poll is not. --woodensuperman 11:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the point. You just don't like it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- And whilst I'm no advocate for awards navboxes, at least winning an award is something tangible, being included in an opinion poll is not. --woodensuperman 11:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Of course it's subjective, "best of" lists always are, and this is a single list from 2008. It's not definitive --woodensuperman 14:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I'd lean toward delete as this is just a magazine listing/ranking which in itself isn't a major award. However, the conversation has spiraled from being about the navbox into something else. But this navbox list should be added to the main article or the Cahiers du Cinéma's Annual Top 10 Lists article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It's one of the most prestigious of movie lists since the 1950s. Espngeek (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine for a list article, but not a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Lists, navboxes. and categories are all, by guideline, complementary and should not be excluded because another of these three forms are utilized. All three are allowable and each is used and preferred by different readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine for a list article, but not a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- delete, I am not seeing the "all time per 2008" in Cahiers du Cinéma's Annual Top 10 Lists or Cahiers du Cinéma? Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- The poll was taken in 2008. Is this fact being on the navbox your reason for deletion? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- You misunderstand, my fault. The Top Ten of All-Time was the 2008 poll, of interest to "all time" film fans, but they also do a yearly poll of the Top Ten of the Year as well, which is linked. Not everyone knows this, and the navbox alerts readers of the all-time films to it. This poll is important, but not as interesting as the Sight and Sound poll of all time films taken and looked forward to every ten years, and has two parts: critics and directors (interesting comparing the two). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- every ten years seems like a strange reason to have a poll that is 15-16 years old, and also strange that the most interesting poll is not in the article. also, not sure why we are talking about Sight and Sound when this discussion is about Cahiers du Cinéma. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The every ten-year poll is the famous Sight and Sound poll. It is really a touchstone of film importance and the acceptance by critics and directors of relative importance. These two polls are related and important due to their quality and historical importance. I don't know which article you are pointing to which doesn't include either of the polls. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- can we agree that this discussion is about Cahiers du Cinéma navbox and not the Sight and Sound navbox? Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, but still interested in what article you referred to which might be lacking key information, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- see above where I say
I am not seeing the "all time per 2008" in Cahiers du Cinéma's Annual Top 10 Lists or Cahiers du Cinéma
. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)- Thanks. The first is an article on the yearly top ten lists, not the all-time list. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- so, still no reason why this list isn't in Cahiers du Cinéma, but I guess we should merge it there per WikiCleanerMan above. Frietjes (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. The first is an article on the yearly top ten lists, not the all-time list. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- see above where I say
- Of course, but still interested in what article you referred to which might be lacking key information, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- can we agree that this discussion is about Cahiers du Cinéma navbox and not the Sight and Sound navbox? Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The every ten-year poll is the famous Sight and Sound poll. It is really a touchstone of film importance and the acceptance by critics and directors of relative importance. These two polls are related and important due to their quality and historical importance. I don't know which article you are pointing to which doesn't include either of the polls. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- every ten years seems like a strange reason to have a poll that is 15-16 years old, and also strange that the most interesting poll is not in the article. also, not sure why we are talking about Sight and Sound when this discussion is about Cahiers du Cinéma. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- You misunderstand, my fault. The Top Ten of All-Time was the 2008 poll, of interest to "all time" film fans, but they also do a yearly poll of the Top Ten of the Year as well, which is linked. Not everyone knows this, and the navbox alerts readers of the all-time films to it. This poll is important, but not as interesting as the Sight and Sound poll of all time films taken and looked forward to every ten years, and has two parts: critics and directors (interesting comparing the two). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
March 4
Template:Universities and colleges (dis)established in YYYY category header
- Template:Universities and colleges (dis)established in YYYY category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Universities and colleges established by year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Universities and colleges (dis)established in YYYY category header with Template:Universities and colleges established by year.
I'm trying to preserve the edit history, because is template was renamed/moved without attribution to the edit history. Mason (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:School districts (dis)established in YYYY category header
- Template:School districts (dis)established in YYYY category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:School districts established by year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:School districts (dis)established in YYYY category header with Template:School districts established by year.
I'm trying to preserve the edit history, because is template was renamed/moved without attribution to the edit history. There are a lot of these changes. Mason (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikimediaNoLicensing
This template is legally void. Text on Wikipedia is licensed under Creative Commons (CC) licenses that allow relicensing under later versions of the licenses, as well as some other specific compatible ones (Free Art, GPLv3). No template can change this fact; contributors agree to the license from the Terms of Use. Best, Frostly (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The whole point of editing here is shown under the edit box: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL." There should not be a confused "I'm special" template. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – quoting myself from WP:VPW: "Even if legally void, why encourage that [attitude] with a template, even if it's just a pointless sign of an ornery user strutting some attitude on their user page"? It leads to questions about WP:HERE; or as Johnuniq phrased it, that they are somehow "special". Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. Pointless template, at least currently, as far as article text is concerned:
- GFDL 1.3 did not say editors could opt out of WMF's relicensing of their contributions in 2009.
- CC-BY-SA 3.0 (used from 2009 to 2023) has a provision that makes it compatible with newer versions, though does not allow relicensing of existing contributions.
- CC-BY-SA 4.0 does allow relicensing under newer versions (and compatible licenses from the Creative Commons list) for derivative works. Again, there is no opt-out provision.
- Unlike many companies that operate Internet platforms (e.g. Meta, in section 3.3 of their terms), or some that run open source projects, the Wikimedia Foundation does not include in their Terms of Use a broad license for them to use submitted content, limited only by a vague purpose of use. Rather, editors grant WMF the same permissions that they grant every other member of the public, which do not include the right to sublicense their work.
- The WMF generally does not write or edit articles or select which ones appear on the site, so likely won't have rights that way.
- So at best, this template has no legal effect: aside from the relicensing that already happened in 2009, WMF has no special permission to relicense article text. At worst, editors who place this template on their user pages may be breaching not only the Terms of Use, but also CC-BY-SA 4.0, by refusing to grant the WMF the same license as every other member of the general public. Subst the template rather than remove it entirely so that it's still possible to find who those editors are. PleaseStand (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- PleaseStand, Can you clarify your goal? If the goal is only to see which editors had it, then you could replace it with just a hidden comment, like
<!--WikimediaNoLicensing substed on {{timestamp}}-->
or whatever. If your goal is to leave the rendered user page unchanged but trackable, then your proposal is needed, but I wasn't clear which you were going for. I think I might be swayed to support your !vote, maybe even either way, but I think I prefer the hidden code method. Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)- By subst and delete, I meant: preserve the existing text on each user page the template is already used on. I don't think that it is outside the realm of possibility that, in the future, a dispute could arise about whether the 2009 relicensing of GFDL contributions was legally valid in such cases. Such information should be retained and not altered; replacing the original text with a differing comment visible only in the wikitext source code is not OK. PleaseStand (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- PleaseStand, Can you clarify your goal? If the goal is only to see which editors had it, then you could replace it with just a hidden comment, like
- Coming here from the VPWMF discussion. Are there any grandfathering issues we need to take into account? Beyond that, while I certainly have no support for using this template, I have concerns about the rush to delete that cause me to lean oppose. Given that its usage is mostly historical at this point, it has historical value as an example of how early editors thought about copyright, and to the extent any users are still using it, it could have value aiding collaboration by indicating their views (much like political userboxes). We grant wide leeway for users to edit their user page as they see fit, so the bar to overcome that and remove something that an editor chose to add should be high.That said, the content of this template, like all others, is under community control. If we're concerned about it giving a misleading impression, we could just edit it to add an addendum that it's legally meaningless. Sdkb talk 18:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- As I state in my reply to Mathglot above, we shouldn't significantly alter users' statements of their views, including contemporaneous ones regarding what others are allowed to do with their contributions under copyright law. This is why I said to subst and delete—to preserve the statement in its original form for users who already added it (and still have it on their user pages), and to avoid future use that may arise should the template continue to exist and show up in various lists.
- That said, if there still are users who would like to use this template, here's a different idea that might be worth considering. First, add an argument, such as
|version=1
, at all existing transclusion sites. Then, conditionally add some phrase like "except as consistent with CC BY-SA or other free licenses that apply". The old version of the text would still appear where it did before (the|version=1
case), while the new version would show for new uses that leave out the version argument. - I can see some significant drawbacks though. Old user page revisions would be misleading, as those transclusions cannot be fixed. Users might discover and misuse the version parameter, because they find that it makes the text shorter or simpler. It may be possible to avoid the first issue by checking the revision timestamp from within the template, and the second issue by showing an error message if the page title is not on a list that could be created at the time the text is changed. Subst and move without redirect would be simpler, with the only disadvantages being that the text will not show up for old revisions and that new uses would have to be under a different name. PleaseStand (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
March 1
AFI templates
- Template:AFI's 10 Top 10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Recently recreated navboxes were deleted unanimously per this discussion. Recent deletion of similar navboxes here shows that appetite has not changed. --woodensuperman 08:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Procedural keep.
Recent deletion of similar navboxes (...) shows that appetite has not changed.
does not sound like an actual reason to delete these templates. SD was declined (see page history). I cannot see the problem with those navboxes.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC) - Strong Keep, these navboxes are of large interest to readers and cover reputable and non-controversial major film polls. Other deletion attempts of similar material are either being kept or are being considered for deletion review, and the linked deletion is from 2012 Nothing wrong here except "I don't like it". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how old the discussion is, the arguments are still the same, and per this more recent discussion, consensus is still there. It's not a matter of "i don't like it", in fact it's the opposite Randy. It's more WP:ITSINTERESTING on your part. --woodensuperman 16:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per previous discussions, little value in navigation. Indagate (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Great value in navigation. If seen at someone's favorite film a reader may want to follow the pattern of films chosen by AFI as representing the best of the profession. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- The articles on a film or actor listed in the navbox may mention the honor, but would not give readers an overview of the thinking of the critics of their profession about the totality of films and individuals so-honored. The navboxe does this instantly. Navboxes are very wonderful things, and may be one of the most undervalued of Wikipedia features. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely Keep: Concur with @Randy Kryn, in that the navbox functions in the exact same way as a Best Picture Oscar box would. With BP, those are sometimes dubious decisions that receive mixed retroflection. AFI Top lists are more valued and esteemed, regarded as the best of the best, and therefore, it does in fact guide a user to other high caliber titles or list items. There is nothing objectionable about this navbox; it is very well-maintained, clean, functional, informative, and useful. I also concur w/ @Mushy Yank that the reason isn't sound either. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging all participants in previous discussions. @Lugnuts, Betty Logan, Presidentman, Darkwarriorblake, Bovineboy2008, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Miniapolis, WikiCleanerMan, Erik, Trialpears, Frietjes, and Bilorv:. --woodensuperman 09:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sounding the alarm? Let's also ping get all the editors who edited these and any other film poll/award navboxes. I don't understand why, upon reading that some editors have good keep reasons, editors don't just let navboxes-under-discussion stay. If a healthy percentage of experienced editors find value in them then a percentage of readers would too. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- None of the reasons are good "keep" reasons. All I'm seeing is WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSINTERESTING. If this is encyclopedic, it belongs in an article, not a navbox. This and {{Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films}} are completely unsuitale topics for a WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 11:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are completely suitable topics for a navbox, and concisely present the best films and film stars as reputably polled by the American Film Institute (with much press sourced coverage I may add). What "is interesting" is that only 50 stars were named in the "100 stars" poll. As for the Cahiers du Cinema's top ten films, they are accepted as a major poll, and the navbox highlights the top ten of all time in an easily understood format. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is an article from 2008. Should we have navboxes every time a magazine or website or film society list their favourite films? What about a navbox for TimeOut's Best Martial Arts Movies of All Time while we're at it? Or The BBC's 100 Greatest Comedies of All Time? All of these lists fail the purpose of a navbox. These films do not form a clearly defined set, they're just opinion polls. --woodensuperman 11:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The honoring of these films and actors is the clearly defined set. The 2008 poll is definitely accepted as one of the major all-time polls, with the main poll being Sight and Sound's esteemed tenannual poll. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's not a definitive set by any stretch. "Best of" is always subjective. It's just opinion. --woodensuperman 11:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- ? The Academy Awards are just opinion. The Nobel Peace Prize is just opinion. The Golden Globes are just opinion. Will also ping Butlerblog who has shown past interest in voting in film poll deletion requests. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm no fan of any "awards" navboxes, but that is a list of winners for any given year, not nominations. At least an award is something tangible, appearing in an opinion poll is not. Also Randy, I should warn you about pinging an individual editor just because you think they will agree with you in an attempt to game the system. Did you ping all of the editors in the discussions that this user expressed an opinion in? --woodensuperman 12:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, you pinged them. But left out Butlerblog. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- No I did not, they did not participate in either of the linked AFI discussions here or here. I'm trying very hard to WP:AGF, but... --woodensuperman 12:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, you just pinged the AFI discussion, I included the Sight and Sound deletion request participants (there were three, two of them must have also commented at AFI). I'm acting in good faith in wanting readers to have these good navboxes available to them, if that's what you're concerned about. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this is about the previous discussions for the AFI templates, not the separate Sight and Sound one. Your comment that you are "wanting readers to have these good navboxes available to them" seems like an admission of bad faith on your part. And stop claiming these are "good" navboxes, as previous consensus shows they are not. --woodensuperman 12:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- So wanting readers to have these navboxes available to them is "an admission of bad faith"? Uh, okay (insert gif of Homer Simpson backing into the bushes here). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- You've admitted that you WP:CANVASSED this user because you want the navbox kept. --woodensuperman 13:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I canvassed one person because you were canvassing the participants in these poll deletions and left one out. I thought you included the Sight and Sound deletion because it's been discussed in this discussion, but you didn't (the two others who commented were in your ping list). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think Randy Kryn has supported that it's WP:APPNOTE, not canvassing. And as noted, had I known about the other AFI discussions ahead of time, I most certainly would have provided input. I can only watch so much at any given time, and it's frustrating to find out about these after the fact. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- You've admitted that you WP:CANVASSED this user because you want the navbox kept. --woodensuperman 13:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- So wanting readers to have these navboxes available to them is "an admission of bad faith"? Uh, okay (insert gif of Homer Simpson backing into the bushes here). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this is about the previous discussions for the AFI templates, not the separate Sight and Sound one. Your comment that you are "wanting readers to have these good navboxes available to them" seems like an admission of bad faith on your part. And stop claiming these are "good" navboxes, as previous consensus shows they are not. --woodensuperman 12:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, you just pinged the AFI discussion, I included the Sight and Sound deletion request participants (there were three, two of them must have also commented at AFI). I'm acting in good faith in wanting readers to have these good navboxes available to them, if that's what you're concerned about. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- No I did not, they did not participate in either of the linked AFI discussions here or here. I'm trying very hard to WP:AGF, but... --woodensuperman 12:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, you pinged them. But left out Butlerblog. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm no fan of any "awards" navboxes, but that is a list of winners for any given year, not nominations. At least an award is something tangible, appearing in an opinion poll is not. Also Randy, I should warn you about pinging an individual editor just because you think they will agree with you in an attempt to game the system. Did you ping all of the editors in the discussions that this user expressed an opinion in? --woodensuperman 12:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- ? The Academy Awards are just opinion. The Nobel Peace Prize is just opinion. The Golden Globes are just opinion. Will also ping Butlerblog who has shown past interest in voting in film poll deletion requests. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's not a definitive set by any stretch. "Best of" is always subjective. It's just opinion. --woodensuperman 11:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The honoring of these films and actors is the clearly defined set. The 2008 poll is definitely accepted as one of the major all-time polls, with the main poll being Sight and Sound's esteemed tenannual poll. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is an article from 2008. Should we have navboxes every time a magazine or website or film society list their favourite films? What about a navbox for TimeOut's Best Martial Arts Movies of All Time while we're at it? Or The BBC's 100 Greatest Comedies of All Time? All of these lists fail the purpose of a navbox. These films do not form a clearly defined set, they're just opinion polls. --woodensuperman 11:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are completely suitable topics for a navbox, and concisely present the best films and film stars as reputably polled by the American Film Institute (with much press sourced coverage I may add). What "is interesting" is that only 50 stars were named in the "100 stars" poll. As for the Cahiers du Cinema's top ten films, they are accepted as a major poll, and the navbox highlights the top ten of all time in an easily understood format. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- None of the reasons are good "keep" reasons. All I'm seeing is WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSINTERESTING. If this is encyclopedic, it belongs in an article, not a navbox. This and {{Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films}} are completely unsuitale topics for a WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 11:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sounding the alarm? Let's also ping get all the editors who edited these and any other film poll/award navboxes. I don't understand why, upon reading that some editors have good keep reasons, editors don't just let navboxes-under-discussion stay. If a healthy percentage of experienced editors find value in them then a percentage of readers would too. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Randy Kryn, I tend to agree that AFI isn't the same as a top 10 from Joe's Cool Film Site. It's not a random magazine - it's a primary source in the industry. Also per Mushy Yank - a twelve year-old discussion is not as relevant as something recent, and that shouldn't flippantly discounted. I appreciate Randy Kryn's ping because I don't see where this was cross posted to WP:FILM, which it affects. I've seen a tendency in the past for that to happen (or actually, not happen) - and a template that a larger discussion may have kept is deleted because of a 3-person discussion. (Had I been aware of the other related discussions mentioned that I was not involved in, I would have participated if they were FILM, WP:WESTERNS, or WP:TV.) ButlerBlog (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for identical reasons as my comment here. It is not likely that a reader would view the work's AFI listing as its defining feature and seek to navigate around these articles directly. It is more likely that an interested reader would learn about the AFI list, or start from the AFI list, which should be mentioned and linked in each article and provides the central point of navigation. — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why would a reader have to view the AFI listing as a film's defining feature? Not understanding that point. And if a navbox on the page lists the AFI films then a reader is being given the option of reading the navbox and possibly would be interested in reading about, say, the first three films on the list. I don't understand the point of your last sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not a reason to delete, the guidelines reiterate that lists, navboxes, and categories are all equal ways to navigate pages on Wikipedia and should not be argued as an either=or choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Still meets the merits of deletion as it did last time. AFI is a list honor, not an award. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question and discussion, per WP:IAR we should be keeping this in order to maintain Wikipedia. All the edits we make should be for one purpose: to inform the readers. How is removing these navboxes either "improving" or "maintaining" Wikipedia per IAR? Seems they should be an easy keep taking those criteria into consideration, and in consideration of keeping readers fully informed and able to come across links doing so in a timely fashion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Just adds to template clutter since most of these films would have received other accolades as well displayed via other navboxes (some that should probably be nominated for deletion as well). The connection amongst the films themselves is tenuous. This is a perfect example where having the list is sufficient for those interested in the topic. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
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.