Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4[edit]

Template:Mosques in Qatar[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles related to the subject of mosques in the country. And unused. No navigational requirement is met. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Communauté de communes Cœur de Combrailles[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and better served by Template:Puy-de-Dôme communes which features the same articles in the former. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Chinese Time:Number[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2022 April 12. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Punjab, India medical cases[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and hasn't been updated in over two years. No longer needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rlink2 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Imran Khan family[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No longer necessary after I've added the listed articles into Template:Imran Khan. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All information related to Imran Khan's family is now part his template, no need for another template just for his family. Elmisnter! (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, makes sense to keep all Imran Khan template info in one place. Aza24 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nomination, totally unrequired now. User4edits (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Sigenerator & Template:Sigenerator-ip[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly no views, not linked from anywhere, and I would say depreciated. Either the four quotes should be used if you are signing your comment, or {{Unsigned}} or {{Unsigned IP}} if someone forgot to sign it themselves. Perhaps could be useful if you forgot to sign your own comment and then later decide to go sign it? But I am sure a bot would probably get ahead of you. AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This template isn't improving the encyclopedia. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 17:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Term-defn[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar still with templates, but this one seems to be a test template? I believe it is empty and not used anywhere, and the documentation is empty as well. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I found Template_talk:Term#Simpler_term-defn_template, where author indicates his reasoning behind making the template. It is meant to combine two different templates. Even if it did work, it would only save three characters as already said by Sbb, and would mean having to maintain another template. I have a question though, does G2, (test pages), from WP:CSD apply to templates? Thanks AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom; I can place {{Db-g7}} if that would help expedite the process. fgnievinski (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Morton family[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no parent article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:AwardsInCenturyHeader[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no documentation, no incoming links. I'm guessing that this was replaced by a general-purpose template that performs the same function, but without any discussion links, it is difficult to tell. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Editnotices/Page/UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying play-offs[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expired editnotices, no longer needed. These events ended more than eight months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no longer needed, matches finished 8 months ago (or about 6 years ago for the 2016 playoffs one). They were useful at the time, but not anymore. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Welcome editnotice[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unused editnotice proposed in 2011 but apparently not adopted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Major topic editnotice[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused editnotice created in mid-2021. No incoming links from talk pages. No apparent transclusions. It appears that this editnotice is not needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:TFD#REASONS #3 states (emphasis original) 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 use case for this template is clear—articles that have a high risk of summary style violations—so I see no argument for why this has no likelihood of being used and therefore no cause for deletion. I went ahead and added it to two articles where it fits. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since September 2021, has this been used? Gonnym (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's currently being used on three articles: entertainment, the arts, and sport. If you're asking about past usage, I forget if I added it to any at the time it was created. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now in-use. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Editnotice SCW CR[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice that does not appear to be used anymore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:CVU editnotice[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice that appears to be unused, with no incoming links from discussions proposing its use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the edit notice makes no sense. Its textual content is unrelated to the CVU, but it calls itself a CVU template with a CVU badge. Created by a new user with only 1-day's worth of edits and never appearing again -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:LDS Temple/Maceio Brazil Temple[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:LDS Temple/Maceió Brazil Temple, which is used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template:LDS Temple/Maceio Brazil Temple is a duplicate and the template not being used. Jonesey95, Thank you for noticing these templates and bringing it up. Dmm1169 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:LDS Temple/Mexico City Benemérito Mexico[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:LDS Temple/Mexico City Benemérito Mexico Temple, which is used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a duplicate and not named correctly as it's missing the word "temple" in the templates name. Dmm1169 (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Topklasse cricket seasons[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there are only 2 season articles for this competition (2013 and 2014)- I searched Dutch cricket categories and couldn't find any more season articles. This is too few bluelinks to warrant a template Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Great Northern[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (except for a stale draft) and incomplete version of {{Great Northern Route RDT}}. Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Saint Petersburg Ring Road[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This navigation template is outdated and unmaintained, and the few blue links (one of which is proposed for deletion) are not really related to each other. Mackensen (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Sonic Cinematic Universe[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a thing yet, too soon Indagate (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the template is incomplete, the template that was complete was deleted last year. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah! i improvised one bc the original got deleted. somebody fix this Nttdbestsong (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah! i improvised one bc the original got deleted. if anybody can make a complete one, pls do! Nttdbestsong (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the full list of winners of this template! SibTower1987 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The category has existed since 1988 (over 30 years) and because of that, it should have it's own template. When a template was created, it then got deleted (again and again), and one of the main reasons were that the category wasn't important enough to have a template. The category is the equivalent to the Grammy Award for Song of the Year (in my view) where in that template only lists the song and the songwriter(s). The category is also the equivalent to the Academy Award for Best Original Song, Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Song, Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song, Satellite Award for Best Original Song and other Best Song categories with templates, where a lot of the winners and nominees had also competed in. I recently updated the template to show all of the winners in full and it looks like the template for Grammy Award for Song of the Year. I say the template should stay in place and I also say that it's an important category. I'm sure that they're other users that believe that there should be a template for this category, but is afraid to create one to then just be deleted (again). SibTower1987 (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SibTower1987 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:BLP sources[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP sources with Template:More citations needed.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, confusing to human editors to have a template that magically displays totally different text (with different relevant policies) by changing a category. Much more elegant to have templates that just do what their name says they do. —Kusma (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural. I've just declined a request to add TfM tags to those templates, because they're used on very large numbers of pages and so it would initially be disruptive. If the proposed change is shown to be possible and there isn't SNOW-level opposition, then tagging will definitely be needed, at least for the template that's to be merged. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it is better to have individual templates depending on the circumstance as there are quite a lot of articles that are difficult to determine whether a page falls under the BLP policy. Also agree with Kusma with how it is more elegant to have separate templates that states when they're supposed to be used. Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kusma. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - If this merger were to take place, how would editors easily determine which articles with this template were for BLPs (if they wanted to work on them first)? GoingBatty (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see any maintenance categories being affected by this merge, so I don't understand the question. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support so long as the documentation of the merged template is clear. There are already enough changes to think of quickly when someone dies, and extra effort to decide which of the non-BLP templates to use as replacement (see the list below, which I support for the same reason). David Brooks (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that BLP policy in some cases can apply to recent deaths, see WP:BDP. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ETA: to qualify my vote, I rarely edit biographies of recently deceased people, and don't remember ever adjusting categories, so consider the vote based on principle rather than experience. David Brooks (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kusma. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose automatic detection, but would support {{BLP sources}} being a wrapper for {{More citations needed|blp=yes}}. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:BLP takes priority "may be" and "must be" are two very different things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you have templates that are used on so many articles, you run into inconsistencies. There are perhaps, overall, dozens of variants of non-BLP and BLP templates. It's insane to think most editors know about them all and use them appropriately, such that the usages are in sync with what they should be. Even gnome updates are complicated by the fact that so many changes are necessary. Specific examples of non-living-persons that should still be tagged with {{BLP sources}} would be useful to see in exactly which cases the proposed solution wouldn't work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, {{BLP sources}} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP sources}} can be redirected to {{More citations needed}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nom, but support Ahecht's wrapper proposal. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:BLP primary sources[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. The template is already merged. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP primary sources with Template:Primary sources.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:BLP unsourced section[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP unsourced section with Template:Unreferenced section.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, confusing to human editors to have a template that magically displays totally different text (with different relevant policies) by changing a category. Much more elegant to have templates that just do what their name says they do. —Kusma (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please demonstrate how this would work in a template sandbox. I am not aware that templates can detect a category on a page. Keep in mind that the template would need to detect the category on the rendered page, not necessarily only in the wikitext. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonesey95 See comment  —wqnvlz (talk · contribs);  21:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, provided (1) that this detection is technically possible and (2) there is an override parameter that allows non-biographies with unreferenced content subject to WP:BLP to be tagged as such. It's silly to use a bot to replicate what can easily be handled by the template itself. Graham (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although ambivalent towards auto-detection. A reduced number of templates would help in remembering what the template options are. Suggestion: An alternative (or addition) to auto-detection is to have a |blp=yes parameter, similar to the |certain=yes parameter on {{Self-published inline}} and the parameters on {{WikiProject banner shell}}. {{BLP unsourced section}} could then remain as a shell where |blp=yes, so people don't need to necessarily relearn. Note, this comment applies to all of these proposals. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - at the very least, it would be great if the naming of the templates lined up. Is there a reason why one is "unsourced" and the other "unreferenced"? --Xurizuri (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kusma. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I'm looking at Amanda Hesser] which transcludes this template. When I edit it, I get a general BLP edit notice. How does the edit notice detect it? Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate? what I see at Amanda Hesser#Bibliography is the exact same text I see at the top of Template:BLP unsourced section, except for the "find sources" keywords. Though I'm not sure what you mean by "When I edit it"; do you mean in Preview mode? Still the same for me. Mathglot (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Code in MediaWiki:Common.js (currently starting at line 144) uses JavaScript to inspect the categories of the page and modify the edit links at view time (and has nothing to do with this template). A template or module can't do that, it runs at parse time and has no simple access to the categories. Using JS to change the text of the banner at view time might cause page jumps and wouldn't take effect for people on non-JS devices. Anomie⚔ 15:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose section-based templates (and corresponding task at BRFA), since sections might not share the category of the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I was leaning support until this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Searching the raw wikitext is relatively simple, as it can be retrieved using the Lua function title:getContent() (which Module:Page enables calling like a template). Sample implementation in {{X42}}(permalink permalink), with result shown on {{X43}}(permalink permalink). Unless the performance impact of using frame:preprocess() to expand every page the templates are used on is considered acceptable, I don't think it's possible to detect categories properly. However, it does seem like most BLP pages have Category:Living people as a simple link in the wikitext.
    Note: The server does have a table of page links (including category links), which is what the experimental (not enabled on public wikis) Lua library CategoryToolbox uses internally to check if a page belongs to a category. The discount, wikitext-only way to do this would be to transclude Special:Whatlinkshere, which only returns 5 000 links at once (Category:Living people has around 1 million pages).  —wqnvlz (talk · contribs);  21:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC): Changed to clearer permalinks  —wqnvlz (talk · contribs);  20:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather see a |blp=yes parameter/value combination. Using getContent can have undesired side effects; see this discussion and the section after it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, {{BLP unsourced section}} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP unsourced section}} can be redirected to {{unsourced section}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A section may be effectively a BLP even if the whole article isn't. Plus the Living people category isn't applied 100% of the time. Turning the template into a wrapper is an option though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:BLP unsourced[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP unsourced with Template:Unreferenced.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, confusing to human editors to have a template that magically displays totally different text (with different relevant policies) by changing a category. Much more elegant to have templates that just do what their name says they do. —Kusma (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, unreferenced content in a BLP is not necessarily biographical, and content in an article that is not a biography can fall under the BLP policy (which has a terrible name, as it is not just about biographies). If the template can automatically detect these false positives and negatives, I may change my opinion. —Kusma (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See comment in the above TFD about category detection. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, provided (1) that this detection is technically possible and (2) there is an override parameter that allows non-biographies with unreferenced content subject to WP:BLP to be tagged as such. It's silly to use a bot to replicate what can easily be handled by the template itself. Graham (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kusma makes some good points too. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kusma. Fram (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while I don't have a problem with the unreferenced template having the functionality to add the BLP bits if appropriate, I don't see any advantage in removing the option for people to tag an article as "BLP unsourced" if that is the correct tag to apply. ϢereSpielChequers 09:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe one can say that it would be the correct tag to display, which would be handled automatically as stated in the nomination. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kusma. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kusma. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for same reasons as in the related proposal above. QuietHere (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kusma's reasoning is sound here too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose the notability criteria for BLPs, and non BLPs are widely different, so their sorting should be separate as well. Due to the stringent criteria for notability, it should be easier to sort unreferenced BLPs and non non BLPs. Even after merging if it is possible, then why should we fix something that ain't broken. Also per Kusma. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose automatic detection, but would support {{BLP unsourced}} being a wrapper for {{Unreferenced|blp=yes}}. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:BLP takes priority "may be" and "must be" are two very different things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, {{BLP unsourced}} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP unsourced}} can be redirected to {{unsourced}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, {{BLP unsourced}} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP unsourced}} can be redirected to {{unsourced}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: this category is acutely patrolled, combining serves no purpose --J04n(talk page) 13:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is already affecting hundreds of pages. If you look at some pages needing copyediting, you will see this. The discussion is causing a little banner to appear upon a unsourced template. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 01:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Cranloa12n are you addressing me? i'm not understanding your point J04n(talk page) 14:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    no Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 14:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:BLP self-published[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP self-published with Template:Self-published.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, confusing to human editors to have a template that magically displays totally different text (with different relevant policies) by changing a category. Much more elegant to have templates that just do what their name says they do. —Kusma (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See comment in the above TFD about category detection. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, provided (1) that this detection is technically possible and (2) there is an override parameter that allows non-biographies with unreferenced content subject to WP:BLP to be tagged as such. It's silly to use a bot to replicate what can easily be handled by the template itself. Graham (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kusma. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kusma. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for same reasons as in the related proposal above. QuietHere (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, {{BLP self-published}} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP self-published }} can be redirected to {{self-published}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kusma. XtraJovial (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:BLP sources section[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep separate. Asides from snowball against merging, a separate template is preferred given BLP nature and also technically cannot rely on categories. Alternative suggestions were made, but would be better as a separate discussion then. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP sources section with Template:More citations needed section.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: See comment in the above TFD about category detection. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. BLP must be separate from the rest due to urgency. BLP sources must be found asap; non-BLP sources are in due course. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging the corresponding maintenance categories is not proposed here, as should follow from the nomination statement. (This also applies to the one comment lower.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per No Great Shaker. NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 16:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose section-based templates (and corresponding task at BRFA), since sections might not share the category of the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You have a good idea there with it sensing Category:Living people. But I agree with No Great Shaker's and Jonesey95's points. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 01:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per NGS. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for same reasons as in the related proposal above. QuietHere (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kusma's reasoning is sound here as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose automatic detection, but would support {{BLP sources section}} being a wrapper for {{More citations needed section|blp=yes}}. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: BLP missing or having incorrect sources is usually more dangerous that other articles, and so deserve a separate, more urgent sounding, template. Hextor26 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:BLP takes priority "may be" and "must be" are two very different things, also per Kusma. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, {{BLP sources section}} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP sources section}} can be redirected to {{More citations needed section}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A section may be effectively a BLP even if the whole article isn't. Plus the Living people category isn't applied 100% of the time. Turning the template into a wrapper is an option though, as per Ahecht's suggestion. It should not simply map straight to a non-BLP template. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:BLP no footnotes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP no footnotes with Template:No footnotes.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: See comment in the above TFD about category detection. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, provided (1) that this detection is technically possible and (2) there is an override parameter that allows non-biographies with unreferenced content subject to WP:BLP to be tagged as such. It's silly to use a bot to replicate what can easily be handled by the template itself. Graham (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Keep BLP separate due to its high importance. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging the corresponding maintenance categories is not proposed here, as should follow from the nomination statement. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Logical merge. (If Graham’s concerns are met) 98.217.255.37 (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for same reasons as in the related proposal above. QuietHere (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, {{BLP no footnotes }} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP no footnotes }} can be redirected to {{no footnotes }}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nom, but support Ahecht's wrapper suggestion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nominator, but I don't see how {{BLP no footnotes}} couldn't be a wrapper, as per Ahecht. XtraJovial (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_4&oldid=1082387772"