Wikipedia:Templates for discussion
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 24 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 99 | 0 | 99 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
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]
May 5[edit]
Template:Missing rationale[edit]
- Template:Missing rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Di-no non-free use rationale-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Missing rationale with Template:Di-no non-free use rationale-notice.
This template (Missing rationale) needs to be merged because it seems to have an similar wording. Missing rationale was often used in the 2000s before Di-no non-free use rationale-notice, and most people do not use "Missing rationale" anymore. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The first one is meant for when a file has only been tagged with a boilerplate rationale template and the second is where there is no rationale at all, but I think there's no major issue merging them if the first one isn't being used. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/Brachygnatha[edit]
Unnecessary and unused taxonomy template. 蕭漫 (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:InfoEscuela[edit]
- Template:InfoEscuela (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Not used currently. Only ever used in one article List of schools in Cardenal Caro. It uses WebCite, which is a deprecated web archive provider (RfC). Primary links don't work and archive links don't work (WebCite is down again). Will require archive provider conversion, and that is not possible with this template, because each URL requires a bot to verify a replacement archive URL exists. Better off with direct links in the article, which has been done Special:Diff/1222366992/1222367052. GreenC 16:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
May 4[edit]
Template:Portland ME Radio/doc[edit]
Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Tweet[edit]
- Template:Tweet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
A cute template, but out of place in mainspace encyclopaedia articles (where it is most commonly used). When quoting books, we don't try to replicate their font and layout. When quoting films, we don't make little drawings of the characters with speech bubbles. So I see no reason why tweets should be the exception to MOS:CONFORM, which states that we make quoted material fit Wikipedia's typographic conventions, not the other way around.
The justification given in the documentation is that the template is an alternative to standard quotation templates because it displays metadata related to the tweet (date of posting, user's name, user's handle, etc.)
, but all of this metadata can also be contained in a standard quote template (in the author and source fields).
If deleted, existing uses could be migrated to the standard {{Quote}} or {{Quote box}} templates. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Remove the imitative styling and convert it to a shorthand for {{Quote box}} and {{Cite tweet}}. Having a template for quoting a tweet is fine, but the attempt at replicating the Twitter layout is purely decorative and doesn't belong in our encyclopedia. Nardog (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Remove. There is no reason not to just use the {{Quote}} template since it conforms with the style of Wikipedia and works just as well for tweets. CharlieEdited (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: If this is deleted, Template:Quote tweet should probably follow. Gonnym (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
May 3[edit]
Template:USHL (1945-1951) seasons[edit]
all red links. 198.102.151.242 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Created by User:Hockeyben in 2013. As far as I can tell, the links were red from the start. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Queen of ♡ | Speak 17:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Nord Anglia Education[edit]
Promotional template for a school group for whom half of these are going to end up redirects to Nord Anglia Education Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I created the template in 2019 to link schools operated by the same company (there are similar templates about American public school districts that I've created). This does not have to be promotional template so long as the articles within are kept at bay so that they are descriptive and not promotional. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
[edit]
- Template:Kdepim (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Calligra Suite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:KOffice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
These navigation templates contain only a handful of links, some to either non-notable red-links or redirects back to the topic article. Any actually useful links could be put in Template:KDE instead (which needs its own cleaning up).
(created this nom for Template:Kdepim, but edited it for other redundant KDE-related templates)
--TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- The first two seem to have enough blue, non redirect, links to support a navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Kdepim and KOffice navboxes. They contain mostly redirects to the main article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. I think it would be fair to merge the handful in to the one template. Probably the weakest delete is for the Calligra template. Izno (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting mainly because there is the question of whether these should be merged or just deleted outright.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge {{KOffice}} into {{Calligra Suite}}: Of {{KOffice}}'s four links, two are already in {{Calligra Suite}}. Since Calligra seems to be a fork of KOffice, I think it could make sense to have a section for KOffice in Calligra's navbox.Redirect {{Kdepim}} to {{KDE}} (which already contains {{Kdepim}}'s two links). Every page transcluding {{Kdepim}} already transcludes {{KDE}}, but it might still be worth it to redirect, if only to avoid breaking links and page history. Otherwise, simply delete. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Drake series[edit]
- Template:Drake series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Drake (musician) already existed when this sidebar was made. This is like a very ugly orange hat on a hat. —Rutebega (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; no need for both a sidebar and navbox. Queen of ♡ | Speak 04:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Sidebar and Navbox are different, but still favor delete because it's repetitive. Alexysun (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Compared to the template with Kanye West, this one is neither unique to the horizontal Drake template we already have, and there aren't enough articles central to Drake's life, including fellow relationships and celebrities, to warrant this one's existence. Even if you include the feuds. Carlinal (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- It’s still important historical part of Drakes life and career even despite the lack of new articles central to his life. 71.212.75.232 (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- There are no relevant speedy deletion criteria. Anarchyte (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No need for a sidebar when we have a navbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaughan J. (talk • contribs) 07:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry but this template is useless. What does this cover that the navbox already has not? PSA 🏕️ (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2[edit]
Template:Approx[edit]
- Template:Approx (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
According to its doc page, this template exists because the HTML entity ≈ (≈) didn't work on WP at some point. Since it works now there's no reason to keep it around anymore. At some point the template also got an abbreviation tooltip if an optional parameter is provided as in ‹See Tfd› ≈. This functionality is very rarely used [1] and is redundant when {{approx.}} exists. The uses of the template that don't use the abbreviation parameter can all be either subst:ed or replaced with the HTML entity without consequence. Nickps (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Kinddddddddddd of inclined to make this a subst-only template, without the inclusion of the {{abbr}} thing going on. The only pause given is the similarly named {{approx.}} as identified by the nom. But yes, generally tend toward the "we don't generally need a 'living' template" end of the spectrum. Izno (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Infobox independence declaration[edit]
No transclusions. Many existing relevant articles use {{Infobox document}}. It is unclear why a specialized infobox would be needed for a few dozen documents, but I could be persuaded. Examples from Category:Declarations of independence would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Deleted template[edit]
Underutilized template that is redundant to several other templates and methods. If we need to ensure old revisions are correctly visible, we should use Internet Archive or some other archiving utility and should not rely on the MediaWiki software. Pointless templates are probably going to be depopulated and deleted anyway and having something like this is unhelpful. Awesome Aasim 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep nominator makes assertions without support and make illogical arguments.
- "Underutilized template that is redundant to several other templates and methods."
- Yes, it's underutilized. You can help fix that by utilizing it. Deleting it would make it non-utilized and non-utilizable.
- What other templates and methods? Don't be vague list them all!
- "we should use Internet Archive"
- OK, go and sort that out, then come back and ask to delete the on-wiki method. Don't break something on the off chance that someone might, perhaps, one day, make something maybe as good or maybe better.
- "...probably going to be deleted anyway..."
- This statement - what even is it? It's like going out and breaking windows because "they are probably going to be broken anyway." Even if it's true, let them stay unbroken for as long as possible.[1]
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC).
- The problem is this template is underutilized. Why should we be too worried about old revisions? This template has existed since 2011 (almost 13 years to demonstrate that this template has use) and only has 32 active transclusions. This is probably indicative that there is not much prospect for this template. Deprecated templates are already tagged with {{deprecated}}. I would not mind redirecting to that. Awesome Aasim 21:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is this template is underutilized. Why should we be too worried about old revisions? This template has existed since 2011 (almost 13 years to demonstrate that this template has use) and only has 32 active transclusions. This is probably indicative that there is not much prospect for this template. Deprecated templates are already tagged with {{deprecated}}. I would not mind redirecting to that. Awesome Aasim 21:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ I think this is a previously uncategorised type of fallacy, I hereby dub it the "might-ought" fallacy.
- Awesome Aasim,
redundant to several other templates and methods
What are those? If you are going to claim redundancy, you should be able to point to the specific other templates and methods. Izno (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Green Line coach routes[edit]
Links two bus routes. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 12:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Currently links two routes. If there are no plans to create links for the other routes then this navbox may not make sense under current guidelines/practices. However if there is a standard in the Buses project to have a navbox for each company's coach routes, then I would still support keeping it. Also while there seem not to be many Green Line routes today, there were many in the past, so there is also the possibility that it could be extended that way. Another option might be a merge to a Green Line navbox. Good to hear from the bus people on this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC).
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Blue Lights[edit]
- Template:Blue Lights (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Articles included have been redirected but still not enough to need a navbox Indagate (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enought articles to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 12:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to recreation and perhaps userfy. Seems a little harsh to nom for delete less than an hour after it was created. But there is, currently, only one article. Quite possibly the creator is intending to flesh series, and maybe episode articles.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC).
- I was lol, I made an article on series 1 and 2 but they got deleted FishLoveHam (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy or keep as as far as I have seen FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) is in the process of creating several articles, so this template will be needed soon. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
May 1[edit]
Template:Clarkson, Hammond & May[edit]
Over saturated template combining three navboxes. The title of this navbox implies that James May, Jeremy Clarkson, and Richard Hammond are a group that works together, which they have on the original Top Gear show, but are not a performing trio. Clarkson, Hammond & May are not a group. Just three individual people. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The template is work in progress, which is why it's not used anywhere currently. The navboxes are sort of by necessity, to avoid information here becoming out of date when the individual navboxes get edited, though its not particularly elegant, partly because I'm not too familiar with the coding for templates. I'd prefer to have them indented within the people section instead of at the bottom.
- On the last part, Clarkson Hammond and May are absolutely a group, that's why I even made the template. In the past Top Gear was their main show, with each having a number of side projects they presented alone. After the switch to Amazon this still continues.
- Previously, there only was the main Top Gear template, which considers Top Gear until 2015 and the one since then, with different hosts, the same show (which it technically is). Therefore, other projects related to the three can't be put in the Top Gear template (like DriveTribe, or people like Andy Wilman that started out on Top Gear but left with the trio and now runs The Grand Tour). The fact that Grand Tour even exists, and took with it a large part of the Top Gear audience away from the actual Top Gear should show that they are in fact a trio and no three people who just happened to host the same format for 20 years. There are dedicated articles about performing duos that spend less time actually making things together than them (see Fry and Laurie, or Please Don't Destroy for a trio).
- Overall, I think it can provide useful navigation, especially because the Top Gear template isn't used on any of their articles, which would introduce a lot up redundancy. I'm open to suggestions for improving it, but when the main argument is that the three aren't a group I'll have to disagree. -- jonas (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Navboxes being out of date has no relevance to this discussion. All it requires is simply editing to remove or add relevant links for the subject of the navbox. But all you did was add links from their navboxes to this one which makes it even more redundant. Duplication is what you ended up creating which is something we have to avoid with templates. And if they're a group, you should provide evidence and as you say, "In the past Top Gear was their main show, with each having a number of side projects they presented alone." The latter doesn't support your case. If they have had projects on their own, then that doesn't make it a work of the group. A solo project is not a collaboration. Now there are only three links in the navbox following the removal of unrelated links. This navbox no longer has any useful navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely. No existing article for the "trio". Should be dealt with in the templates for the individuals, and also relevant navboxes like {{Top Gear}} etc. Creator doesn't seem to understand the principles of WP:FILMNAV and WP:PERFNAV, and the individual navboxes need trimming also. --woodensuperman 07:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Have trimmed this and the individual navboxes now to meet WP:FILMNAV and avoid redundancy with {{Top Gear}}. --woodensuperman 08:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing so for the other two navboxes. I was going to do that today but now the nominated has only three links following your cleanup. It serves no navigational purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Have trimmed this and the individual navboxes now to meet WP:FILMNAV and avoid redundancy with {{Top Gear}}. --woodensuperman 08:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Jonas1015119's adequate analysis. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The navbox now has two links. Another relist wouldn't do anything for this discussion as there is no longer a benefit with the navbox following the removal of unrelated links and top of there being no main article which would support the need for such a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Netflix Christmas films[edit]
Unnecessary intersection. We already have way too many Netflix navboxes as it is, we should not have them by genre also. --woodensuperman 13:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, "unnecessary" for what? Christmas? Please read the Christmas article, it is about a major yearly December holiday which is featured in many films and literature. Netflix seems to have focused on this holiday for featuring in its programming, and the navbox creator has done the encyclopedia a service by providing it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Theres no article for List of Christmas films produced by Netflix though, is there? Why not a navbox for {{Netflix comedy films}}, {{Netflix drama films}}, {{Netflix action films}}? Why specifically Christmas? It's total overkill. We do NOT need navboxes like this. --woodensuperman 12:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Mizo literature[edit]
- Template:Mizo literature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only two relevant links. Not used and very little usage in itself. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Certification Table Summary[edit]
Just a violation of MOS:COLHEAD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify your suggested alternative? See my query at the other nomination as similar questions arise. The function of {{Certification Table Summary}} is to add sourced certifications which are summaries of other sourced certifications which are used in the same table. An illustrative scenario (and the primary use case) might involve a European certification alongside separate certifications for specific European countries. MOS:COLHEAD recommends using separate tables instead, with explanatory sub-headings for each table. Are you proposing to split each of the 1,500 tables where this template is utilized and add a separate single-line table with a heading for the summary? Are you suggesting to add {{Certification Table Bottom}} to each? Can you give an example of how it would work? The same practical questions also arise. Muhandes (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, it may seem obvious, but the statement above explains why it's necessary to distinguish between what appears above and below this template. That's why we're asking for clarification about what will take the place of this template if it's removed, while still keeping that distinction intact. --Muhandes (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Certification Table Separator[edit]
Just a violation of MOS:COLHEAD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify your suggested alternative? The primary function of {{Certification Table Separator}} is to distinguish streaming certifications from other types of certifications. This distinction became necessary due to the significantly higher number of units required for streamed certifications, which caused confusion when both types were mixed together. MOS:COLHEAD recommends using separate tables instead, with explanatory sub-headings for each table. Are you proposing to split each of the 2,600 tables where this template is utilized into separate tables for streaming and other certifications and add explanatory sub-headings? Would {{Certification Table Bottom}} be added to both tables? Considering specifically that you also nominated {{Certification Table Summary}}, which pertains to both types of certifications, how would the summary be applied? Can you give an example of how it would all work? Practically speaking, would it be done by painstakingly editing the 2,600 articles? I don't see how breaking {{Certification Table Bottom}} can be done automatically. Muhandes (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The alternative is just remove it. I don't know how "painstaking" that is: seems like it could be done in seconds by a bot. They should never have been added in the first place, so I don't see why they are necessary. Who needs these? They are inaccessible and directly contradict best practices. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why the separation is necessary has already been stated:
This distinction became necessary due to the significantly higher number of units required for streamed certifications, which caused confusion when both types were mixed together.
(I took "they" to refer to something that splits the data. If you only meant the column headers in the middle of the table, I apologize. Should it be possible, I have no issue with the suggestion of having a bot split the tables, but I think a distinction between streaming certifications and other types of certifications is needed.) ayakanaa ( t · c ) 02:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) - As ayakanaa noted, I have previously elucidated the rationale for the necessity of this distinction. To illustrate, examine the history of the {{Certification Table Separator}}: it was added in 2020, nine years subsequent to the creation of other relevant templates. This period coincided with confusion among editors, leading to requests for its implementation. Consequently, though not mandatory, editors have included it in approximately 2,600 articles, underscoring its recognized significance. Muhandes (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why the separation is necessary has already been stated:
- The alternative is just remove it. I don't know how "painstaking" that is: seems like it could be done in seconds by a bot. They should never have been added in the first place, so I don't see why they are necessary. Who needs these? They are inaccessible and directly contradict best practices. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Next Indian elections[edit]
The majority of links with articles for an election by year or in a state of India are being transcluded by their respective state election navboxes. And those navboxes are enough to link the respective election articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Solar System sidebar[edit]
I actually like the template, but other editors clearly don't, since they remove it from all of the pages in which it's added, because it's "clutter" or whatever. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The pages on which this would be use either a) have Template:Solar System already, or b) have a ton of floating content, or c) both. Izno (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Seminaries[edit]
Fully redundant to Template:Reformed Seminaries in the United States, which lists all Reformed seminaries in the US (whether Presbyterian, Continental Reformed, Congregationalist, or otherwise) and which has a separate grouping for PCUSA seminaries. Graham (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
April 30[edit]
Template:R from gap in series[edit]
Rarely used RCAT. Almost all of the redirects tagged with this RCAT are redirects to sections about particular countries in annual Eurovision contest articles. Additionally, the instructions are contradictory: the RCAT says it is for topics that "do[] not meet notability requirements to warrant [their] own article[s]", but then says that it should be tagged with {{R with possibilities}} if the topic could be notable. All of these redirects can be sufficiently handled by {{R to subtopic}} and, as appropriate, {{R to section}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Template:Asian Saga[edit]
- Template:Asian Saga (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:James Clavell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Asian Saga with Template:James Clavell.
Other than the characters and the video game, all articles are already at the target, so could easily merge. --woodensuperman 14:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nominaton. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- How would you mark what's part of the Asian saga? This currently seems incompletely represented in Template:James Clavell. With an asterisk? 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:4372 (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Woodensuperman: @WikiCleanerMan: 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:4372 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{James Clavell}} already has an Asian Saga section. --woodensuperman 09:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Woodensuperman: @WikiCleanerMan: 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:4372 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
KeepWeak Oppose characters and video games are important and the organization of the template makes navigation easier. Far superior for navigating within the subject.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- The proposal is to merge, not delete, there is substantial duplication and redundancy and all links can easily be included in one navbox. --woodensuperman 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I always think that separate templates are preferable for works media franchises. Admittedly, with only one works template, it is hard to clarify my thoughts. I always prefer separate franchise template than bastardizing the authors works template to include a lot of things that are not really his works.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The proposal is to merge, not delete, there is substantial duplication and redundancy and all links can easily be included in one navbox. --woodensuperman 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Template:Infobox song contest/Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest[edit]
- Template:Infobox song contest/Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox song contest/Eurovision: Europe Shine a Light (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox song contest/Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused as the maps were removed from their article's infobox. Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Ship/maintenancecategory[edit]
Unused as code was moved to Lua here. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Infobox pool player/rankings[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 delete. Izno (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox pool player/rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox pool player/Euro Tour rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused since 2022 when removed here. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fine with me to remove. I'm working on doing something with WikiData as we speak. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:52, 1 May 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.
April 29[edit]
Template:Blocked impersonator[edit]
Per the deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_15#Template:Blocked_user - WP:DFTT. Pointless template. Awesome Aasim 22:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- This template is very different to blocked user, and especially the most version in the linked TfD. It's more akin to Template:Doppelganger. It serves to provide notice that someone is looking at a different person to the person they thought they were looking at (and this is not always obvious from visible logs). I don't use it very much, but I have both used it and found it useful when someone else has correctly used it. Unpersuaded by the rationales provided so far, I'm going to say Keep. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- BTW a similar template {{namewarning}} did not survive TFD. The few cases where there is bad faith impersonation we can refer the matter to stewards who can rename the account to one where there isn't impersonation in addition to blocking the user. If there is confusion the block log always shows details. We have {{Uw-ublock-double}} and {{Uw-uhblock-double}} and that is enough. No need for further notices like this. Awesome Aasim 13:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Template:FVG teamlist[edit]
- Template:FVG teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This is a template that lists football teams from a specific region of Italy (many of which are no longer active) grouped by a criterion determined by the creator. We have no other template like this for any of Italy's 19 regions, and it is not even embedded in all mentioned articles, so it makes very little sense to keep, in my opinion. Angelo (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete arbitrary intersection of Italian region and football teams, which isn't needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Former Tor[edit]
- Template:Former Tor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Underused and pointless, also Tor exit nodes are automatically blocked by the MediaWiki software; there isn't much of a need to hunt for Tor exit nodes to block. Awesome Aasim 18:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, as no longer used. This template has quite a few backlinks to consider cleaning up, and an associated category: Category:Blocked former Tor exit nodes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Xenobot instead of removing the template, caused the transclusion to become a regular link which isn't helpful. If this template is removed, those links should be removed as well, if the template is kept, those links should be restored to transclusions. Gonnym (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Template:Eritrea Detailed Map[edit]
Unused map that doesn't give any details as to what it is about. No reference to a conflict or war which is typically what these maps are used/created for. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as I made it during a time of high tensions between Ethiopia and eritrea. Lukt64 (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Template:Comilla weatherbox[edit]
Unused box. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Template:Wpw19-rt[edit]
- Template:Wpw19-rt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Trust me, It will be used when the 2024 Women's European U-19 Water Polo Championship commences. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- It has no purpose if it was only created for an event that's gonna happen later in the year. Wikipedia:CRYSTAL applies here. The template won't be used for a fee months, so therefore having it sit around is pointless. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Recipients of the Ekushey Padak[edit]
Unused and empty. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete looking at Ekushey Padak, it looks to be an award given to numerous people with no other connections other than this award. So a template navbox isn't needed even if it were populated with notable people. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
WIR wrapper templates[edit]
None of these templates are used anymore. They have all been replaced with {{WikiProject Women in Red}} and should have no transclusions. Since 2024, the tagging process for Women in Red no longer requires a separate template for each event. The new syntax is {{WIR|299}}
instead of {{WIR-299}}
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrator note shifted huge list to subpage. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge all with {{WIR}}, or, failing that, delete. From the read up here, most of these are entirely pointless now so I think it would be safe to merge or delete. Awesome Aasim 18:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- They have all been merged into {{WikiProject Women in Red}} already — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all. Good job on taking this task and seeing it through. Gonnym (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all on the assumption that they're all unused now (I spot checked a few, and none were being used). If any of them are being used anywhere in Talk space, then convert to the general WiR template first. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep. No, do not delete them. They are historical documentation of the work of Women in Red. Mark them as being preserved for historical records, or some such. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Templates like these are not kept for some historical record. And they have been merged with the main WikiProject template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I must admit to being confused as to why these have to be deleted, and why they can't be kept for historical record - I'm not a TfD regular, but it's not clear to me why these can't be retained as wrapper templates, and why such wrapper templates wouldn't be relatively cheap (that principle is usually applied to redirects, but - as I understand it - template wrappers in this case are essentially the functional equivalent of an {{R from move}}/{{R from merge}}). If members of WiR (such as Rosiestep) want to retain these for historical reference, I'm not clear on why they can't be retained in their current form. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 18:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- If there was any valuable or historical information in these templates then I would agree with you. Most of these templates have at most 3-4 revisions in the history and every detail (wording, structure, custom images, etc.) has been incorporated into the main template, so there really is nothing of value there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is it not for a community to say what is of value to them? Lajmmoore (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- To you, there is no value, but I would have guessed that since you proposed to delete them. But did you ever stop once to consider anyone else? Ever once considered the morale affect this action would have on the core group of editors that have worked tirelessly through the years on WiR? The effort it takes to build and maintain a Wikiproject with the size and scope of WiR? When several members of the Wikiproject express a strong desire one way or the other I think that should carry extra weight. --ARoseWolf 11:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- If there was any valuable or historical information in these templates then I would agree with you. Most of these templates have at most 3-4 revisions in the history and every detail (wording, structure, custom images, etc.) has been incorporated into the main template, so there really is nothing of value there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I'd encourage people to take a look at the discussion on the Women in Red talk page, as I think many of those who have been foundational to the success of the project would like to see them remain. Furthermore, as an internationally significant project, archived activities need to remain openly available. It would also be really nice if consultation on these things could take place in advance of the changes. On a personal note, and as an active but not daily participant, it sometimes feels that changes are communicated as a fait accompli, rather than presented as a suggestion to be supported by consensus (or not). I am certain this is all done in good faith, and I don't under-estimate the time these things take, but the lack of consultation doesn't helping with cohesion - either between, or within, projects. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The reason MSGJ is asking for these to be deleted is that without meaningful consultation, he has single-handedly modified each template to fall in line with the changes he has made in connection with the hundreds of events the project has developed since 2015. The editors who developed these templates were not informed of a proposal for their imminent deletion. Those of us who have supported the project since the beginning have not been happy with the changes although it appears they were made in good faith. Several of the most active editors on Women in Red have expressed reservations on the project's talk pages and have stated they would prefer to be able to continue developing meetup events on the basis of the tried and tested approach which has worked well over the years. There might therefore be a strong case for maintaining the templates if they can be restored as they could be used as a basis for re-implementing our traditional approach. MSGJ did in fact inform me that I was free to use the traditional approach if I preferred to do so. The results were however unusable as so many related changes have been made and a new six-step procedure must now be followed. In my opinion, no further deletions in this connection should be made until consensus is obtained from content editors active on the WikiProject Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't understand the desperate need to delete these without the consensus of or even consultation with the Wikiproject that uses it.
"Templates like these are not kept for some historical record.""
But why? Because we have to destroy everything and never keep a historical record? Because we have to make it where we can't easily go back to a tried and tested way of doing things in the event that members change their mind and decide they don't like this new method and want to go back? And why would the proposer of this action tell members of the Wikiproject that they could continue using the traditional method with full intention to delete the ability to do so? Why wasn't the editors that developed these templates properly informed of this discussion from the start. What happened to good faith courtesy and empathy for the hard work and dedication of fellow editors? How does leaving these templates hurt the encyclopedia? I think the proposer and the delete votes should ask themselves if their rationale for this action actually causes more harm than good. If it does more damage to the WiR Wikiproject than it benefits the overall encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 11:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC) - Keep - basically no process of consulting or listening to the actual project in this case is really bad practice, and like similar actions in the larger project of other issues - there seems to be the need for more respect of historical records in projects than what is being shown so far. JarrahTree 11:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - The templates do indeed have value as a historical record. Since its inception WiR has been and continues to be a highly active and successful wikiproject. It has helped to lessen the gender gap and systemic bias, recruit new editors, and increase the coverage of women in the encyclopedia. What value is there in occluding that history? Netherzone (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Goodness, this looks like the last time WIR showed up to this forum. A lot of arguments that hold no water here, at best. Delete all.
There is no value to keeping these templates, not even in the historical. What history there is of actual value is already on the talk pages on which they were placed - to identify those pages as being of interest. Only rarely do we keep templates for "historical" reason, which must be an actual strong reason for a template (thousands of historical uses of a single template that were in place, for example {{qif}}). This set of templates does not fit that category in the slightest.
With regard to consultation, all I have seen is WIR saying "no, we don't want to change anything" without regard to why these are being removed, which has been discussed ad nauseum with multiple TFDs to remove this series of templates. This discussion is the natural end result of someone (MSGJ) having done the work to integrate all the disparate WIR templates into the one. No community has been disturbed in any meaningful fashion. Yes, there is going to be a slightly different way to use (and now add to) the banner. No, that is not meaningful.
Several of you would do well to review WP:LOCALCON in general. Izno (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Claiming that "none of these templates are being used anymore" is a blatant falsehood. I myself have been using these templates for some time now and even in my most recent article created just today, from where I noticed these templates are for deletion. Being an ardent WIR contributor, this deletion nom just feels like utter nonsense. X (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I in principle agree with Izno's, but TfD should not be actively hostile to the users of templates without a very good reason, and there is no very good reason here, just a general quest for tidiness. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
April 28[edit]
Template:MusicBrainz wiki[edit]
Only two uses. See m:Talk:Interwiki map#MusicBrainz. Suggest replacing with a direct link, substing, and deleting. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Missing rationale[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 relisted on 2024 May 5. Izno (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Missing_rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Di-no_non-free_use_rationale-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- 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.
Old discussions[edit]
April 23
Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify/userify. This template has two blue links and no red links in its body now, but represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. More linked articles will likely be created in the future. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per BeanieFan11's comments. Or Delete per Jweiss11's comment and has a counterpart in userspace already. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Subst or userfy presumably there will be more coaches at some point and it doesn't need to be removed from the articles it's already in. Pinguinn 🐧 22:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on subst/userfy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- substituting the template would be the worst outcome, since it means duplication of code across articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as two links isn't enough for a navbox. Substituting is just bypassing the reason for deletion. Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Subst or userfy there will be more coaches in the future to justify this template. Until then it doesn't need to be removed from the articles it is in. Pinguinn 🐧 23:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on subst/userfy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- substituting the template would be the worst outcome, since it means duplication of code across articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as two links isn't enough for a navbox. Substituting is just bypassing the reason for deletion. Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Subst or userfy there will be more coaches in the future to justify this template. Until then it doesn't need to be removed from the articles it is in. Pinguinn 🐧 23:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on subst/userfy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- substituting the template would be the worst outcome, since it means duplication of code across articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as two links isn't enough for a navbox. Substituting is just bypassing the reason for deletion. Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Subst or userfy there will be more coaches in the future to justify this template. Until then it doesn't need to be removed from the articles it is in. Pinguinn 🐧 23:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on subst or userfy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- substituting the template would be the worst outcome, since it means duplication of code across articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The navbox fails #3, #4, and #5 of the criteria listed at WP:NAVBOX. There is no article for the subject of this navbox (List of Concordia Cardinals football coaches) and there probably shouldn't be one. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Subst or userfy there will be more coaches in the future to justify this template. Until then it doesn't need to be removed from the articles it is in. Pinguinn 🐧 23:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on subst or userfying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- substituting the template would be the worst outcome, since it means duplication of code across articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as two links isn't enough for a navbox. Substituting is just bypassing the reason for deletion. Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 25 April 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.