Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText, Topic, or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.
Not to be confused with Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Closing instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template[edit]

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

I Tag the template.
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

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

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

  • For deletion:
    {{subst:tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging:
    {{subst:tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous Tfd without brackets|result of previous Tfd}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
III Notify users.
Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects (look on the top of the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion.

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.

Twinkle[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Current discussions[edit]

June 21[edit]


June 20[edit]

Template:RMpmc[edit]

I don't see a valid need for this. Users granted the page mover right are normally highly experienced in RMs. I don't see why page movers should have to declare their status as a page mover when closing RMs. — Music1201 talk 23:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Since page movers are not admins, they are required to disclose this fact at the time of discussion closure. The only other alternative is {{RMnac}}, which is now reserved for non-admins who are also non-page movers. Hope this helps.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pagemovers aren’t administrators and that should be noted when closing an RM. Sure, they’re more experienced than non-rms (hence why they have the user right), but that shouldn’t mean the fact of user rights shouldn’t be disclosed. I created this template because of these reasons. I’d like to see other people’s opinions on this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, but for a different reason to the nominator. I don't think it's correct to imply that page movers have any extra authority, which is what the layperson will infer from "page mover". Unless there's a consensus for some sort of change to the RM closing guidelines or NAC guidelines, non-admin closers should continue using the NAC template. Sorry if that's blunt, I do appreciate this was made in good faith. Jenks24 (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's easy to understand how new users might infer that page movers have "extra authority". I certainly inferred that about admins many years ago. Then I found out that in most cases, if not all, I was wrong. Neither administrator nor page mover nor any of the user rights that an editor may receive gives them any particular authority over other editors on Wikipedia. They simply receive tools that are more sensitive than other editors have; that does not mean that they are given any superior authority over non-admins or non-page movers. To believe otherwise is to say it's okay for an administrator to "pull the 'I'm an admin' card" to try to affect consensus, etc. We all know how wrong that is.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  18:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We are a lot more lax about NACs at RM than most other consensus finding venues and I think that's a good thing. But I think it is worth noting when users closing discussions haven't been vetted by the community; it is certainly good practice, as noted below. And I don't think we can consider page movers to be vetted by the community because if you look at the requests for permissions page you can see people being granted the right who have next to experience with RM. I think that's probably fine (although it's significant scope creep from what was proposed), but should people who have been granted this right have a template that (rightly or wrongly) implies they have been through some sort of vetting process for closing RMs? I don't think so.
    It always annoyed me when I was a non-admin to see admins pontificating on stuff like this so I'm sorry to do it and feel a bit hypocritical, but I feel passionately about the RM process and I believe this is in its best interests. "Authority" was the wrong word to use above. Jenks24 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No no, please don't feel negative in any way about your !vote – you make good points that are vivid, valid and clear. The thing is, this template is in no way meant to mean that we page movers are anything but experienced at renaming pages and at closing discussions as nac. That's all. If what you say is true, and inexperienced editors are being granted the user right, then whoever is doing so should be taken to task. Not in this venue of course, but in another correct venue. This template when used to close a RM should only tell the discussing editors that an experienced page mover has closed the request – nothing more, nothing less.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  19:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Page movers would need to use {{RMnac}} then. FYI, I made an update to this after I noticed this template. I'm kind of indifferent, to be honest. While I think the template doesn't hurt, the reasons cited by Jenks24 make sense. Actually, very weak keep per the text in the section. non-admin, non-pagemover comment :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Andy M. Wang: I don't believe that text ever had consensus. It appears these closing instructions have been routinely changed without discussion. See below. ~ RobTalk 19:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah I do agree it didn't have consensus. When I found the template and addition, I softened the "must" wording and linked it to the page mover talk page for more general awareness. Struck my !vote, as I genuinely still don't have strong opinions about this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant to {{RMnac}} or {{nac}}. I'd like to note that there is no policy or guideline that requires non-admins to self identify, although it is considered best practice to do so. There's a whole lot of "required" or "must" being thrown around, and that's entirely inaccurate. And no, the statement at WP:RM/CI doesn't qualify as consensus on this issue. See [1] [2] for the diffs where an editor gradually strengthened this statement over a period of multiple months while calling it a "minor fix" and said he was "redoing" things. ~ RobTalk 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree that "required"/"must" is overstating things, just for the record. Jenks24 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep page movers should be allowed to choose whatever template to identify themselves with. As a page mover, I did not realize this template exists until now. SSTflyer 06:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Page mover closures should be seperated from non-admin closures at RM because page movers have access to rights which normal non-admins are unable to use. A large number of closes at RM require the closer to move the page to a title which has non-trivial page history, thus disallowing anyone but an admin to move to it. However, page movers are able to indirectly do this through the use of suppressredirect. Non-admins have to file a technical request or use {{db-move}} to achieve the same effect. They also have the ability to use move-subpages. Despite this, it's also important that we separate page mover closures from admin closures, as in some messy situations, admin tools are required. Omni Flames (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jenks24. I think there should be a distinction between the page move permission, which is a technical ability to move certain pages, and the question about who is qualified to perform RM closes. The former is a technical permission granted by admins on reqest, based on some loose guidelines, with a fairly low bar for acceptance. Performing non-admin closes, however, does not require any permission, but it is up to the individual to decide whether they are ready to carry out that administrative function. In my opinion the bar for the latter should be higher than the bar for getting page mover rights. Closing a move request requires a lot of judgement, and a thorough understanding of the policies, guidelines and precedents. Now I am not in any way saying that only admins should close move requests. I performed hundreds of non-admin closures myself before getting the bit, and there is no better way to gain experience in admin duties than to do them in a non-admin capacity first. But significantly, I did not start performing those closures until I'd already been active at RM as a participant for an extended amount of time, and thoroughly understood how it worked. I also limited myself to the most obvious ones initially, before tackling harder ones after learning some more about it. So, in short, I think we should delete this template because it implies that page movers have more authority to close move requests than other non-admins do, whereas I don't think they do necessarily, particularly as the right is being granted routinely to people without a lot of prior RM experience.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Sounds to me as if there's a serious accusation in there somewhere. Page movers are expected to have the same experience that you had before "getting the bit". They should not only have unchallenged (or even challenged) page-move experience, they are also expected to have experience closing discussions as a non-admin. If you know of someone who is granting the user right to those who do not have the expected experience as cited in the closing instructions, then they should be taken to task in another, correct venue. Since this is all still pretty new, such temporary loose allowance should be forgiven because it shouldn't be too harmful; however, the page mover's expected experience should be taken as seriously as you deem it should above, now and in the future.  What's in your palette? Paine  16:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Question. Since this template has WP procedural uses, and not used outside of RM, would a no consensus close result in retention per WP:TFDCI, or deletion per WP:RMCI? I bring this up because RM has a big stake in this template, and RMCI procedures may apply to this. If this is no consensus, I suggest that the potential closer should elaborate on deletion/retention. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:2016 Libertarian Primaries[edit]

Redundant with {{US 2016 presidential elections series}} and {{United States presidential election, 2016}}. Most of the links point to the same page. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on this rationale, at least. Those two templates don't contain the state primary/caucus links, so they aren't redundant. If you find another template which does have state links, I might reconsider. ~ RobTalk 01:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The state links are not articles about individual states's Libertarian primaries but sections of other articles covered by {{State Results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election}}. The link that actually points to a stand-alone article has been approved for merging per Talk:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016#Merger proposal. The same applies for the Green template. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:2016 Green Primaries[edit]

Redundant with {{US 2016 presidential elections series}} and {{United States presidential election, 2016}}. Only two of the links in this template go to different pages. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on this rationale, at least. Those two templates don't contain the state primary/caucus links, so they aren't redundant. If you find another template which does have state links, I might reconsider. ~ RobTalk 01:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox economist[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox economist with Template:Infobox academic.
I'm a PhD student in economics. As a profession, economists have a lot of hubris, but even I recognize that we don't need our own infobox. The only advantage of this infobox that I can distinguish is that it provides the more economics-specific "field" label instead of "sub-discipline", but that's not a big enough advantage to warrant the infobox. There are even some advantages of using the academic infobox, which has fields like "notable works" and "notable ideas".

Basically, redundant. ~ RobTalk 07:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob, you may aspire to be an academic, but most economists work outside academia. In fact, many of the most important economists were not academics. A few examples: Thomas Mun, William Petty, Richard Cantillon, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Henry George, Alan Greenspan. We should keep the templates separate. But if you like some of the features of the academic infobox, why not add them to the economist infobox? Anthon.Eff (talk)
Speaking of, can I request someone add doctoral advisor field to the economist infobox. I know I should try to figure it out, but I don't want to mess anything up.Smmurphy(Talk) 15:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – has features like RePEc which don't pertain to academic infoboxes. And the academic infobox has a lot of stuff that is useless for economists. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Anthon.Eff, Smmurphy, and Srich32977: The name of the infobox doesn't really matter if its content is a good match for the articles on economists. What fields exist in {{Infobox economist}} that don't exist or have close equivalents in {{Infobox academic}}? The only thing I see that isn't already in the academic infobox is RePEc, which I hadn't noticed before. That could be thrown in the footnotes of {{Infobox academic}}, I suppose, but that's not really great. Would anyone object to me withdrawing this nomination but rewriting this as a wrapper of {{Infobox academic}} with additional parameters for RePEc? That would give us all the features of {{Infobox academic}} while keeping our own fields. It also makes maintenance easier, which is my intention with this nomination. ~ RobTalk 04:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Rewrite as a wrapper, to improve the economist template without affecting the academic one, per nom —PC-XT+ 05:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
So memorials and repec are added in the wrapper (or possibly memorials are added to the academic infobox) and field/sub_discipline and school_tradition/movement are redundant but added to the wrapper for compatibility? I am happy either way (keep or merge), and approve making anything easier. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure exactly how I'd do the wrapper; I would try to preserve formatting as much as possible, so I'd need to do some mock-ups and compare to see what's most similar to the current state. Right now, we use {{Infobox person}} as the basis for the infobox and add an extra infobox "child" template to the bottom for additional economics-specific parameters which aren't included in {{Infobox person}}. If we converted this to a wrapper of {{Infobox academic}}, we'd use {{Infobox academic}} as the base (giving us all the functionality/fields from there that we don't currently have) and either a hardcoded bit of text in the footnotes field of {{Infobox academic}} or a child template to handle RePEc and other extra parameters (like we have now, but with far fewer specific parameters since {{Infobox academic}} covers quite a bit of it). The advantage of this is in the maintenance cost; if {{Infobox academic}} has to be updated to change something for whatever reason, this would change along with it. Also, if they ever added more fields to that infobox, it would be very easy to also add them to the economist infobox. ~ RobTalk 06:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If you're not sure on how to do the wrapper, please consider how us less-techno-savy editors would work with it. My point is that simple templates are more useful for ordinary editors. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Srich32977: I'm only unsure in the sense that I have a few different ideas on how it could work and I'd want to create all of the possible alternatives and compare the output to find the most similar. In terms of how the end-user uses the templates, nothing would change. I would ensure all fields stay the same. ~ RobTalk 21:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • comment, both of these are already wrappers for {{infobox person}}, so it would be useful to see a sandbox example of the proposed revised wrapper solution. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox KHL team[edit]

not much in the KHL team template that's not already in the generic hockey team template. so, no real reason for keeping a second infobox template. just merge them. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox GET team[edit]

unused and duplicates {{infobox hockey team}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Edit filter noticeboard navbox[edit]

Unused; not working & unclear what it is meant for - an abandoned experiment? JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

Template:Miss Mexico Organization[edit]

Navbox with just one link and that article is at AFD. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Markaz[edit]

This template was created solely for the purpose of promoting a particular institution. I do not see any particular need for this template. It was created recently by a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shafinusri) who has now been blocked. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Despite what the nom says, it actually looks like a good and useful navigation template. There are a lot of non-linked pages which should be removed, but a nav box for a university isn't unheard of. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. A lot of these articles need to be taken to AfD. It appears this sock created a bit of a walled garden here. ~ RobTalk 06:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've looked into it more and made an AfD nom and a handful of CfD noms. There's certainly more to go. This is a mess. ~ RobTalk 06:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is unclear, and AfD is unclear. Giving more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:DENY. The template was created by a sockpuppet....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

OS X El Capitan infobox templates[edit]

Both were used to update the infobox at OS X El Capitan, but I merged the information back into the article. The infobox is not the only place where the version needs to be updated and this was overlooked a couple of times. Active development of the OS will stop very soon anyway and I think that a template is not warranted anymore, considering WP:TG #1. –Totie (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: the template creator Ipadguy was blocked indefinitely, so I have not notified anyone.–Totie (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, for both templates. For OSes as a whole, those templates are convenient - especially if you have both "update for current release" and "new release" betas, unless there's some magic trick to make them show up well if the versions are put into the template - but they don't help as much for OS versions, and OS X versions traditionally haven't had templates for this. Guy Harris (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

June 17[edit]

Template:Do for every South Holland municipality code[edit]

extremely complex and unused in articles. if this sort of thing is needed, we should rewrite it in lua. Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Current NFL long snappers[edit]

This isn't a useful criteria for a navbox. While starting quarterbacks may justify a navbox, long snappers certainly don't. This takes editor time to maintain and provides no real benefit to our readers. ~ RobTalk 03:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't imagine a scenario where a user would want to navigate between every long snapper in the NFL. Lizard (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I don't care if it is deleted, as it's not as important as other similar ones, but I really don't see the harm in keeping it either. It also doesn't require much maintaining, since how often are long snappers replaced? Last season you had a couple new ones for week 1, had one get injured mid season, and another in week 16. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's more the precedent, from my point of view. Imagine the navbox cruft that would result if people started creating {{Current NFL wide receivers}} and similar. ~ RobTalk 04:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Rob, this template is used for "starting" long snappers only. Not every, single on in the league. CrashUnderride 06:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Along the lines of Dissident, but if we delete this, I propose we delete the templates for starting QBs and all other ones, should there be any other. They serve the, little purpose. CrashUnderride 06:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the QB ones, but I think the punter, placekicker, and this one should go. I don't think "it does no harm" is a valid reason for keeping anything. If it's not helpful, it shouldn't exist. Lizard (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

June 16[edit]

Template:NS Uni[edit]

Redundant to {{Universities in Canada}}. Graham (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per Graham11. --Izno (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Post-orgasmic diseases[edit]

Unnecessary navbox. Keilana (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. The template is useful. It groups together similar medical conditions and related terminology. It does not violate any of the WP:TFD#REASONS. POIS22 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

June 15[edit]

Template:FC Auch Gers squad[edit]

This template is a squad list for a rugby union team that's been demoted to a level where the players would not meet WP:NRU notability guidelines. Also, only one valid link to a player article remains, the rest are all redlinks. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, almost all redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Incumbent[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was  Request withdrawn There appears to be a number of these templates. Unsure of use case. Withdraw for now (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned template, 0 transclusions, no legitimate links. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

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

June 14[edit]

Details3 & For-on-see[edit]

I've just made an improvement to {{details}} so that it supports multiple pages as part of its list, that is:

{{details|PAGE1|TOPIC}} → {{details|topic=TOPIC|PAGE1}} →

For more details on TOPIC, see PAGE1.

and it's now possible to do {{details|topic=TOPIC|PAGE1|PAGE2|PAGE3}} →

For more details on TOPIC, see PAGE1, PAGE2, and PAGE3.

and similar.

Previous cases have used {{details3}} to implement lists with multiple pages:

{{details3|[[PAGE1]] and [[PAGE2]]}} →

For more details on this topic, see PAGE1 and PAGE2.

Using {{details}} with a list of multiple pages is more elegant, and applies a set of standard improvements through its Lua implementation. We should migrate uses of {{details3}} to use {{details}} instead, delete {{details3}}, and therefore simplify the hatnote system. {{For-on-see}} is along for the ride because it is a single-use meta-template for {{details3}}; it had 4 standalone uses which I've already replaced with {{details}}.

TfD regulars may recognize this hatnote system cleanup as a bit of a project of mine; previous similar TfDs have included About3 & About4 and Redirect6. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Italian cruiser navboxes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was  Request withdrawn (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Each navbox has a section that states the previous class and a successive class, which is what {{s-start}}, {{s-bef}}, {{s-ttl}}, {{s-aft}}, ... are used for. The navboxes are sequential, and lists a number of ships that fall into each class, which are minimal. Suggesting merging these navboxes into one. If the user needs help setting up the preceeding/successive cruiser classes, I'd volunteer to help out. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To elaborate, I suggest replacing the navboxes with a cumulative one, something like Special:Permalink/725204677. The succession boxes at the bottom is not meant to be part of the template. It's a just a demo. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up for your proposal - you would have to do that for every ship class article. What Parsecboy has done is pretty much standard among ship class articles. If you wish to establish a norm, you may have to go to WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST to get more input. Llammakey (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:PD-Ethiopia-Photo[edit]

Unused/no transclusions, very narrow in scope (photos only?), and potentially even misleading - overly simplifies the relevant Ethiopian laws (see Commons version) FASTILY 01:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-MalaysiaGov[edit]

Unused/no transclusions, potentially misleading, redundant to {{PD-Malaysia}}. See also: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MalaysiaGov FASTILY 01:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-GreekFolklore[edit]

Unused/no transclusions, does not exist on Commons, easily replaced by {{PD-simple}} FASTILY 01:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

  • (None at this time)

Completed discussions[edit]

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

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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

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

That sounds like a good place to hold the conversation. Primefac (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To substitute[edit]

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

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

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

  • None currently

Ready for deletion[edit]

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently


Archive and Indices[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=726245578"