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.
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 vieworCivility 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.
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:
If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the TfD notice and the code of the template.
If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the TfD tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administratorsorTemplate editors.
For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
Do not mark the edit as minor.
Use an edit summary like Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]] or Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.
Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}}or{{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TfD, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)
TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_July_21#Template:template_name.css */
For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without brackets|result of previous TfD}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.
Use an edit summary such as Adding [[Template:template name]].
Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:
{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}
You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.
If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:
{{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.
Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the |text= field of the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:
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 historyortalk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:
For merging: {{subst:Tfm notice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~
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. Deletion sorting lists are a possible way of doing that.
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
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.
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 {{subst:Tfd notice}} for this.
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 historyortalk 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 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.
Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.
People will sometimes also recommend substorsubst 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.
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.
Templates are redundant, being used only by 1 or 2 articles and can easily be replaced by substituting content. Also inconsistent with other seasons where these templates are not used and with previous TfD consensus that similar templates were not necessary. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template little-used since its creation 16 years ago (~30 transclusions). We don't need anything this remotely flexible either, and there are plenty of other templates that could be used for a box floating right. Izno (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contains only one link outside of the title navbox. All are red links to this Wikipedia. With the rest being external links to the French Wikipedia. No navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should create articles before the navbox. Navboxes are meant to link articles that exist not to be created down the line. If you want to work on this, then this should be userfyed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At the very least it needs trimming so that the WP:EXISTING articles aren't lost amongst a sea of redlinks and external links to the French Wikipedia (P.S. No external links in navboxes). --woodensuperman15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Category link if exists 2 with Template:Category link if exists.
Version 2 grays out nonexistent categories; version 1 does not apply any styling to nonexistent categories. If there is really a need, we can add something like |gray=no. But I do not see a need: version 1 had three (3) transclusions (compared to 61,000 for v2), so there is clearly a lack of demand for the non-grayed functionality and I don't think it is worth the added complexity. For transparency, I did just indirectly remove two transclusions of v1 because they were substitutions from an old version of {{estcatCountry}} (diff1 and diff2), but that template should not have been substituted in those two instances. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication of Template:Jimmy Carter. All links here are featured on Carter's main navbox. I can understand the the navbox being larger. But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan and Randy Kryn: As I've noted in the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page, I believe there are serious content policy issues with the how the biography templates of U.S. presidents were before the creation of the separate navigation templates for their presidencies, specifically the WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX policies. Contrary to the comments made by User:Randy Kryn, I am not including every bill signed into law by a president during a presidential administration and only the ones that have Wikipedia articles. If a law, executive order, regulation, or other public policy has a Wikipedia article that meets the requirements of the general notability policy (WP:N) and is related to a particular presidential administration, then that should be major enough for inclusion in a navigation template about the presidential administration because the WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE policies explicitly require editors to not make judgments that certain topics related to a broader topic have greater importance than others when including them in a navigation template. In the absence of subject-specific notability guidelines, and if a law, executive order, regulation, or public policy does not meet the requirements of WP:N, it is not supposed to have a Wikipedia article in the first place.
Likewise, speeches and foreign policy summits that do not meet the requirements of WP:EVENT are not supposed to have Wikipedia articles either since they are events under the terms of that guideline. Before I created the separate template, there were only a selection of topics related to a presidential administration in the biography templates with a greater focus of on foreign policy, state of the union addresses and other speeches, presidential inaugurations and transitions, and judicial appointments rather than domestic and economic policies. Criteria 4 of the WP:NAVBOX policy for good navigation templates requires that there that is a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template exist, and not every President of United States (POTUS) has a separate articles article about their presidency (i.e. William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield). WP:NAVBOX also suggests that navigation templates are better for small and well-defined groups of articles, which is why the I'd argue that only a link to the presidency article should be included in a biography template for a POTUS should be included, and all other articles related to a presidency should be split into a separate template about the presidency. This would preclude duplication, and there wasn't any duplication until User:Randy Kryn reverted the templates to how they were before the Template:Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox was created. WP:NAVBOX also does not ban templates with large numbers of links. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is an unneeded duplicate navbox of entries already present on the main Jimmy Carter nabox, and other duplicate navboxes have been created and entries removed (but reverted) from the individual navboxes. And yes, scores if not hundreds of tangential additions where the president is not mentioned in the article could be trimmed from presidential navboxes, which should not include every law that the president signed but only those which they initiated and/or worked to pass and were then semi-identified with them (LBJ's Voting Rights Act, FDR's New Deal legislation, etc.). This does not need additional discussion elsewhere, an obvious duplication of existing material. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it should be given more time for someone to use it, @Jonesey95. I don't see the need for these robotic nominations for well-documented and properly working templates and modules. Ponor (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not robotic at all. I am ignoring or deciding not to nominate many unused templates when making these nominations. This one has been around for three months. That's long enough to have found at least one usage, or to be linked to from a discussion explaining why it is useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno, pardon me for asking: which comment of mine did you find in support of deletion? Further down there were templates made 3 to 9 years ago. What's the damage in keeping this one for a year or two? On another wiki I found some good use for it on some 12k pages; I or someone else might find it here too. Ponor (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Propose mergingTemplate:Infobox country and Template:Infobox political division with Template:Infobox settlement.
This will be a controversial proposal, but I think {{Infobox political division}} should be merged into {{Infobox settlement}}, while {{Infobox country}} should also be merged into, or at least become a wrapper for that template, because those three templates share many similar parameters with each other and because 'Template:Infobox political division' has the most parameters out of the three and is therefore the most flexible. I also think 'Template:Infobox settlement' should then be redesigned to look more like 'Template:Infobox country' does now, because the latter template looks much nicer in my opinion than the former one. PK2 (talk; contributions) 09:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pls no....simply a nightmare for content editors ....we already have a problem with too many parameters that cause many edit wars. We have been going in the opposite direction to avoid problems like with Template:Infobox micronation. Moxy🍁 12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and close this now: Per Moxy's reasoning. This seems like unnecessary change just for wanting to have change. We should also be discussing these things with such highly-used templates elsewhere first before directing every single person on an article about a country or settlement here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, these large super flexible templates end up not working well due to the human desire to fill gaps, which unused parameters appear to be. The country infobox as it stands faces the occasional issue of people using the website parameter which is meant to be for international organisations. CMD (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as largely unnecessary, described above. Country, political division, and settlement may not control an equal amount of territory and may have very distinct laws. HarukaAmaranth13:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Q: Why must the first text line of every U.S. article suffer unsightly broken type just to "discuss" this template format change? It's ridiculous. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is nonsens, and it would break any efforts towards easier translations and the development of the translation tool. Isn't it enough that in similar way it won't be possible anymore using the translation tool for almost every country in the world because all(?) or at least most other language versions have infoboxes on a country base. Very sad that that thrive wasn't stopped earliert. What a pity of time wasted. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for basically every reason listed above. I am now the 21st person to comment here, and all are in opposition. This discussion has messed up every single country, city, settlement, community, village, town, etc. page on the English Wikipedia which is really obnoxious. SpokaneWilly (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong no as per reasons stated above. There is nothing wrong with the existing templates imo, and they seem to work well enough on their respective pages. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Delete for two reasons. One is that this is a pretty valuable name. Two is that this template also has been practically un-linked to since its creation, which for this particular variety of subst-only template indicates to me that people aren't using it. Izno (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 TfD says that "a soft redirect in a module is not possible". That's not true anymore. require('Module:Module wikitext')._addText('{{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}}') would do exactly that. I'm not saying the closer made a mistake; Module:Module wikitext was created two years after the TfD, but that doesn't mean we can't reevaluate the close since things have changed now. Nickps (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, that require() doesn't work. I don't know why and I'm not going to take the time to figure it out. Currently, if Module:Citation is invoked you get:
{{#invoke:Citation|citation}}
Lua error in Module:Citation at line 1: This module is retained for historical and structural reasons; consider using Module:Citation/CS1..
I think that error message appropriate. Readers should never see it but editors will if they are doing something that they ought not do (and are paying attention ...).
If we want to 'soft redirect' Module:Citation can't we just add {{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}} to someplace in Module:Citation/doc and be done?
That require doesn't work because it just redirects the page. If you add a second line that says returnrequire[[Module:Citation/CS1]] under it, then the module will be functional too. Nickps (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited Module:Sandbox/Nickps to demonstrate. {{#invoke:Sandbox/Nickps|citation}} gives Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which doesn't look too promising at first but it's the same error as {{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation}}: Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which means the redirect is working. Nickps (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that I am not understanding? You get the Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150 error message because of line 2 at Module:Citation (permalink). It is not obvious that line 1 (permalink) is doing anything that we want. If, as WP:SOFTREDIR says, Soft redirects differ in that they leave the reader on the redirect page that isn't happening because line 2 is pretty much the equivalent of a hard redirect. So tell me, what it is that you are attempting to accomplish with your edit? That edit puts the soft redirect outside of the module documentation. Wouldn't it be better to add {{soft redirect}} to the ~/doc page?
Part of my misunderstanding was that I expected an invoke of Module:Citation to do nothing but put up a soft redirect annotation and halt as WP:SOFTREDIR sort of suggests that it should. The soft redirect annotation is for direct wikilinks ([[Module:Citation]] → Module:Citation). That being the case, I see no benefit to be gained by using the module to create the soft redirect annotation when the same can be accomplished by including {{soft redirect}} in the ~/doc page.
Now I'm confused. If you open Module:Citation you're left at the redirect page. So by the definition you provide, that's a soft redirect. I don't see how a redirect being soft or hard has anything to do with what it does when transcluded. Now, we could move the soft redirect template to the documentation page, although that would require changing the second line (then only line) to return require('Module:Citation/CS1') to avoid creating a hard redirect. Or, we could avoid this entire conversation and go with Pppery's suggestion of making a hard redirect. Nickps (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it must be a redirect, let it be a hard redirect or (my preference) leave it as it was and delete {{Citation/lua}} as unused/unnecessary. And then let us be done with this.
Ideally we would move Module:Citation/CS1 to this title - there's no reason things are the way they are other then history. Otherwise just hard redirect now that hard redirects are possible - there's no reason for a soft redirect which would deliberately get in all possible users' way. * Pppery *it has begun...20:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not enought articles here to justify a navbox. Even the original work, the book is just a direct as of now. The articles in the related section are way too broad. ★Trekker (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless template, as there has only ever been 1 Chinese F1 driver. So this template doesn't actually do any navigation, which is the purpose of templates Joseph2302 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Doesn't cost anyone anything, and there will eventually be another Chinese Formula 1 driver. Easier to just keep it for consistency, and so that it doesn't have to be remade when there finally is another one. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this template is completely redundant nowadays. It seems that it was created to handle cross-wiki rename requests or something back in Ye Olde Days before Single-User Login was invented (checking if a user who wanted username X was the same as the user with username X on the other language wiki). However, with SUL now being a thing, this template seemingly hasn't been used since 2010 (no transclusions since december 2010), so it should be safe to subst out all 5 remaining uses of this and then delete this template (along with its redirect, {{ver}}) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits)10:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not needed and is not even really being used to experiment with anything. This should just go to the relevant page about the Illinois Democratic primary. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. As with the nomination below, it is tricky to determine if this template subpage is actually used or is just leftover cruft from a development process. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No, this is not leftover cruft from development. It is one of the integral functions of the base ISO 15924 templates, a repository of Wikipedia metadata (i.e. category name) about the information from the ISO standard. I don't know about other editors, or even if there are others who have used this functionality, but I have used it in substitutionpreview to permanently populate pages into writing system categories, thus the lack of transclusion. This is in direct contrast with the below nomination, which is a tabular presentation of ISO 15924 content, and these two should be judged on their individual merits, not collectively. VanIsaac, GHTVcontWpWS21:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear lord, I created and edited so many writing systems articles back in the day, and it's been so long I don't even know where to start. Note that my recollection has changed from above when I thought I'd substituted - but I'm pretty sure I previewed {{ISO 15924|wp-category|Qaaa}} to generate the category name instead of delving through the category:Writing systems tree. I happened to know about it because I created the wrapper functionality back in 2011 when {{ISO 15924}} was previously just a documentation guide to all the subtemplates that had been created. I was deep into the process of my own Unicode proposal at the time, so I had a lot of research and knowledge at my fingertips to fill in holes in our content at that time. But that has not been the case for a while now, and my contributions in that area are mostly building out category:Indic letters, which includes a good deal of image creation and adapting formulaic language to describe the different writing systems as they are incorporated, but no novel categorization in the writing systems sphere. VanIsaac, GHTVcontWpWS16:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. This is either article or project-space content that is being stored in template subpages. I could be wrong; the parent template and its subpages are used very narrowly, if at all, and are a nest of interlocking parts typical of their (now-blocked) creator's creations. It appears that the content of this template mirrors much of Script (Unicode)#List of scripts in Unicode. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the club doesn't play at a high level, it's unlikely these season articles even if created will meet WP:GNG. Therefore this template is not needed, and a mass-creation of season articles just to satisfy this template would be inappropriate, unless each season article demonstrates significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Created in 2021. Does not appear to be useful, unless it is used in a temporary way or in if statements that do not manifest on any pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this project even active? Seems restoring just for the sake of restoring is a bit pointless. If the project is dead, just subst the talk template and delete it. Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging All of the above together.
These category templates basically set three parameters:
|Occupation=
|JobPortal=
|ParentOccupation=
Where the last two are the same value between the templates.
|Occupation= can be easily retrieved by using {{last word|{{PAGENAME}}}}, thus eliminating the need for endlessly creating these template for every single item, and using code to handle things more efficiently. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose for now. Hey there (as the template creators); I don't think that "|Occupation= can be easily retrieved by using {{last word|{{PAGENAME<nowiki>}}}" this actually applies. There are several nationalities that follow the structure of FOOians from COUNTRY, such as the Russian Empire and Georgia, and Northern Ireland. So it would not always grab the template. I do think that this could be generalized to a broader range of musical instruments, but not how you have described it. Part of the advantage of making the template specific to a given occupation is to keep flexibility if the parents change or another parent category is added. Each of the nominated templates have different parent categories.
accordionists is parented by Aerophone players and Keyboardists
At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. But merging them, as you have suggested, would eliminate that possibility down the line. I could see creating another layer on top that called a specific subtemplate based on the presence of a specific occupation, similar ot how Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header current works using |"{{#if:{{in string|source={{PAGENAME}}|target=FOO INSTRUMENT|plain=true|nomatch=}}". But I really would be reluctant to overgeneralize it. Mason (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overgeneralizing this system is much more better than having hundreds of similar templates like this. The maintenance burden in continuing with your current system is just insane. Regarding countries that won't work in the proposal, if you show a current category that it fails with it, I'm sure we can get it to work. Also, if the templates aren't complete then please stop creating more uncomplete templates and finish the ones that you've created. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why it is "insane" to have templates that are specific to a given occupation. Right now there are 5 in your nomination, not hundreds. These templates are designed to be flexible so that changes in the category nesting can be easily applied, and ease the present burden on handling parent and child categories for a given occupation. I see this is much less burdensome than having to go through each nationality. As I already said, "At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. ". What I mean what there is no need right now, because the parent categories don't exist at the intersection of century and nationality. I've added in an example for accordionists [1]. I thought it wasn't a good use for resources to go through multiple if checks for categories that don't presently exist. It isn't that the templates are incomplete, its that there is the potential that these categories might eventually differ. Mason (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think that a couple of questions and a suggestion on my talk page would have been more constructive than using ableist language to better understand the the purpose of the templates. Mason (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per previous consensus at TFDs in 2022, here and here, domestic cricket winning squad templates are considered excessive navbox clutter. JP (Talk) 09:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous TfD consensuses (which I notice were both TFDs started by me). These are the same unnecessary clutter as those were. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: They are still two distinct incarnations. The point about inline links is arguably a non-issue (seeing as navboxes are, y'know, there for ease of navigation so people don't need to dig around the article for said inline links). Granted, the similarity between this and {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}} is more of a concern. However, I'd argue that keeping these templates separate would be better for futureproofing (in case any more notable 14th doctor content gets made), better for organization (as the content for each incarnation is categorized away from the other incarnation's content), and a bit more user-friendly (as the 14's content won't get buried under the mountain of 10's content, and it avoids the potential ugliness of splitting one navbox between two incarnations which itself is likely to be a bit of an organizational headache). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits)10:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second the above. While there isn't much content in the Fourteenth Doctor's box so thus far (the 3 episodes are listed in other navigational boxes so I get the concern), but more content might come along in the future. Bigwhofan (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nardog, "didn't, haven't, weren't" would be the same issue. There is no need for these negative forms. Nobody (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would wrapperifying the base verb, plus "n't", as proposed by the OP, be an acceptable alternative to deletion? I could see the template names as used now being convenient shorthand, and the simpler base implementation should reduce overhead. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 14:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those two templates cover very different topics. {{UK Shadow Cabinet}} shows the current UK shadow cabinet (i.e. the same topic as {{Sunak Shadow Cabinet}}), whereas {{British shadow cabinets}} lists all of the different shadow cabinets in the past. I have no objection to discussing renaming {{British shadow cabinets}} in the future if this one is deleted, but that isn't what's being discussed here. Reading between the lines, I don't believe you are actually advocating a "keep" !vote for this specific template. --woodensuperman12:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only by its name, I mean that we should merge the content of this template to Sunak Shadow Cabinet first, and then subsequently merge the content of British shadow cabinets to UK Shadow Cabinet. —— Eric Liu(Talk)12:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please strike your "keep" !vote, as it is misleading. I believe what you are actually advocating is a delete/merge. A move of the unrelated template can be discussed afterwards. --woodensuperman13:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guy I think that should be easy with something like {{#if:{{{log|}}}|({{plain link|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/?wpSearchFilter={{{1}}}|name=log}})}}Nobody (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change "is a participant" to "was a participant". There's no reason that past relationship can't be expressed through a userbox. Also this is the wrong venue (should be at MfD). * Pppery *it has begun...00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change "is a participant" to "was a participant". There's no reason that past relationship can't be expressed through a userbox. Also this is the wrong venue (should be at MfD). * Pppery *it has begun...00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As noted in the template documentation, this template is used with List of pending SCOTUS cases when there are cases scheduled for argument. We're currently in between terms, so the template is currently unused, but it's still needed going forward. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
This template has been deleted multiple times. The creator removed a speedy deletion tag, so rather than get in a dispute, here's a TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous, unrelated version of this template was deleted because it didn't work (it used the actual blink tag, which has been deprecated for around twenty years). There was not a consensus to forbid any template from ever existing on the English Wikipedia with the pagename blink, although if it would make you happy, I could rename this to {{blink2}} so that it isn't a "recreation". jp×g🗯️18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article about the blink element, whose primary illustration is rendered with this template, which makes text blink. There is also a section about the deprecated blink and marquee tags at HTML element. It's obvious that the template is not appropriate to randomly be used for emphasis in article text, which is why there's a bold exclamation-pointed sentence on the /doc page telling you not to use it this way. Indeed, we have lots of content that would be inappropriate to put in random articles, like File:Communist Hammer and Sickle Star Flag.svgorFile:Flag of the Ku Klux Klan.svg (which are illegal to display in some countries). The <blink> tag was quite bad, but hopefully we can agree it was less bad than the Khmer Rouge, whose insigna we display in their article; I think we can similarly depict a <blink> tag in the articles about <blink> tags, or deprecated HTML tags more broadly.
It's true that it would be in theory possible to delete the template, and replace its invocations entirely with inline formatting on the two articles where it's in use -- but that inline formatting would still require TemplateStyles, so it would still require a stylesheet to be located somewhere. The idea of attaching a /styles.css subpage to a mainspace article, and then invoking that stylesheet from a different mainspace article (or having two identical .css pages on two different mainspace pages) seems quite obtuse and unorthodox to me, especially if a template for doing this already exists and works fine.
In general, my understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia templates is that they're supposed to allow code to be used on multiple pages, rather than forcing people to manually copypasta large complicated blocks of 100% identical code (in this case, <templatestylessrc="Blink/styles.css"/><spanclass="blink-css">{{{1}}}</span> and blink, .blink-css { animation: blink 1s step-end infinite; } *::@keyframes blink { *:: 67% { opacity: 0 } *::}, and additionally a content-model change to enable the second to be loaded from a separate page because it can't be styled inline with MediaWiki). jp×g🗯️00:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is reasonable for us to try to completely prevent people from making silly userpages, that doing so should be an objective of our template system, or that it should take a higher priority than using said system to write articles. jp×g🗯️06:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find neither argument convincing here. Deleting {{blink}} won't stop people from building GeoCities-style pages if they want to, and I'm not even convinced we should care if they do. But I also don't see the value in a fake (because it doesn't actually use the blink HTML tag) self-demonstrating example in pages like blink element - it seems to me that people can understand what an element blinking means without it being shown to them. And I agree G4 doesn't apply. Since the burden is normally on the nominator in deletion discussions weak keep I guess. * Pppery *it has begun...00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the 2007 discussion covers all the same ground that I probably would have processed this as a G4. If you really want to demonstrate in article space blinking without encouraging all the things a template encourages (or for that matter, marqueeing), consider creating an SVG (which can accept the same CSS). Izno (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To whit, the fundamental reason neither of these templates should exist is WP:Accessibility. There's a reason the actual elements were nuked off the planet and that it took another decade before CSS finally added a way to fuck around with the same visibility "properties". Izno (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izno's accessibility argument and because this template is not the blink property which makes it incorrect to use in HTML element. As a personal opinion, we should also make life as hard as possible for any user wanting to use these very annoying effects and not create for them easy to use templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JPxG. It's got a real use (illustrating old HTML capabilities), and it does it succinctly. Whether or not people could maybe use it to make their user page look a bit ugly is irrelevant. Arguments for deletion seem weak to me (no examples of it actually being misused in a user page has been shown; accessiblity issues would be exacerbated if blink demos were replaced with SVG/GIF files or bespoke inline CSS). Blinking html was ugly but this template is helpful to convey that historical ugliness. BugGhost🦗👻12:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This family of templates contains just wikilinks, maybe with an icon (mostly used for decoration in violation of MOS:ICON). Over the last few years we've been moving away from the "one template for every version of X" system (be it for political parties, national sports, etc) in order to allow for easier updating and centralised coding. This is also a good example of "text stored in a template". Primefac (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at most of these templates and several transclusion cases. I'm not seeing a violation of MOS:ICON, but I agree that this is a lot of templates for what could be easily accomplished with a single template taking a single parameter (and maybe an optional boolean controlling icon display). I'm thinking combine and replace, although I'm not presently volunteering to do the work, since I've been pretty busy and will almost certainly forget. Folly Mox (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree that simple links should not be hosted in a template. There is just no reason for that. If such a thing is actually valid, then there probably should be a template for every single concept. In reality, writing New Power Partyor{{New Power Party}} is no different and if {{NPP}} is valid as a redirect, then it would have been valid as redirect, which NPP is not. This just seems to bypass the basic system of how links work here. Other than that, we already have a module that acts as database for political party names and colors. So that should already take care of this. Regarding the icons, I also agree, but for some reason during the merge a few years back, we left the group of templates with icons out of it. So if this passes, we should take care of the other templates in Category:Political party name templates (which also includes US templates like Template:GOP, which is exactly the same). Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template is unnecessary as we can always navigate the taxonomy via the taxonomic infoboxes. And now we have to maintain the taxonomy in 3 different places: the infoboxes, the genus articles (which list the species), and navigation templates like this. Why do we need such redundant systems that just create more work? Nosferattus (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is my preference, as I share concerns about keeping redundant information up-to-date across multiple pages. However, I don't understand why this template was singled out over everything else in Category:Mammal species templates and it's subcategories. Many (but not all) mammal species have navboxes. Very few other organisms have navboxes like mammals do. If I was going to single out one mammal species navbox for deletion it would be {{Murinae (Others)}}. The subfamily Murinae is split across 10 navboxes, why not just make one (massive) navbox for the subfamily? And putting two genera in the "Others" navbox is completely unintuitive for readers when the other navboxes are arranged by parts of the alphabet. Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think broadly the idea of navboxes which link the tree of life are reasonable. So from that direction I think this is a keep. However, I think this navbox does too much. It links pages which are clearly not WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (the parent taxa), and links multiple of the child taxa and their children, which I am not generally a fan of (see also User:Izno/Navbox constellations which pretty-naturally apply here). Izno (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, these topics are usually well-linked on the articles themselves to the child and parent topics. So yeah, I don't totally see the point in navboxes for tree of life stuff. Izno (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, there is extra overhead of maintaining subfamily navboxes and I don't think there is significant added benefit (due to the navigational redundancy). Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is part of a series of over thirty template maps of Continental Asia across different time periods. I know I've seen this one transcluded in an infobox before, early in article development prior to replacement by a newly created more specific map template.
Our encyclopaedic coverage of circa 200 CE Asia history topics is not yet particularly thorough, and it would be a shame to discard this work just because it's currently unused.
In general and as a set, I think all templates in this series should be kept whether or not they have any transclusions at the moment. I think my memories of how this template was previously used could be extrapolated to future use cases: templates from this series are transcluded until a more specific map is located or created, if ever. Just because the usage is temporary doesn't mean that it's not useful. Folly Mox (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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".