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_June_12#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[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.
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.
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 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.
Until these were created, {{Category series navigation}} was used on these categories and did the same thing. The addition of more links isn't needed as using if you really want all links, just use the parent category. Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These templates were just created but right now seem to be unused. LizRead!Talk! 19:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has 7 blue links so it can be useful. Just remove all red links. Or this can be merged without red links to Template:Finnish Figure Skating Championships as it duplicates the event years already anyways. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left the other three discipline templates (men, women, ice dance) alone, because those were predominately blue links. There is little chance that the red links on this template will ever be developed. Bgsu98(Talk) 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An ancient template on ancient user pages that is just about guaranteed to have no use whatsoever any longer. And we block/lock compromised accounts these days. Izno (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with no transclusions or incoming links. No blue links to full articles in the body of the navbox. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has been added to appropriate article. Useddenim (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are several problems with this template. It is massive, and thus unusable in any article. The Airport line does not cover the full extent of its route as shown on File:TransperthRailwayMap.svg. The Morley–Ellenbrook line also does not cover the full extent of its route, which is meant to reach Perth station. The colours of each of the lines is incorrect (correct colours are shown on Module:Adjacent stations/Transperth). The size of the rail network makes this sort of template impractical and hard to read because the labels for each station have to be on either the left or right side, which results in the Ellenbrook line stations being listed in between the Joondalup line stations, for example. Steelkamp (talk) 04:55, 11 June 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).
Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as creator: phased out in favor of another template. BhamBoi (talk) 23:24, 10 June 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.
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).
Unused date related template. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as creator: stopped working on it in favor of just using existing modules and focusing effort on migrating use case to Lua. Pedantical (talk) 00:59, 11 June 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.
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).
Unused date related template. Gonnym (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as creator: stopped working on it in favor of just using existing modules and focusing effort on migrating use case to Lua. Pedantical (talk) 00:59, 11 June 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.
The DPR and LPR were puppet states of Russia and had no foreign relations. Aldij (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They did have recognition from a few other countries, although, looking at Donetsk People's Republic–South Ossetia relations, sourcing doesn't seem to be of the quality you'd want to write good standalone articles that go further than "X officially recognized Y". The navboxes have four and two links respectively, so not great, although there's no objection to recreating them if more articles can be written (hopefully with better sources). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination has nothing to do with the templates and is a political statement than of actual concerns with the navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 10 June 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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit template now used so withdraw. Can be closed. Gonnym (talk) 18:16, 10 June 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.
Incorrect location for a sandbox template, which does not seem to be a sandbox for Template:NYCS. Currently unused. Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find anything worthwhile saving in these documentation pages that need to be redirected. These are all the same boilerplate copy/paste versions that have no actual added value. Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, delete. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused route map. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As its creator I do agree template should be deleted. I've created it as an experiment, in wrong name space, at my beginings in wiki editing. Antoni12345 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These templates were meant to be visual sub-terms and sub-definitions in structured {{Glossary}}s. They didn't add semantic sub-structuring, only indented their equivalent terms & definitions. They were only used in Waveguide filter#Glossary, but I replaced them with nested {{glossary}}+{{term}}+{{defn}} inside their defining {{defn}}, producing a near-identical indentation, plus semantic structure. They are now unused, and probably shouldn't be used (TemplateStyles on the glossary, or term/defn templates, would satisfy any potential need). the template. — sbb (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though the glossary at that page was wonky in another way (fixed [1]). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 13:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Project hasn't been active around 14 years and usages of this banner are being incorrectly applied to articles that involved "challenges". The dead project has no categories or any usage for this banner. Gonnym (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The project hasn't been active for over a decade, does not have categories or any reason for tagging pages with a banner. Gonnym (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Gbq}} template was simply a wrapper for {{Quote}} with some specified inline styles (specifically, reduced vertical margins). It was intended for use in structured {{Glossary}}s. It was only ever used correctly once, in Glossary of Brazil investigative terms. All other ~6 uses in article space were used in {{efn}} for condensed spacing (which I replaced with the equivalent {{quote|style="..."}}). I have edited {{Glossary}} to use TemplateStyles, which has allowed the use of {{quote}} inside of glossary {{Defn}} templates to be formatted exactly as {{Gbq}} was formatted. I.e., TemplateStyles has obsoleted the need for the style-only wrapper {{Gbq}} around {{quote}}. {{Gbq}} is now a redirect to {{quote}}. Asking to delete the now-obsolete "/doc" subpage. — sbb (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as creator of the template). It's nice that TemplateStyles obviates the need for this sort of thing today. PS: It would probably be better to just replace every instance of {{gbq}} in the wild with {{blockquote}} (the actual name of what {{gbq}} and {{quote}} redirect to), and then get rid of the {{gbq}} redirect, since it no longer serves any function, not even a mnemonic one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've replaced all in situ uses of {{gbq}} with {{blockquote}} (other than references to deletion discussion and in Template:Gbq/doc itself). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was going to TfD {{gbq}}, but I figured leaving it behind for the several uses in user pages wasn't going to hurt anything. But from a purity standpoint, I'd love to see it go. — sbb (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also... I forgot, might as well get rid of {{Gquote}} too (which used to redirect to {{Gbq}}. — sbb (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replace then delete the redundant template, per Gonnym. We don't need misleading as well as redundant wikiproject banners lingering around. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:51, 10 June 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).
This should be completely uncontroversial, but from a purely clerical standpoint template redirects should be at RfD and not TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though I'll chime in here in favor of delete in case it's not moved/reopened as an RfD. We don't need weird redirects lingering around that are not in actual use. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:53, 10 June 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.
This complete set of templates are either unused, used only in the author's practically blanked sandboxes as they've moved the data to WikiBooks, or used in pages they haven't edited since 2012. Wikipedia sandboxes really shouldn't be kept as archives like this, but if they really want these, then move to their user page. Gonnym (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is currently used, at the ANI header (just sporadically, so not showing up currently), as well as somewhere else I'm forgetting and don't have time to find at the moment (I'm on mobile with limited internet). It is not the same as {{delink}} — please reread the documentation. Delink won't help you for a parameter value that has the linking in the parent template. There's plausible use in the future, and a suitably strong warning in the documentation that in most cases you don't really want to use it, so overall no reason to delete. I suggest withdrawing the nomination, Gonnym. Sdkbtalk 14:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the code at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header. Am I missing something or was this entire template created just because you wanted to add a silly smile to the header ([3])? Because without {{4-1}}, the code works fine:
{{if April Fools|{{Spoken Wikipedia|date=2007-02-20|Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard Slash Incidents.ogg}}}}
If that is the sole reason for that, I'm still sticking with the delete rational and also remove the smiley. Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, please do not remove the documentation that explains this template's purpose (and which I just referenced above) in the midst of this TfD. I created this template because there are various circumstances in which someone might want to use a template field that is normally wrapped in a link, but not want a link in a particular niche circumstance. The linked example is one — this template allows the {{4-1}} (which is better characterized as the mandatory humor disclosure than a "silly smiley") to be added — but there are others. I have indeed used this template in other circumstances (which were since resolved, thus why it's no longer transcluded elsewhere), which I can try to remember and dig up if you or others are curious. The example in the documentation with {{redirect}} is also only quasi-hypothetical. But it's somewhat immaterial, as the overall use case is laid out clearly in the documentation, and WP:TFD#REASONS is very clear that being unused is not sufficient rationale for deletion unless the template also has no likelihood of being used in the future. Sdkbtalk 23:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "documentation" as it isn't documentation, but you telling a irrelevant story. Documentation should be short and to the point. So far you aren't adding any usages other than the one at the header template which isn't really needed. Gonnym (talk) 07:48, 10 June 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.
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).
Unused route map. Gonnym (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: diagram restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Withdrawn. Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 9 June 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.
Unused in mainspace cladogram. Used in only one user sandbox which hasn't been edited since 2016. If they want it, move it to their userspace otherwise delete. Gonnym (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused fork of Template:Middle East topic. If there is need to add more locations to the general template, it should be brought on the talk page and if it has consensus, it should be added. This fork is unnecessary. Gonnym (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the docs or look at the code. They function differently and are suited to different topics.
"Detailed MENA topic" has a separate topic and join (in, by, from, etc.).
(topic)-(join)-COUNTRY
Whereas the "Middle East topic" templates has a suffix
(prefix) - COUNTRY - (suffix)
If I make that change to the existing template it will possibly brake pages it's used on, but this is a is a useful different way of doing it.
Also, I intend to expand it. MENA = middle east and North Africa. It's too much to add to the Middle East template (there are probably situations where people don't want Morocco, Tunisia, etc.) MWQs (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Middle East topic is a neat little simple template that's useful in some situations, the detailed one is different. MWQs (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please give an an example of topic of articles that will only work with your version and not with Template:Middle East topic. Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing it can do currently is automatically link a main page in the title, as well as "in the middle east" instead of needing to do a custom title or manke a redirect.
But it would also mean I could modify it to try multiple joins, e.g. of / from / in / etc.
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.
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.
Unused notice of questionable utility. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from its appearance, it should be a substitution template. It even has the inline HTML comment found in substitution templates. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 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 result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:G7Elli (talk | contribs) 11:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and has no likelihood of being used in the near future. Template was created by me a few years back. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:16, 9 June 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.
Redirect to previously existing is fine for me. We also have {{Scrolling window}} that maybe also shouldn't exist, all it does is make the text inside the box "auto-transclude", which is a trivial and totally unnecessary difference, while missing the implementation in the template that either warns in mainspace or outputs no wrapper in mainspace... Izno (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Both with Template:If both.
Both of these templates do the same thing except {{if both}} is configurable. We should merge them to avoid needlessly duplicated functionality. The only change required to {{if both}} is to add a default value of 1 in its true parameter so it acts like {{both}} when no parameters are passed to it. Nickps (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the templates don't do the same thing. {{both}} returns a truth value, while {{if both}} selects one of two values. Adding the {{both}} behavior to {{if both}} might cause unanticipated changes. Given the number of transclusions, I would exercise the precautionary principle and not merge them. — hike395 (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, {{if both}} is a generalisationof{{both}} so they are very much the same. For all arguments p,q {{if both|p|q|1}} is exactly equivalent to {{both|p|q}}. Nickps (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see its a subset. {{if both}} prints parameter three if parameter one and two are non-empty, otherwise, it prints parameter four. {{if empty}} prints the first non-empty parameter. ? {{If empty}} should be renamed - its a misleading name Christian75 (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Given the already transpired snafu documented at VPT, I think we can expect unexpected side effects from merging these two oft transcluded templates, and the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost, be it in errors or in editor time checking that every template transcluding one of these still functions as intended for each case. Folly Mox (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both with {{S.L. Benfica}}, don't need a separate 'sections' navbox. GiantSnowman 13:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a useful navigation template that is displayed almost at the top of Benfica-related articles. SLBedit (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but can you show us how it would look? SLBedit (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Infobox climber with Template:Infobox mountaineer.
I think that Template:Infobox mountaineer could be handled by Template:Infobox climber. A lot of mountaineers do climbing and visa-versa. Infobox climber is the most important infobox (and the most detailed) and has the richest level of detail on their climbing/mountaineering career (I think infobox climber captures all of mountaineer career data. The mountaineer infobox items of "famous partnerships", "final ascent" and "retirement age" are subjective items). The main differences are around the non-climbing items that cand be just merged? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User:Cullen328 who I have seen participate at climbing AfDs - @Cullen328, what do you think of my proposal? I have put a notice of this on at WikiProject page but no one has answered so far - are there any others who should be pinged? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list the parameters that would need to be added or have different names? That would make it easier to see if these indeed have the same scope. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aszx5000, I am not familiar with the details of the respective infobox parameters, but I agree that mountaineering and climbing are basically the same sport with many variations ranging from bouldering to high elevation expedition mountaineering. I think that it is counterproductive to try to separate it into two separate sports, so I am generally supportive of what you hope to accomplish. I am 72 years old and have not been an active mountaineer for about 15 years, so I am not current on recent developments in the sport. Cullen328 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, The disjoint of the parameter sets for these two templates appears to consist of the following: |main_discipline=, |other_discipline=, |start_discipline,=|height=, |weight =, |start_age =, |partnerships=, |website =, |typeofclimber =, |namedroutes =, |highestredpoint=, |highestonsight=, |highestboulder=, |apeindex=, |knownfor=, |worlds =, |final_ascent=, |medaltemplates=, |updated =, |partner=, |children =, |parents=, |relatives=, |firstascents=. Further, the following parameters would have to be aliased to one another: |retirement= and |retirement_age=; |notable_ascents= and |majorascents=.
That said, {{Infobox climber}} wraps {{Infobox sportsperson}}, whereas {{Infobox mountaineer}} does not appear to, so many of the mountaineer parameters not present in the climber template may actually be inherited (the family stuff for sure).
Why not just wrap {{Infobox sportsperson}} with {{Infobox mountaineer}} instead of trying to realign everything here? How many articles have a problem where it's unclear which template is more appropriate for the subject? Both genuine questions for Aszx5000. Folly Mox (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the way {{Infobox climber}} does so is the better way. I'm leaning support this merge unless someone has any valid objections. One thing though, when the merge happens, please make sure you use the correct naming conventions for parameters (snake case) and climber uses a mix of 4 different styles. Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would definitely keep {{Infobox climber}} as it has lots of good objective facts when used properly (e.g. Alexander Huber, Chris Sharma, Catherine Destivelle). The issue is that {{Infobox mountaineer}} has essentially the same 'biographical' facts (i.e. personal and family info) as {{Infobox climber}}, but outside of 'notable ascents' (which is the 'major ascents' on {{Infobox climber}}), the rest of the 'career' section are either not objective facts or not really notable things in mountaineering, and should be discarded. I would be happy to help guide any merge process (I am very active in WProj Climbing). Once done, there are a few more upgrades we want to make to {{Infobox climber}} to improve its usefulness. thanks to all above. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has nothing to navigate to. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: My fault for tagging this too quickly. Upon review I see that Beardfish has one album with a WP article The Sane Day and one band member has an article, Rikard Sjöblom. I've added those at the template.[4] However, that's just two, and still does not justify a navbox. --DB1729talk 02:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused football squad navigation template with no blue links. Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused football squad navigation template. All blue links play for different teams so information is outdated. Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and empty football squad navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and empty football squad navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused football squad navigation template with only 1 blue link. Not enough valid links for a navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
commentWP:TFD#REASONS point number 3 says "has no likelihood of being used". It is not an amateur club and some players may actually pass GNG. The team just fell out of the top division and is in the course of gaining the spot back. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These copy and paste templates take 10 seconds to create. If and when there is a need, someone can recreate it. We don't deal in WP:CRYSTAL. Gonnym (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats literally what the deletion rule says. Cant just bluelink something (crystal) that is not related to templates. 10 seconds is unreal, but the time wasted on deletion discussions and recreation is pointless. Not to mention deletion does not save space in Wikipedia. Pointing out that it can be recreated means there is no point to delete it in the first place. Again, this is not an article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per actual deletion rules. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navigation template for a football club that was disbanded. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused football squad template which hasn't been updated since 2015 so also probably incorrect. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused citation template. Gonnym (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this template 6 months ago and forgot to implement it. There are at least 500 links to this encyclopedia on Wikipedia, all of which are now not only dead, but unfit. All of them should be replaced with this template ASAP. I'll work on it in the next few days. Daask (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. Withdraw then. Gonnym (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused Australian rail map. Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, this map is out of date and thus can't be used on any articles unless it is updated. Steelkamp (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Smallmath should probably also be deleted with it as it isn't used other than a few old talk pages. Gonnym (talk) 20:20, 6 June 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.
Unused rooster template that hasn't been updated since 2016. It is unclear from Colo-Colo B if this team is still active. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:04, 8 June 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).
Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator. I have abandoned this template and it is no longer used. BhamBoi (talk) 17:34, 6 June 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.
Currently an exact copy of Template:Sequence and unused, but before it does get used, this is unnecessary and will end up as an inferior duplicate of a navigation template if valid, or be used contrary to WP:FILMNAV. Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain. are we sure there's no use for this? I realize it's an exact copy of template:Sequence now, but my thought was to create this now, and make it available for future refinement, based on what editors might think might be useful, for a navbox like this that is specifically for authors, in this format. any chance this might be useful, at all? Sm8900 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem I have with the style of this and similar s-x templates is that they are require editing the same information in each and very article they are used and their "transclusions" can't be tracked. With navboxes you just create it once then transclude it on all pages. You also get access to tools like Template:Check completeness of transclusions which can help track transclusions. In one of the nominations above, Template:Patrick O'Brian provides the same information in a much more editor friendly format. Gonnym (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any clear way of differentiating this from the existing template is provided - none have been. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging all of the above together into a Template:Audio-xx (Template:Audio-lang exists and seems to do this a bit differently).
All of these templates are the exact same other than the language link and tag. Before we end up with 100s of these similar templates, it would be better and much easier for maintenance if these are merged into one single template that accepts a language code and produces a link. This can be done with {{ISO 639 name link|ar}}. Gonnym (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with {{lang-xx|{{audio|...|...}}}} and delete. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, IPA is the primary and recommended way of documenting pronunciation, so ideally this construction should not be used at all. Creating a new template may facilitate this nonstandard practice, so just destructure them. Nardog (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog Since this is your area of expertise, I'll follow you here. Your proposed replacement is very similar to Template:Audio-lang. Do they do different thigns? Gonnym (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That template doesn't prefix the audio with the language name, so that is one difference. But it might be a good idea to replace that template too given the scarce usage. Nardog (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excessively long, poorly organizaed, and unnecessary; these articles are included in per-dynasty navboxes about conflicts. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree - trying to summarise thousands of years of Chinese military history into a single infobox isn't at all workable. I'd suggest that this be split into separate infoboxes or deleted as it's not very useful in its current form. Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Dag with Template:Dagger.
I'm going slightly more "discussion" with this TFD than anything, primarily thinking that {{dag}} should either be merged into {{dagger}} or renamed to make it more obvious as to why it's being used (though expanding the name might then make it longer than just typing out the <sup>...</sup> pair...). As it stands, {{dag}} by itself is potentially confusing (e.g. "what is a dag", or why it gives a superscript output) so I feel like something needs to be done. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it strange that we still use archaic print notations instead of hyperlinked notes. How are either of those better than a regular {{efn}} note? Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: The preferred option is to redirect {{dag}}to{{dagger}}. Given its minimal use, merging simplifies matters. However, if retaining the functionality is crucial, renaming {{dag}} to "superscript-dagger" or "dagger-sup" would clarify its purpose, albeit making it longer. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it's basically only used as part of {{TAAR ligands}}. Do we need a template for this at all? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: If choose to merge and retain functionality
{{#if: {{{s|}}} | <sup>†</sup> | † }}
{{dag}} will output †
{{dag|s}} will output <sup>†</sup>
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 00:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Anoop, although "sup" is probably a clearer param name. Queen of Hearts (🏳️⚧️ • 🏳️🌈) 15:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. May have been superseded during the slow transition to Module:Adjacent stations. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our naming conventions have discouraged "railway halt" in favor of "station" or "railway station" in the article title. I think the exception is Thailand. Mackensen(talk) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2007. If it was ever used, it may have been replaced by {{Infobox road/shield/ITA}}, which is used in {{infobox road}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Created in September 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are other emoji related templates. On a side note, this one was created by a user who joined to create this and some random shortcuts, renamed their username, blanked their page and seemingly quit. Very odd editing pattern. Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions that explain the reason for its creation. Created in January 2024. {{Media in the United Kingdom}} appears to do the job fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it were used. Sidebars take way too much of screen real-estate and these topics usually already have an infobox in that place, needlessly making the top of the screen crowded. Gonnym (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox has only three blue links and only transcluded onto three articles, does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles24/7(C) 14:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Five blue links appears sufficient. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox has only three blue links and only transcluded onto three articles, does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles24/7(C) 14:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox only transcluded onto three articles, does not warrant existence of this navigation template. No prejudice against recreation once enough articles have been created related to this topic. Eagles24/7(C) 14:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Five blue links should be sufficient. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- unused, and I forget why I made this. I copied it over to Sandbox: an admin can delete both the module and the template. — hike395 (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused citation template. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. If this is unused, it's only because someone substituted all the uses of it. AZBilliards is one of our most frequently cited pool news sources. It may be that we don't need a template for it, if no one's going to use it henceforth, but this used to be used (I know, since I was using it) and I'm not certain this wasn't just mass-subst'd by someone a while back without any discussion (e.g. at WT:CUE). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a very likely scenario. Part of the reason behind this cleanup is to inform template creator's (and other interested parties) that a template that might have been used was removed. Let me know if you plan on reusing it so I'll withdraw my nomination. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used it quite a bit, I usually substitute it though. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 23:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also use it, and don't subst it, but if people would rather it be subst'd, we can add that "should be substituted" notice to its documentation. Since it's in active use by at least two editors, I'm going with keep. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unnecessary and unused. GiantSnowman 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I made this when the North American Stallions football team was still believed to be competing as independents, but information came out midway through the 2023 season that they had actually joined a conference, so it's no longer necessary. Finchwidget (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2006. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was one of the first templates to do that mapping, created in 2006 and fully documented at that time (and the best way). Further templates are more poorly documented, sometimes incomplete. It has been used a lot, but visibly bots have replaced its uses by other templates. If there are no incoming links, it's because it was designed to be "substed". Other templates do not offer that. The reason of its existence was the fact that many browsers at that time did not recognize all X11/CSS3 color names (and there are still some browsers implementing them incoherently). It was made as a simple helper to convert pages and may still be usefu; notably with subst.
Note: NEVER not post notices inside the code transcluded by the template: such notices should be inside the "noinclude" section, without introducing any newlines in the transcluded part. I move your notice to the existing noinclude section. When a template has a do page, you should place it in that doc page instead of modifying the template code! The way you did it broke the template (and all its examples shown on the doc page!). Be careful. verdy_p (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with how notices are placed, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion and WP:Twinkle. Placing the template in a noinclude tag prevents the notice from appearing on transcluding pages, which it's designed to be. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdy p, I used Twinkle to place the notice. If there are other templates that do the same thing as this one but worse, please link to them here so that they can be merged. As for the template being substed, if it is intended as a subst-only template, it should be labeled as such using {{subst only}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle is wrong here. It cannot arbitrarily place contents in templates (because it beraks the templates). This MUST be done inside their "noinclude" section (usually where the documentation template is inserted), or inside its /doc subpage if there's one; if there's none, a "noinclude" section must be created to place the banner, without adding any newline before or after it (because it also breaks these templates that would transclude this newline, especially here where the template is intended to be used only inline, but as well when these are block templates, to avoid introducing paragraphs, or breaking lists). Don't trust "easy" tools that make things incorrectly, you are still responsible of your edits, even when using such tools, and fix it instantly before applying/saving your changes.
Placing such banner in a "noinclude" section of templates is the appropriate thing; it does not hide the template, the notice is present (and still tracked appropriately in tracking categories). There's no reason to also "spam" the banner everywhere the template may be used, possibly many times (making things worse on pages using it, if the template is substituted as it was documented). There's absoluetly no need to transcude even tracking category in those pages, tracking the template page only is always sufficient: pages referencing such templates are listed by Mediawiki itself (Special:WhatLinksHere in the sidebar).
Also note that this template was designed in 2006, and other labeling templates in its doc page were not existing at that time. And the existing doc was clearly showing that "subst" was fully supported (without being necessarily required: this is not a "subst-only" template, used for example in talk pages for their historic archiving), so such labelling is superfluous. verdy_p (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of waging this one-man wall of text war on this page where no one sees it, you could bring up your points in one of the other venues I listed. And yes, placing a notification inside noinclude tags hides it on every place a template is used. Regarding the inline comment, there is an option in the template that doesn't break these templates, but when a template is unused, this really doesn't matter. Gonnym (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused. Wikipedia is not a repository of ancient code. And I remember engaging in this very same conflict with Verdy p over whether to noinclude TfD tags way back when I first joined in 2016. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A singular article is not what a navigation template is used for as it doesn't offer bi-directional navigation. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can add it to other articles. Your nominations of late are nominating good useful templates without thinking they should be added to articles before going to Tfd. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't add templates to articles just because someone created a template with a link to it. If I feel it has no merit I send it here. If you want me to amend my nomination I will. Gonnym (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amending nomination: A navigation template that was created 11 years ago and until now was unused and now is used on a single article. Navigation templates aren't helpful if they aren't used on the entire set. This seems like this template is apparently unwanted as it would have been used by now. Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was only removed from the main article on May 17. It was added in February. Only one edit removed it of late. This doesn't make it unwarranted and being used on one article doesn't make it a valid reason to delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. This template is a navigation template, if isn't used anywhere, then there is no bi-directional navigation and it becomes pointless. If the other articles don't need it, then it just isn't useful. Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion. Izno (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have (surprisingly) recently discovered, this entire family of templates auto-detects the protection level of the template for which the edit request is being made. This means that an {{FPER}} placed on a template-protected template will result in exactly the same thing as a {{TPER}}. Because of this, it seems to me that there is little reason to keep these all as separate templates, instead using the more obvious and reasonably-named {{request edit}} as the base template for this family (instead of the latter template being used as a dab for all five). Primefac (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck {{request edit}} since most of the participants feel it's not well-suited for the final target. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first five together but keep{{request edit}} as is since COI edit requests are, and need to be, a separate process (a page someone has a COI with can also be protected). * Pppery *it has begun... 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a parameter such as COI=yesortype=COI could be used to flag the type of edit request that is being made, which would allow all six templates to be merged into Template:Request edit. That would still keep them a separate process. AdamBlackt • c 16:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason to do that, though? It seems to just make things more complicated for everyone. * Pppery *it has begun... 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it complicates things, it streamlines the process of requesting an edit. Btw, {{request edit}} has been deprecated, so you're already meant to use a different template - {{edit COI}}. AdamBlackt • c 22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Request edit used to be for COI, and it's a generic name that could refer to it or edit partially-blocked as well. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being an admin doesn't mean very much here--there's no need to point out you aren't one. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 17:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first five and keep{{Request edit}} as a disambiguation per Pppery. I was also rather surprised and amused to find out that the edit request templates automatically emulate each other based on the page's protection level. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably have "request" in its name. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe {{Protected edit request}} to match the Module it invokes, though I should note that the possibly enticing shortcut {{PER}} is already a template for the Peruvian flag. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge first five unless there is some yet-to-be-discovered reason to have them separate. Gonnym (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{request edit}} needs a new name, since that's not what it does. Other than that, I see no issue with merging the others. Izno (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see an issue (based on the VPT chatter), and the underlying module already deals with these reasonably. Oppose. Izno (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [Edit: Oppose]: These do not behave identically when the edit request is to an unprotected page. For example, you could use {{Edit extended-protected}} for an article that is within an WP:ARBECR topic area but which has not presently been protected. (If the page is protected, you have to use |force= to force a different protection level the default protection level specified by the wrapper.) SilverLocust💬 23:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Need to make sure the force stuff isn't broken, it is needed sometimes. — xaosfluxTalk 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't think it's possible to merge these without breaking current functionality (as I explain below), I am changing my comment to an "oppose". (I don't oppose creating a sixth template with no default level that instead would say when the protection level could not be detected, but I oppose redirecting or deleting the five templates proposed for merging.) SilverLocust💬 20:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this template set is missing a template for requesting edits that are editfiltered, so autodetection doesn't help, when you need extra rights due to an edit filter instead of page protection. If these are merged, will a switch be available to select a rights level for that situation? -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Except the last, they're all wrappers for Module:Protected edit request with slightly different arguments, so in that sense they're already merged. But we should probably keep the slightly different behavior in that {{Edit fully-protected}} should default to fully-protected if the auto-detection fails, {{Edit semi-protected}} to semi-protected, and so on rather than turning them all into redirects to a single wrapper. {{Request edit}} should probably have no default, if that's reasonable. Anomie⚔ 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge, now that the last has been struck, keep different behavior defaults if feasible per Anomie. I also agree that with everything already under one-module it really doesn't make that much of a difference. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge - I do like Anomie's point about the default action Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose merge per Anomie. These separate 'templates' are just wrappers for that edit request module really, so not any duplicated template code to worry about. Let's not possibly cause unintended behaviour for a template that's used at least hundreds of times everyday, especially with the auto-detect failover. There are other potential complications like what 65.92.244.237 has written above. Though, consider this vote invalidated if it's possible to merge all of these templates together without changing the behaviour and functionality of these templates. — AP 499D25(talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support creating a template with auto-detection, as long as the existing templates are kept per SilverLocust and Anomie. Rusty4321talkcontribs 14:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the target should maybe be {{Protected edit request}}. {{Request edit}} may be the destination or redirect to a different merge target, since hatnotes can direct users to more appropriate templates. SWinxy (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the currently-proposed merge of the first five. Agree the final template name should be something like {{Protected edit request}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:ECR doesn't always get applied using WP:ECP. Therefore, using {{Edit extended-protected}} on a page that is not extended confirmed protected makes sense. The autodetection will not be able to handle that case. Add that to the other edge cases described above by other editors and it's clear that this merge will create more problems than in will solve. Nickps (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I don't oppose a merge if the current default behavior is retained. Nickps (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am mistaken {{EPER}} doesn't currently recognize non-ECP pages that also happen to be under ARBECR. If I am mistaken, then yes, the post-merge template will be able to handle it because no functionality is being lost (just renamed). Primefac (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm going by what Anomie said. If the auto-detection fails, {{EPER}} defaults to ECP. So, while it doesn't recognise that the page is under ARBECR, it still handles the situation correctly. I also just noticed that SilverLocust has already raised this issue. Nickps (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There would be a loss in current functionality, Primefac. For example, {{Edit extended-protected|force=yes}} would no longer work.
Each of the five wrapper templates proposed for merging has a default level. E.g., {{Edit extended-protected}}is{{#invoke:protected edit request|extended}} (where the default there is extended). If the page to be edited is unprotected or if |force=yes is used, then that default level is used. If these were all redirected to one template, then there would be a loss of functionality unless someone knows how to tell a module not merely which wrapper is invoking a module (since there would only be one merged wrapper), but rather which redirect is being used to transclude the wrapper that invokes the module (and I don't think that is possible). If no default is provided when invoking the module, then it presently breaks with the error message Lua error in Module:Protected_edit_request/active at line 299: attempt to concatenate local 'boxProtectionLevel' (a nil value). when the page is unprotected or |force=yes is used. SilverLocust💬 20:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust The module could use getContent() to get the text of the current page and then search it for one of the redirect templates. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would potentially break when viewing old revisions/permalinks, and probably need to take into account possibilities like multiple requests on a page (compare Module:Is infobox in lead's difficulty of handling multiple infoboxes). I prefer not to have templates behave differently when viewing permalinks/old revisions of a page. (Ahecht also replied at Village pump (technical), where Nickps asked whether this is possible. PrimeHunter replied expressing opposition to the suggestion.) SilverLocust💬 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The simple solution for new uses is to transition from |force=yes to specifying the level to force, eg. |force=extended. I agree there's no straightforward solution for existing uses, so we should just leave the existing templates as is, but stop advertising them in preloads and documentation pages. – SD0001 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly would something like {{Request edit|force=semiprotected}} be better than {{Edit semi-protected|force=yes}}?Other than to satisfy a misguided desire for {{Edit semi-protected}} to be a redirect rather than the wrapper it is now? Anomie⚔ 11:53, 6 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".
