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 view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.
Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.
Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
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 administrators or Template 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_17#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 history or talk 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 history or talk page.
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)
Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.
Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle 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 subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.
Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.
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.
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Indeed, it appears to have been substed some 350 times, but basically not in the past 5 years. There's about 40 uses by someone else but not many of those are since 2019. I find the template similarly questionable in general however. Izno (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Speedy Keep, nominated by a blocked user and I agree with WikiCleanerMan. xq 00:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 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]
Keep Third reason in WP:TFD#REASONS says to delete when a template has no likelihood of being used. Three years is not a long time; similar templates have been populated over time. Many of the structured templates I created in Category:Diplomatic missions by receiving country started off as bare-bone/transclusionless and now have increased usage. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:49, 17 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has been restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it might be used again at some point. G-13114 (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has been restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it seems to be one of the better alternatives available for depicting these concepts. (I could see it being used in an article about a historical rail incident where signals were implicated, but no contemporary image of that signal aspect exists.) I'd also be interested to know if its creator has concrete plans for it. TheFeds 23:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused route map. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has been added to an appropriate article. Useddenim (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The content does differ a little between the two. I suppose the solution is to merge the content under the correct spelling. --DB1729talk 13:32, 17 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 ([1])? 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with just one blue link in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to nom this for deletion myself after seeing Oinkers comment below, but Jonesey had already did it. --DB1729talk 22:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with zero blue links in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to nom this for deletion myself after seeing Oinkers comment below, but Jonesey had already did it. --DB1729talk 22:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sport team navbox with two blue links in the body. One link to the main subject and one to a stadium does not justify a navbox. DB1729talk 15:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with deletion. Something I had created in my early days at Wikipedia, without understanding all the policies for navboxes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, broken template. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the history, it seems that this user is editing in Romanian and shouldn't be on enwiki. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Musical group navbox with no links to albums or singles. Just a couple members and an associated act does not justify a navbox. DB1729talk 04:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A template for an external link, linking to website PCGamingWiki. It is not a suitable external link, since PCGamingWiki is suitable for (experienced) PC gamers, with the technical know-how to change, mod, tweak, a game. It doesn't offer any encyclopedic information. I used the same example on WT:VG: Their wiki on BioShock Infinite for instance is great if the player would want to skip the introduction video, add a Turkish fan translation or disable lens flare effects, but how does that help the general reader, wanting to know more about BioShock Infinite? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As creator. The site meets the standard under WP:ELNO#EL12 which is a wiki with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. It contains a level of detail which would be unsuitable for an encyclopedia article but may be of interest to our readers. Either way, that is more a question of the WP:EL policy rather than whether the template should exist at all. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 15:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is acceptable because it doesn't fail one bullet point of ELNO? It's a wiki for gamers for running PC games. It's not of interest to the general reader whatsoever. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Try as I might, but I can't find what part of WP:ELNO this violates. It appears to offer precisely what external links are supposed to - additional information and research beyond what a featured article might even have. They are specifically for people who want a more indepth view of the subject, such as technical specs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Withdrawn. I have marked this template with ((transclusionless)), using the above explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. According to All Ordinaries, there are 500 companies in that index, which might make a useful category, but the companies are not related to each other in a way that fits the purpose of a navbox, and there would be too many to list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I thought of changing it to top x of the all ordinaries but this would basically be the same as existing ASX indexes so doesn’t seem very useful. Wikibility (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Created in 2018. It cannot work as designed, because there do not appear to be any articles that fit the naming scheme in the template code. If it is kept, it should be moved to Template:Area Record to match similar templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently a failed attempt at creating a template for the common formal Athletics abbreviation of an "Area" or Continental record. A template for the formal abbreviation "AR" is too common a letter combination to be useful. Since this did not become functional under this weird spelling, most editors of this subject including myself create a manual redirect to the record mentioned. This should be a template. Instead of deleting this, a useful, more technical editor should create a workable solution to achieve this need.
Side comment. There is a functionality issue to this comment box. The use of the shift key takes the cursor to the beginning of the paragraph, so all sentences are built backward and have to be copy pasted to the correct position to be readable.Trackinfo (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Created in 2012. This is a subpage of an unrelated redirect, which is confusing. If this template is useful, it should be moved to a useful name that is not a subpage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Templates only have one transclusion each, which do not meet the standards for templates. Content should be substituted into the articles they are used in. The college football WikiProject will argue that these templates is necessary for some sort of category hierarchy within the WikiProject but content on Wikipedia still needs to meet Wikipedia standards first and foremost. Eagles24/7(C) 17:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; part of a standard scheme of standings templates. The templates all now have two transclusions each. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jweiss. Some of them also have over five transclusions. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox only has two transclusions, not enough to warrant existence. It also fails #3, #4, and #5 of the general criteria listed at WP:NAVBOX. Eagles24/7(C) 17:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox only has two transclusions, not enough to warrant existence. It also fails #3, #4, and #5 of the general criteria listed at WP:NAVBOX. Eagles24/7(C) 17:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with no useful links. There is one blue link in the body and that is just piped to the main subject, Khulna University. DB1729talk 22:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links. Created in March 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added transclusions and incoming links as well as description. Flipping Switches (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:31, 12 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 withdrawn. Izno (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now added to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, withdrawn as now used. Gonnym (talk) 19:46, 13 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).
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Izno (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, withdrawn as now used. Gonnym (talk) 19:47, 13 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.
Templates should not be linked to like this as they aren't article content. If they are linked to, that means you are using them as content and they should be an article. Additionally that link itself is an MOS:EGG link, but that is the least of the problem, as links like that will practically never be found as they are hidden away like that. Gonnym (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that ship has sailed (train has left the station?) as ((Enlarge)) is now used on over 750 pages and approximately 250 other templates. Useddenim (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A local consensus in a very small part of the project does not get to override guidelines like MOS:EGG and WP:CLICKHERE. Gonnym (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting the use of ((enlarge)) here so that you can justify your POV in order to be able to delete ((Warsaw central stations)); and
Procedural nomination at the correct venue. Originally nominated at MfD by User:David Eppstein with rationale: Template whose only purpose is to add a worked example to Experimental event rate in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, orphaned after I removed that part of the articleNickps (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It is not entirely clear what this is for, but it is primarily the work of multiple inactive users, and does not appear to have current utility. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This football squad template is 7 years out of date, and the team is now called ZED FC. If someone wants to update and move it to ZED FC, fine. Otherwise, this squad template is pointless. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide states: Götzen does not pursue any claim to the throne...Despite Götzen not actively pursuing any claim himself, social media users claiming to be Mexican monarchists have posted their support of his claim. So some guys on the Internet want him to be a pretender, but he isn't.
Also WP:ORWP:NPOVWP:NOTGENEALOGY. The BLPs above and two other people in the template (and the category) appear to have been inappropriately included for purely genealogical reasons, even though they do not appear to have claimed or actively pursued their (theoretical genealogical) claim on the Mexican throne:
Agustín de Iturbide y Green: When he came of age, Iturbide, who had graduated from Georgetown University, renounced his claim to the throne and title and returned to Mexico. So as soon as he was legally capable, he renounced his claim.
María Josepha Sophia de Iturbide: [She inhered] the Habsburg claim on the throne. Maria Josepha was a very traditional Lady, and a devout Roman Catholic, and stayed as far away from politics as she could. Doesn't seem to have actively pursued her claim either; seems more like other people expect(ed) her to pursue it for purely genealogical reasons (but WP:NOTGENEALOGY).
That would leave this template with just 3 people, namely the 2 emperors (Agustín de Iturbide and Maximilian I of Mexico) and the son of the first emperor, Agustín Jerónimo de Iturbide y Huarte, who is the only historically verifiable active pretender to the Mexican throne from 1824 to 1864. The viablity of this template for navigation is thus in question.
Navbox with one blue link in body. DB1729talk 03:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It also has a blue link to the list of episodes, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing to navigate between for this long-defunct TV show. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template hasn't been used since at latest 2018 (which is when the string docpng was added, a search for which basically turns up empty for something like this template). A gallery whether tag or template is a sufficient functional equivalent. Izno (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient template with no uses in article space but apparently intended for article space. May also not be not particularly relevant with the evolution of policy/guideline onwiki. Izno (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Unused software release version templates for pages that have been deleted (AndroidChat, Virca, WLIrc, Yaaic, JmIrc, Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients, ZsIRC). Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 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]
Template:Miami Metrorail platform layout/Green next
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:49, 17 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.
Template:SA Medal
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:50, 17 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.
Template:GACstats
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:50, 17 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2024 June 17. Izno (talk) 19:49, 17 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2024 June 17. Izno (talk) 19:48, 17 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.
Template:US Census geography
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:47, 17 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.
Template:Vanderbilt Libraries
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.
Template:WMATA Green platform layout/side
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:48, 17 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2024 June 17. Izno (talk) 19:47, 17 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.
Template:Wdsi
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.
Template:Wddi
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.
Template:Wicket-keepers in One Day International cricket
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 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.
Template:West-Midlands-Metro-Line-Two-Coventry
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it might be used at some point. G-13114 (talk) 05:11, 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.
Template:West-Midlands-Metro-Line-One-Ext
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2024 June 17. Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2024 June 17. Izno (talk) 19:46, 17 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.
Template:Foreign relations of the DPR and LPR
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2024 June 17. Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 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).
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.
Template:Eingebundene Diskografie
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 17 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.
Template:NYCS Sandbox header
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 17 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.
Template:NYCS Sandbox
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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.
Template:Counter-Vandalism Unit/fpage
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 17 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.
Template:Cite California Invasive Plant Council assessment
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 17 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.
Template:Positionskarte Österreich
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:32, 17 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.
Template:Positionskarte Welt
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:32, 17 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.
Template:Positionskarte Erde
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:33, 17 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2024 June 17. Izno (talk) 19:45, 17 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.
Template:WikiProject Water polo/doc
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:33, 17 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.
Template:WikiProject Vatican City/doc
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 17 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]
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.
Template:WikiProject United States Public Policy/doc
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 17 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.
Template:WikiProject UK Roads/doc
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 17 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.
Template:WikiProject Iowa/doc
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 17 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.
Template:WikiProject Color/doc
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 17 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.
Template:Vistula boulevards (Warsaw)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 17 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]
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.
Subterm and Subdefn
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:37, 17 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 [2]). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 13:09, 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2024 June 17. Izno (talk) 19:45, 17 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.
Template:TfLstyle
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:37, 17 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.
Template:Charles-Valentin Alkan/doc
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:38, 17 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.
Template:WikiProject Challenges
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:45, 17 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 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.
Template:WikiProject Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:43, 17 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 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.
Template:Gbq/doc
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:39, 17 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]
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 result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:40, 17 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 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 already-merged Bio_coatrack et al
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.
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]
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=yes or type=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".
_Route_map.jpg){kind=link}