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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:As of currently (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is just a way to get around the guidelines about using the phrase "currently" (WP:PRECISELANG), but the effect is worse since it implies a level of confidence that doesn't exist (despite the tiny warning text). Even worse, when used in a sentence or paragraph with a citation, it is blatently misrepresenting what the citation actually says, and is a violation of WP:V. As of when I am writing this nomination, the template is only used in three places, one of which is plain wrong (it is putting a date on a specific attendance figure), and the other two can be replaced with the dates of the last reliable source confirming that the information is unknown. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete, ((as of)) is fine since you manually update the date and hopefully add a citation. this one is pointless since it will never be in sync with any citation that you provide. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not clear how it "wouldn't be in sync" with a provided citation is a detrimental quality for this template. If information is stated with a citation, and the information is known to change, then the information will not be in sync no matter what template is used. The ((as of)) template, in my opinion, is worse as it looks like an ordinary reference and gives no indication to the user that the information is in the process of changing. Banaticus (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not being in sync with the citation fails WP:V, as the citation doesn't verify the date that is being presented in the text. It's easy enough to use ((as of)) to indicate the information is known to change if there are reliable sources that indicate that it is so (e.g. "as of April 26, 2018, Jimmy Hoffa's body had not been found, but the search is ongoing" or "as of April 26, 2018, the painting was valued at $21 million, but this valuation has changed over time"). Saying anything else fails verifiability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 May 5. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Yahwistic_titles_of_Jesus_in_Greek (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. per G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:POV fork of Template:Yemeni Crisis (2011–present). Also the template is too big and is a draft. There are display problem when the template is used. Also, the template is not neutral because US and UK are accused whithout proof to be a part of the coalition but the others countries such as Morocco are not shown. Panam2014 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Infobox fraternity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox fraternity with Template:Infobox organization.
I realised the need for this merge while evaluating the options of infoboxes for organisations such as Catholic German student corporation Saarland (Saarbrücken) Jena, and Cavalry and Guards Club. I opted for Template:Infobox organization - but merged with Template:Infobox fraternity it would be even better. On a second note, if not, possibly Template:Infobox order could be merged with Template:Infobox fraternity? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose until (a) a rationale for the proposal is presented and (b) someone explains how the merge would work (because a quick glance shows a lot of additional parameters in the fraternity infobox not already present in the organization infobox; if the intention is to simply add the additional parameters to the merged infobox then I am definitely opposed to making an already busy infobox even busier). ElKevbo (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per WP:INFOCOL. User:Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 19:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• what parameters would you add to ((infobox organization))? and we can't really discuss merging this with ((infobox order)) since that wasn't included in this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: the templates are too dissimilar to merge. A much better solution would be to add the parameters you need to template:Infobox fraternity.– Lionel^(talk) 03:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: I would oppose this, fraternities are a unique enough organization to warrant its own infobox and there are many many wikipages on fraternities. I also agree with Lionel above that the infoboxes are too dissimilar. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose:Significant dissimiliarities, many of the fields don't belong on infobox organization. The Infobox fraternity is more aimed at the Greek Letter Organizations in the North American tradition (which includes the Philippines) (and the non-greek letter in that universe such as FarmHouse )rather than the European ones. I have no problems if the German and Dutch (and similar) use Infobox Organization.Naraht (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Cladex[edit]

• Template:Cladex (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cladogram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cladex with Template:Cladogram.
In order to consolidate much overlapping templates similarly to the merged precedessors of Template:Ahnentafel. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• oppose, this is very different from ((ahnentafel)). in that case, the old ((ahnentafel)) generated the entire tree. here, the ((cladex)) generates one small section, so you can't just merge the two. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• oppose - would support merging Cladex to Clade (both are recursive, Clade is a newer implementation I'm told), but Cladogram is just the wrapper whereas Clade/Cladex are used repeatedly, nested to form a branching tree, so the merge as stated makes no sense at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Clade[edit]

• Template:Clade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cladogram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Clade with Template:Cladogram.
In order to consolidate much overlapping templates similarly to the merged precedessors of Template:Ahnentafel. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment These need to be considered together. There's a strong argument for merging ((Cladex)) into ((Clade)) now that the latter is implemented in Lua; the logic of a separate ((Cladex)) was that its extra processing reduced the level of nesting possible. I don't understand how ((Clade)), which is an intrinsically recursive template, can be merged with the non-recursive ((Cladogram)). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment ((Cladogram)) is a template that uses ((clade)) or ((cladex)) to create one or more phylogenetic trees in a sidebox. They work together.   Jts1882 | talk  13:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose ((Cladogram)) and ((Clade)) have different functions, so there is no reason to merge the cladogram template (((Clade))) and the template that creates sideboxes to hold the cladogram (((Cladogram))). IJReid ^{((T - C - D - R))} 14:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• oppose, ((clade)) makes the leaves and ((cladogram)) makes the wrapper. if you want to make a version of ((cladogram)) that builds the tree as well (without using ((clade)) or ((cladex))) then feel free to write one and come back with a demonstration for us. Frietjes (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• oppose, as others have rightly said, these aren't the same thing at all and they're both needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:3gen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ahnentafel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:3gen with Template:Ahnentafel.
Please see below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose The template Ahnentafel is not a standard used by all secondary sources and it has long been the practice that there should be consistency within an article not consistence over the whole project. Wikipedia Ahnentafelis an American format for Ahnentafel trees. Other formats which are more typically Continental European (such as an tree with branches (example in Help:Family trees#Chart template and in the first image to the right (the second shows an Ahnentafe tree built the opposite way from the wikipedia Ahnentafel template). If anything this template needs expansion to be able to present 5 generations. -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The existence of WP:MOS seems to contradict not having site wide consistency. Seems reasonable to stick with a system that is used 99.9% of the time and have constitency Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not so! See MOS:ARTCON. The MOS does not support consistency between articles: If it did then all of them would use US spelling, the same types of citation format and section names and layout in all similar articles. How do you know it is "a system" used 99.9% of the time? -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the fact that this template is used once and the other thousands of times (unless there are manual trees done somewhere, or some template I don't know of). Not everywhere is there site wide consistency, but in lot of places there are. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete ((3gen)); don't merge anything. ((3gen)) is not used. family trees are rendered using the ((chart)) system instead. Frietjes (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @ Frietjes I have converted it to use ((chart)) instead of ((familytree)) deleting it because it does not use chart is not a reason. As I show next to these discussions, this format is common so why delete it when someone may wish to use it? -- PBS (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  ((3gen)) is not used, while ((chart)) and ((family tree)) are used. Frietjes (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  template:family tree has been superseded with template:chart. All that is needed is to convert any trees that use template:family tree with template:chart. template:3gen may not be in use at the moment but it has not been widely advertised on pages like help:family tree. If I had known about it I would have included it on that page. As it replicates one of the common European formats for ahnentafel (the template:Ahnentafel is in American style) I do not see why it ought to be removed when it is useful for anyone who wishes to use a common European style display for an ahnentafel. -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So Frietjes, would you be willing to evaluate your stance on this? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know how many times I need to repeat that ((3gen)) is not used, while ((chart)) and ((family tree)) are used. there is nothing to merge, just delete the ((3gen)) template and move on. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I take it you do not support a redirect then. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please stop hounding me. Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Chicbyaccident below on your proposal for Template:S-anc you ask "implement a variable wich renders the tree for any of the two horizontal directions according to the preference of a biographical article at hand, right?". If you implement a variable that allows a tree all four ways then this template becomes redundant, but until such time as that functionality is built into Template:Ahnentafel this request is premature. As I show in the images to the left such orderings are common in European Ahnentafel trees, and restricting the type of tree that is available to just that common is American literature is undesirable. If you have that change made to Template:Ahnentafel then I will support the redirect of this template but until that is done I will continue to oppose this proposal. -- PBS (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Ahnentafel-tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ahnentafel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Ahnentafel-tree with Template:Ahnentafel.
Worth considering. One type of presentation should be enough for unity and consistency. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Not a standard and it has long been the practice that there should be consistency within an article not consistence over the whole project. The "one the type of presentation" is not a standard format it is an American format for Ahnentafel trees. Other formats which are more typically Continental European (such as an tree with branches (example in Help:Family trees#Chart template and in the first image to the right (the second shows an Ahnentafe tree built the opposite way from the wikipedia Ahnentafel template). -- PBS (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: technical point I (PBS (talk)) wrote template:Ahnentafel-tree to handle trees that are more than seven generations deep and has a format where more details can be shown for each entry if wanted (a whole line rather than a box). I see no justification for removing a template that may be of use to some people. Besides it is built on another template and just simplifies the presentation of what can be built with template:Tree list. See Help:Family trees for example of both Ahnentafel-trees built with template:Tree list and template:Chart. @Chicbyaccident How do you propose to using the template:Ahnentafel to present a viewable and printable ahnentafel of 9 generations (the current template:Ahnentafel is limited to 7 last member 127 of that generation. Follow the link to User:PBS/Ahnetafel for an example of the two. -- PBS (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I had to put the above example in pre tags to disable it because it is breaking Wikipedia:Templates for discussion by putting that page in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. If wanted, put the above in a sandbox and link to it from here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Johnuniq, you did not "have to" do anything you chose to do something. It did not break the page, it only put it into a category (which can be ignored). You really should have discussed that with me first before hatting my comment. I have changed it into a link as suggested. -- PBS (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @PBS: You are correct that this subpage (2018 April 16) was not broken. However, the big template definitely broke Wikipedia:Templates for discussion as could be seen by dozens of "Template:Something" in the page where various templates after this section were not expanded. That happens once the two-megabyte expansion size limit is reached. Another attempt was made to fix the problem (see talk) but that was not enough when the page grew. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• do not merge, the compact ahnentafel-tree format is far better for large trees. sure, one could make a module that renders both formats, but you would still need a way to switch between the two formats. using a separate template name seems to be a logical way to do it. Frietjes (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Ahnetafel tree really really should've been rewritten in lua. Don't know why it wasn't. Anyhow, is there really a case where it is justifiable to give 500 ancestors? WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and what not - this template is only used once in an article, to demonstrate ahnetafel tree for 127 members - is there any other use for it? Are large trees used at all in articles, in a way that is justifiable? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • given that it's only used in one article, replace/delete would be a good option. Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  So now Galobtter, you justify removing a template on the grounds that its use may sometimes breach WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE? That is just as true for template:Ahnentafel as may of its usages are on trees that have no sources. The point is that this template will allow someone to build a large tree if they wish. This is not a paper based project and the bytes that this template takes up is of no consequence. -- PBS (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I'm saying is that I don't see where a 9 generation tree is useful to have - having a 9 generation tree is mostly likely to be essentially Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Even 7 generation seems quite a bit to have, and is likely to be too much. Since one of your justifications is that it works with large trees, I'm saying that articles shouldn't have large trees, and neither do they seem to currently have them, and so this template doesn't have any use over ((Ahnentafel)). Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because you do not see where 9 generation tree is useful does not mean that it is not useful in some cases nad it seems to me to be a poor reason to support deletion. I wrote it originally for the page on the ancestry of Queen Elizabeth. In that case on the male line it is quite easy to go back 9 generations and more. It is likely that is true for may European Houses. I asked before and you gave no answer "How do you propose to using the template:Ahnentafel to present a viewable and printable ahnentafel of 9 generations (the current template:Ahnentafel is limited to 7 last member 127 of that generation."? -- PBS (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no idea why you keep saying the current template:Ahnentafel is limited to 7 last member 127 of that generation. it may be hard to read, but it will render more than 127 entries (see Template:Ahnentafel/testcases2). Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"no idea why you keep saying...." Because I made a mistake! You are correct. -- PBS (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:S-anc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ahnentafel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:S-anc with Template:Ahnentafel.
Please see below. Please note: part or while of the style of this template, however, could be considered for the fina result in Template:Ahnentafel. At least how the heading and frame of the whole template looks. It is equivalent to the looks of succession boxes, and looks more updated that the preexisting state of Template:Ahnentafel. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose The template Ahnentafel is not a standard used by all secondary sources and it has long been the practice that there should be consistency within an article not consistence over the whole project. Wikipedia Ahnentafelis an American format for Ahnentafel trees. I have included example on the right where the format of S-anc is used independently of Wikipedia. We should have formats that can handle those in all secondary sources. It is very arguable whether we want to create one very complicated template to handle all possible formats rather than several simpler ones. If the work is done first to be able to replicate this right to left tree in the Wikipedia template them come back with a new proposal, but until that work is done this merge ought not to be considered. -- PBS (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PBS: Well, what is the difference between this template Template:Ahnentafel except this one only regards three generations and goes from the right to left, please? If its the right and left issue that is the issue, then it should be very easy to implement a variable wich renders the tree for any of the two horizontal directions according to the preference of a biographical article at hand, right? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• oppose, ((ahnentafel)) should not be put in a stack of ((succession box)) templates. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if we consider Edward II of England as exemplified in the template documentation, this article does not seem to use this template but rather Template:Ahnentafel. So it goes for all other examples in the documentation. Arguably, this adds to the rationale of a merge. As for its stile of the header of the template in design similar to other succiession boxes, I would consider it worthy of evaluation for implementation in Template:Ahnentafel, which currently looks rather unique a template. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

so delete ((S-anc)) instead. there is nothing to merge. Frietjes (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting it deletes the option of using an Ahnentafel display from right to left. Chicbyaccident you write above "implement a variable wich renders the tree for any of the two horizontal directions according to the preference of a biographical article at hand, right?" then this request is premature. Get the code changed first and then request a merge/delete. Until that functionality is added to Template:Ahnentafel, Template:S-anc should be left as is. Indeed get the functionality to manage top to bottom and bottom to top and Template:3gen could also be deleted, but until it is I oppose the deletion of 3gen for the same reason. -- PBS (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 May 5. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Zara_Nachke_Dikha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep but continue to deprecate Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Iw-ref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has made the rounds at TfD several times before, each time with the consensus to keep for now, only because it was used on so many pages. Well, now there are no more articles using the template, which has been deprecated for years. Kill it with fire. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• keep for now, it's substitute-only and was only very very recently orphaned after being converted to a substitute-only wrapper (just yesterday). deleting it will break the automatically substituted feature. Frietjes (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Frietjes, the auto-substitute feature was merely a quick way of removing it from articles. It isn't intented to serve any lasting purpose. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • which doesn't explain why the bot is continually moving the ((translated page)) templates to the talk page (ongoing since 2009). clearly it's not a one-time job. as along as variants of the ((iw-ref)) template exist on other language-WPs (e.g. here), we will need a bot to correct the problem. Frietjes (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Same position as last time: Deprecate but do not delete because it will render the attribution statement provided in older revisions unreadable; these old revisions might not have used the suggested method of attribution given instead of this template. –xeno^talk 16:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• xeno You are incorrect - every article that had this tag now has a tag at its talk page. It is no longer required to preserve attribution. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Nevertheless, it will still make old revisions render poorly. –xeno^talk 13:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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