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. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-uall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Probably a redundant template. 2600:1702:38D0:E70:C589:FDCB:CA80:C761 (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A more specific template should be used. --Trialpears (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only more specific template I'm aware of is Template:Uw-coi-username, and that template would only be appropriate for a subset of cases when this template would be applicable. I'm also don't see to which template this template is redundant. It would be helpful if the nominator could specify. --Bsherr (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because accounts in the "Offensive and disruptive usernames"(((uw-vaublock))) and "Misleading usernames"(((uw-ublock-double)), ((uw-adminublock)), ((uw-ublock-famous)), ((uw-botublock)) and ((uw-causeblock))) would be banned. For the "Promotional usernames" part ((Uw-coi-username)) should be used as you said. Lastly for "Usernames implying shared use" I didn't find one for cases such as "Jack and Jill's Account", but most of them would fall under ((Uw-coi-username)). --Trialpears (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What about Wikipedia:Username policy#Talk to the user, which states, If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in bad faith, politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username. Doesn't that apply to more than just promotional usernames? And what about cases in which several categories of impermissible usernames apply? Doesn't this template work best for those situations? --Bsherr (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of these cases seem to be dealt with by cutomizing the reason in the normal ((Uw-username)) template which I think is better due to more customisation, but I would like to know what people who actually deal with this kind of stuff so I posted a notification at WT:UPOL. --Trialpears (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - probably redundant to what? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion – What we could do is "merge" this template into ((Uw-username)), so that the latter includes the parameters "offensive", "disruptive", "misleading", "promotional" and "shared use", so for example:

We can also include these parameters in Twinkle options (see images in collapsed box below).

(Collapsed to avoid clutter)
What it looks like now Proposed change

Linguist111^{my talk page} 04:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Linguist111 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this TfD. [reply]

I think a meta-template like that is a good idea. I don't think it makes a template that provides an overview of the policy redundant. This template is most often used on less than clear and convincing violations. In such a circumstance, it may be better to approach a user with a template that provides an overview of the policy rather than identifying a specific part, which comes closer to seeming like an accusation. Not always, but I think it is useful to have the choice. --Bsherr (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about this?

Alternative proposal

The "include policy overview" option could generate the text that ((Uw-uall)) currently has, and the parameter could be something like ((subst:uw-username|all=yes)) and/or ((subst:uw-username|overview=yes)). Linguist111^{my talk page} 16:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parameters. Linguist111^{my talk page} 17:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support the idea of retaining both functions, of course, but keeping them as separate templates would be better. The text introducing the branches of the policy will need to be different: For the meta-template, explaining that the portion of the policy that is of concern is the following. For the general template, setting forth the branches of the policy, without implying that the username implicates all four. Assuming that, now we have a switch that selects between very large blocks of text. With separate templates, the templates' separate pages will preview each iteration fully, the simpler design of separate templates makes them easier to edit for everyone, and the documentation will be simpler. --Bsherr (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[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 delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:International schools in Djibouti (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one bluelink, apart from the title link. Fails WP:NENAN BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- nothing worth navigating. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[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 delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Airlines of Djibouti (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two bluelinks, apart from the title link. Fails WP:NENAN BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - insufficient need for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[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 delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mosques in Djibouti (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three bluelinks, apart from the title link and the see-also below the lines. Fails WP:NENAN BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - insufficient need for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[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 2019 October 20. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NJ_Senate (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 delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Islamophobia by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate to Template:Islamophobia's "Status by country" section. That template is used in each article. If, for some reason, both a side and bottom bars are needed, it is possible to embed "Islamophobia in" in Template:Europe in topic as it has been in Islamophobia in Sweden. Pudeo (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with ((Islamophobia)). While navboxes and sidebar aren't necesarily redundant the sidebar is simply better in this case. I don't like the ((Europe in topic)) solution since it generates too many red links. --Trialpears (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've gone ahead and merged the one appropriate link (thought there were more, but others are redirects). --Trialpears (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, the "status by country" section of ((Islamophobia)) is sufficient. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed that ((Islamophobia))'s country status section is sufficient as is. czar 20:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[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 2019 October 20. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:South_Western_Football_League (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 delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:East Cornwall League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NAVBOX with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template no delete. I added members to the Template and I will add more season in the future Denebleo 14:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete As noted on User talk:Denebleo and by the ongoing prod of a lot of these articles are probably non-notable. It is very unlikley that this template will get more articles and should be deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC) (reply) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialpears (talk • contribs)

• Delete No notable clubs in this league, and its seasons are not notable. Number 57 11:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[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 keep. czar 15:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Franco-Spanish wars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not a campaign box but a disambigiation page is disguise The Banner talk 07:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what the problem is. There are other identical templates such as: Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Spanish wars, Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Dutch Wars and Template:Campaignbox Anglo-French wars. --Muwatallis II (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for maintaining this template, because it is useful. We could just move this template into other name. 웬디러비 (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Rename and repurpose’’’. Should be navigation box at bottom of article and not cross out real battle info at right top of article. Expand and explain if moved and repurposed.Student7 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is There is a lot of precedent for templates like these, and at least I personally find it useful. See also Template:Campaignbox Ottoman–Habsburg Wars, Template:Campaignbox Byzantine–Bulgarian Wars, Template:Campaignbox Guelphs and Ghibellines, Template:Battles of Frankokratia, and more. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[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 2019 October 13. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_Paris_by_Night (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_television_episode (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 merge to Template:Sub judice. While the delete voters were arguing that this template constitutes a legal threat, a policy which state that A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors. which isn't the case in this case. There is also a clarification that Politely making paid editors aware of the requirements of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, or laws against undisclosed advertising, is not a legal threat. making me not weigh these votes more strongly than the keep and merge voters which are in the numerical majority. Whether the template gives inappropriate legal advice that is a discussion that should take place on the talk page or through bold changes and do not impact this close. Since there were no objections towards a merger that option was prefered to the status quo. This consensus to merge does not extend to related templates since these aren't wrappers of ((sub judice)) and they were not tagged for this discussion. A new discussion dealing with these may be in order. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

unnecessary and unneeded on an American Wikipedia. UK courts and laws have no jurisdiction in the United States. Also may be construed as a legal threat which is not allowed per WP:NLT. Possibly only useful on the Uk Wikipedia Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the arguments made in the previous discussion. This is not American Wikipedia, and there is no UK Wikipedia - this is the English Wikipedia. Although the Foundation is governed by US law ("or other applicable laws"), this template is not aimed at the Foundation ... it's clearly aimed at editors who may fall under the jurisdiction of the UK courts (incidentally, there are several other regional variants). This template is only occasionally used on UK topics where editors face a higher than normal non-obvious risk of breaking the law, so it seems entirely appropriate to notify them of that risk. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous discussion, although I would suggest perhaps merging them into a general template that could cover any country using this legal system. There are many countries in the world using English law where this rule applies (Australia, New Zealand, even Canada, to name a few) and there are editors in all of those countries who should be aware that something they post about an incident has the potential to be a contempt of court. Also there should be clear guidelines as to when the template is used. For example, it would be appropriate to use it in a high-profile criminal case, but not something such as the current prorogation controversy. This is Paul (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note if this template is up for deletion, then the following might also need to be considered: ((Sub judice and Contempt Bermuda)), ((Sub judice and Contempt Gibraltar)), ((Sub judice and Contempt Hong Kong)), ((Sub judice and Contempt Ireland)), ((Sub judice and Contempt New Zealand)). D7a894f1d (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Setting my above comments aside for a moment, there's also a general ((Sub judice)) template that should be included. This is Paul (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with This is Paul. It seems some consolidation would be worthwhile. But that should be undertaken separately from this discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per comments from other users, do we really need 8 to 9 different sub judice templates? They look virtually all the same and give the same message. Theprussian (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia should not be in the business of giving legal advice to editors, which is what this template does. Also, based on analysis of the relevant laws in the UK, you have to have access to confidential legal documents or proceedings and publish them with malicious intent (the law states intent is required). The law also states that normal run of the mill reporting on pending cases with public materials is not subject to this law. Since Wikipedia only publishes articles based on public sources, it is very unlikely that an editor would run afoul of this law unless they published confidential court documents, which would not be accepted as reliable sources. Those voting to keep this template need to go and read up on this law. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  One wonders who is attempting to give legal advice. What you say is not necessarily the case. Contempt law can be used where a 'suppression' order is made, but the information is discussed in overseas (reliable) publications. It's also possible to mess with active cases using other publicly available information. There is, as I say above, a higher than normal and non-obvious risk of breaking the law, which is why I think this non-advice-giving template is occasionally useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The law as written is pretty clear that malicious intent is required here. I do understand that a UK version of a "gag order" (suppression order) is common in these cases, but such an order has to be directed and served on a party who is active in the case, which this law applies to. That's a far cry from an anonymous editor who is simply quoting from RS in the press. I don't see how your average Wikipedia editor could violate this law by simply writing about a case with public documents. A suppression order would have to be served on a party (an order cannot be served on the public "at large" it has to be directed to some party), and that party would then have to go onto Wikipedia and release court info into the public domain "with malicious intent". The template also gives legal advice (tells editors to consult with an attorney before editing an article). It's also clearly a legal threat which is prohibited by WP:NLT. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I would change my vote to "keep" if the Wikimedia Foundation can configure its servers to only display the template to IP ranges within the UK. Here in the US, we have free speech and this template doesn't make sense or apply here. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't particularly view advice to "exercise caution" as a threat, any more than the WMF's legal statements. I do want to pick on your assertion that a party to the case must be served with a court order. This is of course common for the mainstream media, but these orders apply nonetheless to all within the jurisdiction. A good recent example of this is the recent prosecutions for sharing alleged images of Jon Venables - lots of unknown people on Twitter were pursued, not just the actress who received a suspended prison sentence. This is such a high profile and obvious case that we don't even need the template for the article. Others are less well known. Another good example was the almost-immediate suppression order preventing New Zealanders from using the name of the (alleged) killer in the Christchurch mosque shootings. I'd agree that some geo-targeting would be a useful addition, but we don't have that. It might help to add a flag or something, but at the moment these templates make it clear which editors it applies to. For this reason I don't really support any kind of unconsidered merge either, though there's probably something that can be done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  My thoughts on that would be to have a main template with regional variations, eg, ((sub judice|UK)) rather than ((sub judice UK)). This is Paul (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to object if someone wishes to do that. We'd lose some refinement in backlinks to the templates, but I'm a bit like meh about that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ((sub judice UK)) is already bascially coded as ((sub judice|jurisdiction=UK)). It's just a shortcut. Is that still not good enough? --Bsherr (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons I notes in the previous discussion on ((Sub judice)) (although I note that arguments like mine did not carry the day in that discussion, and are unlikely to do so here.) TJRC (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[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 Keep, most of the articles have been created, and the author promised to create the others. This is a different situation than in the time of nomination, when the template consisted only of redlinks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:National Assembly (South Korea) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has existed since 2013 but primarily consists of red links. Some of the articles that do exist look a little undercooked as well. PC78 (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't disagree with the nominator's findings, but I think it nonetheless fits in the exception to WP:EXISTING and otherwise meets the criteria for a navbox. --Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which "exception" are we talking about? After six years is it "very likely" that these links will be developed into articles? PC78 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep valuable and existed since 2013. And to be created. Sawol (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSOLD. Would a WikiProject list of needed articles not be a better home for these red links? PC78 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepDelete As shown by PC78 the keep rationales aren't policy based and the template is a red link collection. In the legislature section two out of the the three links are redirects to the main article and the third one I think should be merged there as well. In the members section we have two links to other red link collections of very little value to readers and then we have the two good articles for members 2012-2020. Since there are only two links here a navbox isn't justified and instead succesion boxes should be used for linking between them. --Trialpears (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trialpears: Did you mean "delete"? PC78 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I did. Thanks for catching that! --Trialpears (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Change to keep The templatte now has a lot more links then it used to and it's now acceptable. I agree with PC78 that some of the articles/red link lists are of little value, but as it stands now the template serves a purpose. --Trialpears (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A navbox is for navigating. No objection to reviving this navbox when there are enough articles to navigate. Based on the history, that doesn't appear to be any time soon. -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• just a passing Comment. (also, hi @Trialpears:--nice to see you here, buddy.)

It'd be pretty helpful as a navbox, if the links led to existing articles. Take for example this template: Template:National Assembly of Quebec. Sure, this template has actual links that navigate to articles, but we can see its value. Also, as Trialpears mentioned above, the latter two articles in the template are of pretty decent quality: List of members of the National Assembly (South Korea), 2012–2016, List of members of the National Assembly (South Korea), 2016–present. I can see potential in articles for previous National Assemblies, more work like this should be produced in Wikipedia. We just need time and more people aware about this. I suggest this be added to the Wikiproject Korea to-do lists and all that, so we can work on building this more together. I don't log on to Wikipedia too often, but I'll also contribute more to that template myself.

Thanks to all for contributing in discussion and bringing this up, @PC78:! Ericgyuminchoi (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @PC78, Trialpears, and Whpq: I will create all the lists. All red links will be removed. Please wait until my creation. Sawol (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to the template being userfied while the articles are being built. -- Whpq (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly a useful navigation template with 10 blue links. Baffled by the delete !votes. Number 57 12:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blue links that mostly didn't exist when this discussion started – surely that's not too baffling? I have to question the vaue of some of those new articles, but I suppose that's a separate discussion. PC78 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[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 merge to Template:WikiProject Palaeontology. WikiProject Pterosaurs is a task force of WikiProject Palaeontology, and both this discussion and past/similar discussions are indicating that such task forces do not require their own talk page template. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WikiProject Palaeontology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs with Template:WikiProject Palaeontology.
WikiProject banner for a task force. Should be merged with main project banner to avoid unnecessary duplication. No changes in categorization, but easier maintenance in the future, less clutter and better interactions with auto assessment tools. --Trialpears (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Looks like the main banner already supports the task force anyway. PC78 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not sure what is meant by easier management. We already have two Tree of Life WPs that are too large for some maintenance tasks to run. If ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) were removed, then each affected article would have to be tagged with both ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) and ((WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles)), increasing the amount of clutter. Right now, only ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) is required. If we really wanted to streamline things, removing the legacy TF parameters from ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) and updating affected pages would be the better option. --Nessie (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NessieVL: I'm afraid I don't understand the nature of your complaint, nor where ((WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles)) comes into it. All ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) does is feed Category:Pterosaurs task force articles (and subcategories therof), a task which ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) can do just as well on its own. Many pages appear to have all three banners (Talk:Eudimorphodon, Talk:Nyctosaurus, etc.), not one as you suggest. PC78 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PC78: Just because some banners are misapplied, does not mean everything must be wiped away. All pterosaur articles are both reptiles and paleotaxa. These articles should either use only ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) (preferred), or both ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) and ((WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles)). The latter is more clutter and more duplication, the former is cleaner and easier to parse for maintenance tasks.
    • Also, a taskforce or subproject is allowed to be listed as a taskforce or hook of a parent project. WPBats and WPPrimates are both listed as hooks in ((WikiProject Mammals)), despite having separate banners. WPMCB was a TF under the ((WikiProject Fungi)) banner until recently, despite not actually being a TF nor subproject. The hooks make it easier for casual editors to put articles in the relevant wikiprojects by giving them multiple options. The AFC approval tools do not suggest them, which is why having both options is preferred for smaller projects.
    • And let's not forget that this project is not defunct or anything, so not sure why we need to start consolidating everything now. --Nessie (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still don't entirely follow. If a page only uses ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) then it will only feed into categories for that task force. If categorisation for the two parent projects is necessary then you will need to use those banners as well. You assert that only the Pterosaur banner is necessary on those pages; if that's true, then merging it into ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) will be of no detriment to WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. PC78 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, let's use another example. Say we are placing WP banners on the talk page for Elasmosaurus. It would get ((WikiProject Palaeontology)), ((WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles)), and ((WikiProject Marine life)). Conversely, Giant squid only needs ((WikiProject Cephalopods)). It does not need ((WikiProject Marine life)), as that would be redundant. All cephalopods are marine. Likewise, you don't need to tag Bonobo under both ((WikiProject Primates)) and ((WikiProject Mammals)) (nor even ((WikiProject Mammals|primates=yes))). You only use the first one, ((WikiProject Primates)). We don't need turtles all the way down. --Nessie (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • That logic runs counter to every other WikiProject I've encountered, and I don't see any evidence for it at either WikiProject Marine life or WikiProject Cephalopods (and just to note, Giant squid does in fact have both banners which seems to undermine your argument). To use an example that I'm more familiar with, WP:FILMBIO is a subproject of WP:BIOGRAPHY and instead of having a separate template it has a parameter in ((WikiProject Biography)); any article about an actor or filmmaker is therefore categorised for both projects because it is relevant to both, the two do not somehow become mutually exclusive of each other. By the same token, Giant squid is relevant to both WP Cephalopods and WP Marine life but it currently requires two templates to achieve the same result, which if anything makes it look like another merge candidate. PC78 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Welcome to the Tree of Life WikiProjects then. Under your logic, Firefly should be not just in ((WikiProject Beetles)), but also ((WikiProject Insects)), ((WikiProject Arthropods)), ((WikiProject Animals)), ((WikiProject Tree of Life)), and ((WikiProject Biology)). --Nessie (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then lets wind this back to start: if the Pterosaur banner is removed from Talk:Pterodactylus and replaced with a parameter in the other banner, it will have no impact. If the Marine biology is not needed now, it will not be needed after a merge. The existence of a standalone banner for Pteroaurs is neither here nor there. PC78 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, back at the start I said "If ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) were removed, then each affected article would have to be tagged with both ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) and ((WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles))...." Pterosaurs are not marine, they are reptiles. Not all paleontological articles relate to herpetology. I think you are not understanding the consensus of how these are used in taxa articles. --Nessie (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, I've just got my wires crossed; clearly I meant Amphibians and Reptiles and not Marine biology. I think it's you who doesn't fully understand how WikiProject banners work. We aren't proposing to get rid of the Pterosaur task force, merely the banner, and if the task force falls under WP Amphibians and Reptiles by default then that won't magically change if we merge the banner into WP Palaeontology. Are there any Pterosaur articles that wouldn't fall under Palaeontology? If not then I can't see any need or justification for keeping it. Whatever impact you think this has on WP Amphibians and Reptiles seems entirley imagined on your part. I think I'm going to let this rest because it doesn't feel like either of us are getting anywhere. PC78 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There aren't any primate articles that wouldn't fall under mammals, so should ((WikiProject Primates)) be merged as well? Just because a project or task force is a subset of another, that's not grounds for deletion. Should I put a hook in ((WikiProject Anthropology)) to add articles to WP:Biography, and then propose ((WikiProject Biography)) for a merge with ((WikiProject Anthropology))? That is what all the Support votes mention. It all sounds like WP:IDLI and/or an end-run attempt to chip away at the pterosaurs TF. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 19#Template:WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force. --Nessie (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it would seem the pterosaur task force is already incorporated in the paleo template for the relevant articles? See for example the talk page of Pteranodon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would still need a bit of work to incorporate the separate importance ratings and requested image categorisation, but that's an easy enough task. PC78 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PC78 and FunkMonk: are you volunteering to do all that? --Nessie (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The changes I refered to are fairly trivial, I'd be happy to do them. PC78 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a bot could do it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to do it and have made some regex that had 0 false positives when converting the 500 uses WikiProject Patna. --Trialpears (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The main benefit this merger would entail would be making sure that all Pterosaurs are tagged with ((WP Palaeontology)) and whether this is desirable is entirely up to the wikiproject, which it has been for all task forces I've seen. If this isn't desirable then I will of course change my mind. For the bats tf example there were some major differences with major arguments being percieved technical problems and unnecessary work, neither of these are problems here. Ultimately though the choice is up to the WikiProject and if NessieVL is still opposed to the change I think it shouldn't be in any way forced by outsiders that have never contributed to any pterosaurus articles. --Trialpears (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This all still seems very backwards. Shouldn't this first have consensus at WPPaleo/AAR to revoke the semi-autonomy of Pterosaurs? That's what happened at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. Plus I still don't know what harm the template is causing. Again, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 19#Template:WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force.

• Comment - I lean towards supporting this but am willing to listen to some better opposition before I actually vote on it. To me some of the arguments miss the point a little. This is not just about whether or not (using the analogy above) all primates are mammals, hence all pterosaurs are fossils. Its about division of labor and effort. Having a satisfactory method of grouping projects so as to both attract interested editors and keep the maintenance of any specific group more bearable for those editors. If Pterosaurs are a large group that can justify being separate on the grounds of attracting editors and maintaining their pages, and separating this from the rest of paleontology assists with this then I can see the argument for retaining it, but I have seen no convincing discussion on this issue yet. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: That sounds like a discussion about Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Pterosaurs task force and not Template:WikiProject Pterosaurs — Preceding unsigned comment added by NessieVL (talk • contribs) 15:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin question: NessieVL, you claim that removing this template would require it to be replaced with "both ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) and ((WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles))", but this template makes no call to A&R and thus there seems to be no reason that it would need to be added in addition to the Paleo template. The discussion above got rather significantly sidetracked, so could I ask (before deleting this template and replacing it with the Paleo template) why you feel that your suggestion is the correct path? Primefac (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Not sure why there is a requirement to 'make a call' to all parent projects. ((WikiProject Palaeontology)) "makes no call" to WikiProject Geology nor WikiProject Tree of Life. Should that template also be merged? Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Scope and related projects and tell me which ones also need to be merged up. I really do not understand this reasoning and where this supposed line is drawn.

All these reasons for deleting ((WikiProject Pterosaurs)) don't seem to have any strong evidential support, and seem to boil down to either WP:IDLI or back-handed ways to get rid of the Pterosaurs task force and not specifically the template.

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. Noting the addition of subarticles that did not exist last March. czar 15:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dinah Jane (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template which was deleted in April per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 14#Template:Dinah Jane, and then recreated in August without any real evidence that its actual utility had changed -- there's only one new link here that wasn't already in the April version, and it's just a redirect to her BLP rather than a new standalone article. The difference between an artist who qualifies for a navbox and one who does not isn't a question of the number of singles they happen to have released -- it's a question of how many of those singles have their own standalone articles to link to, and if she hadn't cleared the bar to warrant a navbox yet as of April, then one new redirect back to her BLP is not the magic ticket now. The weirdest part, the thing I have the hardest time wrapping my head around, is that the editor who recreated this new version is the same editor who initiated the deletion of the April version. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't WP:G4 apply? If concensus last time was to delete then padding it out with redirects doesn't really help. PC78 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  PC78 No the original discussion was about the template with two singles, now there are three and an EP. --Trialpears (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Nom indicates just one additional link, which sounds "sufficiently identical" to me. PC78 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G4 covers pages that are "sufficiently identical", but excludes pages that are "not substantially identical". I think these are not substantially identical because they are different in substance. Thincat (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think it's better to err on the side of having the discussion instead of speedily deleting. That said, the arguments that prevailed in the prior TfD, are, I think, still persuasive as if made to this template. --Bsherr (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To keep things balanced I vote keep she released an EP, four singles and a promotional song.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One EP and four singles equals five articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It now has enough links for a navbox to be justified, the nominator says it's a question of singles with articles, but the EP with an article should also be counted bringing it over the limit of usefulness. --Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[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 2019 October 15. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Unprotected (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 Delete; deleted as G5 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Miss República Portuguesa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template is completely unnecessary as there are no by-year articles in existence. Also, page was apparently created by a sockring WP:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819 - Bri.public (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC) @Bri.public: Moved from WP:MFD to correct venue. ToThAc (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[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 merge to Template:Awards table. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Awards table2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Awards table3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Awards table4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Awards table5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Awards table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Awards table2, Template:Awards table3, Template:Awards table4 and Template:Awards table5 with Template:Awards table.
The first unnumbered template has 2600+ transclusions, indicating that it is clearly the primary template, while the other four respectively have 33, 21, 33 and 5 transclusions. They are almost all identical, bar the columns included and their respective names, all of which could be triggered with a single template and optional parameters (similar to how ((Episode table)) uses |director= to include the director column, and |directorT= to change the director header cell's text. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose proposal as it was presented. The proposal merge just won't work without requiring a lot of manual code being used in each article by the editors using these templates, which defeats the purpose of these simple templates. Some of the templates use the same column names but in different order, which makes using a field like the above mentioned |director= insufficient, and would require another parameter setting its column position. Changing the cell text (by using the above example of |directorT=) is also counter to the template's purpose, as the template is used to create an identical table header for multiple tables. If an editor just wants to create a table with different cell names, they can just do that with wiki code. Since these templates are simple templates that just create a table header, I see no reason why they can't stay separate, as there is almost no maintenance that takes place. --Gonnym (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The use of a parameters it not "a lot of manual code". If a merge were to take place, then only 92 (maximum, even less, given that #5 isn't even used in the mainspace) articles need updating. Merging the templates would mean the awards tables conform with each other, instead of having arbitrary random orders that have no guidelines between articles and table. Table 4 lists 7 columns, which presents 5,040 different orders of the columns - should I create those 5,040 templates (((Awards table5040))) just for different orders so that there's no maintenance required between them? No, that would be ridiculous. So it having five identical templates that do the same thing except for header text and column order. This case is identical to ((Episode list)) and ((Japanese episode list)); the latter was almost identical to the format, so it was merged into the former to present a more conformed case. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox updates done at Template:Awards table/sandbox. The code now merges all the templates together into one template, but still allows the use of the five different tables; see below:

((Awards table/sandbox|1)) or ((Awards table/sandbox))

((Awards table/sandbox|2))

((Awards table/sandbox|3))

((Awards table/sandbox|4))

((Awards table/sandbox|5))

See how they match identically to the cases at Template:Awards table#See also. I see no reason not to merge them all into one template when all the individual cases can still be retained and used, all within the use of a single template. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see a great reason to delete these templates, but merging seems fine to me if the merge won't result in anything becoming broken. ↠Pine (✉) 00:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Pine, yeah, that's what I've proposed above. All of the five different layouts would still be available, not at all deleted (which is why this isn't a deletion discussion, but a merge discussion), just merged under the banner of one template. The first template, with its 2,600+ usages, and the articles its used it would not be affected whatsoever, no changes would be required, we would just need to convert ((Awards table2)) to ((Awards table|2)), etc. in the 90 articles using the other four templates. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Alex 21, what benefits do you think will happen if this merge is done? If the other templates require minimal maintenance then maybe there isn't a strong reason for a merge. ↠Pine (✉) 22:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It will prevent the need for further templates of the same kind; the first was created, then another three, then the fifth one (which isn't even in use). Who's to say that someone won't come along to create another ten? It's better to have minimal maintenance on one template than minimal maintenance on multiple templates, and will allow more flexibility for different needs and different types of tables. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21: OK. Support merge. ↠Pine (✉) 18:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge – if anything it would be nifty to make the base template even more customizable—but for the time being, w/r/t this proposal, the benefits of consolidation clearly outweigh the minimal effort it would take to implement it. —BLZ · talk 02:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[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).