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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:50, 21 September 2019 (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).
Template:FOW International Heavyweight Championship
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:50, 21 September 2019 (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).
Template:Sub_judice_UK
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 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).
Template:FC Torpedo Minsk squad
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Club withdrew from the league. All players released, template is redundant BlameRuiner (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom - no need for current squad template. GiantSnowman 09:39, 19 September 2019 (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).
Template:Amarnibas
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 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 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 for deletion. Mgasparin (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdraw Didn't realise this was already on another article so I can have this be a withdraw. HawkAussie (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As mentioned, this is used both on the series article itself and International cricket in 2019 as the series is considered of enough significance to be listed in the season review. Bs1jac (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting based on its current usage (five articles)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Frietjes, Trialpears, and Pppery: just wanted to ping you (even though you'll likely see this as lurkers) re: the newer transclusions. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment, lst still works even with 5 transclusions (see here). for example, this is now the standard for module:sports table. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment my position has not changed, it is still easier for editors not involved with templates to find and edit the section, but maybe we should make an Lst template that is easier to use without the lst and lsth distinction, better error messages and possibly a bot that try to fix instances broken by changes to section names. --Trialpears (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:20, 18 September 2019 (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).
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - the ((Tweede Divisie seasons)) 'consensus' from a few weeks ago isn't consensus for this change. The Eerste Divisie is a professional competition, the TD is not. The ED template has 60+ links from it, and there are standalone templates for comparable leagues e.g. ((Ligue 1 seasons)). GiantSnowman 09:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - per GiantSnowman.--Wolbo (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:19, 18 September 2019 (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 There is no consensus for the proposed merge.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:BLP othersWas into Template:BLP.
Honestly not sure why we need this. Saying "BLP does not apply directly... but still applies" is a rather muddled message; BLP applies everywhere, and the ((BLP)) template explicitly refers to articles that are not biographies. Perhaps the wording of ((BLP)) could be revised (if necessary), but I'm not sure there's a genuine need for a separate ((BLP others)) template. PC78 (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. The two templates are almost identical in wording, and can concern the same types of articles. Mgasparin (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That category could (should) be populated exclusively by ((WikiProject Biography)) though. Since the category is explicity for "biography articles of living people", can you see any scenario where such an article would be tagged with ((BLP)) but not ((WikiProject Biography))? I can't. PC78 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What "technical aspects" do you think need solving? I belive I addressed this in my previous comment. PC78 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I already said, the category is for "biography articles of living people". If the article is a biography of a living person, the category will be added via the WikiProject Biography banner; if the article or page is something else and the BLP template is being used directly, the category isn't needed. PC78 (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't need to "control" where the template is added. Plainly, I am suggesting that the BLP template does not add categories to any page, because it isn't needed even now. PC78 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eh? No-one has suggested deleting any categories. Please go back and re-read what I've written because we don't appear to be on the same page. PC78 (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Aside: That example at Talk:William Windsor (goat) uses neither template and is clearly a joke. "This article must adhere to the policy on Biographies of living goats.") PC78 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By definition, any biography of a living person should be covered by the second which makes the other two unnecessary. Therefore, if we remove the categorisation from ((BLP)) it could then be used as ((BLP others)) is now. PC78 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC}
I still don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. The proposal here is to merge ((BLP others)); that page (and the two others you linked to above) don't/didn't use ((BLP others)). PC78 (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above comment. However I think you can make case for ((BLP other)) to be deleted. I think I'd support that since it looks kinda redundant. – Ammarpad (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above. The real underlying problem is that BLP should be renamed in such a way that makes clear that it applies to any contentious material about living people in any article. I think the reason for the template was to make sure that editors knew that just because the article wasn't a biography didn't mean they got a pass from policy, since there are many articles that aren't biographies but contain potentially negative, or negative material about LPs. Especially people who don't rate articles of their own. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but as noted above the BLP template already makes reference to articles that are not biographies. So, what are you opposing exactly? PC78 (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PC78: The fact that, as Tbhotch has noted, using the BLP template currently autocategorizes the article as a biography whether it is one or not.
I suppose, as he suggests below, that in the event of a merger that feature be disabled. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I'm trying to say above, we don't need the BLP template to autocategorise anything, even now. PC78 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment As a person who writes BLPs here and member of both WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Living People (hence the username), I am wondering how removing |blp=yes will affect articles that use multiple templates for various WPs? @Tbhotch: What are you proposing we should use instead for |living=yes/no? I don't see it as a problem. We as Wikipedians used to always put |living=yes for the living and |living=no for those who are not. I don't think its even possible to alternate or merge |living=yes/no into one parameter.--Biografer (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. If the template is kept, I suggest the text "...it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter" be changed to "...the policy does apply to living friends and family of the deceased subject, as well as other living persons mentioned in this article". Station1 (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both templates. Appreciate this is a break from tradition, but I don't see any value in these talk page templates. The need to inform editors of rules around biographies of living persons is already best achieved by the edit notice generated when entering the edit view of any article that contains Category:Living people. The talk page template is superfluous to that and the wrong location to display that message in terms of usability. Rather than using these templates to display duplicated info to the (usually already knowledgeable) users using the talk page, the community should decide if BLP policy should be included in the edit notice for all articles, as I struggle to think of an article that couldn't potentially have information on living people. SFB 15:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: You know, I think you may have a point there. I do think the edit notice(s) do the job better and are underused. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose both merge and delete. None seem like good options as of today.BabbaQ (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose merge + Oppose deletion of T:BLP others. The two templates are not identical. One is for the subject of the BLP -- one is for non-BLP articles (an example: lists of people). Each template is specific about the purpose of its usage. Pyxis Solitaryyak 11:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The wording of both is laregly the same, and ((BLP)) explicitly mentions non-BLP articles. PC78 (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't agree with you. And "laregly the same" = not identical. Whatever your opinion may be, I follow mine. Pyxis Solitaryyak 04:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got that you don't agree, but I was hoping you could perhaps elaborate. Why do you think we need a separate template? Why could a single template not cover both uses? PC78 (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I said is all I'm going to. I'm too tired to get into a debate about it. Pyxis Solitaryyak 02:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The Template will stay in the holding cell until the categorization issue is solved. Nothing will have changed categories if this merger takes place. --Trialpears (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. I believe I've already covered this above but regardless it should be an easy enough issue to solve, and it should not be an obstacle to agreeing to a merge in principle. Do those who opposed for this reason (Tbhotch, Ammarpad, Daniel Case) have any further comment about this, or any other reason to oppose a merge? PC78 (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I favor deleting, so I think shouldn't oppose its merge. The end result is at least, superficially the same. I struck my vote. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both templates per SFB and User:Daniel Case. This argument makes the most sense! BTW, BLPO is very poorly named. If our concern here is to caution editors about appropriate sourcing for edits concerning living people, why does it matter whether there's a biography involved or not? yoyo (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consolidate to one template; I can see no downsides — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consolidate, oppose deletion of both templates. The template serves to remind people requesting edits of the policy (since the edit warning does not display on the talkpage, if I recall correctly), as well as potentially assisting talkpage discussion. ((BLPO)), however, seems redundant; it should be merged. As for the concern about ((BLP)) adding the "biography articles of living people" category, that should only be added by ((WikiProject Biography)) with the "living=yes" parameter. If it does add it, a template editor should edit out that so it doesn't cause any issues. Kirbanzo(userpage - talk - contribs) 13:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both templates per SFB, User:Daniel Case, and yoyo's comments above. Edit notices and problem templates are more effective. = paul2520 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment If the templates are deleted how would disclaimers on non-BLP articles be handled? How about adding a ((BLP editnotice)) template? Should all ((BLPO)) uses be converted to such a template? --Trialpears (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trialpears: I think moving these to an edit notice would be an improvement, but I'm still unsure of the circumstances where that notice is required on non-BLP articles when all other non-BLP are open to the same risk. I think that conversation warrants wider discussion as we may need a community system to request and manage edit notices for problem articles, or it may be desirable to show a BLP warning as a standard edit notice. SFB 21:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to edit notice and delete both templates. I suggest that all current uses of ((BLPO)) are replaced with a new ((BLP editnotice)) template. I'm open to having it as a standard edit notice for all pages, but am afraid it would decrease the efficacy of edit notices in general. If there isn't consensus for a move to edit notices I would prefer the merger as proposed over the status quo. --Trialpears (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Daniel Case, That is the editnotice itself, but it won't apply an editnotice to an article. To add an actual editnotice to specific articles a category would have to be added so it can be displayed through MediaWiki:Common.js. --Trialpears (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trialpears: I have added that one manually to quite a few articles. Are you saying that you want to set things up so that adding Category:Living people automatically adds the edit notice? Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Daniel Case it's already added to every page in Category:Living people. My suggestion is a template adding pages to another category such as Category:Non-BLP pages using BLP disclaimer. All pages in this category would also have ((BLP editintro)) applied by MediaWiki:Common.js. You can add it to individual pages editnotices, but that wouldn't be a scalable solution since editnotices are template protected and we currently have 3000 ((BLPO)) disclalimers that I would like converted to an edit notice. --Trialpears (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above discussion. Ergo Sum 04:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per which part of the above discussion? :) PC78 (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose consolidation or deletion. The two templates serve subtly different purposes, with different statements, and it's not unusual for editors to misunderstand that an article that is not a BLP may still may have BLP issues. For example, an article about a murder is by definition not a BLP, but BLP issues are applicable in how it describes current or past suspects; investigators; or family members.
The categorization to Category:Biography articles of living people, already pointed out, is also a material difference, and we shouldn't rely on an article being within the scope of ((WikiProject Biography)) to do that lifting. There may be articles that are not strictly BLPs that may be of interest to that WikiProject; and there may be BLPs that for whatever reason are not of interest to that wikiproject. (You can argue that maybe they should be, but unless a WikiProject Biography member feels it is, it doesn't get tagged.)
I agree there's a problem with the current wording of ((BLP others)); but the appropriate way to address that is to update that text, not to merge it. If it's merged, editors editing non-BLP articles with BLP issues will face the Hobson's choice of either taking the ((BLP)) template and misleadingly labeling the article as a BLP, with a misleading warning to that effect; or leaving it off completely without the appropriate warning that BLP considerations still apply. TJRC (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categorisation aside, do you not think it's possible for a single template to convey the meaning of both? PC78 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is is possible? Sure. Is it desirable? Not in my opinion. The two templates serve different purposes, and there's no benefit to combining them. While it reduces the number of templates, you'll either have to multiply the complexity of the using the template by coding into it the two different uses, which users will then have to know; and if you make the same text serve both, it will be so opaque as to be useless. My take is that ((BLP others)) should set out clearly why BLP issues apply to the article despite its not being a BLP; and ((BLP)) should not. I really see no benefit to combining them.
Nor is categorization actually aside. TJRC (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose until full consideration is given to the consequences of this (especially given how widely this template is used - I came here from a notice at the top of ((BLP))). The arguments about using the ((WikiProject Biography)) template miss an important point: not everyone knows about that template or the WikiProject. There needs to be a degree of separation between 'BLP' and the tools used to aid that important policy, and the WikiProject Biography set-up. Also, you may be surprised to know just how many people and BLP articles lack 'WikiProject Biography' templates. You still get BLP articles that lack the category 'Living people'. You cannot rely on BLP articles being tagged, and having several ways to do this tagging is actually a feature, not a bug, as it makes it more likely that BLPs eventually get tagged. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carcharoth: Some more good points here about how the current set-up is not ideal. I think this conversation should be the start of a wider discussion about when and how we show BLP notices, because it's clear that the real issue is not really just about these templates. SFB 19:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose merging or deletion, per reasoning of User:TJRC above. Perhaps the wording could be improved, but the two templates should both remain in place separately, IMO. Clearly the BLPO template is not required on biographies of long-dead historical figures (like the aforementioned example of George Washington), but may be needed in articles about recent homicides or mysterious deaths, etc. Muzilon (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per largely per Tbhotch and Muzilon's !votes above. While BLP and BLPO have some overlap, the former is in regards to biographies of living people, while the latter is in regards to other articles that contain material relating to living subjects. My full respect to the editor who made the remark, the the !vote that proposes that the two templates should be deleted is a bad proposal and a mistake Wikipedia should not make, as WP:BLP is a key aspect to editing that editors should be aware of, which these templates help in. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consolidate to one template through either deletion or merger.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - WP:BLP is a strict policy in terms of what can or can not be placed into an article. If the info in question is about a section of said article then the policy would only apply to the section. My opinion is that the BLP template is too broad if used to cover an entire article with a passing mention of a living person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason given was redundancy since the two templates have almost the same wording. Are there many (any?) biography articles tagged with ((BLP)) but not ((WikiProject Biography))? The documentation itself says: It is preferred that the banner template be used instead of direct application of ((BLP)). PC78 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conditional Support I like the idea of doing away with them but we have eternal September and people need warning. The slight differences are important, if a template guru wants to drive that difference by the same mechanism that is used then that is fine. I am concerned that we end up0 with this on every talk page, since as Koavf says above, there's unlikely to be many articles that don't mention a living person in some way, even if that's an author or researcher. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 01:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Oppose merger and/or deletion. Both templates serve a useful purpose and both serve a subtly different purpose. They should both be kept as separate templates. Safiel (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per the above. Appears that a discussion needs to occur first about the use of the BLP templates before any merger/deletion proposals. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:35, 4 October 2019 (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).
Template:ARP
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).
Template used to link to dead website Aireport in see also sections. Linking to an archive would be useless since the information would be outdated. There has been a previous nomination before the website closed down at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_7#Template:ARP with outcome procedural keep. --Trialpears (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Orphan and delete. The site does seem to be defunct, and I concur there is not much value in linking to an archive since the external link would properly imply current information. --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2019 (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).
Template:AWBBot
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).
Unused template for deprecated process. --Trialpears (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Concur with the nominator's findings. --Bsherr (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2019 (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).