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. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wild animal suffering (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think this template fails WP:NPOV and WP:OR. What we have are a set of vaguely related concepts under the general rubric of harm to animals, some of which are entirely unspecific (e.g., injury and extreme weather), some of which are dubiously related (e.g., animal vaccination), and some of which represent tenuous, WP:OR-inflected connections (e.g., Peter Singer, which does not mention wild animal suffering in the body). I'm having trouble seeing how these topics form, or could form through modification, a coherent set outside the context of this template. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although I initially was erring on the side of keep / rename, it's clear that most links are to the general articles (eg Injury) rather than having anything to do with the specific topic of the navbox. This kind of topic is better covered by descriptions and links in article space. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a well-established set of ideas, people, and organizations in philosophy and related fields, as outlined at Wild animal suffering. See the many philosophy papers that discuss it, with varying reference to the specific concepts such as injury and weather. I think to the extent the template seems vaguely related, it is because it is a relatively new field of inquiry that tackles empirical topics with their own relations to other fields (eg injury is a part of medicine, extreme weather is a part of meteorology). I think Peter Singer's work on WAS (example) should be added to his article, and the absence of it in that article does not make its use in the template WP:OR. In general, templates struggle to directly correspond to WP:RSs because people outside WP rarely create "templates" of the same kind, but I think that's okay and templates like this one are still a very important part of the encyclopedia. Templates shouldn't be restricted to well-established topics with crystal clear relations and inclusion criteria. steps off soapbox Jmill1806 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I went ahead and removed broad loosely related links and things deemed to be a WP:NPOV issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Knowledgekid87, Thanks for doing that. I think my concern is now not so much NPOV as basic relevance. Are Animal vaccination and Wildlife contraceptive, for instance, really so closely related to the suffering of wild animals that we should have a template suggesting such a connection? In my view, no. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The template has its own article wild animal suffering. The lead says "Wild animal suffering is the suffering experienced by nonhuman animals living outside of direct human control, due to harms such as disease, injury, parasitism, starvation, dehydration, extreme weather, natural disasters, and killings by other animals." There is nothing controversial here. I don't see why NPOV is being referenced. A hatchet job on the template has now removed all these factors [1]. We can have injury, parasitism, starvation, dehydration, extreme weather, natural disasters etc on the Wikipedia article for wild animal suffering but it is a NPOV violation to put these on the template? Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "Disease, injury, parasitism, starvation, dehydration, extreme weather, natural disasters, and killings by other animals." These broad terms also apply to humans and plants, why would they need to be confined to a template about wild animals? It makes no sense as many things link to these events. I would be swayed if articles like Wild animal injuries, Parasitism in wild animals, Wild animal starvation, Wild animal dehydration, ect... existed which was more narrow in scope on how the events link up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because wild animal suffering is a specific academic field of study, usually associated with animal rights. You can actually study this very topic in university courses. If you look at the references on the article most of the academics writing on this subject are philosophers. Oscar Horta and Jeff McMahan etc. Nobody as far as I know is doing research on wild plant suffering as plants do not feel pain. It is not an academic field of study, neither is wild human suffering because most humans are not wild. Look on Google or Google scholar for wild animal suffering many papers exist on this topic but none for the other terms you suggest. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point on how these things are too broad in nature. Its like linking ocean to a template of lighthouses. Yes lighthouses are on the ocean and the ocean causes them effects. In either case though I feel this template can be saved as enough articles talk about wild animal suffering in detail to link to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the analogy works, but I appreciate it. If there were a field of lighthouse studies, university courses on the relationship of lighthouses to their environment, and many academic papers discussing lighthouses' relations to their nearby landforms such as oceans, then yes, I think we should create a template for lighthouse studies similar to this one. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Legitimate encyclopedic concept described in Wild animal suffering. The template could use some work, but that doesn't mean it has to be deleted to do that work. --causa sui (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Causa sui, I am not disputing that wild animal suffering is legitimate or notable. If I were, I would have nominated that page for deletion. I am disputing that a template collecting vaguely related concepts is encyclopedic, and thus far I have not seen a clear argument establishing that the concepts selected here form an intrinsically limited, coherent set such that a template suggesting their connection is reasonable. Psychologist Guy's statement above that the concepts linked in this template are in the lede of wild animal suffering is a step in that direction, but it seems to me that the selection criteria for navbox inclusion should be tighter than those for inclusion in the lede of the article. Basically, I'm trying to ask: what does this template add that is not already indicated in the article itself? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have pinpointed the disagreement, which is on how "vaguely related" these concepts are, or viewed from the other direction, how "tight" the navbox inclusion criteria should be. I think the template adds what all templates should add, a concise map of an area of human knowledge that helps WP readers navigate it. The WAS article itself does not provide this because readers have to look through Wikilinks, guessing at their relations from context. As above, I think this is just a natural issue of templates. They don't add information (WP:OR or properly cited) that isn't already on WP. They are a presentation of that information for a different navigational niche than the corresponding WP articles. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2020 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IK Oddevold squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few articles to navigate between. The club has dropped to a lower league level than before. Naxboxes are meant as a navigation tool between actual articles. Geschichte (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2020 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Åtvidabergs FF squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few articles to navigate between. The club has dropped to a lower league level than before. Naxboxes are meant as a navigation tool between actual articles. Geschichte (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2020 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IF Brommapojkarna squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few articles to navigate between. The club has dropped to a lower league level than before. Naxboxes are meant as a navigation tool between actual articles. Geschichte (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2020 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Landskrona BoIS squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few articles to navigate between. The club has dropped to a lower league level than before. Naxboxes are meant as a navigation tool between actual articles. Geschichte (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2020 (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 per the mentioned local consensus. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Camden platform layout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2019#RfC_about_station_layouts_and_exits was to not include station/platform layouts, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:12, 19 October 2020 (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. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:HW warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Template:HW but should have. Probably a G8. Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:30, 20 October 2020 (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) St3095 ^(?) 16:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lower case first letter italic title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:Lowercase title which is much more used. Do no redirect, but replace template with ((Lowercase title)) on pages, as a lot of them use ((Lcfirstitalictitle)) which is not user friendly as it is incredibly messy and hard to read. Gonnym (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the big issues with the automatic taxoboxes was that the template nesting limit was exceeded, but I don't think this was one of the culprits. I'll support replacing the template's usage with a combination of ((lowercase title)) and ((italictitle)). Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I didn't notice that Lowercase title does not have an option to also italicize the title for whatever reason. Withdrawing this for now. --Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete This template is not used on enough pages to justify its existence. While I believe common situations like ((lowercase title)) and ((italic title)) are worth having a template for, having a template used on 43 pages, and that is often invoked by a cryptic redirect, serves to make the wikitext much more confusing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete per nom. Too specific to be useful.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete per above. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What exactly is this going to be substituted with? From what I see, ((lowercase title)) and ((italic title)) override each other. – Uanfala (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's going to be substed to a direct call of the DISPLAYTITLE function (or, at least, that's what I meant by "subst and delete") * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, substed with ((DISPLAYTITLE))? That makes sense then. – Uanfala (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ((Lcfirstitalictitle)) is not user friendly, but substing it is? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, ((DISPLAYTITLE:''example'')) may be less clear than ((Lower case first letter italic title)), but not very much so. A concern I have with using the magic word directly is that it will stop working if a page is moved. It will need to be updated manually, and that's not something that the majority of editors would be attuned to knowing about. – Uanfala (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, unless a viable alternative is devised. – Uanfala (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah... I agree. Also, why not just move this to Template:Lowercase italics title...? Or add italics functionality into Template:Lowercase title as a parameter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2020 (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 2020 October 26. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Whisperback (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Talkback (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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cricket in Lincolnshire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template that serves little purpose, linking just two pages, as almost all linked articles have been deleted. One of the remaining articles seems sure to go as well. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Serves little point now. We don't seem to have a similar template for other English counties. Nigej (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:15, 24 October 2020 (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).