The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Single-use templates that should be substituted where these are currently used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/subst and delete/subst, delete and transclude using #section as appropriate. Number57 20:21, 23 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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).
Single-use political party primary election results that should be substituted on the primary articles for the respective year. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst & delete. Also seems unlikely to have any other uses as a template. — CVValue (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2021 (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).
Template:French Senate election, 2004
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Single-use templates that should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute then delete. I concur. --Bsherr (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2021 (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).
French Presidential Elections
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
All single-use templates that should be substituted where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute then delete all except keep Template:French presidential election, 2017, which has more than one transclusion. --Bsherr (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2021 (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).
French Legislative Elections
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
All-single use templates that should be substituted on the articles where used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and then delete all except Template:French legislative election, 2017, which has more than one transclusion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2017 template can be substituted onto the two articles it is used on. Not sure why this one would require an exception. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be better? --Bsherr (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's single-use. It won't require constant updating. Same goes for the 2017 presidential template which you also say to keep. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you think single use means? Typically, we understand single use to mean that a template has only one transclusion. --Bsherr (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One transclusion is in fact single-use. But it also means that it was created for one purpose. These templates won't have usage outside of the election mainspace it was created for. Aside from where else they might be used at the moment. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I would suggest being cautious about how you use that phrase, because I think most people here understand "single-use" to mean one substantive transclusion, and it's likely to lead to misunderstandings if you assume a different meaning. (Most templates have a singular purpose; without more, that's not very useful in determining whether a template should be deleted.) --Bsherr (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an acceptable alternative to me. --Bsherr (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. In addition to the numerical majority for deletion, closers are also required to consider whether a broader consensus is applicable to the discussion. Editors voting keep argued that it makes the content harder to edit and thus helps with preventing vandalism. I believe broader community consensus does not support intentionally creating artificial technical difficulties to make editing more difficult. As such, even if the numerical consensus were in favour of keeping, I do not think such a close would be tenable as this issue is beyond the scope of TfD and would require a broader community discussion to show support for the template namespace being used in this manner. Hence my closure decision was based solely on arguments relating to the Wikipedia:Template namespace PAG, for which there was a consensus that this is not traditionally within the scope of the template namespace. (non-admin closure)ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A table which is article content and used on only RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5). Was taken out of the article seemingly because of vandalism, but that isn't how we do things. If vandalism is an issue, the page should be protected. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate of article content. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "This isn't how we do things is not a good enough reason to delete it. The reason it was added was because of vandalism on all of the rupaul wikipedia pages and was a compromise to many disputes in the past. Chase|talk 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is. If we move all tables into templates we will end with a huge nightmare of a mess. There is a reason this hasn't been done and there is a reason why we have page protection. Making editing harder for other editors who aren't in the small clique, is borderline WP:OWN. --Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are there multiple templates like this or is this the only one? On the surface, moving a vandalism prone table to a template seems like a reasonable solution. Moving vandalism prone tables into templates 1) stops less skilled vandals (who don't know how to read wikicode and edit a template), and 2) gives the option of semi protecting the table but leaving the main article unprotected. Out of curiosity, are there any PAGs prohibiting this use case? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a template like this one in every season article of the original Drag Race series (seasons one through thirteen). Before the template, these progress tables were vandalized daily—so persistently that, even for daily page watchers, it was impossible to keep up with it.
I am not aware of any PAGs that discourage the use of such templates—and if there were any, it would be a clear case of IAR, as the encyclopedia is much worse off with all the disruptive editing that the templates quiet. In fact, the need for these templates was discussed several times at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race (e.g. here and here), and it's been a huge help to have them. Armadillopteryx 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template (and its equivalents on other season pages) put a stop to the yearslong, incessant IP vandalism of progress tables in these articles. Armadillopteryx 04:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Armadillopteryx. Sounds like this solution helped solve a big problem, and costs us nothing to keep implemented. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 15:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete. Moving article content into a template specifically to make it more difficult for inexperienced editors to edit is not an appropriate response to vandalism. --Bsherr (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, can you think of a better solution? Long-term protection of a whole class of articles due to chronic vandalism of a single table in each seems worse. Armadillopteryx 17:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking the IP addresses of users vandalizing the articles. --Bsherr (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not super practical when it's (literally) a new one every hour some days. The related articles (from spin-off series) that don't use this template continue to have their tables vandalized by a new user or IP every few hours. Armadillopteryx 02:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing that rate of editing, legitimate and illegitimate, with this article prior to removal of the table in favor of the template on April 16, 2021. Looking at the overall statistics, the article was created in 2013, and while about 13% of edits to the article were reverted (for any reason, not necessarily vandalism), the article has an average of only 1.5 edits per day, implying about 6 reverted edits per month. That's not exactly an avalanche. --Bsherr (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a class of 13 templates that affect the same number of articles. The disruptive editing pattern affects all of them. More recent seasons tend to attract more vandals than the older ones (season 5 is an older one). Take a look at the edit history of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) in the two months leading up to the introduction of the template (March + April 2021). Look specifically at all the edits to the table.
There are few experienced editors who try to maintain the quality of all these season pages—and most of us have completely given up on the progress tables. Even though I check my watchlist ~3 times a day, I just could not keep up with the volume of disruptive edits to the tables before the template was introduced.
In the related class of RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars season articles, which do not have progress table templates, I can't even tell which version is right anymore, and I suspect that others over at WT:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race would tell you the same thing. In my reply to Novem Linguae's comment above, I linked two (of several) conversations that WikiProject members had about the need for such templates (or subpages) that prevent inexperienced editors from touching the progress tables.
Indefinitely semiprotecting every Drag Race season article seems to go against the spirit of the encyclopedia, which should encourage new editors to participate. But even that would be better than simply substituting the table code back into unprotected articles. Armadillopteryx 17:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only nominated template is 5, so it isn't presently relevant to discuss what is happening to other templates and articles. --Bsherr (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I've been puzzled that this TfD is framed as a discussion about one specific instance of this table; I chalked it up to the nominator's lack of familiarity with the topic area. It seems wholly unproductive to make a ruling on only one out of 13 equivalent templates that serve the same purpose in every article. Armadillopteryx 02:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete and semi-protect the article after substituting the content into the article. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 16:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These templates just link to the roster templates of the minor league teams of the respective MLB teams and the major league team. This is in no way helpful for navigation. For baseball roster templates it should only link to articles of the players, coaches, and managers, not to the roster boxes themselves. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - These aid navigation for editors updating the various rosters within an MLB organization. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no position on these in particular.. but I tend to use the minor league player pages for navigation when I do my updating of the rosters. Spanneraol (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles about minor leaguers featuring the template rosters already and so do the MLB navboxes which link to the minor league mainspaces. A major issue with these templates is that it requires constant maintenance because minor league teams change names, relocate, and fold by choice of the major league team.--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you that the articles work for navigation... these really do not require that much maintenance as the affiliations don't change that often.. and should be even less now under the new minor league system. Spanneraol (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly there shouldn't be navboxes like these for all the teams in the MLB, but no good can come from just having these five. Because if you create for one team in the same league, then by default there should be one for every single team. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These navboxes are useful and underutilized. They should be added to the documentation pages of each of their constituent templates. --Bsherr (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are they useful? Minor League teams are not notable enough as there Major League partners in terms of navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't usually a consideration outside of article space. So long as the constituent templates exist, it is useful to have navigation between them, and these templates meet the criteria of WP:NAVBOX. Indeed, we have a category full of them: Category:Documentation see also templates. --Bsherr (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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:Largest cities of the United States
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).