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 relisted on 2021 September 21. ✗plicit 23:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Climate_of_India_by_state_or_territory (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(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 with NPASR, mainly because there are arguments being made about potentially merging these templates as opposed to just deleting one of them. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Citation-attribution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Suboptimal and redundant to two other templates, due to ambiguous usage. Looking through transclusions I've found two types of uses. The first, like at Salton Sea, would be clearer using ((PD-notice)). The second, like at Order of the Red Banner, is redundant to ((Source-attribution)). The wording of this template isn't clearer in either context than that of the templates it's redundant to.

I propose that transclusions of ((Citation-attribution)) be manually replaced with either ((PD-notice)) or ((Source-attribution)) depending on their location in the article, then the template either redirected to ((PD-notice)) or deleted. As there are only around ~450 transclusions, I'd be willing to take on this task, but I'd like to get consensus to do so first. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think  User:Elli may have skimmed the messages generated by these templates and not read the documentation fully.  ((Citation-attribution)) and ((Source-attribution)) were written to complement the WP:PLAGARISM guideline. As the documentation in ((PD-notice))  states:

• ((citation-attribution))—a template that can be placed in an inline citation at the end of a sentence, sentences or a paragraph that incorporates text from a source that is not under copyright.
• ((source-attribution))—a template that can be placed in the References section of an article if the article incorporates text from a source that is not under copyright and there is no source specific template listed in Category:Attribution templates.

The two templates generate different statements for inline citations "One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a work now in the public domain:"  and for the source section"This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain" I suggest rather than deleting either of these templates (as they complement each other), ((PD-notice)) is redirected to ((source-attribution)) as its notice is nearly identical. -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)  [reply]

• Comment: I think something like this can work, though it would be worthwhile to more fully sketch out our objectives here before proceeding. There is a nice symmetry in the names of the ((citation-attribution)) and ((source-attribution)) templates, but the ((PD-notice)) template invokes the concept of public domain—which is the kind of attribution that these templates seek to provide. (At the same time, most of the other templates prefixed with "PD-" are used for file attribution, and I am ambivalent about making that template—which works a little differently—appearing among those in alphabetical category lists.) Also, there are many other templates with similar purposes, and ideally they ought to all be fairly consistent: see for example ((DANFS)) (which is this kind of notice, but citing one specific popular reference), ((Include-USGov)) (with 30000 transclusions), the many items in Category:Attribution_templates (which cover a lot of specific cases) and ((PD-old-text)). Could we address whether it is possible and desirable to approach these consistently? TheFeds 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @User:TheFeds It is because of the Category:Attribution_templates name and the use of "attribution" in Plagadism guideline that I originally named ((citation-attribution)) and ((source-attribution)) as I did (it is discussed in the archives on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism). I have run some searches using "insource:/" There are currently about 12,000 instances of ((PD-notice)) of which 9,717 are inline. The wording of template ((citation-attribution)) be much better suited for inline citations. No such problem exists with ((source-attribution)). I think that this conversation would be better continued on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism as all three of these templates exist to help stop plagiarism on Wikipedia and it is there we are likely to find more people who are interested in the use of theses templates and will be knowledgeable enough to reach an informed consensus. -- PBS (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno further discussion is pointless. Leaving this type of discussion open for a long time affect on article space which is detrimental to the project (see WP:SELF). I have explained that the initial poster to this thread had not looked at the different wording in the templates which mean that they are for use in different places. As far a I can tell they had not looked at any of the documentation that comes with the templates. They had not started a conversation on the talk page of WP:PLAGIARISM which is the purpose of all three of theses templates, and they have not engaged in a conversation here. So close this discussion and then a new discussion more constructive discussion can be initiated at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism which is what I suggested above. -- PBS (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the text of all three templates. You haven't presented a reason why the wording in ((Citation-attribution)) is better than the wording in ((PD-notice)), which is intended for the same situation - inside an inline citation. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 28 September 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. Izno (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:OTO Award for TV Show – Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:OTO Award for TV Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

On these two navboxes, there are only two actual pages that one can navigate between (really just a single page on the first template, but two on the second). Most other navboxes in Category:OTO Awards navigational boxes provide legitimate navigational assistance, but these two do not. No prejudice against recreation if the redlinked articles get created, though. -2pou (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The red links could be unlinked; would not the blue links for the years be of some use? – Fayenatic London 16:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that out, Fayenatic london. I did not even realize those were links (I think because the <small> tags make the font so thin). That does make me a bit more hesitant. The yearly pages are really captured by the main ((OTO Awards)) navbox; however, there could be value in associating that year's page with a particular redlink if trying to encourage article creation. Curious what others think, but I think I still find these boxes unnecessary overall given the overlap with the main navbox and that the potential prompt for article creation (outside each year's page) would only come from either Partička or Oteckovia. -2pou (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, not enough articles, the main template already has the years - Nabla (talk) 20:22, 1 October 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 relisted on 2021 September 21. Izno (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Missouri_Democratic_primary,_2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Missouri_Republican_primary,_2008 (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(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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used on a bare handful of pages, looks like it was an experiment that stopped being needed a long time ago. Izno (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not used/abandoned. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:34, 14 September 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 relisted on 2021 September 21. Izno (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Andrew_Yang_series (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(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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Klass 6a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template created in April 16 with content in Polish about a school(?) and external links related to that school (including a Microsoft Teams room) at some point. Recently blanked by one of its contributors. Never transcluded anywhere. Isabelle ^🔔 15:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:05, 14 September 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:100 players who shook the Kop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Template:100 players who shook the Kop, it's a fans poll which had an article about it deleted many years ago. As such, this is not an encyclopedic content, as it's not a club-recognised Hall of Fame (which we do have templates for) Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and evident consensus at the WT:FOOTY discussion. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a constant list, not a hall of fame, not even supported by an article. – PeeJay 16:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seems just POV and not any 'official' HoF list (which would probably be acceptable). Eagleash (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete needless.Muur (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When I came across the template yesterday I thought it list cruft and posted to WT:FOOTY. It seems Joseph took the initiative and sent it to TfD which I agree with. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Clog Wolf _Howl 10:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Complete fandom piece, not an official Hall of Fame. Let it walk alone. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:38, 16 September 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; deleted as G2 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't know what this template is for, it's basically useless. Here's 28 and did I make a mess? 10:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Q28: this falls under multiple speedy deletion criteria - having a week long MFD discussion about speedy deletable pages is just a waste of time for everyone. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 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 move to userspace. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very old template (created 2006) used very infrequently that duplicates links provided on the mediawiki interface. Having this confuses editors and in many instances the links are red anyway as they are not maintained. I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Outdated. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although it may be outdated it provides a clean interface for users to quickly access relevant subpages on their user page, even if the links are now duplicated elsewhere. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• move to a subpage of User:Wiz9999. Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst non-Wiz uses and then move without redirect to Wiz's namespace. --Izno (talk) 22:18, 21 September 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).