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 keep. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lonoikahaupu, Keawepoepoe, Keeaumoku Pāpaiahiahi, Kamanawa and Kameʻeiamoku family tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused family tree chart. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added the tree to the relevant articles. While the sources for the tree are mentioned I have not yet added the inline citations and explanatory notes yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since this already used since the nomination, this can be closed as keep. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2022 (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 keep. Izno (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox LDS Temple/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox LDS Temple/doc with Template:Infobox church.
This template seems to be largely similar to infobox church, with only a few unique data items. With modifications this template could be made to fit within Infobox church, which would also have the benefit of converting it to an infobox format Bluealbion (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluealbion did you mean to propose the merger with Template:Infobox LDS Temple and not Template:Infobox LDS Temple/doc? Terasail^[✉️] 16:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close; failed nomination. Barring that, Keep pending an explanation of how this new editor proposes to merge the complex LDS Temple infobox system into the relatively simple Infobox church. In general, pages and templates relating to LDS temples use a complex (and functional) system of templates that are non-trivial to mess with. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also see this 2018 TfD, which closed as no consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean this one?RicDod (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Opppose Its the uniqueness that makes it the difference, like everything else that exists. I'm sick to death this continue drive for genericisation. scope_creep^Talk 02:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whilst they seem to produce similar results, how they are used seems to be vastly different. The church infobox is manually filled in each time whilst the LDS infobox seems use automated links to other pages. Therefore, I don't think that, despite appearances, they are largely similar and merging them would be a major undertaking. I'm also not sure what the benefits would be if we only had template. RicDod (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep - Churches and temples are different in structure and system. Template-wise, the temple template is more complex and is not the same as the church template, which is as simple as filling in the common parameters and being done with it (while they are still subject to being edited). Hansen Sebastian^Talk 16:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge, too different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2022 (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. There's no consensus on if this is a useful template or not. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should not WP: No disclaimers preclude the use of this template? Also, nearly any user category could conceivably be used for discrimination, harassment, or trolling, so the template is completely useless. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My understanding of WP:DISCLAIM is that it is only intended to apply to mainspace. It is also not exactly true that nearly any category might be used for discrimination; nobody will be attacked for being from a particular US state, what languages they know, where they went to college, their editing habits, &c. Nevertheless, I don't necessarily disagree that this template is a bit silly, since anyone transcluding these categories will know from personal experience that they might be discriminated against and, if we're being quite honest, nobody who knows enough about Wikipedia to notice and navigate categories actually cares about this stuff. I created this template because I saw its contents being used directly on a number of categories, which I thought was silly and inefficient; I am indifferent to the issue of its use overall. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure you can find someone who is attacked for being from a particular state (lots of people hate California), country, where they went to college (as a UCF Knight, I'll be suspicious of any USF Bull [joking]). There really is an infinite number of categories that this template reasonably could fit in. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not censored nor should it be. The same applies to controversial topics which is what the template is referring to. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:Content disclaimer Wikipedia contains content that people may find objectionable applies to the entire site. And if users want to categorize themselves

  Users should be aware that displaying this category or any of its subcategories may make them a target

  — template:category warning

  (I assume this is restricted to user categorization, since it makes no sense for any other kind of categorization), then WP:NOTSOCIAL Wikipedia is not a social network, so stop using it as one -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nearly every category that has this template should be deleted as failing WP:USERCAT. That said none of the arguments for deletion are convincing; this template has nothing to do with Wikipedia being censored and all 65.92.246.142 does is restate my first sentence in more words which isn't really relevant to the whether this template should exist. Wikipedia:No disclaimers is unclear about whether it applies outside mainspace and Compassionate727 refutes the nominator's point about applying to every user category. So weak keep I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I don't think this category warning should be deleted. I found this discussion by looking at Category:Asexual Wikipedians. I think that the warning could be useful because potentially you could have issues with someone trolling you or attacking you for who you are (especially if it's a category identifying as LGBT+). We do have a policy against personal attacks, but presumably someone whose intent is to troll wouldn't nessecarily care about that. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vaccum, so being outed in the real world could potentially be something people could be worried about as well. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the warning gives people a chance to be mindful about these sorts of things. Wikipedia:No disclaimers is a content guideline and focuses more on how we don't give disclaimers in mainspace, so I don't think that this contradicts that. Clovermoss (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC); edited to add missing word and clarify keep[reply]

  The problem is that there's an infinite number of categories that this qualifies for. American Wikipedians, Canadian Wikipedians, etc., etc. If we're going to keep this template, the list of categories where it wouldn't apply is going to be tiny. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. I've met people who've expressed the belief that the world would be better off if gay people were dead and meant it, and no one whose said that because of someone's sports team or where they went to college. There's a huge difference between how those aspects of someone's identity can be percieved.

  There's also very few links to this warning in the first place [1] so I doubt that keeping it would suddenly make it more widespread? It seems that it's already occasionally used, not an exceptional case when it isn't. Clovermoss (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Clovermoss's convincing arguments. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 21:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Templates like this expand their use until they eventually do miss the boat on WP:NOTCENSORED. If someone identifies as ace or whatever, and states so specifically, a template warning on a category isn't the way to educate them, telling them to be more private with their personal information is. --Izno (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My thoughts were more this warning seems like more of a precaution thing that someone sees before adding the category. That warning's pretty much useless if that info is already displayed elsewhere. I feel like the essence of this warning is essentially "consider whether or not you want to keep this personal information about you private". Clovermoss (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Izno: In regards to NOTCENSORED, reading it leaves me confused about how it would apply in this situation? I agree with the general sentiment of the policy, but it's seems like it's focused on the content that's in mainspace. I'm willing to be convinced if you could elaborate on your reasoning a bit. Is it because having the template as a warning on a user category could cause someone to engage in self-censorship? Am I close, or far off the mark? I realize that this could be quite nuanced, but I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say. Clovermoss (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, no disclaimers is the correct link, not NOTCENSORED. --Izno (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Izno: Thank you for clarifying. If you wouldn't mind, would you consider listing an example of where this sort of thing eventually leads to eventually missing the boat on NODISCLAIMERS? I don't contribute to deletion discussions much so it could be a potentially useful learning experience.

  My earlier !vote explained my reasoning for why I didn't think NODISCLAIMERS was applicable, but I'm still willing to be convinced. Clovermoss (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  example of where this sort of thing eventually leads to eventually missing the boat on NODISCLAIMERS All templates end up being misused. Some have the potential to be misused broadly. I see this template as being more likely to be of the latter sort. No, I cannot point to any particular example off hand, but in my wikitravels I have seen things you wouldn't believe. :^) Izno (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2022 (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. ✗plicit 13:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AI contestant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This external link template no longer works as http://archive.americanidol.com/ seems to be dead. This was reported over 10 days ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#A broken template with no additional comments. If this can be saved then great, if it can't the template should be removed and deleted as it doesn't help our readers to be sent to dead pages. Gonnym (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2022 (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 merge to Template:Red carpet fashion. ✗plicit 13:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Academy Award dresses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Red carpet fashion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Academy Award dresses with Template:Red carpet fashion.
Academy Awards outfits are a subset of red carpet fashion, so any notable Oscars dress is, by definition, going to be on both templates, creating a significant degree of overlap. In fact, only 4 dresses on ((Red carpet fashion)) are not Oscars dresses.

If this goes through, I'm of a mind to split Red carpet fashion into two navboxes - one for dresses, and one for years in fashion. But that's a project for later. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Sounds reasonable and logical to me. Mabalu (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No need for separate templates, though I also question the notability of several of these. At the least, barely-notable dresses like Navy blue Guy Laroche dress of Hilary Swank should be merged to Hilary Swank (which doesn't even link the article). Reywas92^Talk 16:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the older/crappier articles are likely to be notable but are just under-sourced. But that's definitely something to look at. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2022 (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).