This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

  • Stub templates
    Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
  • Userboxes
    Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
  • Speedy deletion candidates
    If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. If it is an unused, hardcoded instance or duplication of another template, tag it with {{Db-t3|~~~~~|name of other template}}.
  • Policy or guideline templates
    Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
  • Template redirects
    List at Redirects for discussion.

Reasons to delete a template

  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • For deletion: {{subst:tfd}}
  • For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:tfd|type=sidebar}}
  • For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:tfd|type=inline}}
  • For merging: {{subst:tfm|name of other template}}
  • For merging an inline template: {{subst:tfm|type=inline|name of other template}}
  • If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the Tfd notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the Tfd, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

II: List the template at Tfd. Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

  • For deletion: {{subst:tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous Tfd without brackets|result of previous Tfd}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
III: Notify users. Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts.

Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that an template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets, such as "T3" for hardcoded instances.

Notifying related WikiProjects

WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{Tfdnotice}} for this.

Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.

At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.

Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

Twinkle

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.

Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.

Contents

Current discussions

May 22

Template:Senior Open Championship

Navbox with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete No indication that any more will be created. Nigej (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More articles have been created by Rskapyak97, the creator of the template; there are now 4 bluelinks
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:Available

Only used on some user pages, and generally redundant to Module:Wd or Wikipedia's many other Wikidata-access modules. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  • When the data is converted to similar functionality.. But only then. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Rename, I think? The module appears to be spitting out a table of Wikidata keys and values, which might be reasonable were it not for the horrific name. --Izno (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    So, I think this is a definite rename out of module-space proper. Module:Sandbox/GerardM seems reasonable. --Izno (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Fish on stamps

This navbox is no longer needed because all of the articles it links to have been deleted as a result of the following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fish on stamps of Afars and Issas. Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Birds on stamps

This navbox is no longer needed because all of the articles it links to have been deleted as a result of the following 2015 AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of birds on stamps of Bophuthatswana. Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

May 21

Template:TheStart

The band's navigational template consists of eight links: the band's articles, two of the member's articles, two album links that redirect back to the band, one album article and two related bands that have common members between them, but do not have the template in their articles. So there are only four real links that are already linked in the band's article and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:Tone superscript

Unnecessary lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Yerdea

One transclusion in creator's userspace, no encyclopedic value (links to a non-existent page about a fictional country). See here for another TfD discussion about a similar template by the same creator. Richard0612 12:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cancelled rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom

Small template with only 2 links, which is not now used in any articles; topic is covered by Template:Rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom. Cnbrb (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Extended periodic table (by Fricke, 52 columns, periods 8–9)

I decided to do a group nomination for these because they are unused and the period 8 elements haven’t been discovered yet. Two similar nominations are listed below. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:TemplateData dependencies

These modules were imported as dependencies of Module:TemplateData, which I've just rewritten to avoid using them, thus are no longer needed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, while I imported these here it was only upon a RFPI request. See request from @GKFX:. — xaosflux Talk 20:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep. I need to merge in a number of changes from upstream (PerfektesChaos at dewiki), which is more complicated with missing dependencies. Given that upstream is still developing the module, I really don't want to lose the dependencies since it would just make it difficult to do future updates. User:GKFXtalk 01:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Striking Module:WLink for now, just realized this is in use somewhere else. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning toward delete. The uses of Text which are not captured in String should probably be added there (pending some talk page discussion). The use of Multilingual isn't obvious to me OTOH, especially since our content is not broadly multilingual. --Izno (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    Note: both modules are unused. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 20

Template:Nee

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 speedy keep by WP:SNOW, nominator rescinding nomination. (non-admin closure) <RetroCraft314 talk/> 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The use of "née" contradicts MOS:MULTIPLENAMES and should therefore be removed and/or phased out. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 20:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - the template could be substituted before deletion, but I'd rather see all the instances of "née" replaced with "born". While we're doing cleanup, we might as well clean it all up. Happy to do a bot run or some assisted-manual edits to help. Richard0612 10:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Richard0612: I'm not sure exactly where you have to go to get permission/consensus to do something like that, but considering that the policy pretty clearly states that it should be changed, you should be able to. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 17:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Well if the template is deleted as a result of this TfD, it will have to be substituted/replaced anyway. So that's one half sorted. As the replacement text is against the MOS, I don't see the harm in replacing it while you're making the edits anyway. Richard0612 20:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • !vote struck on the basis of new evidence below. Richard0612 07:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The template née does not contradict MOS:BIO and is frequently used throughout articles to indicate someone's maiden name e.g. "Bill Jones was born in Los Angeles, the eldest son of John Jones and his first wife, Mary (née Stark)." The MOS you are referring to was wrongly inserted WITHOUT consensus by the same person who proposed changing the style and then invented the shortcut MOS:MULTIPLENAMES! The discussion he/she started had very few responses. This is not how MOS is changed, and we certainly don't wipe out a widely used template based on this one person's whims. МандичкаYO 😜 03:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I agree with what the user above said. It seems that there was a frivolous alteration to the MOS that should not be taken lightly. Contrary to one person’s spurious beliefs, there is absolutely nothing wrong with or née; they are used all the time both within and outside Wikipedia. Rovingrobert (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I assume the nomination to delete this template was based on good faith that née really was "banned" in the MOS. @Rovingrobert: and others wandering by who may be interested, I have started a discussion on this topic on the MOS:BIO talk page here - this needs to be addressed properly. Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Consensus needed on birthnames (ie née). Thank you. МандичкаYO 😜 07:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Snow keep. Nominated on a false premise. wumbolo ^^^ 15:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
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).

Module:Librivox book

Could be implemented in Wikitext using {{last word}}, therefore unnecessary. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikitext version (which turned out to be more complex than I was expecting) written in sandbox. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Shaye

While each of the members have articles, none of the albums or singles do, giving this little navigational benefit. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - the three performers are independently notable, and one of the albums does have an article but the template was pointing to a redirect which itself was not targeted properly (I've fixed it). All of the links are former articles which perhaps could be expanded. I may have a COI on this topic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge - Keep or merge with Template:Tara MacLean. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Extended periodic table (by Aufbau, 50 columns, compact)

Unused. No forseeable use since the period 8 elements have not yet been discovered. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Forseeable for illustrating the history of the extended periodic table, as this shows the 8th period as Seaborg originally suggested it (available for example here). Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Extended periodic table (by Aufbau, 50 columns, period 8)

Unused, no foreseeable use since these elements have not yet been discovered. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Forseeable for illustrating the history of the extended periodic table, as this shows the 8th period as Seaborg originally suggested it (available for example here). Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Sif

Unused and horribly hacky. Use {{str find}} instead. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete horrifying Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused and an abomination against sense and sanity. Richard0612 10:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Alarm clock

Entirely redundant to {{show by}}. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May 19

Template:Ifparadef

No need for this overly specific wrapper on #ifeq, which is only used correctly on two templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ifparadef full

Unused, and seems unnecessary. When would a template needs the ternary undef/empty/content situation (for cases without |5=, literally the same syntax as #ifeq {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Engeos

One transclusion in userspace, no apparent encyclopedic value Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that I've nominated a similar template by the same creator for deletion. Richard0612 12:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Exists

No page that is using this template would run into the expensive parser function limit if it used the regular #ifexist instead. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Here's what I wrote four years ago (almost to the day) at Template talk:Exists#Efficiency:

    This template seems to work by comparing a link to the page under test with a transclusion of that page; if the page doesn't exist, the attempted transclusion instead returns a redlink, which tests as equal to the true link. If the page exists, and is large, that means that a lot of content is being transcluded unnecessarily. This is occurring at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive L#.7B.7Bexists.7D.7D where the whole of Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) is being transcluded - invisibly, but it's still there - see What Links Here.

    --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete the if-exist limit is 500, if one is really pushing that there are probably other problems there. This seems very inefficient to boot, far more than ifexist Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as horrendously inefficient, superseded by #ifexist. Richard0612 10:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    This isn't technichally superseded. It was created after the #ifexist parser function. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:San Diego Padres retired numbers

Only used on two articles, and could very easily be placed on the "retired numbers" page and transcluded onto the main article. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment Are we talking about this[1] because there are five Padres with retired numbers....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: No, the nominated page is different from the navbox. This page is to reuse the table text in both San Diego Padres and San Diego Padres retired numbers, instead of syncing multiple copies.—Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep In theory transcluding from the San Diego Padres retired numbers could work, except the occasional unknowing editor not familiar with tranclusion syntax like <section begin=retired_numbers/> would just delete the "unnecessary" code and never know that they broke transclusion on the including page. Having a standalone page is self-contained, and avoids these inadvertent, uninformed mistakes. It also ensures that all citations are defined in the included text, and doesnt reuse a reference from outside the section, which would result in undefined references on the transcluding page(s).—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    If the template is transcluded, then all of the references will be inside the LST'd section, which means that there won't be any issues with named templates.
    In general, though, templates get borked all the time - we can't say "let's not do this because it might get broken" because things get broken every day, and we fix them. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Primefac: There'd be less opportunities to break things if it remained a separate template. I don't think the "cost" is high to keep it. A real-life example of people unfamiliar with syntax for transcluding from an article section is at NBA All-Star Celebrity Game, where I've had to fix people incorrectly adding text after the end of the section, fix people removing the sections markers altogether, and fixed the markers again.—Bagumba (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • delete after merging with San Diego Padres retired numbers per nom. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:Broader

Unnecessary luafication (wikitext version: {{hatnote|For a broader coverage related to {{{2|this topic}}}, see {{format link|{{{1|}}}}}|selfref={{{selfref|}}}}}) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Latter Day Saint biography

And all subtemplates. Move to d: and draw data from there (which is the purpose of the site). There is no need for persondata or infoboxes based on religion. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • No opinion on whether the template should exist or not, but if deleted we should wait for the closure of this RfC before deciding on whether to implement the proposed solution or replace with a different local template. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion and move to wikidata, per my opposition in that RfC. No point holding this discussion IMO until that RfC is closed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete (without moving to Wikidata) as a large number of unnecessary single-use templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC) (struck {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)))
    From checking them, vast majority are used twice, some more. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete as unnecessary moving of content away from the article. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Notified the wikiproject; noting not too much of an opinion on substing and deleting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 18

Template:Astatine compounds

Not enough articles. 2 of the 5 bluelinks are redirects, and the 3 articles are the same as those in Category:Astatine compounds. Very little is known about the chemistry of astatine since there are no long-lived isotopes. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:People of Khorasan

Not a suitable topic for a navbox. They are not intrinsically linked to each other other than where they came from. Best left for categories. Imagine if we had a {{People of New York}} navbox, etc, etc... --woodensuperman 10:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  • delete, this is why we have categories and list articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per this discussion, I am relisting this; short version is that the creator was not notified of this discussion and has requested an opportunity to contest the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment as a note, this template was used on 36 pages, but I have not restored their usage on the off chance that this template is again re-deleted. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems that the "creator" of the template wasn't exactly the creator of the template: here is the notification. --woodensuperman 12:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Preserve: The reason put forward by User:Woodensuperman, by making an analogy between a modern, culturally diverse city (i.e.,New York) and an old region that represents a cultural heritage (for modern countries) and a rich civilization, is meaningless. Anyone familiar with the Middle East history would agree that the template is important in a sense that it best complements the discussion in this section of the main article for Greater Khorasan, and it helps the readers to navigate. This is not the only template that enlists scientists and scholars arising from a similar region or sharing a similar culture, Template:Ancient_Greece_topics (see subsection for People), Template:Astronomy in medieval Islam, Template:Chinese philosophy, and many other templates which have lists of people. If those templates are justified to preserve, then why this one would qualify for deletion. --Cabolitæ (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete in say Chinese Philosophy, people are linked by topic, not their origin, and are thus related. There is no navigational utility in these completely unrelated people except for their birth place, while you would want to learn of other chinese philosophers. (also, greater khorassan seems too vague and big of an area to reasonably include reasonably include people, does it not?) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Preserve Given the prominent historical role of this region, i support a preservation of this template.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete While this navbox is useful because it includes medieval scholars of an important historical region, it's not more special than the other regions. We use categories for similar cases and this navbox should not be an exception. Delete and replace it with a category. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, a historical region and time documented and mapped through the people who shaped it. Nothing wrong with that. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

White House press corps

Propose merging Template:ABCWH with Template:White House press corps.
Propose merging Template:CBSWH with Template:White House press corps.
Propose merging Template:CNNWH with Template:White House press corps.
Propose merging Template:NBCWH with Template:White House press corps.
These could all be merged to a single {{White House press corps}} navbox, which could include journalists not affiliated to a network. (see article White House press corps). Although, is this even a suitable topic for a navbox? Maybe the navboxes should be deleted and let the article and a category do the job... --woodensuperman 11:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep all and then Merge per Woodensuperman's suggestion above. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Baseball parks type navboxes

Classic WP:NENAN. This is category material at most, and even there some of these categories and categorization is questionable. The corresponding lists at the baseball park article are largely unsourced and essay-like, so as the basis of navboxes it is exceedingly inappropriate. oknazevad (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. No need for navboxes breaking down stadium by type. Many other more useful navigation boxes exist for this topic. --woodensuperman 10:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, and ?. These templates are good sources of interesting information. The baseball Wikiproject should also be notified. Which "many other" templates exist for stadiums? I come here for one thing and find things like this, do good templates get deep-sixed every day in this sad corner of Wikipedia? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The project was notified here (and the creator here.) oknazevad (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Category:Baseball league stadiums navigational boxes, etc, etc... And navigation boxes are not here to be sources of information, they are here for navigation. The clue's in the name. If people are going to continually introduce inappropriate navboxes, of course you should expect to see them at TfD!!! --woodensuperman 11:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Those are all minor league parks. The templates under the gun above are all major league parks. A good faith suggestion, if you don't know the difference between major and minor leagues in American and Japanese baseball then maybe you shouldn't be ivoting on such a nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
{{MLB Ballparks}}. --woodensuperman 11:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
That's a listing of present parks without including historical parks or breaking them down into things like "Jewel box" which have an exact meaning. The templates under discussion all have their uses and may be of interest to different sets of readers. One size doesn't fit all on Wikipedia (is there an essay?). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
What there is is a guidance on when a navbox is appropriate and when categories are appropriate. This, being a breaking down by type, is more category territory. There's also the baseball park article with its embedded lists to provide more context (though much of that article is in need of cleanup, as it's far too much unsourced analysis). oknazevad (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Templates are another form of communicating the existence of articles, a Wikipedia map of the subject. For example, I've edited the template on Jewel Box baseball parks and found it and its entries very interesting and educational. Just because something exists in an article doesn't mean that each of the pages listed on the template will include links to those articles, hence the templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep like Randy Kryn, I find myself wondering how many good templates are being wiped out here. Lepricavark (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Assyrian elections in Iraq, 2018

Result of an election still to come. But this is about a part of that election, not the general results or a separate election. With all candidates mentioned and most of them annotated, it looks more like an election poster. The Banner talk 03:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep - The fact that the results have not arrived yet does not mean it doesn't need to exist, so I don't know why you mentioned that. The page's aim was to have the profile of the 66 candidates the Assyrian community has a option for. I don't understand your comparison to a poster. It's an informative page about the candidates. Here is United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan, 2014 that was part of United States House of Representatives elections, 2014. The later can't fill every state's candidate with the vote number per candidate. In Iraq's case, it's separated per Governorates and per minorities. If we had enough Iraqis contributing, we should have Iraqi parliamentary election in Nineveh, 2018 or Iraqi parliamentary election in Kirkuk, 2018 along with Iraqi parliamentary election, 2018. Note the template is used for Assyrian elections in Iraq, 2018. So would putting the table in that page make any difference in the matter? Chaldean (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It is just a part of the wider national elections, not a stand-alone election. And yes, other stuff exists but you should not take the American over-exposure as a leading principle. The Banner talk 08:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Could you please show a Wikipedia rule/law that says a part of a wider national elections cannot have a template or page? If you can't (which you can't, because it would go against the Michigan/USA example I showed), then you are making the proposal to delete something based on an opinion you have. You also did not answer my question if the table was put in the page instead of a template make any difference for you or not. Chaldean (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The idea of a template is indeed that it should be used on multiple pages. And I did respond to your remark at the Michigan elections: but you should not take the American over-exposure as a leading principle.. For the rest I leave it to the administrators, as I know that there is so much emotion around this subject, that there is even an ArbCom-decision about it. The Banner talk 12:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that if the table was in the actual page and not a template, then there is no problem. And I did not know that rule about it being used in multiple pages. So you turn out to be right. Thank you for teaching me something new today. In that case, I don't mind it being deleted. Chaldean (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

May 17

Module:Charts SVG

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. Author request Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

As the module itself claims, this module is not intended to be used in Wikipedia articles, and isn't usable there anyway, as there is no means of turning the SVG code into a graph within wikitext. Therefore, this module does not belong on Wikipedia. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC) (edited 19:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

  • Move - if it is possible. The module is useful in creating SVG files for charts. Commons, which is all about files, would no doubt be a better place for it. But (correct me if I'm wrong) commons has no Module: namespace that accommodates Lua-based templates. Obviously I'm biased here - I wrote the module, and at the moment I think I'm the only one to have used it. I was hoping this would change with (a) the recent upgrade and (b) as I use it to create charts for articles, I'd hope others notice its utility. BTW: the documentation for the module does clearly explain how to turn the SVG code into a graph, which is to create an SVG file which can be uploaded and is then used in articles. Innesw (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Innesw: Commons has a module namespace (e.g c:Module:Arguments) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Fairly obviously I couldn't easily find evidence for the namespace on commons, but now I know it's there I'll move the module - just give me a bit of time. Once I'm done I'll request deletion from en: myself. Innesw (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - The module has now been successfully moved to commons. Unless there is any further discussion I'm happy for the module page, and its /doc sub-page, to be deleted. Innesw (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
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:Magna Graecia

Propose merging Template:Magna Graecia with Template:Ancient Greece topics.
To try the idea. Please see below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Greek Pentapolis

Propose merging Template:Greek Pentapolis with Template:Magna Graecia.
Should well fit into one single template, which could then be called perhaps "Colonies of Ancient Greece" or similar. If more of a radical change, the contents could even be incorporated into Template:Ancient Greece topics. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ancient Greek cities of the Iberian peninsula

Propose merging Template:Ancient Greek cities of the Iberian peninsula with Template:Magna Graecia.
Should well fit into one single template, which could then be called perhaps "Colonies of Ancient Greece" or similar. If more of a radical change, the contents could even be incorporated into Template:Ancient Greece topics. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Pontic colonies

Propose merging Template:Pontic colonies with Template:Magna Graecia.
Should well fit into one single template, which could then be called perhaps "Colonies of Ancient Greece" or similar. If more of a radical change, the contents could even be incorporated into Template:Ancient Greece topics. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Roman colonies in ancient Levant

Propose merging Template:Roman colonies in ancient Levant with Template:Roman colonies in Europe.
Should conveniently fit well enough into the one and same template. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Colonial empires

Propose merging Template:Colonial empires with Template:Empires.
The template edit history of Template:Colonial empires prooves its contentious nature, vulnerable with regards to WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:NPOV in terms of definition, scope, and inclusion. A more cautious solution would be to merge the contents with Template:Empires while adding small notes to entries listed on Template:Empires (example: Austrian Empire^) with reference to a bottom row note legend saying "Colonial empires" or such. The current link to Colonies in antiquity in the botton row of Template:Colonial empires further stresses the point, as does its exclusion of the Roman Empire (whose colonies offer precisely the etymological origin for the very English word), the Persian Empire, and the Caliphates (which arguably qualify for the criterias by means of holding overseas territories included in intercontinental tradeworks complete with slave trade, etc.). Available flags could be added to the entries on Template:Empires. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:PoiMap2

Unused. Was used by the now-deleted {{Mapframe}} (which now redirects to another template). Gareth (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Lucifer ratings

Unused template, general consensus of WP:TV is that ratings graphs aren't required -- AlexTW 06:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Footer Albums Genocide Organ

The band's navigational template consists of one valid link, the band's article, and 13 redlinks of album articles that were deleted as being non-notable four years ago, therefore this is a navigational template that does not navigate anywhere. Aspects (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

May 16

Template:R from dotless ISO 4

Unused Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and consensus is that there is no need to distinguish between the two. If that changes, the template can be re-created and deployed by bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Food Network specials

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. Could be merged to {{Food Network series}} if content must really be kept. --woodensuperman 11:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Why not just merge it then? You don’t have to delete something first in order to merge it. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 21:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Because I favour deletion in this case. --woodensuperman 08:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You said "could be merged..." right above. Which one is it? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Note my second clause: if content must really be kept... --woodensuperman 08:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mainly to get opinions on the merger thing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:Books and Writers

Nothing is in this module that can't be implemented using Wikitext (possibly with a call to Module:String for the dab-stripping regex) using {{PAGENAMEBASE}} to strip the dab. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose User:Pppery, what guideline are you basing the nom on? Who are you nominating to re-write it in Wikitext using "possibly with a call to Module:String" (not myself, I don't know how). I have no problem if someone came forward to rewrite and test it (with a testcases page) - looks like busy work - but that it theoretically might be rewritten isn't reason to delete an otherwise working template on many pages. -- GreenC 01:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    Written without the module here. — JJMC89(T·C) 16:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    Unreadable and difficult to change compared to a well documented and simple Lua module with plainly labeled variable names, inline comments, clear display output. Still waiting for information on a guideline or policy behind nomination: "Nothing is in this module that can't be implemented using Wikitext". -- GreenC 18:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    That is by no means unreadable and difficult to change, it's just the way templates are written in Wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    64 nested curly brackets is unreadable and difficult to work with regardless. Not many have the time and patience to untangle where a single misplaced bracket, much less where to insert dozens new curly brackets to add a new feature. It is on the extreme-end of user unfriendly compared to a modern procedural language like Lua designed for non-programmers (Lua can be complex but doesn't need be). Still waiting for information on a guideline or policy behind nomination. -- GreenC 03:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Might we see an implementation of this template in wikitext? --Izno (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, JJMC89 already provided one above. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    That's a reasonable delete then. We don't need modules for one-line templates. --Izno (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    Still waiting for information on a guideline or policy behind nomination. The nom looks like valuing one thing (bare minimum of characters) at the expense of another (clarity and ease of use). The Lua Module was designed with beginning programmers in mind, anyone can understand how it works and how to make changes by reading the variable names and in-line comments. The Wiki template is a mass of 64 embedded brackets, not beginner friendly or easy to add new template features. -- GreenC
    It's normal to avoid modules where they aren't needed because we should avoid making templates more complex than necessary. Not every editor knows how to program--most people OTOH know how to do basic template wikitext manipulation. The number of brackets isn't really a concern unless they're a soup of them, and the above sandbox is not what I would call a soup. If you personally want to keep a module around to show people how to do the basics of Lua, or for yourself, then I don't have a problem moving it to Module:Sandbox/GreenC rather than deletion. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    That's a general heuristic / rule of thumb, but in this specific case the Lua module is less complex than the Wiki module (count of \n notwithstanding). It is easier to read, easier to understand. Most people do not know how to work with wiki templates at this level of complexity (64 embedded curly brackets). The point isn't to teach people how to program in Lua, but make it easier for them so they can make modifications - make working with the template more accessible. Also, it's not really a compromise to userfy source code permission is not needed unless someone actually objected to having source code posted in userspace and I've never seen that short of copyright grounds. -- GreenC 02:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    64 brackets is not a sign of complexity. 64 brackets in soup is a sign of complexity. The above template is not a soup. Stop repeating this point as if it holds water--it doesn't.
    "It is easier to read, easier to understand", is an opinion. Your opinion is colored by your programming background. This is much the same as repeating "the Lua module is less complex". Someone interested in making a change to the wiki template is much more likely to be successful coming from any basic wiki background in this context.
    I do not understand your comment in the small tags. A creator of a page at XFD is usually provided the opportunity to take a page into a user-space (or related--for modules that's e.g. Module:Sandbox/Izno). If you don't want to keep the module around, deletion is usually the alternative (where there is consensus for such, naturally). --Izno (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    Of course it is my opinion, in contrast to your opinion. Why I've kept asking, what is the community guideline or policy? There doesn't appear to be one, just opinions. How is it there is nothing written about when to use Lua vs. Wiki? I'm not making this up, I really do believe the wiki template is frighteningly off-putting to any but the most eagle-eyed curly bracket counter (slowly going blind). The logic appears to be that if a person can use single templates, then x10 embedded or whatever in this case being the same thing - doesn't hold water either.
    Regarding the userspace, it's off-topic thus small text, but you said I don't have a problem moving it to [userspace] which implied you would not oppose it, but no one opposes saving code in userspace so I'm not sure why you said so, it looked like an attempt to reach a compromise; if so it was not a real compromise since no one would oppose it anyway. -- GreenC 05:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    Some pages are not granted that compromise position. Pages particularly egregious to policy or which are being used to WP:GAME consensus processes, get deleted, regardless of the creator's wish. --Izno (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    The module has been around for years without complaint, I don't think there are any policy or consensus issues outside this one wiki vs lua. -- GreenC 13:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, the sandbox version is easier to read. Frietjes (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, templates are much more editor-friendly, and much easier to maintain. While LUA may be simpler for programmers, there's no need to invoke modules when templates will do, if only because modules are beyond the editing skills of most editors and template writers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Advanced template coding:
Most problems are due to awkward features in the markup language which lead to coding errors; for example, omitting a leading brace "{" at parameter {{1}}} causes it to become {{1}} }, as invoking Template:1 + "}".
"awkward features in the markup language" is an understatement. The rest of document reads like an apology .. "Some templates have contained complex conditional calculations nested over 23 levels deep, for years." ie. we know 23 nested templates sucks but hey it works .. in the debugging section it says "Many hideous problems truly are merely 1-minute syntax fixes" .. then gives a lengthy explanation that amounts to eyeballing every bracket to make sure it has matching brackets which is no easy 1 minute fix.
Meanwhile we have this beginner-friendly procedural language Lua with a short learning curve. From Lua (programming language): "Lua is widely used as a scripting language by game programmers, perhaps due to its perceived easiness to embed, fast execution, and short learning curve." Moving from simple Lua to advanced wiki markup is a step backwards. -- GreenC 14:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Wiki markup is the native language of Wikipedia and is well-documented. LUA is an coding language inaccessible to most people. LUA may look prettier and be more powerful, and may even make highly-complex templates more maintainable (e.g. Help:CS1). But for simple templates such as this, it makes them completely out of reach for the vast, VAST majority of editors. Let's say I want to add an accessdate to that template. It's going to take most template editors 5 seconds to do in Wikimarkup {{#if:{{{accessdate|}}}|Retrieved on {{{accessdate}}}.}}. If I want to do that in LUA, I'm looking at a 3-4 months learning curve before I can even begin to touch the thing. This is a problem with templates like Help:CS1 because simple requests can get ignored for months or years (e.g. Help talk:Citation Style 1#Cross check year/date with the arxiv/bibcode) because only LUA coders can do anything about it. The fewer templates have the LUA barrier to edit-ability, the better.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Mpf

This template introduces unusual formatting into articles without any apparent reason. Template was created and deployed by Rfassbind without any explanation as to its proper use or where this style originated. I asked about its origin and reason for being, but received no response; none of the major astronomical catalogues use this style that I'm aware of. I cannot reason out how this is a benefit to the site. If deleted, this title should redirect to {{mp}}. Huntster (t @ c) 00:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies to Huntster for having delayed on our discussion, but my minor-planet updates for 2018 has already been prepared (including some of his recommendations).
This template, {{mpf}} has been documented since its inception in 2016 (see Template:Mp § Template:mpf), as all members of the {{Mp}}-family are documented on the same page. This template is used in approximately 2000 articles and provides a formatted provisional designation such as in:
  • On May 15, 2018, 2010 WC9 approached Earth... or
  • 9000 Hal, provisional designation 1981 JO, is a stony background asteroid...
In addition, I also plan to expanded this template in the future. For example, {{mpf}} will provide an option for a link to provisional designation similar to the Lagrangian point templates: L4 which are linked by default. As for the {{mpf}}-template, I personally like the CSS-styles (I just like it) but if this is against any policies and guidelines (which?) then why not simply amend/remove them, rather than to propose the deletion of the template which undercuts my endeavours? I'm also puzzled by the claim that the template was created/deployed without any explanation. Rfassbind – talk 02:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The questions is, what is the point of this formatting? Why is this styling preferred over standard text as provided by {{mp}}? I can't find where it is prescribed by any astronomical organisation. Regarding the lack of explanation, the template description simply says it formats the name. No explanation is given to why, or when it is appropriate, or anything. Just that it does something. I guess I'm also a little troubled that this formatting was widely deployed without any discussion that I'm aware of. Perhaps it was simply not paid attention to by others, but I have to say I find the sudden text style change in the prose rather jarring. Huntster (t @ c) 03:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Addendum to this: the Lagrange templates have no real relevance here since they simply provide easy linking and and <sub>'ing; they don't change the default appearance of anything. Huntster (t @ c) 03:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding. I thought your first comment "[the template is] without any explanation as to its proper use" referred to a lack of documentation. So I provided you a link to the documentation which displays an example, what it does and how to use it. As for the "why", the templates formats the provisional designation to provide a visual distinction (as in the first example above, where the year of the date and the year of the designation are side-by-side), as well as to install a hook for the addition of new features such as the linkage to provisional designation (that's why I mentioned {{L4}} as an example). Furthermore, I think you are conflating the template as a container for a number of features with the currently used CSS-styles, which I just like and you obviously don't. I'm really not capable to discern whether I'm explaining myself so poorly or whether you just don't listen. Maybe somebody can help us here, please. Rfassbind – talk 05:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Let me clarify: yes, I was talking about the template documentation. Literally all it says is "Produces a formatted version of a minor planet designation as in, for example:". There is no explanation of when it is appropriate for use, why it should be used, or any of the statements and directions usually found in template documentation. That was my only point regarding that topic. As for the "why" as well, there is zero reason to use a distinctive text format for these. The hook provision is provided by {{mp}} just as easily. Yes, I fully understand that this is formatting that you prefer, and I obviously would never have an issue with you having such a preference. But to unilaterally start implementing that visual preference into such a vast number of articles is something that probably should have been discussed with relevant communities. Huntster (t @ c) 23:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't understand the italics and font change. No astronomical publication out there does this, to my knowledge. I always found it jarring in our article when we did this. Short of an valid explanation for the unusual style, back by reliable sources, I say delete this and replace it with the non-italicized, non-weird font change version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless there are consistent examples of this format in published journals, it just looks odd on the screen. — Eoghanacht talk 19:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 15

Template:JWArchiveNav

This template is an unnecessary fork of the navigation provided by both the {{Talkheader}} on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as the {{Aan}} at the top of each of the archived subpages of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. For this reason, I recommend removing all of the transclusions, then deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:JWArchiveNotice

This template is unnecessary. It displays a warning message that is already present in archive navigation templates: To not edit the page where it is present. In addition, this notification is absent from recent archive subpages of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. For this reason, I suggest either removing all transclusions and delete or substitute then delete. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Swiss cantons

This template was recently made and is redundant as the articles are already linked to by the Template:Swiss legislatures. Île flottante (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As explained on Template talk:Swiss legislatures, it is only partially redundant as it lists both the cantonal parliaments and the cantonal governments. One of the most interesting things is to navigate between governments and parliaments of any given cantons (rather than from national to regional parliaments). I therefore suggest to:

What do you think?
Quo'tis (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

The politics template incorrectly conflates too many issues into one template. The executives and legislatures of the Cantons (not regions!) fulfill different functions and this distinction must be maintained. All Swiss Cantons have collegial governments formed from the major parties in the canton and they also have significant aspects of semi-direct democracy that surpass the obligatory referendum, facultative referendum and popular initiative available at he federal level. Reducing Swiss politics to the legislatures and the executives does not represent the fact that most major political decisions in Switzerland are ultimately decided by the people and the Cantons or the people alone (federal) and the people of the Cantons (cantonal matters). I don’t think this oversimplification is helpful as it will lead people to fundamentally misunderstand the Swiss constitutional arrangement. Île flottante (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 10:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Architecture in Portland, Oregon

There are few similar navigation templates for cities, nor are there standards for inclusion. I've been whittling this template down for a while, and creating spin-off templates. This template is simply no longer needed, and other more specific categories can be created, if needed. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:ExpandCitations

Unused, and I don't understand why one would want to do this. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • This isn't meant to be used in the traditional sense. It was written to aid in performance testing during CS1 module development. Dragons flight (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Old discussions

May 14

Module:Countdownalt

Abandoned, misnamed sandbox of Module:Countdown. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:Commons category

Unused Wikidata lua module; Commons category (P373) can be passed as a parameter to Module:Wd, Module:Wikidata, or Module:WikidataIB to get the commons category of a page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Senior Open 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 relisted on 2018 May 22. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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:A-League Ladder2

unused; probably replaced by Module:Sports table Frietjes (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. Hhkohh (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:NZFC 2009-10 Position Ladder

unused; probably replaced by Module:Sports table. Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Hhkohh (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 10:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:Asbox/testedit

Unused, plus could be easily implemented in Wikitext {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment As there are several TFDs for unused modules on this day's log, I've proposed a speedy-deletion criterion for unused modules. Please visit WT:CSD#Unused modules to offer an opinion on the proposal. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You can move this module to my userspace if you'd like. This module was convenient when Asbox was being developed as I needed to generate a lot of very similar links. It currently isn't used because Asbox is currently stable and the generated links have been replaced with hardcoded versions. It might be useful again if Asbox were ever updated and new testcases were created. —CodeHydro 11:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:Airport destinations

(a) Only used on 2 non-articles (b) Not in english (c) Wikipedia has rejected generating this kind of table from Wikidata {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:Available

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 2018 May 22. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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).

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit navboxes

Not really a useful navigation tool, mostly due to their sheer size (among other factors), and as a list of appearances in magazines, it probably fails WP:PERFNAV. Best suited to a list (or category, although that may fail WP:PERFCAT). --woodensuperman 15:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep The templates link people who have similar encyclopedic appeal to readers making it easy for them to get from one article to to another article that likely appeals to readers for similar reasons. I.e., it links articles of people who are associated in a way that makes linkages logical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you really envisage a situation where a reader will find this a useful navigation tool and wouldn't be better served by an article? Will readers really be using this to navigate between one model to another without context? It's just unnecessary clutter really and fails the spirit of WP:PERFNAV. --woodensuperman 10:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, is the topic even notable? I note that List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue models does not exist, and if it was to be created, it may even be deleted per WP:LISTCRUFT, so these navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX anyway. --woodensuperman 10:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, better to navigate through list articles and categories. Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Tony. I've used the navboxes myself on a number of occasions to find models by specific year, and to navigate between model pages, while have never used categories or list articles for these topics. I can't imagine I'm the only such user. - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, there aren't articles or categories for this, so you wouldn't have been able to. But that would be a better way of presenting this information, provided that the topic is even notable. However as a navbox is unsourced, we cannot judge notability, which is why there should be an article on the subject of a navbox before a navbox is created. At worst, this is WP:LISTCRUFT, at best it should be listified, either way, there should not be a navbox for it. --woodensuperman 15:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't have used the categories or list page had they existed, and usually don't use them for navigation when they do exist. I prefer to use navboxes for navigation, not categories, or list pages. (Actually, I don't use categories at all, and list pages rarely.) As to sources, the sources are the issues themselves, and are what would be cited in a list page anyway. I've no issue with a list page being created, but you've already made it clear it probably shouldn't exist, so why bother as long as we have the navboxes.
I don't know if there is a way to track usage of navboxes, but I'd love to see the traffic numbers if there is. - BilCat (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
If the list shouldn't exist, then the navbox definitely shouldn't as that would imply the topic isn't notable. --woodensuperman 08:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
What's your opinion on the others? --woodensuperman 13:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if the others are that useful. Being a model in the issue that isn't the cover isn't a big deal. There were some issues in which regular athletes or sports personalities wore swimsuits in the issue. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:1964–1969 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit

Only links two articles. Nothing to navigate. Best dealt with by a list. See also #Sports Illustrated Swimsuit navboxes. --woodensuperman 15:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: since this template is one in a series, and many of the models are known by name, "maybe" it could/should be kept, and "maybe" articles on the red-link models could be written. Independently of this discussion, maybe the models (all of them, from all years) should be categorized. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

May 13

Australian association football captain navboxes

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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Per past consensus (here, here, here, and here), templates for club captains are overkill, are not a useful guide to navigation, and are WP:FANCRUFT as being team captain is not significant enough. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep Being a captain is significant and notable, as they are the leaders of the clubs. As we can see we have templates for cricket captains (have a look at the bottom of all the pages listed in Template:National cricket captains, including Test, ODI, and T20I) as well as pages for lists of captains of national soccer teams and clubs (such as England and Cardiff City). These aid navigation if one is interested in the captains of a club and also is a highlight of the player's career. --SuperJew (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: Bringing to attention of WP:AFIA. --SuperJew (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous discussions – not necessary, nor particularly useful IMO. Number 57 13:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, fancruft. Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary. Umarghdunno (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all - per prior consensus. GiantSnowman 15:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all - being captain of a football club is not significant or notable in the vast majority of cases (a cricket captain has very different responsibilities, and that is not a valid comparison). I have several books on the history of my club and not one feels the need to list who the captains were or even mention the fact in the pen pictures of players who I know for a fact were captain. The Cardiff article should probably be deleted, as similar articles have been in the past -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
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).

Module:Echo

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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

3 functions:

  1. len is redundant to Module:String
  2. echo is redundant to Template:1x
  3. cite is redundant to Template:Citation

Also unused. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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:Reading Rockets current roster

Unnecessary navigation, only two active links Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:Citation

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 Blank. Consensus for blanking. What precisely do with it afterwards, there are quite a few ideas, which can be done through regular editing (noting though that a soft redirect in a module is not possible) (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Unused lua reimplementation of a bunch of templates that can be implemented easily in Wikitext (Note: Not to be confused with the very-heavily-used Module:Citation/CS1) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • commentModule:Citation is moribund and I have long thought that it should be blanked rather than deleted because it is the root page of Module:Citation/CS1 and 40 other pages. Perhaps instead of blanking, the contents should be replaced with an error message return in case it ever is invoked. —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    • If invoked in place of Module:Citation/CS1, an error is already displayed with Module:Citation, as "Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:mw' not found". -Wikid77 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      The lua error is thrown because Module:Mw, required by Module:Wikitext, was deleted 6 May 2018 as the result of this TfD. Module:Wikitext should probably be a candidate for its own TfD.
      —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Blank and possibly turn into an index of submodules. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Blank this page, and maybe turn it into a soft redirect to Citation/CS1. That may be a bad idea for reasons I am not thinking of, in which case I would support blanking with some sort of comment or module documentation explaining why the page has been blanked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and comment as historical. Over the past 6 years, there has been little danger of accidental usage, because it now displays an error for Module:mw not found. Instead, Module:Citation should be updated with Lua comments that is being kept for historical reasons as the genesis of Citation/CS1, and root of the subpages Module:Citation/*. Blanking the page would just hide the comments that, because of conflicting cite styles, the wp:CS1 cites were later implemented by the separate Module:Citation/CS1 to reduce confusion of the conflicting cite parameters. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Meh. Leaving non-operating code visible because it may (or may not) have historical significance is not a good idea. This is why I suggested replacing the content with a meaningful error message. By doing that, editors who encounter the error message don't chase down the rabbit hole looking for modules that don't exist ...; so other editors don't make occasional tweaks to code that isn't used on the assumption that it is used; so vandals don't vandalize; see the module's history for examples so some of these things occurring since active development stopped in 2013. Replacing the content with an appropriate error message doesn't make the module history go away so it remains available to anyone who is interested. Perhaps this is a suitable return:
    This module retained for historical and structural reasons; consider using Module:Citation/CS1.
    Of course, more detail can and probably should be provided in the module's doc page.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
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).

Module:Table

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 Merge. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 13:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging Module:Table with Module:TableTools.
Duplicate Lua metamodules. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh, I like TableTools; Table does not instantly give what it is about while TableTools does and is clear what its function is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge per above; TableTools seems a better target also as the established module. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
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:International news channels

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. Of an ambit, too-broad, to be practically useful.A more-refined template may be created de-novo. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 13:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The title is confusing. Either we should change the name to "Channels with international availability" which in my opinion will be original research or just delete it. Put it in simple words it isn't navigable. Störm (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request on my talk page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The title of the template is a concise description of the content. The suggested alternative "Channels with international availability" also has the words "Channels" and "international", but the word "availability" is vague and meaningless. The template is supposed to be restricted to "news" channels, not channels with "availability". That term would include any type of broadcast, not simply "news". The claim that the template is "original research" seems meaningless since this isn't an article. The claim that the template "isn't navigable" is not self-evident to me. Mitchumch (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not the purpose of WP:NAVBOX to tell which channel is available internationally. It is the worst use of template. Störm (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:NAVBOX, "A navigation template is a template that links between multiple articles belonging to the same topic." That "same topic" happens to be International news channels. It would be no different than Template:Radio in New York City or Template:Television in Brazil. Mitchumch (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, with clearer name - The template should certainly be kept, but I agree the name causes confusion. Is the template for 'news channels available globally' (eg. CNN, BBC World) or 'news channels which exist around the globe' (eg. Sky News Australia, Sky News Arabia, CNN Chile). Given the content, I'm assuming its the latter, in which case renaming the templates something like "News channels" or "24 hour news channels" -- Whats new?(talk) 07:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The template title is drawn from the article International news channels. (That article and List of news television channels may need to be WP:Merged). That point put aside, I believe the distinction you are attempting to make is between international news channels and international news broadcasters. (See List of international broadcasters). An international news channel is dedicated to reporting international events to a local audience. An international news broadcaster is dedicated to reporting international events to a global audience. I believe the template lists both channels and broadcasters, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps a clearer name for the template title would be "International news channels and broadcasters". Please correct me if I misunderstood you. Mitchumch (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, too large to be useful as a navbox. better to use categories and list articles for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a useful tool for navigation. --woodensuperman 14:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WS and Frietjes. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, with a major rewrite. The box has no use as it is now. There are plenty of news channels in the box whose only claim for being "international" is that the livestream on the website can be viewed everywhere. Like there is ČT24 (the first and only 24-hour news channel in Czech language), or Puthiya Thalaimurai TV, a Tamil language news channel. This means that the purpose of the infobox would be that it lists, as Mitchumch puts it, international news broadcasters, dedicated to reporting international events to a global audience. In that way, the box could be of ore use than it is now. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete the major rewrite is basically to make it a template it isn't, appears currently to be channels that report international news to local audiences, 90% of the navbox looks like it would be removed so more helpful to create a new navbox. Far too large and ill-defined to be useful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
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:Fictional health navbox

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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No main article. Medical fiction, listed as the main article of the linked Category:Medicine and health in fiction, does not quite fit the character lists (and particularly the article Nurse stereotypes). –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
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).

Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell (edit)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts

Tamtam90, you're welcome to start a TFD/merge discussion for that infobox. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Geography, politics and governance

Religion

Sports

  • None currently

Transport

  • None currently

Other

Meta

I think implementing this template in LUA, and detecting the calling redirect will be the easiest way to do this? TheDragonFire (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems needlessly complicated. The language between the two is almost identical anyway, so even if the "wrong language" is used there will not be a significant difference in meaning. It was something I didn't quite notice when I closed it. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Needlessly complicated, and also quite impossible as far as I know. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.

  • None currently

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • Template:Style-nt2018 May 7Style-nt ( redirects | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Module:Style-nt2018 May 7Module:Style-nt ( redirects | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
    Now that this is closed, what's the process for cleaning up the hundreds of article that Eric Corbett recently transcluded this template into? I went ahead and blanked the calls to the modules, so the effects are gone, but the source is still a mess, and will show red template links if the templates are deleted before the articles are fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    And I removed the few uses of the other templates, so it doesn't matter whether those additional templates and modules are deleted or not. Certainly not worth another TFD as closer suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Winged Blades of Godric: any idea how to go about finishing this up? Probably need a bot or least AWB programmed to undo Eric's edits, putting back Notes headers where he put them inside the template, etc. Eric seems to have disappeared; hope he's OK. Dicklyon (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Dicklyon: I've moved this here as being a little more appropriate place to discuss this; there's no need to blank it first, breaks/removes some headers; easiest thing would be to make it subst either to nothing or to the header, and then subst all instances. Someone will get around to doing it since it is listed here Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    I'll add this link Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 7#Template:Style-nt to the TFD on the off chance that anyone replying hasn't seen it. It'll save them a couple clicks anyway :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    @MarnetteD: I believe I've created such a wrapper (I chose to respect the |toc= parameter because bold pseudo-headings are generally considered acceptable). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    It may not be best to directly substitute, as lines above/below the template in articles need to be removed judging by the result Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Archive and Indices