Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText, Topic, or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.
Not to be confused with Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Closing instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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 the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at Tfd, tag it with {{Db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
  • 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[edit]

Shortcut:
  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[edit]

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).

I Tag the template.
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • 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]].

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 notify any interested WikiProjects (look on the top of the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion.

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.

Twinkle[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

June 30[edit]

Template:Rose-Sutton Medal[edit]

Non-notable single game award that has only existed for a few years. Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion #4. Jenks24 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Jason McCartney Medal[edit]

Non-notable single game award that only existed for a few years. Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion #4. Jenks24 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Archer-Hird Medal[edit]

Non-notable single game award that only existed for a few years. Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion #4. Jenks24 (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

June 29[edit]

Template:Television in the Czechoslovak Republic[edit]

This doesn't seem to be a helpful navbox since it only has one link. -- Tavix (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete useless as a navbox with only one link --SuperJew (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Woollongong Wolves[edit]

It's a spelling mistake of Template:Fb team Wollongong Wolves. SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Prince Alfred[edit]

Doesn't even represent a football team, but rather links to a college. SuperJew (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Murray Bridge[edit]

Doesn't even represent a football team, but rather links to a city. SuperJew (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Hahndorf[edit]

Doesn't even represent a football team, but rather links to a town. SuperJew (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 28[edit]

Template:Virtualization[edit]

Redundant to Template:Virtualization software, which is older and slightly better organized. Most of their entries are the same. In fact, the real different between the two is the presence of Networking section in one and Tools in another. Fleet Command (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:More2[edit]

This template has one (1) mainspace transclusion, and all but acknowledges in its documentation that it's redundant to {{details}}. We should merge the one transclusion to that, then delete this template. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • replace/delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Valley Metro-stub[edit]

Unused, malformed stub template. It has a poor, convention-breaking name, it is unused, and it links to a non-existent category (and - given the size of the parent Category:Valley Metro - it is not likely to get close to the threshold for category creation for a considerable time). While simply changing the name to a more correct {{Valley-Metro-stub}} is an option, the size of the would-be parents Category:United States rapid transit stubs and Category:Arizona transport stubs (the latter considerably below threshold) and the fact that it is unused don't engender much optimism for it. Deletion until such time that there is a need for it (if ever) seems more appropriate. Grutness...wha? 13:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • It also looks like the template's creator has since been banned as a Wikipedia editor - another nail in the template's coffin. Grutness...wha? 13:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-VE-Pic[edit]

Unused license tag, and also very limited in scope (only applies to photographs) FASTILY 11:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-CA-State-Capitol-Museum[edit]

Unused license tag, seems redundant to {{PD-CAGov}} FASTILY 11:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • {{PD-CAGov}} means that the work was created by someone employed by the State of California and that the work therefore is in the public domain in the United States, although it might not be in the public domain outside the United States. It does not cover works by third parties who have transferred the copyright to the State of California.
{{PD-CA-State-Capitol-Museum}} seems to be valid in all countries, so it is a 'stronger' tag in cases where the tag applies, and therefore it's better to use this tag instead of {{PD-CAGov}} in all situations where this tag applies. It also seems that this covers works by third parties who have transferred the copyright to the State Capitol Museum.
I'd recommend checking if there is some situations where {{PD-CAGov}} can be migrated to {{PD-CA-State-Capitol-Museum}}, and thus keeping the template for the foreseeable future. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:NGruev[edit]

Unused license template, likely unsuitable for use outside of Wikipedia (NC restriction). See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NGruev FASTILY 08:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment How did the template end up being unused? It used to be used for lots of files. It seems that the user who created the template, TodorBozhinov, recently got a bot notification about F11 tags which someone had added to files, and the file names suggest that most or all of the files contained this template. The files were later deleted by Explicit. This looks very inappropriate, considering that the template was kept at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 16#Template:NGruev; users who disagree with that closure should relist the template, not tag the files for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The permission looks very strange and it's unclear what the permission covers or what the photographer meant. It's possible that the files only are covered by a GFDL licence as long as the files are not deleted from 'Wikipedia', and it's unclear if 'Wikipedia' means 'Bulgarian Wikipedia' or any language edition of Wikipedia. Additionally, if you use something under GFDL, then you must include a copy of the licence, but no version number has been specified, so it's not possible to tell which version of the licence you should include when using the images. I don't think that you can circumvent this by including a copy of all versions of the licence as you would then probably have to specify which one of those versions the files are licensed under. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

June 27[edit]

Template:Pending changes table (expanded)[edit]

Propose merging Template:Pending changes table (expanded) with Template:Pending changes blocks.
Both templates appear to do the same thing (other than naming and coloring differences). Pppery (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Rajput class destroyers[edit]

The class is covered in the template Destroyers of the Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate single line template for just five ships. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Delhi class destroyers[edit]

The class is covered in the template Destroyers of the Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for just three ships. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Kolkata-class destroyers[edit]

The class is covered in the template Destroyers of the Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for just three ships. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad[edit]

This navbox does not contain any links that the main article does not already contain, and thus does not serve any useful purpose. Even if all the redlinks were turned blue, they could easily be incorporated into the infobox. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Temperature extremes[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Temperature extremes with Template:WikiProject Meteorology.
This template should be deleted in favor of using a larger Template:WikiProject Meteorology to include the sub-project. This template at Category talk:2009 heat waves for example puts pages into the NA category instead of the cat category that's used at the Meterology project. Rather than keep multiple separate templates that operate differently for the same project, better to have the project use a single template with the sub-project included. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 26[edit]

Template:Persondata[edit]

This is a procedural TFD, following the deprecation RFC and subsequent bot-removal (now-complete-less-one-protected-page) by User:KasparBot.

Given that the template was hidden for almost all users (all anonymous readers/editors and likely the majority of logged-in users), this should not have a significant affect on the pages in the page history; where instead of a space being present for the template, a redlink now would be. Izno (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • support per Izno. -- T.seppelt (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • support (as template creator). Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Last transclusion in article space now removed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • delete no longer used and per Izno--Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • rewrite to issue an error in article space. given the massive number of non-article-space transclusions, I would hate to have this permanently in Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of deleted templates just because of all the non-article-space transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    Hmm, I'd definitely prefer just to delete it. A sampling of the pages its used on in the first 50 transclusions appear generally to be (sometimes abandoned) drafts of articles. We can have it fully deprecated outside the mainspace in the context of this discussion as well, I think. @T.seppelt? --Izno (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    I would also prefer to delete the template, but yes we need to find a solution for non-article transclusions first: I can either run the same script also on other namespace and just delete the transclusions. Another option would be to replace {{Persondata}} by <nowiki>{{Persondata...}}</nowiki>. This would preserve discussions on talk pages. What do you prefer? --T.seppelt (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    I have no opinion on either solution. @Frietjes: do you? --Izno (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    wrapping them inside html comments or nowiki tags would work. Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 10 transclusions in articles as of 20:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    I'll delete them. Could we come to a conclusion for the other namespaces? Nowiki-tags? --T.seppelt (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Frietjes: From a brief sampling it looks mostly like those articles are being un-redirected to more notable topics. @T.seppelt: I think I would recommend removing it in any non-talkspace and nowiki-ing it in talkspace. I'm on vacation now though so I won't be following too closely. --Izno (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. been seeing this template taking out of pages for a while :) --SuperJew (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Dates for Easter[edit]

Propose merging Template:Dates for Easter with Template:Table of dates of Easter.
I found this as an ill formed proposal. Because it makes sense, at first glance at least, I fixed it. In addition, the second template includes more information, so this could be turned into a redirect. Both templates are in use on 2-3 articles in all. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Aside from the trivial difference in dates, there's a scope of information problem and a titling problem. Whether or not one wants to generalize over the origin of holidays, merging the full moon date, Passover, "Astronomical Easter" (whatever that's useful for), "Gregorian Easter" (which isn't standard anyway - it's the "Western" date), "Julian Easter" (a calendar definitely fully deprecated by the time the chart starts) and the "Eastern" (Orthodox) vs "Western" (everybody else) dates is a) ridiculously huge, and b) frankly, insulting to non-Christian religions by insinuating they all come from Easter, when in fact the reverse is true in some cases. Just as an FYI, the List of dates for Easter basically could be summed up in two lines instead of repeating the same information three times, and makes very little use of these templates. As far as I'm concerned, they're just in their articles for show and could just as soon be deleted and turned into a table in articles it's needed in, the utility of which is subjective. MSJapan (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    “Astronomical Easter” is the common date proposed by the resolution of the WCC Aleppo conference in 1997, which is linked as a source for Template:Table of dates of Easter. I believe it makes sense to collect such calendrical data in a single place, but I’m not sure it should be either of these templates: Wikidata maybe a better location. — Christoph Päper 05:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, even though I made this nomination only on technical grounds, but I do agree with the merge, and disagree with your arguments: I think neither the template is too large nor do I think that there is any insult in the combination of the information or its wording, and I find that hypersensitivity disturbing rather than helpful. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just FYI (because it affects template usage), List of dates for Easter has been redirected to Computus per the merge discussion hat's been sitting there for several months, and has actually fallen off the target talk page. I redirected the page because I discovered that once I dealt with the OR by addressing the redundant trivia (there were separate sections for "earliest", "latest" and "range of" Easter dates, set up with entirely arbitrary years for the trivia to work, and the earliest and latest dates define the range), all the unsourced "article" really said was "Easter ranges between two dates." MSJapan (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Anthropology collapsible[edit]

Propose merging Template:Anthropology collapsible with Template:Anthropology.
I found this as an ill formed proposal. Because it makes sense, at first glance at least, I fixed it. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:New Jersey school district spending table[edit]

Propose merging Template:New Jersey school district spending table with Template:Infobox school district.
I found this as an ill formed proposal. Because it makes sense, at first glance at least, I fixed it. The proposal was explained at Template_talk:New_Jersey_school_district_spending_table. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Chemical elements named after ...[edit]

—Delete. The templates do not address a navigable topic. As with similar categorisation, the property listed in each is not defining. (For that reason there also is no navbox "Element names starting with an A"). Any such etymology is well covered in List of elements. DePiep (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per same argument as DePiep (nominator?). Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 17:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A scientist may play a crucial role in the discovery of a certain element. Scientific community honors such scientists by naming elements after them. I wanted to stress this role in the cat. The example "element names starting with an A" is not analogous to this role. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOTDEFINING and redundant to the list noted by nom. This is a trivial intersection, and as many of these places or people aren't related to one another other than by the elemental connection displayed in the list article. MSJapan (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. (And in response to Nedim Ardoğa: usually, elements are not named after the scientists that helped to discover them: seaborgium is currently the only exception, although element 118 will soon be the second when it is renamed oganesson. Some of these scientists were not even chemists, such as Röntgen and Copernicus.) Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The title of the template is not "... after chemists". Thus Röntgen and Copernicus deserve to be in the template. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • comment WP:NOTDEFINING is for categorization. Christian75 (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Shishumar class submarines[edit]

The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:TFD #2. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep standard practice in ship articles, see pretty much any military ship out there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nothing is guaranteed, and there's really no need to navigate between a series of one-line "existence" stubs. The articles are going to get upmerged to class. MSJapan (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - standard for every ship class, shows which class comes before and after, and the overly complicated Template:Submarines of Indian Navy can be kept as well. Derekbridges (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Vela class submarines[edit]

The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:TFD #2. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep standard practice in ship articles, see pretty much any military ship out there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - the articles are all one-line stubs and probably need to be upmerged or redirected anyway, so there's no reason to keep this. MSJapan (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - standard for every ship class, shows which class comes before and after, and the overly complicated Template:Submarines of Indian Navy can be kept as well. Derekbridges (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Excess Gospel of John–related templates[edit]

These templates are redundant, their content being already contained in the better designed Template:Gospel of John. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... despite being the nominator, my opinion on this isn't too strong. But wouldn't "Content of John" be better as simply article content, rather than an awkward template off to the side? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Note I've copied Template:Content of John to User:Jujutsuan/Content of John COPY for this purpose in case the template is ultimately deleted. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
On what planet is Template:Gospel of John confusing? And isn't policy to pick between a navbox and a sidebar, not to have both? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 22:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Template:Gospel of John is the only one of the four gospels that currently has this type of treatment page. There used to be pages for the other four, but it looks like they were all either deleted or had their content moved back to the parent pages. I created them at the request of another editor, whose name I forget, due to Talk discussions on one of the gospel pages because he and other authors felt that this type of book list was too much for the main Gospel of John page. I've always felt that this info should be on the main page anyway. Ckruschke (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

Template:Kalvari class submarines[edit]

The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:TFD #2. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - pretty sure everything but Kursura is going to get upmerged, but the Kursura article is actually excellent. MSJapan (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - standard for every ship class, shows which class comes before and after, and the overly complicated Template:Submarines of Indian Navy can be kept as well. Derekbridges (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:User no IRC[edit]

Unused userbox; users who want to be added to Category:Wikipedians who use IRC can use {{User IRC}} anyway. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The point is I believe that these users do not use IRC and believe IRC is detrimental for Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:TFD reason #1. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep We traditionally give great leeway with templates meant for user self-identification. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Just because I do (or do not) use IRC doesn't mean I necessarily think it is the "heartworm of Wikipedia," and the fact that absolutely no one is using it (which I checked) seems to bear that point out. TFD reason 3 clearly applies. Yes, we give leeway for user expression, but this is really close to a pointless polemic. MSJapan (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 25[edit]

Template:Editnotices/Page/2006 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

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  Request withdrawn Never mind, I believe ArbCom enforcement still applies. Moved to target page. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Intended page is a redirect. Target page is not extended protected. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:09, 25 June 2016 (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:Editnotices/Page/2004 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

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  Request withdrawn Never mind, I believe ArbCom enforcement still applies. Moved to target page. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Intended page has become a redirect. Target page is not extended-protected. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:08, 25 June 2016 (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:Editnotices/Page/1996 Lebanon war[edit]

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  Request withdrawn Never mind, I believe ArbCom enforcement still applies. Moved to target page. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Page has become a redirect, and the target page is not extended protected. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:07, 25 June 2016 (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:2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF) goalscorers[edit]

Does not transclude anywhere, not needed. GiantSnowman 19:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The way it's defined, it's not a proper template. And not needed anywhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Tristichopteridae[edit]

Template was moved back in 2008 and no pages link to it. No need for a redirect. JohannSnow (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • wrong venue, redirects are discussed at WP:RFD. Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

June 24[edit]

Template:Hainish Cycle[edit]

I appreciate the intent behind this template, but it appears to be entirely redundant with Template:Ursula K. Le Guin, which is also used in the places that this one is. Delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • delete per nom, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite HOT[edit]

Duplicates Template:Handbook of Texas — Maile (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Link entity[edit]

only used in one article, should be substituted and deleted. due to the complexity, this system should be rewritten in lua if we need it. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Table row Dutch town[edit]

only used in one article, should be substituted and deleted. due to the complexity, this system should be rewritten in lua if we need it. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Table row Dutch municipality with province[edit]

unused in article space. due to the complexity, this system should be rewritten in lua if we need it. Frietjes (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Multicol[edit]

Propose merging Template:Multicol with Template:Col-begin.
They obviously do the same thing and their auxiliary templates too. Dvorapa (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

support, assuming we also merge all the sibling templates (e.g., col-break, col-end, ...) Frietjes (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Post-orgasmic diseases[edit]

Unnecessary navbox. Keilana (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. The template is useful. It groups together similar medical conditions and related terminology. It does not violate any of the WP:TFD#REASONS. POIS22 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 03:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

Template:Football club[edit]

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; deleted by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know why this is a template or what it means. — Music1201 talk 20:18, 23 June 2016 (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:Infobox lol biography[edit]

newly created fork of {{infobox football biography}} which is redundant to {{Infobox Pro Gaming player}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just a test, I will leave a note in the discussion saying when I'm done and then you can delete it ~Larcombe — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect into {{Infobox Pro Gaming player}}, although it might be a good idea to recreate sometime in the future if the Lol scene becomes distinct enough from esports.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect4, redirect5, redirect7, and redirect11, to redirect-multi[edit]

Propose merging Template:Redirect4, Template:Redirect5, Template:Redirect7 and Template:Redirect11 with Template:Redirect-multi.
These templates all serve to produce redirect hatnotes that list multiple redirects. They all produce fairly similar output analogous to {{redirect}} or {{redirect2}} but with more listed redirects, and all are rarely used ({{redirect4}} leads the pack with ~240 transclusions).

{{Redirect4}}, {{redirect5}}, and {{redirect11}} each produce a list with a set number of redirects and then a prebuilt "for-see" statement that with use text that defaults to "other uses" and target custom text that defaults to a list of disambiguation links based on the redirects provided:

{{Redirect7}} uses custom text for the list of redirects, then produces a basic for-see list in the same style as {{redirect}} (albeit with a wikitext backend instead of the now-standard Module:Hatnote list). For example:

  • {{redirect7|TEXT|USE1|PAGE1|USE2|PAGE2}} →
    TEXT redirect here. For USE1, see PAGE1. For USE2, see PAGE2.

I propose to replace all of these with {{redirect-multi}}. It's powered by the same Module:Redirect hatnote as {{redirect}} and {{redirect2}}, but takes as its first parameter the number of redirects to be used:

Since {{redirect-multi}} drops support for the custom text used in these templates, I've created the tracking category Category:Pages using redirect4, redirect5, or redirect11 with custom text to track use of those, and manually checked all 5 transclusions of {{redirect7}}, and can confirm that all extant uses of custom text can be reproduced verbatim in the structured parameter syntax used in {{redirect-multi}}. I've already simplified all mainspace uses of custom text used by {{redirect4}} to uses of {{redirect2}} instead. {{Redirect2}} is not included in this TfD because it defaults slightly differently:

Given all of the above, I think it makes sense to vastly simplify the hatnote system by merging 4 templates into 1 slightly broader template.

This TfD is part of a broader pattern of ones I've filed to simplify the hatnote system; see also About3 & About4, Redirect6, and Details3 & For-on-see if you'd like context.

Thanks for reading this wall of text. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • merge per nom, one template to rule them all. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Gulf Coast Division (ABA)[edit]

This template duplicates the information found in {{ABA Teams}}. No point in having two templates with the same stuff. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:1989 All-Australian team[edit]

There was no 1989 All-Australian team. See All-Australian team or page 17 of the 1991 Football Record which states that 1991 is the first time the AFL picked an All-Australian team. Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bounty[edit]

Not in use since November 2013 when Wikipedia:Bounty board was marked as historical. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Glastonbury-s[edit]

Redundant to the main {{Glastonbury Festival}} template. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-music-image[edit]

Unused license tag, redundant to {{PD-old-100}} FASTILY 06:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army National Guard[edit]

Unused license tag, redundant to {{PD-USGov-Military}} FASTILY 06:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAMHI[edit]

Unused license tag, redundant to {{PD-USGov-Military}} FASTILY 06:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Military-JCS[edit]

Unused copyright tag, redundant to {{PD-USGov-Military}} FASTILY 06:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGOV-DVIC[edit]

Unused license tag, redundant to {{PD-USGov}} FASTILY 06:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-USDA-FAS[edit]

Unused copyright tag, redundant to {{PD-USGov-USDA}} FASTILY 06:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-USDA-AMS[edit]

Unused copyright template, redundant to {{PD-USGov-USDA}} FASTILY 06:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-GreekInfo[edit]

Unused copyright template, vague/unclear what sort of media this is applicable to, no equivalent tag on Commons. FASTILY 06:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:See also subsection[edit]

6 article-namespace transclusions total, and redundant to simply using an automatically-prettified section link in {{see also}}. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 01:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • delete after replacing, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Frietjes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

June 22[edit]

Template:No redirect[edit]

Propose merging Template:No redirect with Template:No redirect conditional.
IMO, there shouldn't be any case where we want a link with an unnecessarily complex target (with "&redirect=no" being appended), if a regular one would suffice. This is also about not giving viewers an incorrect hint about the target being a redirect. I therefore propose merging the code of {{no redirect conditional}} into {{no redirect}}, falling back to its original behavior only if subst'd. Note that I couldn't properly tag the former, as it's fully protected. PanchoS (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Details3 & For-on-see[edit]

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, very few remaining transclusions, and no objections. Also, appears to be a continuation of prior clean up work. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I've just made an improvement to {{details}} so that it supports multiple pages as part of its list, that is:

{{details|PAGE1|TOPIC}} → {{details|topic=TOPIC|PAGE1}} →
For more details on TOPIC, see PAGE1.
and it's now possible to do {{details|topic=TOPIC|PAGE1|PAGE2|PAGE3}} →
For more details on TOPIC, see PAGE1, PAGE2, and PAGE3.

and similar.

Previous cases have used {{details3}} to implement lists with multiple pages:

{{details3|[[PAGE1]] and [[PAGE2]]}} →
For more details on this topic, see PAGE1 and PAGE2.

Using {{details}} with a list of multiple pages is more elegant, and applies a set of standard improvements through its Lua implementation. We should migrate uses of {{details3}} to use {{details}} instead, delete {{details3}}, and therefore simplify the hatnote system. {{For-on-see}} is along for the ride because it is a single-use meta-template for {{details3}}; it had 4 standalone uses which I've already replaced with {{details}}.

TfD regulars may recognize this hatnote system cleanup as a bit of a project of mine; previous similar TfDs have included About3 & About4 and Redirect6. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 02:21, 22 June 2016 (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).

June 21[edit]

Template:A User Non Adult[edit]

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 wrong venue. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection. See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992.Proud User (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • close, wrong venue, userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD per the instructions at WP:TFD. Frietjes (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2016 (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:User teenager[edit]

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 wrong venue. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection. See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992. Proud User (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • close, wrong venue, userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD per the instructions at WP:TFD. Frietjes (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2016 (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).

User:Scepia/teen2[edit]

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 Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection. See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992.Proud User (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2016 (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).

User:Scepia/teen[edit]

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 Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection. See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992.Proud User (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2016 (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).

User:Octane/userboxes/User iGeneration[edit]

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 Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection.See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992. Proud User (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2016 (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:TopicTOC-Anarchism[edit]

duplicates links already found in the more complete {{Anarchism sidebar}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

Template:RMpmc[edit]

I don't see a valid need for this. Users granted the page mover right are normally highly experienced in RMs. I don't see why page movers should have to declare their status as a page mover when closing RMs. — Music1201 talk 23:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Since page movers are not admins, they are required to disclose this fact at the time of discussion closure. The only other alternative is {{RMnac}}, which is now reserved for non-admins who are also non-page movers. Hope this helps.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pagemovers aren’t administrators and that should be noted when closing an RM. Sure, they’re more experienced than non-rms (hence why they have the user right), but that shouldn’t mean the fact of user rights shouldn’t be disclosed. I created this template because of these reasons. I’d like to see other people’s opinions on this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, but for a different reason to the nominator. I don't think it's correct to imply that page movers have any extra authority, which is what the layperson will infer from "page mover". Unless there's a consensus for some sort of change to the RM closing guidelines or NAC guidelines, non-admin closers should continue using the NAC template. Sorry if that's blunt, I do appreciate this was made in good faith. Jenks24 (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's easy to understand how new users might infer that page movers have "extra authority". I certainly inferred that about admins many years ago. Then I found out that in most cases, if not all, I was wrong. Neither administrator nor page mover nor any of the user rights that an editor may receive gives them any particular authority over other editors on Wikipedia. They simply receive tools that are more sensitive than other editors have; that does not mean that they are given any superior authority over non-admins or non-page movers. To believe otherwise is to say it's okay for an administrator to "pull the 'I'm an admin' card" to try to affect consensus, etc. We all know how wrong that is.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  18:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We are a lot more lax about NACs at RM than most other consensus finding venues and I think that's a good thing. But I think it is worth noting when users closing discussions haven't been vetted by the community; it is certainly good practice, as noted below. And I don't think we can consider page movers to be vetted by the community because if you look at the requests for permissions page you can see people being granted the right who have next to experience with RM. I think that's probably fine (although it's significant scope creep from what was proposed), but should people who have been granted this right have a template that (rightly or wrongly) implies they have been through some sort of vetting process for closing RMs? I don't think so.
    It always annoyed me when I was a non-admin to see admins pontificating on stuff like this so I'm sorry to do it and feel a bit hypocritical, but I feel passionately about the RM process and I believe this is in its best interests. "Authority" was the wrong word to use above. Jenks24 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No no, please don't feel negative in any way about your !vote – you make good points that are vivid, valid and clear. The thing is, this template is in no way meant to mean that we page movers are anything but experienced at renaming pages and at closing discussions as nac. That's all. If what you say is true, and inexperienced editors are being granted the user right, then whoever is doing so should be taken to task. Not in this venue of course, but in another correct venue. This template when used to close a RM should only tell the discussing editors that an experienced page mover has closed the request – nothing more, nothing less.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  19:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Page movers would need to use {{RMnac}} then. FYI, I made an update to this after I noticed this template. I'm kind of indifferent, to be honest. While I think the template doesn't hurt, the reasons cited by Jenks24 make sense. Actually, very weak keep per the text in the section. non-admin, non-pagemover comment :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Andy M. Wang: I don't believe that text ever had consensus. It appears these closing instructions have been routinely changed without discussion. See below. ~ RobTalk 19:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah I do agree it didn't have consensus. When I found the template and addition, I softened the "must" wording and linked it to the page mover talk page for more general awareness. Struck my !vote, as I genuinely still don't have strong opinions about this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant to {{RMnac}} or {{nac}}. I'd like to note that there is no policy or guideline that requires non-admins to self identify, although it is considered best practice to do so. There's a whole lot of "required" or "must" being thrown around, and that's entirely inaccurate. And no, the statement at WP:RM/CI doesn't qualify as consensus on this issue. See [1] [2] for the diffs where an editor gradually strengthened this statement over a period of multiple months while calling it a "minor fix" and said he was "redoing" things. ~ RobTalk 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree that "required"/"must" is overstating things, just for the record. Jenks24 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep page movers should be allowed to choose whatever template to identify themselves with. As a page mover, I did not realize this template exists until now. SSTflyer 06:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Page mover closures should be seperated from non-admin closures at RM because page movers have access to rights which normal non-admins are unable to use. A large number of closes at RM require the closer to move the page to a title which has non-trivial page history, thus disallowing anyone but an admin to move to it. However, page movers are able to indirectly do this through the use of suppressredirect. Non-admins have to file a technical request or use {{db-move}} to achieve the same effect. They also have the ability to use move-subpages. Despite this, it's also important that we separate page mover closures from admin closures, as in some messy situations, admin tools are required. Omni Flames (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jenks24. I think there should be a distinction between the page move permission, which is a technical ability to move certain pages, and the question about who is qualified to perform RM closes. The former is a technical permission granted by admins on reqest, based on some loose guidelines, with a fairly low bar for acceptance. Performing non-admin closes, however, does not require any permission, but it is up to the individual to decide whether they are ready to carry out that administrative function. In my opinion the bar for the latter should be higher than the bar for getting page mover rights. Closing a move request requires a lot of judgement, and a thorough understanding of the policies, guidelines and precedents. Now I am not in any way saying that only admins should close move requests. I performed hundreds of non-admin closures myself before getting the bit, and there is no better way to gain experience in admin duties than to do them in a non-admin capacity first. But significantly, I did not start performing those closures until I'd already been active at RM as a participant for an extended amount of time, and thoroughly understood how it worked. I also limited myself to the most obvious ones initially, before tackling harder ones after learning some more about it. So, in short, I think we should delete this template because it implies that page movers have more authority to close move requests than other non-admins do, whereas I don't think they do necessarily, particularly as the right is being granted routinely to people without a lot of prior RM experience.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Sounds to me as if there's a serious accusation in there somewhere. Page movers are expected to have the same experience that you had before "getting the bit". They should not only have unchallenged (or even challenged) page-move experience, they are also expected to have experience closing discussions as a non-admin. If you know of someone who is granting the user right to those who do not have the expected experience as cited in the closing instructions, then they should be taken to task in another, correct venue. Since this is all still pretty new, such temporary loose allowance should be forgiven because it shouldn't be too harmful; however, the page mover's expected experience should be taken as seriously as you deem it should above, now and in the future.  What's in your palette? Paine  16:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
      @Paine Ellsworth: I'm not sure if I'd phrase it as an accusation, because I'm pretty sure everyone has acted in good faith here, both those applying for the page mover and the admins granting it. What is lacking though, is any sort of guidance on whether this permission does indeed grant extra rights to close RMs, and indeed whether experience with closing RMs is necessary. You suggest that someone granted the permission should be close to adminship in terms of experience, at least in the narrow area of RMs and page move experience (obviously other experience such as AIV and AfD would not be relevant here). But I'm pretty sure some of the people so far granted it are a long way off what would pass an RfA, even if only RMs were taken into consideration. Again, that's not to accuse anybody, because there's nothing in the rules that says you need to be close to adminship standards. The guidelines say 6 months tenure and 3,000 edits, which is certainly nowhere near current RfA levels. I think the best way to tackle this is to clarify that the page mover right is a technical right, not something that confers more or less right to close RMs, and that is why I suggested deleting this template. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, what I suggested may be a bit more harshly strict than the reality, as closure experience using nac and RMnac is desired but not necessary. I agree that the page mover right is only a technical one, that is, having the user right means only that a technical page move, specifically the move of a page over a redirect that has more than one edit, can be made without the aid of an admin. And that is the information, the only information, that this template gives those who are involved with the closed page move discussion. Page movers are here to help with the backlogs and free administrators to spend more time with other duties. For the ability to make technical moves and the ability to inform those involved in page move debates that a page move will be performed immediately, not having to wait for administrative action, page movers need both the user right and this template.  What's in your palette? Paine  19:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: So I recently joined the usergroup and have been involved in RMs these past few days. I've stuck with using only {{Rmnac}} because I feel that there is no need to communicate additional move capacities being in the usergroup. Readers will see that the page has been moved, and everyone moves on, you know what I mean? and it's great. If people want to add an addendum that they have additional technical abilities, perhaps just hard-code it or something. I'm starting to lean weak delete (with due respect to those !voting keep) because it seems a bit attention-grabbing and badge-like, and very solid reasons have been given by Jenks24 and Amakuru, who I believe to be RM regulars. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Good points have been made for both sides, and you make good points. It is supposed to grab attention to inform debaters that their page move, if allowed, won't go into some backlog list to wait on overworked admins. It is a badge in that it adds a larger responsibility to those who wear it, the responsibility to make the best decision possible for the article in question based upon policies and guidelines mentioned in the rationales, and on those not mentioned and yet apply. Almost anybody can move a page, but admins and pms are expected to do it correctly every time. And you'd be surprised how some people won't "move on" – they'll wait until you least expect it and start in again. Like any user right, it's really more of a privilege, but that aside, I think debaters deserve to know that a "moved" decision will take place immediately. With this template, they can see that at a glance.  What's in your palette? Paine  07:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Although I !voted keep, I strongly disagree with your statement that "page movers are expected to have the same experience that you had before getting the bit". That implies that page movers should almost have enough experience to pass an RFA, which is completely untrue. Just take myself for instance, I'm a page mover, but if I submitted an RFA at this very moment, it would be NOTNOW closed in about two seconds. Omni Flames (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
No question that I was harsh or strict in my words about what's expected, as I noted above. While page movers should have quite a bit of page-move experience, I personally would like to see pms who have experience with nac closures in other areas like deletion discussions and RfCs; however, neither nac nor RMnac closure experience is required to become a page mover. It's mostly about having good sense, though, and learning how to perform round-robin page moves. And it is just one of many qualifications needed to pass an RfA. Frankly, the input I've seen up to now from you in this small area of WP editing has shown such good sense that at first I thought you were an admin. So if that's what you want just be patient and get more editing time under your belt. I'd support your RfA right now, but then I weigh the editing quality I see a lot heavier than the amount of time one's been editing. Anyway, suffice to say you are correct and I was pretty much giving my own absurd opinion as to what should be expected of a page-mover applicant.  What's in your palette? Paine  12:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Paine Ellsworth: Ah, I see your point now. I suppose that those that do become page movers probably do have near the amount of experience at RM that would be expected to pass an RFA, however that doesn't mean that they'd have, say, the level of content work required. Omni Flames (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Question. Since this template has WP procedural uses, and not used outside of RM, would a no consensus close result in retention per WP:TFDCI, or deletion per WP:RMCI? I bring this up because RM has a big stake in this template, and RMCI procedures may apply to this. If this is no consensus, I suggest that the potential closer should elaborate on deletion/retention. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at page mover requests for permission page (current revision that I'm looking at while typing this). People are being granted this userright who have next to no experience participating in RM. If an editor who has been granted this right suddenly decides to start closing RMs they should not be able to use a template that makes it appear like they have been vetted in some way about their knowledge/experience with the RM process. Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Jenks24: Yes, but the purpose of this template is not to indicate that the user closing the request has any more experience at RM than anyone else, or has some kind of special authority, rather, it's to show that the closer has additional rights not normally available to non-admins which can assist them in closing complicated discussions. Omni Flames (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Are there any other processes on the project where people use templates to indicate which particular rights they used to carry out an action? Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
        • In a reverse fashion, the two that first come to mind are the nac and RMnac. They show which rights a user doesn't have as they carry out a discussion closure. While both of those appear the same – "non-admin closure" – the links are different to show a different purpose for each template. In those cases it then appears to be important moreso to show what rights discussion closers do not have rather than those they have. RMpmc gives a more positive bit of info to debaters: that their closer can carry out the page move round-robin fashion if necessary in order to do so immediately without the aid of an admin.  What's in your palette? Paine  11:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) To Jenks24: Here's one thing I'm not crazy about... "closed by a page mover" seems like a phrase that is wanting. We want to show that the discussion was closed by a non-admin who has the page mover right, not just a "page mover", which is a phrase that could describe non-admins and admins. Maybe that's what I'm searching for... some phrase that does the job without actually overdoing it. The things going through my mind right now seem too long, such as "closed by a non-admin with the page mover user right". That's what I think should be said, but in fewer words if possible. I'll crunch it some more after I catch a few zzzs.  What's in your palette? Paine  10:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Edit Page movers closing a discussion are on the same standing as any other NAC closer, they just have a technical tool. If this is useful to show that they are also enacting the move somehow that is OK - but this should call out that this is being done as NAC. — xaosflux Talk 17:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – I also favor maximal informational content over not, and disclosing that that closer has the technical means of carrying out pretty much all moves is a good thing. That said, PaleAqua's suggestion that this be revised to something like "non-admin closure: page mover" has merit and should be considered... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or retarget to Template:RMnac. Since page movers do not get any discussion-closing privileges above what non-admins already have, there is no reason why there needs to be such a template. Steel1943 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Note to potential closers. There's an ongoing poll at Template talk:RMpmc to change the wording of the template. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jenks24; it implies extra authority that doesn't exist. -- Tavix (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:2016 Libertarian Primaries[edit]

Redundant with {{US 2016 presidential elections series}} and {{United States presidential election, 2016}}. Most of the links point to the same page. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on this rationale, at least. Those two templates don't contain the state primary/caucus links, so they aren't redundant. If you find another template which does have state links, I might reconsider. ~ RobTalk 01:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The state links are not articles about individual states's Libertarian primaries but sections of other articles covered by {{State Results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election}}. The link that actually points to a stand-alone article has been approved for merging per Talk:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016#Merger proposal. The same applies for the Green template. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:2016 Green Primaries[edit]

Redundant with {{US 2016 presidential elections series}} and {{United States presidential election, 2016}}. Only two of the links in this template go to different pages. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on this rationale, at least. Those two templates don't contain the state primary/caucus links, so they aren't redundant. If you find another template which does have state links, I might reconsider. ~ RobTalk 01:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox economist[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox economist with Template:Infobox academic.
I'm a PhD student in economics. As a profession, economists have a lot of hubris, but even I recognize that we don't need our own infobox. The only advantage of this infobox that I can distinguish is that it provides the more economics-specific "field" label instead of "sub-discipline", but that's not a big enough advantage to warrant the infobox. There are even some advantages of using the academic infobox, which has fields like "notable works" and "notable ideas".

Basically, redundant. ~ RobTalk 07:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob, you may aspire to be an academic, but most economists work outside academia. In fact, many of the most important economists were not academics. A few examples: Thomas Mun, William Petty, Richard Cantillon, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Henry George, Alan Greenspan. We should keep the templates separate. But if you like some of the features of the academic infobox, why not add them to the economist infobox? Anthon.Eff (talk)
Speaking of, can I request someone add doctoral advisor field to the economist infobox. I know I should try to figure it out, but I don't want to mess anything up.Smmurphy(Talk) 15:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – has features like RePEc which don't pertain to academic infoboxes. And the academic infobox has a lot of stuff that is useless for economists. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Anthon.Eff, Smmurphy, and Srich32977: The name of the infobox doesn't really matter if its content is a good match for the articles on economists. What fields exist in {{Infobox economist}} that don't exist or have close equivalents in {{Infobox academic}}? The only thing I see that isn't already in the academic infobox is RePEc, which I hadn't noticed before. That could be thrown in the footnotes of {{Infobox academic}}, I suppose, but that's not really great. Would anyone object to me withdrawing this nomination but rewriting this as a wrapper of {{Infobox academic}} with additional parameters for RePEc? That would give us all the features of {{Infobox academic}} while keeping our own fields. It also makes maintenance easier, which is my intention with this nomination. ~ RobTalk 04:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Rewrite as a wrapper, to improve the economist template without affecting the academic one, per nom —PC-XT+ 05:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
So memorials and repec are added in the wrapper (or possibly memorials are added to the academic infobox) and field/sub_discipline and school_tradition/movement are redundant but added to the wrapper for compatibility? I am happy either way (keep or merge), and approve making anything easier. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure exactly how I'd do the wrapper; I would try to preserve formatting as much as possible, so I'd need to do some mock-ups and compare to see what's most similar to the current state. Right now, we use {{Infobox person}} as the basis for the infobox and add an extra infobox "child" template to the bottom for additional economics-specific parameters which aren't included in {{Infobox person}}. If we converted this to a wrapper of {{Infobox academic}}, we'd use {{Infobox academic}} as the base (giving us all the functionality/fields from there that we don't currently have) and either a hardcoded bit of text in the footnotes field of {{Infobox academic}} or a child template to handle RePEc and other extra parameters (like we have now, but with far fewer specific parameters since {{Infobox academic}} covers quite a bit of it). The advantage of this is in the maintenance cost; if {{Infobox academic}} has to be updated to change something for whatever reason, this would change along with it. Also, if they ever added more fields to that infobox, it would be very easy to also add them to the economist infobox. ~ RobTalk 06:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If you're not sure on how to do the wrapper, please consider how us less-techno-savy editors would work with it. My point is that simple templates are more useful for ordinary editors. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Srich32977: I'm only unsure in the sense that I have a few different ideas on how it could work and I'd want to create all of the possible alternatives and compare the output to find the most similar. In terms of how the end-user uses the templates, nothing would change. I would ensure all fields stay the same. ~ RobTalk 21:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • comment, both of these are already wrappers for {{infobox person}}, so it would be useful to see a sandbox example of the proposed revised wrapper solution. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Rewrite as a wrapper Largely redundant. LK (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox KHL team[edit]

not much in the KHL team template that's not already in the generic hockey team template. so, no real reason for keeping a second infobox template. just merge them. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox GET team[edit]

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. - Nabla (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

unused and duplicates {{infobox hockey team}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (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:Edit filter noticeboard navbox[edit]

Unused; not working & unclear what it is meant for - an abandoned experiment? JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I should note also it has a module, Module:Edit filter board archives, which is also unused apart from this template. Depending on the outcome here that might also need deleting.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, simply unfinished. This is meant to replicate Module:Admin board archives, or its predecessor. Essentially it is simply not finished. I am busy over the next week or so, but will try to get this completed of G7'd as soon as possible. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC).

June 19[edit]

Template:Miss Mexico Organization[edit]

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. The single article that was linked from here was deleted, on the assumption that we do not need yearly articles. Thus this template has no articles to link. - Nabla (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Navbox with just one link and that article is at AFD. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:45, 19 June 2016 (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:Markaz[edit]

This template was created solely for the purpose of promoting a particular institution. I do not see any particular need for this template. It was created recently by a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shafinusri) who has now been blocked. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Despite what the nom says, it actually looks like a good and useful navigation template. There are a lot of non-linked pages which should be removed, but a nav box for a university isn't unheard of. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. A lot of these articles need to be taken to AfD. It appears this sock created a bit of a walled garden here. ~ RobTalk 06:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've looked into it more and made an AfD nom and a handful of CfD noms. There's certainly more to go. This is a mess. ~ RobTalk 06:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is unclear, and AfD is unclear. Giving more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:DENY. The template was created by a sockpuppet....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Completed discussions[edit]

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[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

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.

That sounds like a good place to hold the conversation. Primefac (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To substitute[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

  • None currently


Archive and Indices[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=727590822"