Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MBR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 6 78 0 84
TfD 0 0 5 0 5
MfD 0 0 0 0 5
FfD 0 0 30 0 30
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module 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 should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a 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}}.
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]

  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 (see also: WP:Infobox consolidation).
  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).

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:


  • 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 or Template editors.
  • 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]]
    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).

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.)

TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: for discussion/Log/2021_March_7#Template:template_name.css */
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[edit]

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 a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

Notifying related WikiProjects[edit]

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[edit]

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 else 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 is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. Twinkle 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.


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.

Closing discussion[edit]

Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDCloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.

Current discussions[edit]

March 7[edit]

Template:Mate Bulić[edit]

Navigational template for Mate Bulić; no longer serves a purpose now that the listed albums have been turned into redirects and the 'related articles' listed have no use for this template. Lennart97 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Ambiguous episcopal titles and sees in England[edit]

The template is certainly a good-faith creation, but it is most unusual to have a navigation box for dabs, per MOS:DAB#Images and templates. I'll notify WikiProject Disambiguation. Certes (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems an utterly useless navbox to me. Why would someone looking for the Bishop of Shrewsbury, and finding that it's ambiguous, then want to navigate to Bishop of Portsmouth because that's ambiguous too? Obviously we don't have an article on the subject: Ambiguous episcopal titles and sees in England, so fails WP:NAVBOX #4. Nigej (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is no connection between the targetted dab pages, so it is difficult to imagine anyone wanting to navigate between them (except a Wikipedia editor wanting to compare how they had been capitalised or similar). Unnecessary clutter. A list article of Ambiguous episcopal titles and sees in England might possibly be of interest to someone, but not a navbox. PamD 12:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Extended periodic table (by Pyykkö, 50 columns, periods 8–9)[edit]

No longer used, as instances in Extended periodic table have been replaced by images. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 07:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


WP:T3 no longer exists as a criteria and this is unused. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


No reason to have this be a template; no uses; same list exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Libya/participants. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


Unused; seems to be a version of {{Pagelinks}} exclusively for help pages? No reason for this to exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: There is a whole suite of similar templates at Template:Ln/doc. Either all of them should be deleted/merged, or none of them should be. -- King of ♥ 06:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @King of Hearts: I guess this could get messy if we have to subst+delete ones with existing uses... but I really think these should not exist separately. It saves like five characters while making the source less comprehensible (everyone knows what Help:page is, not everyone knows that Lht means the page is in the help namespace). Elli (talk | contribs) 06:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


Unused navigation template; redundant to Template:Turkcell Group. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


Only used in one Wikipedia-meetup page from 2017 - hasn't found widespread use. Suggest to subst and delete for historical reasons. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:M class minelayer[edit]

Unused navigation template where the main article and all the sub-articles redlink. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox unhexquadium[edit]

Unused infobox for an element (164) that's so far from what's known (118) that it's not particularly likely it'll become notable anytime soon, not to mention that all the data is hence quite speculative. Double sharp (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete clearly, unhexquadium is not an article (and when it is, this infobox could be refunded). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We are very restricive with speculative elements. -DePiep (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Leng Tch'e[edit]

Navigation template for band no longer serves a purpose as all listed albums redirect to the band itself. Lennart97 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete redundant. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete navbox with no navigational use. Nigej (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

March 6[edit]

Template:2013–14 Pittsburgh Penguins Schedule[edit]

Single-use templates. Izno (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Fb report2 2t[edit]

This is used on only 2 pages. I assume there's another template somewhere that could be used to perform the same work. Izno (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Replace with {{Fb report 2t}}, which seems to serve the same purpose with perhaps cosmetic differences. Nigej (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


NavFrame is deprecated (see WP:NavFrame) and we have other available templates. Izno (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


We have quite a few other Category:Collapse templates. We don't need Yet Another One. Izno (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Alphabet nan kiril[edit]

Single-use template. Izno (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete per nom. Would also be OK with userfying, since the only use is in the creator's userspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    If substed or kept, it should be converted to use {{navbox}} or equivalent first probably. --Izno (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Pyawbwe Township[edit]

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created The Banner talk 21:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. As previously, most of the blue links relate to other places, not in this township. Nigej (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Collapsible section[edit]

We should reduce the number of templates that can be used to collapse things. This template has no transclusions in main space (I removed a half dozen under MOS:COLLAPSE).

We have other collapsible templates where necessary. Izno (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • STOP: this template has been used with great success at many articles, and does have many main space uses, regardless of some edit warring at High Line and elsewhere. I don't see why you didn't raise a discussion first. MOS:COLLAPSE is merely a guideline, not a policy, and there is no logic behind removing it in many of the places you did. When further content can be displayed as desired (like {{adjacent stations}}/{{s-line}} has used for years), and when it is accessible from mobile, tablet, and desktop devices, there is no logical reason to remove these and make articles display far worse, at risk of fully cutting the collapsible content. This is also one of -very few- collapse templates that actually works on mobile devices, making it perhaps one of the best worth keeping. Your deletion proposal simply based on removing what you don't like really lacks the nuance of what benefits the readers and which templates work best. ɱ (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    great success at many articles I removed a total of some 7 uses in article space. And that was the sum total of uses. If that's true, you would expect to see more.
    In none of the places I removed it did I find sufficient cause to keep it. WP:SUMMARY is relevant in many of the cases. WP:NOTDIRECTORY others. Still others a general understanding that 'if you want to hide it away, then it may not be of an appropriate weight in the article.
    It's just a guideline is an argument to avoid.
    I don't see why you didn't raise a discussion first. Because I am not required, especially when MOS:COLLAPSE is a guideline. If you want to change its guideline status, your beef is with WP:MOS.
    As for working on mobile devices, NavFrame is going away. I'm about down to some 2-dozen uses in template and module space and another 4000 in article space. While I can transition this template away from NavFrame, it still remains in violation of a guideline that we have moreover enforced more or less stringently, especially for content outside of tables and confined spaces like infoboxes and sidebars. And there is plenty of precedent for other collapsing templates not being used in the main space mainspaces, in general accord with our guideline on the matter. {{collapse}} and its content does not display at all. {{collapse top}} has some 700 uses, probably better removed. Both templates have a strong "Do not use in articles." statements in their documentation. {{Collapsible list}} has a marginally gentler recognition, but still limits itself to "use in small spaces".
    removing what you don't like Pot calling kettle black. Your 'stop' request amounts to "I like it" and "It's useful". Neither reason actually considers why our guideline is the way it is. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, many articles can be seven, and similar templates would bump up the number far more.
    You don't need to be the one to "find sufficient cause to keep it". You are not the arbiter here for content inclusion; Wikipedia is a collaborative project. And no, many key facts about an article, like historical named trains that utilized Chicago Union Station, are lists enough that many readers don't care, but will be of essence to plenty of others. Collapsible templates have been devised for such purposes; if you don't agree with them create an RfC on whether or not to deprecate the whole system, not pick-and-choose removals and propose deletion of a single template.
    I don't care if "It's just a guideline" is an argument to avoid. Wikipedia's founding principle is that if there's a rule that stops us from better serving our audience, to ignore it. You can't require me to comply with a single guideline you support. And MOS:COLLAPSE allows for many uses of collapsible areas, making this deletion discussion pointless. Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary. This is what I have been using it for, and the MOS says consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all. - NOT to be bold and remove it.
    I don't know what NavFrame is, nor why it is going away - care to explain why you bring this up?
    "violation of a guideline" - MOS:COLLAPSE describes several ways in which collapsible content is acceptable, and thus ways this template can be used. It really seems like you are the one who needs to go to an MOS talk page to remove all of the portions of MOS:COLLAPSE that allow for article usage.
    Your 'stop' request amounts to "I like it" and "It's useful". Yes, as a highly-active article creator, it is a useful tool for creating and displaying content, a web 2.0-like feature that innumerous websites use. I detest any and all attempts to fight against interactivity in articles, as we can create something far greater than just static essays if traditionalists stop fighting against things like {{mapframe}} and the likes. ɱ (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    We generally do not keep templates so-little used. Certainly not functional duplicates.
    Collapsible templates have been devised for such purposes; if you don't agree with them create an RfC on whether or not to deprecate the whole system, not pick-and-choose removals and propose deletion of a single template. No. The onus is on you, not me, to show that MOS:COLLAPSE does not enjoy consensus. But regardless, I can still take individual templates to WP:TFD, especially for other reasons, such as "not used (very much)" and "duplicates another existing template", under which this template qualifies.
    lists enough that many readers don't care Either it has sufficient weight to be in the article, in which case it should be accessible to everybody, or it doesn't (or it truly is supplementary content, such as sidebars and navboxes, which that exception is actually for, not ad hoc use). Since you bring up the the particular article, I honestly don't care whether the content lives in the article, what I do care about is whether it's hidden away. You might persuade me it doesn't have the weight to be in that article, in which case you should remove it, or it does, and you should give it a shine. As it is, the content in question has 0 citations, so I would be justified in removing it without any hope of restoration Soon per WP:CHALLENGE. Are you interested in having that discussion? I usually don't take that path because it doesn't always apply and in this case I try to disturb an article least (or if I see some other reason some collapsible content is violating expectations of our articles per various WP:PAG, I do remove content I suppose; I just usually try to stay away from questions of sourced-ness). Fundamentally, it looks like you care that the content is there, not some abstract railfans, so don't hide behind the unseen them as an excuse. I think this paragraph also reasonably takes care of consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all. - NOT to be bold and remove it., which is entirely related to the specific content and not the use of collapsibility.
    WP:NavFrame is the particular CSS- and Javascript-supported functionality that this template relies on. I can change it to use the known replacement, but in this case this template duplicates another template uses outside mainspace and simply shouldn't be used in mainspace, so I submitted it for TFD. I would be extremely surprised if this actually does work on mobile (for collapsing at least) since MediaWiki:Mobile.js does not have the relevant JavaScript. NavFrame's replacement also does not (currently) work for collapsing on mobile, but does display as expected also.
    IAR See Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. I find your vein there to be fully outside of what IAR means, so, I'm going to, er, ignore it.
    a web 2.0-like feature that innumerous websites use I refer to to the onus here. I'm actually sympathetic to this line of reasoning in some ways and think that particular section of our guideline could use some revision on the point, but that's not really a revision I am interested in supporting right now and/or I would need to see some stronger preference to support allowing free use of collapsing elements in the main space. (go ham outside if you should please). --Izno (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Jesus this is a wall of text that's hard to follow. I'll have to take time to look at it later, yet it seems pointless as we're both dead-set on opposite views that articles are [just for the general public vs. can have tools to allow for specifics for nerds]. I'm confused though how you think MOS:COLLAPSE does not permit any collapsed sections in articles, when, with consensus, it very well does. ɱ (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Um, you're posting blocks of text almost as large. Izno's total word count here is 879 words, and yours is 619 (before your apparently forthcoming additional reply). I think WP:KETTLE was already cited in this discussion. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Nobody asked for a character count here; I also said it's hard to follow. Congrats on linking one of the snarkiest essays; my one response only had to be long in an effort to reply to all of their many points, but their two have broken records within this discussion. ɱ (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    The level of hypocritical hostility you bring to discussions of this sort (and then double-down after others point out you are being unreasonable) is looking more and more like a reason to see whether ANI should topic-ban you from XfDs. We all have better things to do that have our blood pressure pointlessly raised by WP:BATTLEGROUND-oriented ranting in everyday wikiprocesses.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:Collapse The bit about this not being allowed in article namespace is a tangential, since most uses are outside the article namespace (and were even before Izno's actions). What matters is that I see nothing that meaningfully distinguishes this from other templates for collapsing things, so it should not exist separately. Nevertheless, I feel the name "collapsible section" is a plausible name for a template, so a redirect is preferable to deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    No - there are key differences. For starters, I do not believe {{collapse}} works on mobile devices. It also has a different style than this template, with a long gray bar that may not suit all articles or look as modern, and would look horrible in a table like the one here. If you want to combine the two, I find it imperative to keep this sort of style. Additionally, this template always uses a message "— View by clicking [show] —" that helps users understand how to access the content, where [show] might not always be too clear. ɱ (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It's the above clumsy three-border, three-different-shades format versus the below, clean, inline map format. Keep the functionality even if you have to merge. ɱ (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Pppery. The two seem very similar functionally, the differences being cosmetic (although I've no idea about the mobile issue). I'd have thought that options could perhaps be added to "Collapse" to make it more like "Collapsible section", and, at the end of day we're producing an encyclopedia, not running a beauty contest, so some differences are acceptable. Nigej (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    It's not about a beauty contest. {{Collapse}} is designed as a standalone segment to a page, with its own shading and borders. It is simply not applicable for use in other areas like tables and infoboxes, like in my example above. Unless and until {{Collapse}} is granted that functionality, I can't allow {{Collapsible section}} to be deleted. ɱ (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'm a bit confused. When I change "Collapsible section" to "subst:Collapse" in List of COTA bus routes it looks ok to me. Nigej (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    It displays its weird own box with its own shading and borders that look terrible, and then when you expand the map, it forms its own bordered white box as well - it's so clumsy I wouldn't have even done any of this work if there wasn't a reasonable way to display it. No need to cut a perfectly-working preferable format. I'd be fine with merging the templates, so long as formatting options are preserved. ɱ (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Personally I'd put the differences in the trivial-difference category. Content is exactly the same. Nigej (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    (per image) Still look like trivial differences to me. Content is exactly the same. Nigej (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Cool, that's your opinion, and why Wikipedia will look like the 2000s-era site it always has - too many Wikipedians only care about content over design. 'Content exactly the same' is not a good argument, sorry. ɱ (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    But tuning everything up to our own personal preferences is much worse, IMO. We should be improving what's there, not creating duplicates. Nigej (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Which is why I am not at all opposed to a full merge. I don't expect the template creator knew how to build that functionality as an option to the existing template, nor do I. If someone with the know-how volunteers to, I suppose we could all be done here. ɱ (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I see no reasonable rationale for deleting this. Even if it comes in useful in a handful of articles then I see no point of deleting things just for the sake of it. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Merge-and-redirect of a redundant template because it is redundant is not "deleting things just for the sake of it", so you have not provided a valid opposition rationale.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep. It appears the templates have slightly different appearances, which I think can be relatively easily accommodated with conditional code. I oppose deleting this outright - that doesn't really help people if they wanted slightly different options like Ɱ mentions. However, the purpose of both templates is fairly similar other than the appearance. The fact that this isn't allowed in article space is a little offtopic given that it has almost 400 non-article-space uses. Epicgenius (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge. We have no use for a redundant template that does the same thing as {{Collapse}} (and {{Hidden}}, another template to probably merge away). The visual display difference can be resolved with a parameter. If the code of one is smarter and works across more user agents, in a standards-compliant and accessible manner (I remain skeptical), then use that code rather than the crappier code. This is not rocket science. The histrionics above appear to be grounded in the mistaken impression that collapsing material will suddenly become impossible. But that is not true, so the merge/redir. should proceed. I even think I detect a bogus argument that if some wikiproject would rather auto-collapse a bunch of things, like train-route tables or album track lists, that they're free to do so. That is a false assumption, per WP:CONLEVEL policy. The very reason that policy exists is to stop wikiprojects and other clusters of editors making up their own "anti-rule" directly against side-wide policies and guidelines. But it really has nothing to do with whether this template should exist as a stand-alone template.

    PS: To clarify, MOS:COLLAPSE does not forbid the use of collapsible content elements in mainspace, only the use of them to hide content by default. That is, any such element is to be "open" by default but may be coded to be collapsible by users with browsers that support that feature. An exception is made for navboxes, which may auto-collapse, since they are not part of the real page content but are a navigational interface element. We have these rules because the collapsed material cannot be read by users of screen readers, those without JavaScript on, and those with various mobile browsers that aren't as capable as desktop ones. They generally cannot make the content un-hidden, so an article with collapsed content is effectively censored to them. However, they and everyone else can read the content if not auto-collapsed, and any users who can use the hide/show widget will be able to collapse it, or can even use user JavaScript (in Special:MyPage/common.js or on the user-agent side, e.g. with TamperMonkey) to auto-collapse all such elements.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC); added mention of additional redundant template 06:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    Don't put words in other editors' mouths, thank you! You're the first one to mention WikiProjects or groups of editors; stop. We also have to serve the general public as well as we can. Prominent websites utilize javascript and other interactive elements; likely 99.9 percent of readers have access to these things. If you uncheck the ability to display internet content, you should very well expect to see gaps in what appears in front of you, but it's not like we put ultra-essential content there anyway. As for screen readers, I doubt the usage is very high at all, and don't see how that would help those users see hidden maps like at the High Line and COTA routes articles. For the Chicago station article, it's also not ultra-essential content either. ɱ (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Your repetitive habit of telling other editors to "stop" (twice in this discussion already), is annoying, uncivil, and anti-collaborative. In point of fact, about 99% of the desire to inject auto-collapsed elements into article content is coming from, and always has come from, wikiprojects – especially those on music, TV shows, and companies/organizations. There is no magical requirement that someone prior to me has to have mentioned this first before I bring it up.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    "Stop" is a perfectly reasonable request when a user removes (not replaces) a template in all mainspace pages just to be able to come here and say "no mainspace uses". Talk about pot calling the kettle black; your latest responses are the most dramatic and unwelcome here yet. Stick to the topic at hand here, please. ɱ (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: Why can't this be replaced by {{hidden}}? I tested replacing it in High Line and it looks basically the same to me. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    This is a very similar template! I'm pretty sure I chose the other one due to its instructions given, where this template doesn't immediately make it apparent that there is collapsed content. As well, I am not sure about its mobile applications, would have to test that out... ɱ (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Pppery, Nigej, Epicgenius, SMcCandlish, and Abcmaxx: your thoughts on redirecting this to {{hidden}}? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    I don't have a strong opinion about where this is redirected to. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Again, this simply needs to be merged, not redirected. ɱ (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    As Pppery, I don't have a strong view. I just feel it's a bad thing to have two (or maybe it's three) templates doing such similar things. Nigej (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{hidden}} after adding some parameters to hidden. I have rewritten this as a relatively "clean substituting" wrapper for {{hidden}}. The only real syntax difference is the |note= option. I suppose this could be added to {{hidden begin}} but given how many of these collapsing templates don't have that, I don't think it's necessary. Otherwise, the syntax is similar enough that we could just redirect this template to {{hidden}} and add some parameter aliases to {{hidden}} for compatibility (e.g., titlealign for ta1 etc.). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    Can you implement the changes to {{Hidden}} or {{Collapse}}? I can then use transfer over uses to these templates and would then be happy to vote for this template's deletion. ɱ (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 17:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


Proposal to delete: Navigation template for band Knorkator. I have turned the articles listed in the template into redirects as they are all albums that clearly fail WP:NMUSIC (and had been tagged for notability for a decade). This means there is no longer a use for the navigation template. Lennart97 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Akrotiri and Dhekelia English[edit]

All but two of these templates are completely unused. Nearly all of these English variants have either no article, or just a redirect to a larger article.

Jersey English points to a disambiguation page; I assume the intended target for this template is Channel Island English, which like Alderney and Guernsey, does not seem sufficiently different from British English to warrant its own template. Most of the ones that apply to British holdings should just be using {{British English}} anyway.

Falkland Islands English, Gambian English, and Gibraltarian English do have articles, but all are extremely short articles that could stand a merge. And it still stands that their respective English-variant templates are completely unused anyway.

Namibian English redirects to Namlish, an informal portmanteau that does not seem to be in widespread use. This is also the only article that transcludes the template.

{{Malawian English}} and {{Botswana English}} are used on two or three articles each, but otherwise has the same problems as the rest. The Botswana one was previously TFD's in 2019 with a result of "no consensus" due to lack of participation, so it's had time to grow but has not.

{{Montserratian English}} is already at TFD for similar reasons. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Just a comment at the moment. It seems to me that many of these are simply dialects of British English. There will be different slang, turn of phrase, etc. in these places but, when writing an encyclopedic article, they are exactly the same. The other point is that they are nearly all unused and could be deleted on that basis. Nigej (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Delibes ballets[edit]

Proposal to Delete—redundant to the more comprehensive {{Léo Delibes}}. Aza24 (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Clear duplication. Both navboxes appear in the three ballets. Nigej (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

March 5[edit]

BWF Indian Top 10 Singles Ranking[edit]

They appear in Badminton in India#Current ranking but are not current, with hardly any updates since 2017. There are new rankings each week, although there was a long hiatus due to Covid-19. Best deleted since there is no indication that they will be kept up-to-date. Nigej (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as single-use. Whether to subst the content first is not a matter for TfD, but I do agree that having these templates is a bad idea if no one is willing to update them. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Trimurti Films[edit]

We don't typically have navigation boxes for all the films by a particular studio, but instead use director boxes. If you split off all the director sections, I don't think there would be much left. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


Propose merging Template:Hmmm with Template:Qmark.
These templates are very similar. I'm not sure the difference in the alt text warrants the distinction. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Qmark seems the better name. Nigej (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge not meaningfully different. No opinion on which name is better. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I also agree that Qmark seems the better name. Impru20talk 10:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If {{hmmm}} weren't used on several thousand pages, I'd have suggested changing it to display "🤔". – Uanfala (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Latest preview software release/DOSBox[edit]

DOSBox has no preview releases; SVN revision number is not a release! One can easily browse through other articles using this template (Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Latest_preview_software_release) to see that normally, preview releases have proper version numbers, announcements, etc. In here refs are pointing to 3rd-party, unofficial, outdated builds. SVN revision will be increased automatically with every new commit, so information about this fake "preview release" is always outdated. Dreamer_ (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Template:Latest preview software release/* is a total misuse of template namespace anyway, as each template is only used on one page. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Old RfA vote templates[edit]

Redundant to {{Rfan}}, which from what I can tell is what is actually used (these are linked hardly anywhere). Elli (talk | contribs) 06:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


Unused cleanup template; not included in clean-up project template indexes (incoming links are either discussions/lists from 2009/10 or lists of unused templates). Too specific to be often useful. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Master Editor IV v2[edit]

Unused duplicate of {{Master Editor IV}}; same results can be accomplished with {{Master Editor IV|align=center}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

March 4[edit]

Template:Writing systems sidebar[edit]

Largely redundant to {{Writing systems}}, (to which the "major current examples" could be added, if desired). Such links a more likely to be useful readers when they finish reading an article, than just after they start reading it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Vital articles[edit]

Unused and duplicates {{Core topics}}, which it was created from. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Video games by country[edit]

Duplicated by content in {{History of video games}} (note: I foolishly added this template to about twenty pages before realizing this). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

    • Argubly I think the country block in the history of VG template should be removed. Not all the respective country articles have history sections (yet), so the history template is not the best place to catalog them, but the country template is appropriate to link them. Possibly, there is a nested navbox aspect here that should be done to potentially link the country one into the history one --Masem (t) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      Masem I'd be good with any of those options. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:RTL Group[edit]

Propose merging Template:RTL Group with Template:Bertelsmann.
Significant overlap between the two templates. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 17:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Merge Agreed. User:C0re1980 User talk:C0re1980 14:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Questionable navigational value due to the sheer size of these templates. But that remains true even if these aren't merged, I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not a fan of either. I'm going to !vote to keep these separate. Consider a different path to duplication reduction. --Izno (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 17:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Latest preview software release templates[edit]

These are templates to move frequently-updated data out of articles, but none are used in said articles, either because said articles are deleted, the data has been returned to the article directly. Therefore, these templates have no reason to exist. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

March 3[edit]

Template:MAGA Patriot Party/meta/color[edit]

Unused; this party does not exist. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep MAGA Patriot Party does exist, it has been reported on by various news outlets, and has filed with the FEC. See citation [1]. The party was removed from the "List of political parties in the United States" without my knowledge and for no apparent reason. With the news coverage the party receives, I felt it viable enough to be put on the list. Trump is not affiliated with the party but the party follows his ideology (colloquially known as "Trumpism") and supports "DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC." in fundraising. The party is based in San Antonio, Texas. Parker newlin
  • Delete Creator added MAGA Patriot Party to List of political parties in the United States and this was part of that process. It was subsequently removed from the article. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 23#MAGA Patriot Party. Not sure it's a real party currently so best to remove at the moment. Either way what's the evidence that this is the appropriate color to be used? Nigej (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


Unused; niche and simple enough to not warrant a template (button exists at Wikipedia:Editnotice). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:2020–21 Nigeria Professional Football League summary[edit]

single-use, can be easily merged with the article per consensus at WT:FOOTY. (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Biden cabinet[edit]

Propose merging Template:Biden cabinet with Template:Biden personnel, Cabinet-level child-template.
Both of these navboxes present the same information. --Ahecht (TALK
) 18:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Cabinet of Joe Biden[edit]

Outdated, probably would only ever be used in Cabinet of Joe Biden which already does this in a similar format (but not as a template, as it's unnecessary to split off). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I do so support deleting it, i made it as a copy for the trump cabient but id support deleting it, i forgot about it lol. Phillyboy123 (talk | contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillypaboy123 (talkcontribs) 12:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Table Population Town[edit]

No longer used in articles, and they pull outdated data from "Database Population Placename" templates. Note deleting this would also imply deleting all pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Database Population, which I'm not going to add to this nomination for brevity (they are not used in any articles either, currently). Some of those were previously nominated before here, though the situation has changed slightly - neither of the parent templates (the ones I nominated) are used at all. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


Propose merging Template:UpdatedDYKNom with Template:UpdatedDYK.
These appear to be duplicates, with the only difference being that UpdatedDYK uses the ivory message box (which imo is better for a talk page notice), whereas UpdatedDYKNom uses tmbox. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 08:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I am the original editor of the newer one of these, and I can see from the history I was editing the other one at the same time. I just compared them as they were then (July 2006) and they were quite similar then as well. Frankly I have no idea why I created the second one at that time, and I think merging them is probably a good idea. So I support such a Merge. Sdkb, thanks for the notify. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


Reflist should not be substed in the general case as it introduces significant wikitext into the source, even with safesubst as this template is littered with. This also has not been maintained relative to the core template. Lastly, I'll be adding templatestyles to Template:Reflist soon (and removing it from Common.css), and I would rather not have templatestyles tags littering the mainspace anymore than it does for various other reasons. (There is a workaround for that last by introducing {{ifsubst}}, but the CSS will no longer apply as .reflist will no longer be in Common.css.)

I would not be against turning this into a simple subst of the tag (that is, subst of <references/>), but this template's name + subst ends up being longer than that text at the end of the day, which makes that an unfortunate offering. Izno (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • The intent of this template was to provide more customization options (such as setting the list type and number of columns) for those cases where the bare <references /> tag has to be used, such as when a page is exceeding the WP:PEIS limit frequently (I will note that mw:Help:Cite strongly discourages using wrapper templates around <references />, but weaning us off of that would require it to support setting the list-style-type). However, if your intent is to remove the reflist class from common.css, that would just leave this template with the ability to set the column width, which we frankly never should be doing since the <references /> tag now uses responsive column widths by default and mw:Contributors/Projects/Columns_for_references says that fixed columns should be deprecating or removed for accessibility reasons. To make a long story short, I support deleting this template. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 15:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    We should probably have a {{reflist begin}} and {{reflist end}} for cases where we are concerned about expansion limits. That would relieve at least one of them (argument expansion). --Izno (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Izno: Not a bad idea, since it will fail more gracefully if the templates don't render (at least the references themselves would show). --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 17:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete {{reflist begin}}/{{reflist end}} do indeed appear to be a better solution for this template's intended use case. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


Unused and the event already happened, so unlikely to be used. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, part of a suite of templates, deleting would lead to confusion. If it's unused, it's simpler and less confusing to simply mark the template as unused since going from -22 to -24 without having -23 when there was a -23 meetup. It could also be bot-deployed on the articles associated with the edithaton. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot of the subtemplates into the core {{WIR}}. There's no reason to be tracking this many. --Izno (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • There's 193 of these afaict sweats feel free to nominate them for merging and I'll support that. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge, per Izno. Surely this has got completely out of hand. Nigej (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    Nigej, It may seem "out of hand" to you, but it's been useful to those of us who participate in these editathons. WikiProjects are free to decide how they want to track things and this is what we chose to do. Pinging Rosiestep and Victuallers as founders of WIR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    The wrapper may be useful when the particular WIR is ongoing, but once it's finished why not replace it with the actual WIR text and get rid of the wrapper. You're up to 191 now and the 190 old ones are basically just gathering dust. Nigej (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    True, you may decide how to track things, until the community decides that the way you are tracking things is suboptimal or disruptive (WP:LOCALCON). Having 200 templates that are indeed gathering dust post-editathon is an issue. I doubt anyone would want to stop you tracking which articles were worked in each editathon, but if we're going to compare this to other projects, then this is basically equivalent to having 200 kinds of Template:WikiProject Video games. Clearly suboptimal for all parties. A template that looks more like {{WIR|200=y}} would make a lot more sense. --Izno (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    "Having 200 templates that are indeed gathering dust post-editathon is an issue" I'm going to put a big fat [citation needed] on that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    Which part was confusing? That it is an issue or that they are gathering dust? I presume not the second, so it must be that you like having 200 templates that do the exact same thing in the template space. I do not, and our templates can do better. Anything else for your sarcasm today? --Izno (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    Again, I ask, what exactly is the issue here. What article or project are harmed by those? The existing system is clear, and works well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    From my perspective the issue is that WIR is a means to an end - we're building an encyclopedia and this is part of it. We're not in the business of collecting old templates or congratulating ourselves on how clever we've been in the past. Copy out the interesting/useful text but the templates themselves are not useful. These templates are currently in Template namespace, ie part of the encyclopedia, when they should be archived somehow into Wikipedia namespace like other projects. Nigej (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep template is added to the articles created during the editathon. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Headbomb and Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep History is history. These are our archives. You don't delete or burn old versions of important documents or replace them with updated versions. As the nominator notes - we are up to 191. That's 191 Women related editathons that we are up to!!! (or 190 if we ignore editathon number 23 - which we don't intend to .... ever). Victuallers (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep No longer unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge them all. Lets sue our tools sensibly, and not create (nor perpetuate) redundancies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


Unused and the event already happened, so unlikely to be used. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, part of a suite of templates, deleting would lead to confusion. If it's unused, it's simpler and less confusing to simply mark the template as unused since going from -27 to -29 without having -28 when there was a -28 meetup. It could also be bot-deployed on the articles associated with the edithaton. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Headbomb. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep History is history. These are our archives. As the nominator as noted - we are up to 191. That's 191 Women related editathons that we are up to!!! (or 190 if we ignore editathon number 28 - which we don't intend to .... ever). Victuallers (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge them all. Lets sue our tools sensibly, and not create (nor perpetuate) redundancies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


Unused and the event already happened, so unlikely to be used. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, part of a suite of templates, deleting would lead to confusion. If it's unused, it's simpler and less confusing to simply mark the template as unused since going from -135 to -137 without having -136 when there was a -136 meetup. It could also be bot-deployed on the articles associated with the edithaton. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Headbomb. These are part of a group of templates used to keep track of editathons. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep History is history. These are our archives. As the nominator as noted - we are up to 191. That's 191 Women related editathons that we are up to!!! (or 190 if we ignore editathon number 136 - which we don't intend to .... ever). Victuallers (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge them all. Lets sue our tools sensibly, and not create (nor perpetuate) redundancies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


Not used by {{WIP}} or as a preload, as far as I can tell. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:No space joiner bold superscript middot no space non joiner[edit]

No uses; no incoming links; and less efficient than just typing the code ‍<sup>{{bullet}}</sup>‌. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:MTV Europe Music Award for Best World Stage Performance[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:MTV Europe Music Award for Best Rock[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Music Video[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Nevers-Chagny railway diagram[edit]

Unused; article this is for is a redlink. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars under criterion G4 as a recreation of content previously deleted at TfD FASTILY 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Netflix original animated series and films[edit]

Propose merging Template:Netflix original animated series and films with Template:Netflix original animated works.
These contain the same information, though are presented somewhat differently. Having two is unnecessary. {{Netflix original animated series and films}} is more up-to-date while {{Netflix original animated works}} splits by "current" and "ended" shows.

Also, neither of these are used in article-space, though {{Netflix original animated series and films}} was created recently, so I'd assume it will be. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge I created both and I forgot that I had already created the "works" one. Whoops! Feel free to merge, thanx. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
RayneVanDunem do you have a preference for the manner in which they are merged? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Montserratian English[edit]

Unused; Montserratian English is a redlink. Such a niche English variety that we don't need a separate template. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Mongolian legislative election, 2008[edit]

Unused, replaced by election box in 2008 Mongolian legislative election Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2[edit]

Template:Letter disambiguation[edit]

Not used in any pages, and the potential use is limited (what's the point of the navigation box? it's not like they're a related topic, they're disambiguation pages). Note that the documentation was added by me before realizing that this is unused. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Mid-Atlantic League[edit]

The template is unused. It was thought that a new league of this name was being formed for 2021, but it was not. The template is now not needed, nor will it be in the future. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Bad Acid Trip[edit]

Redundant, as there is almost nothing to navigate between. Only two albums have an article, and they are both entirely unsourced, so they could be nominated for deletion. Of the two bluelinked related articles, one doesn't mention the band at all, and the other simply lists the band in passing as an artist on the label with the names of their releases, so it provides no additional information. The band article itself also contains no reliable sources, being entirely sourced by their social media. Richard3120 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Navbox with little in the way of navigation. Nigej (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:2020 Overwatch League standings[edit]

Unused after the league format changed due to COVID-19; the template was split to {{2020 Overwatch League Asia standings}} and {{2020 Overwatch League North America standings}}. Pbrks (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - unused and will never have a use given the change in format. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 22:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Nigej (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


Unused template, I'm guessing it is unknown to most editors and admins so unlikely to be used in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 17:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Of course it's unused, it's not a template meant to stick around. Perhaps consider adding it to Twinkle and some documentation pages on NPP and (speedy) deletion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't see that this template helps. Any experienced admin is going to investigate mass-new-page vandalism if stuff ends up in the CSD/AIV queues, without the need for this template. --Izno (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete A notice to admins only. Something they can clearly do without. Nigej (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


This census area was divided in 2019. New templates/categories should be made to reflect the change, and the articles in question re-tagged according to their new census area. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 08:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Orphan and then delete. If it doesn't exist anymore, nothing is located there. Nyttend (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Valdez–Cordova Census Area, Alaska[edit]

This census area was divided in 2019. New templates were made to reflect this, but this template is still around for some reason. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 08:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Because the task of sorting out all the content in question was a little more difficult than running an AWB script and making untold thousands of superfluous edits, it exceeded the free time I had available when I tackled it back in December. Glad to finally see someone stepping up to the plate and helping to finish the task. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{Alaska}}. This is a unique situation — while a county was renamed a few years ago and several Alaska boroughs/CAs have been renamed in recent years, I believe the last time a US county or county-equivalent (other than an independent city) was abolished was 1983, when Washabaugh County, South Dakota was merged with one of its neighbors. So we have no precedent for handling a template for a county or equivalent that just doesn't exist anymore. Of course we don't need to keep an orphaned template as such, but I think it's best to retain the template name and content for page history purposes, e.g. [1] is better if {{Alaska}} appears at the bottom, instead of a redlinked template. Nyttend (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

March 1[edit]


Unused; {{TFL title}} was deleted per this discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems to have lost its purpose in life. Nigej (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Deleted by User:Plastikspork per CSD G2. (non-admin closure) ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

unused and broken (probably created by mistake) Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2021 (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:American stations in Caribbean TV[edit]

Template cruft; poorly created Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Star Control Franchise Template[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Unused duplicate of Template:Star Control franchise (the argument formerly known as T3). Certes (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Creator seems to have made a duplicate rather than moving. Nigej (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Izno (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete just seeing this now. New user created this in the midst of a content disagreement. This bypasses the consensus at DRN, guided by neutral mediation and reliable sources. Tagging User:Nightenbelle just for neutral oversight. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Template:Star Control franchise now redirects to Template:Star Control original series, a third version which I overlooked. Certes (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both the new templates. Redirect is also fine. We already hashed this out and it’s time to move on. Jorahm (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I made the template but had intended on it being a sandbox not a published template that I was working on as a tentative illustration for a talk discussion. --EggsHam (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2021 (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).


This template is insufficiently complex to need its own template. It's also hard to access from the browser bar. Lastly, the last TFD's opinions look quite unpersuasive from a today's point of view. Izno (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know jack about templates, but this is used a lot at Contributor copyright investigations. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI help 17:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep this is used 710 times and has no technical or other issues - while it might be simple, it's used enough to warrant keeping. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    It's current use in articles fails WP:MOSBOLD and WP:MOSITALIC as a start. There is a separate template for unknown in tables. Elsewhere it might be reasonable, but elsewhere doesn't need this level of 'standardization' as it was framed over a decade ago. Put a question mark in whatever you're working and be done. --Izno (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    apparently it's used in CCI (over half the transclusions are in project-space)? I agree that it shouldn't be used in articles. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep In use at CCI. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    I don't really see why one should need a bold-italic question mark available. I assume a normal question mark would work in all cases. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Intensively used in various lists within WikiProject Telecommunications. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    It shouldn't be used in mainspace per its documentation. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Modify so that it makes use of &quest;, facilitating the use of escaped question marks. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - I realise I'm taking a contrarian position here, but I cannot see any reason to have this. Invoking the template ({{?}}) is 5 characters, and the inserted text ('''''?''''') is 11 characters. Do we need a template to 'save' six characters? You can click the "bold" and "italic" options in the editor to do this in two clicks anyway, if you're worried about aligning the number of quote marks on each side. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • keep - the road to deletion is to first get rid of the use of the template by substituting it with a better one (named "unknown" or something) - once there are almost zero uses of the template then come back and I'll happily vote delete. N.B. the value of the template is not the content, it's the fact that it gives a clear place to find unknown values in tables and then start doing research to fix them. StacksofHoy (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    Just as an administrative note, this is absolutely not the way to proceed for a nomination; the discussion comes first, and then the outcome is decided. Substing a template with the intention of saying "it's no longer used" is disruptive and has caused some TFDs to swing the other direction. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Ping to StacksofHoy just in case they're not watching this page. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh, no no no. Izno is absolutely correct, this is an accessibility issue. But this requires review. Usage as a symbol should be replaced with {{hmmm}}. Usage as text should be either substituted or replaced with a properly encoded strong-em. --Bsherr (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    Bsherr perhaps subst then redirect to {{Hmmm}}? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    Green tickY, Red XN, and ? appear visually compatible to me. ‹See TfM›???? is not quite compatible (for the use in CCI, namely); it is a bit too prominent. I would be fine with another, smaller version, but I'm not aware of such a template, and this one could serve that purpose. — The Earwig (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, but restrict to project space. Do we need a template to 'save' six characters? → Yes, when used hundreds of times on a page. Typing '''''?''''' manually is annoying; I don't see a compelling reason to break existing process for this. I assume a normal question mark would work in all cases. → Yes, we can replace all of our image templates like {{done}}/{{not done}} with text and the meaning would still be clear. We don't do this because we find the styling useful for a quick gloss. This should be a good enough reason to allow its use—in the project space—but it should be removed from articles for the accessibility reasons highlighted above. How to do this? One option would be replace existing uses with the correct table template and prevent its future transclusion by displaying a helpful error instead, like {{collapse}}. — The Earwig (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

February 28[edit]

Myanmar township templates[edit]

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. The Banner talk 22:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Most of the bluelinked "settlements" are unrelated topics with coincidentally similar names, and many more have been converted to redlinks over the years. Although created in good faith for understandable reasons, they have become a maintenance headache with little benefit to the reader. See also similar nominations on nearby dates. Certes (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The good news: this should be the last series. The Banner talk 10:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Lithuanian–Muscovite War (1368–72)[edit]

Navigation template with three red links that are very unlikely to ever be turned blue as there is not enough info on these battles. What is known is already included in the article about the war. Other language Wikipedias do not have the articles on the battles. Renata (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete nav template with only redlinks - entirely pointless. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete navigational template with no navigation. Nigej (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Use English English[edit]

Propose merging Template:Use English English with Template:Use British English.
There is no difference between "British English" and "English English", so "English English" should be merged and redirected to "British English" template. This would match the redirect we already have for "Welsh English" and "Scottish English" Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. Nigej (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - I thought this was already discussed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete "Use English English". Actually, should we just consolidate the many different templates? {{Use Australian English}} is almost the same as {{Use British English}} or {{Use Commonwealth English}}, so we do not really need separate templates. IceWelder [] 15:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous deletion of {{English English}}. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge/Redirect as proposed. The title "Use English English" is unencyclopedic and surely confusing confusing to most editors, certainly those of us us in the US. — (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect "Use English English" to "Use British English". "Anglo-English" is a more elegant way of saying it, but it's not unheard of. Compare Template:Use Scottish English, Template:Use Welsh English. Nardog (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems more like a political statement than a useful alias. And I agree with User:IceWelder that it seems we have too many templates for national varieties of English that are indistinguishable from Commonwealth English when written in an encyclopedic register (versus when spoken or used colloquially). Anomie 14:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


This is a copy of {{OMN}}, which produces an Oman flag icon. I don't see redirecting as viable – its title doesn't follow the established pattern for flag icons, and at just two letters long, it's likely to be ambiguous (one plausible former use was for the now deleted {{om}}, another may be for the om symbol). – Uanfala (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Clearly should be a redirect if it is to remain. Per nom, the OM seems obscure, perhaps related to .om url suffix. Nigej (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Delete as duplicate. Template:OM is also somewhat ambiguous, as it could refer to Olympique de Marseille (also often written as OM), so I'd prefer delete over redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. OM can refer to several different templates, so I do not think it should be a redirect. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia disambiguation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Disambiguation. Clear consensus that the two templates should be merged. The implementation of namespace detection can be done independently of this close, I presume, since I'm no template expert. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Wikipedia disambiguation into Template:Disambiguation.
These templates serve the same function across different namespaces and can be merged with namespace detection. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • To which title are you proposing to merge them? BD2412 T 18:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the colleague who established the Template:Wikipedia disambiguation could give us some reasoning that the Template is different and has a special purpose different from Template:Disambiguation. At least I need to hear his/her defense of the Template werldwayd (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Meh which turns into a default Agree if all the differences can be handled and changes to templates doesn't disrupt. Widefox; talk 19:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep separate - The template Disambiguation is for disambiguating articles while Wikipedia Disambiguation is for Wikipedia: namespace pages. WaddlesJP13 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @WaddlesJP13: The template can display different content on pages depending on namespace, which is how the merge would be carried out. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge: Wikipedia Disambiguation is basically the same as the regular dab template. And plus, I'm pretty sure you can just make the regular dab template change depending on the namespace. ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 20:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} is used on about 200 pages. {{Disambiguation}} is used on 200,000. I don't know if namespace detection is computationally expensive, but even if it's cheap, adding it here means that any edit to one of the 200,000 pages will trigger an extra computational step that's only really there because of those other 200 pages. I wouldn't normally worry about these issues, but isn't that the sort of scale where they may become relevant? – Uanfala (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • It's an insignificant issue. There are far more costly templates in wider use. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
      • When stating that this is an insignificant issue, then I imagine you have some sort of quantitative estimate? When making such a large-scale change, it's good to have an idea of the costs involved – I'd be willing to wave them away but not when the counterbalancing benefits are so minuscule. – Uanfala (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
        • {{Namespace detect}} isn't an expensive parser function call for one. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I would assume that any difference could be handled by adding a "|wp=yes/no" parameter, which could be toggled yes for project pages and left out of all others entirely. Only the relative handful in project space would need to be changed at all. BD2412 T 21:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
            • Even if it's implemented this way, the code that checks for this extra |wp= parameter will need to be added to the main template, and it will be executed on every page, whether it's got that parameter or not. – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
              • Doing so would not make sense - since it can be detected automatically. Also, please, this is entirely insignificant. Unless you can show how this is a performance issue, then please drop this. I've linked the relevant information page - it's not an issue. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
                • I'd be more than happy to withdraw my objection if the estimate of the added computational cost turns out to be insignificant. – Uanfala (talk)
  • Merge as the templates are very similar and the difference can be easily solved with a namespace check combined with an explicit parameter for the one case I can find (MOS:EL) where {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} is used outside the WP/WT namespaces. The performance concern above should not be an issue at all. — The Earwig (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge I've created several disambiguation pages for Wikipedia policy pages and I have always used the standard article disambiguation template since I didn't know the other existed. Assuming it's technically doable, it's better to have a single template so that people don't need to know that there are separate ones. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There's also {{Template disambiguation}}. If {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} is going to be merged into {{Disambiguation}}, then so should {{Template disambiguation}}. JsfasdF252 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Forgot about that one! Yes, it should also be merged. Not sure if it's appropriate to edit the original request. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • As well as {{Portal disambiguation}}, ugh. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
        • {{Template disambiguation}} does a lot of things differently, so merging it will complicate the code a lot. – Uanfala (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Most of the complicated stuff it does is namespace detection which... doesn't really need to be migrated? Unless someone were to transclude a disambiguation template but that is really not likely at al, and still easy to catch. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)t
            • It doesn't do complicated stuff (at least not yet), but all its content is different from that of the main disambiguation template (except the bare fact that both are built around an invocation of {{dmbox}}). If the templates are merged, then almost every step in the code of the main template will need to be expanded with a conditional that tests for namespace and produces one output if it's a template, and another for everything else – this will make the code absolutely horrible to read. Of course, this could be avoided if the template begins with a single test for namespace, and then depending on the result leads into two separate blocks of code – one identical to the current {{template disambiguation}}, and another identical to the current {{disambiguation}}. This avoids most complexity, but it defeats one of the main points of a template merge – shared code. – Uanfala (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
              • Perhaps? I'll draft a merge and see how cleanly I can write it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
                • Even if the two are ultimately merged, I'd rather that {{disambiguation}} invokes {{template disambiguation}} (rather than incorporating its code) – the latter template should ideally be extended to allow more meaningful error output on transclusion. I would also rather the two aren't merged at all – work on the template dab will likely involving a fair amount of tinkering, and I really dislike the idea of forcing a reparse of 200,000 dab pages every time some piece of code is changed that's only relevant to a dozen pages. – Uanfala (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
                  • Uh, {{template disambiguation}} doesn't need constant updates - it needs to be merged/written and that's it. I've already done most of the merge in the template sandbox. Maybe there's an argument for having a separate disambiguation template for templates so that transclusions outside of template-space raise alarm, but I don't think that is necessary. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
                    • {{Template disambiguation}} is an experimental template used on about 35 pages. It won't need constant updates, but it will need tinkering with – and if it's merged into the main template such tinkering will become a lot more difficult because: a) it will only be accessible to the small number of users with advanced permissions; b) changes could risk breaking the 200,000 pages that use the main template; c) its code will be interspersed into the code of the main template. What I see in Template:Disambiguation/sandbox is precisely the sort of code convolution I was trying to warn about. – Uanfala (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
                      • Fair enough - a merge does inherently prevent its way of detecting usage in the wrong namespace. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge to {{disambiguation}} unless it can be demonstrated that there is a significant processing cost. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Limorina (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge to {{disambiguation}} per nom, and also the same with any other similar namespace-specific disambiguation templates. -- The Anome (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge Wikipedia space disambiguation is still a disambiguation page. If they need to be distinguished, you can add a parameter to the merged so people can mark Wikipedia space disambiguation pages. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging. {{Disambiguation}} and {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} are clearly different disambiguation templates. The original disambiguation page template is used for disambiguations only in the article namespace, and the Wikipedia disambiguation template is used for disambiguations only in the project namespace. Also, {{Template disambiguation}} and {{Portal disambiguation}} are also the different disambiguation templates used in separate disambiguation pages. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge all dab templates Oiyarbepsy said that they didn't know the other existed, and this is doubtlessly true for other editors. If the software can pick the proper template code for the given namespace, why make editors do the work manually? Even if no code sharing was possible, this is still an improvement over the current situation. Paradoctor (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge All into a template with namespace detection code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • As long as the end result is that categories such as Category:Wikipedia disambiguation pages are still populated. The original template creator probably just didn't know how to implement namespace detection code. –– wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge all. This will make it simpler for editors adding them. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge all, and I mean all, of the dab templates. The cost of the namepsace check is paltry, and the benefit to unification is potentially great. Huntster (t @ c) 13:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge all. Having looked at more DAB pages than most (something north of 100,000), I had never heard of the variants before, and (provided there is no significant overhead in merging) see no need for them. If merger means that User:DPL bot picks up links to them so that they can easily be found and fixed, there will be a benefit.
Comment. For completeness, I mention {{siadn}} which hardly anyone knows about and is currently unused; see Category:Monthly clean-up category (Set index articles with links needing disambiguation) counter. Narky Blert (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Unlike {{disambiguation}}, {{siadn}} does not classify dabs but appears in articles, against bad wikilinks which might be tagged with {{disambiguation needed}} except that the target is not a dab. {{siadn}} used to be widely used but someone has clearly done the work which it requested and only one instance remains: Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Nehemiah 11, which I tagged in October. If we're being complete then I should mention several specialised templates such as {{Station disambiguation}}, which distinguishes a list of stations from one which happens to contain a few stations amongst other topics. These are useful and I hope they are not within the scope of this TfD (though the redundant {{Letter disambiguation}} is being discussed elsewhere). Certes (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Certes no, specialized disambiguations aren't in the scope of this TfD, unless they could be automatically detected from page content - which isn't possible. The reason I nominated this is because it is possible to automatically detect where to use {{Disambiguation}} vs {{Wikipedia disambiguation}}. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge. Starzoner (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge: per nom. Reasonable decision to merge the templates following the introduction of new features. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 5 March 2021 (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:Composer sidebar[edit]

Now unused; all templates based on this one having been deleted by consensus, in TfDs on September 28, October 5, October 8, December 20, December 28, January 14, January 24, February 7 & February 16. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Unused and not a style to be encouraged in new articles, per consensus in a number of recent TfDs. Nigej (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    If we delete this how would be reconstructed that fighting this was (or rather:should have been) the key topic in WP:ARBINFOBOX, see Talk:Das Liebesverbot? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt, I think this works with minimal changes and no real change to the output appearance. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    delete, yes, it does, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused Aza24 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Myanmar township templates[edit]

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. The Banner talk 11:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Most of the bluelinked "settlements" are unrelated topics with coincidentally similar names, and many more have been converted to redlinks over the years. Although created in good faith for understandable reasons, they have become a maintenance headache with little benefit to the reader. See also similar nominations on nearby dates. Certes (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Renata (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


Propose deletion – I was once a fan of this template, and on one occasion I saved it from a previous delete nomination, [2] but I now think that Airreg is broken beyond repair. Because it relies on external websites supporting direct inks to search result pages (technically, HTTP GET requests), once such websites get redesigned not to do that (HTTP POST, which is currently the norm), this template becomes useless.
These template occurrences used to work: ‹The template Airreg is being considered for deletion.› N470A[2], ‹The template Airreg is being considered for deletion.› G-APFE[3], ‹The template Airreg is being considered for deletion.› C-GAUN[4], ‹The template Airreg is being considered for deletion.› PH-LKY[5], but now at best they link to the aviation registry's generic search page where the user has to enter the registration manually (and solve a captcha too), so the original purpose of this template is lost. Considering that template occurrences for the US FAA, UK CAA, and Canada's TSB alone constitute almost the totality of this template's usage, I don't see the point in keeping this template any longer and am happy to remove it from all articles that still use it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  —   Following Techie3's intervention below, this template probably deserves a reprieve (even if the UK registry seems lost for good). I can think of a way to reform it to make it more sensible and will post on the template Talk page. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: I agree, it has basically been "overtaken by events" and no longer works as intended. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete allways has been pretty useless as it ignores the fact the registraions are not unique and can and are re-used so not much use and doesnt add anything of encyclopedic value. MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as no longer working as intended. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep. This is too soon, maybe it can be made to work adequately again, see comment by Techie3 below. At least two previous AfD's kept it only because, back then, it did what it can no longer do worked.[3][4] BTW, shouldn't those discussions be linked to above? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait!/Keep I have updated the template to make the US example work properly, and the Canadian example still works somewhat correctly as well. Techie3 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep (for now) - if after a while Airreg is still broken then I am happy to change to Delete but in the meantime, a final stay of execution wouldn't hurt IMO. OH NO IT'S cmn HIDE YOUR MUM HIDE YOUR WIFE ( ❝❞ / ) 09:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is now under reconstruction. Herostratus (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Let's wait and see if the problem is fixable before taking such a drastic action. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ "FILING FEC-1490249".
  2. ^ "FAA Registry (N470A)". Federal Aviation Administration.
  3. ^ "G-INFO Database". Civil Aviation Authority.
  4. ^ "Canadian Civil Aircraft Register (C-GAUN)". Transport Canada.
  5. ^ "Civil aircraft register (PH-LKY)". Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport.

Template:Collapse bottom[edit]

Propose merging Template:Collapse bottom with Template:Hidden archive bottom.
As many of you may know, these are actually the same template with two different names. Their purpose is to transclude the end table tag |} in a way that matches their "top" counterparts ({{Cot}} and {{hat}}). One can be safely redirected to the other without any concerns of incompatibility or breaking things.

For the record, this was kinda/sorta discussed 10 years ago (here) when I was twelve-years-old. Users who participated in that (only sorta) related discussion include: xeno, Martin, and PBS.

As a note to the closer of this discussion; the combined template should be left with this edit notice, this documentation, this talk page, and full protection. Please also make sure the template shortcuts are quickly retargeted to whatever title this ends up with. –MJLTalk 03:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Merge of course, literally the same template. Probably makes more sense to redirect {{Hidden archive bottom}}, since {{Collapse bottom}} is shorter and already has full protection. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep separate. Did you actually look at the templates? Collapse bottom contains |}</div> and Hidden archive bottom contains |} They are not the same. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    @WOSlinker: {{hat}} should probably be given the |indent= functionality than. That doesn't seem too severe to ask. –MJLTalk 19:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Do not merge per above. These are different templates, and adding a flag to remove the div would defeat the purpose of having matching begin/end templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


Propose merging Module:PassMath with Module:Math.
A separate module for division is not necessary because the function is within the scope of Module:Math. I would also be okay with deleting Module:PassMath entirely as redundant to the #expr parser function. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The divide function in PassMath is not finished yet. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The functionality of divide is now finished, but it may need to be revised for calling with other than strings. The error semantics of this module is different from Module:Math: PassMath forwards errors generated below, Math always outputs its own errors. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge indeed. Redirect/replace & depr is good and harmless.
btw I do not agree with the #expr part, because it is cumbersome oldstyle coding, and out-of-editing-pattern. (Recently I had to spend hours & frustrations looking for a "floor" function, any). But if I understand this correct, this is moot for the merge. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
#expr is beside the point, but because the purpose of the module is to forward any sub-expression errors before attempting the operation. And Module:Math does not do this, so these functions do not belong there. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thx, Trigenibinion. Allow me to skip this tech detail, unless I should rethink my !vote logic ;-) Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Stadium organists[edit]

Fancruft. Templatecreep. The Banner talk 10:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Just a duplicate of Category:Stadium organists with loads of unlinked names added. Nigej (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm the person who created it. I understand/appreciate the reasons mentioned. I think it's useful both as a reference point to who is currently working vs. who is retired (not in the category) and also the unklinked names--not all of whom are notable but many are--can serve as a reference point to other potential article writers which does more than just the category. One of the stadium organists made DYK in October and I think it's a topic underrepresented on Wikipedia. Jessamyn (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Millions of sports fans will find this useful. This is an extraordinarily useful template. I shared with a stadium organist who was needing background for a bio in a sports journal. As I looked at the many newspaper articles about stadium organists they were filled with accolades from fans and players who claimed these musicians made whatever game it was they enjoyed--special, nostalgic, meaningful. What I like about this template is that it includes women and the first African-American stadium organist. Wikipedia has many many pages devoted to athletes who play various sports. These musicians are just as important.Kmccook (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • In fact you back up my claim of fancruft. The Banner talk 18:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Per WP:NAVBOX: we seems to fail #4 "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." since there is no article Stadium organists. Also #3 and #5 are pretty doubtful here. All tends to indicate that we have a set of people with little connection between them, except for the obvious - they are Stadium organists. Nigej (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah, an article could easily be written about Stadium Organists if that is the only objection (they've been seeing a resurgence where there had previously been a lot of pre-recorded music, and it's an interesting trend along with the use of social media to interact directly with fans) but I'll wait to see the outcome of this discussion first. Jessamyn (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Next step is a navigation template about stadium janitors, as they are essential? And a template for stadium ticket sellers? I maintain my stance that this is fancruft and template creep. The Banner talk 22:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I appreciate that we're on differing sides of this, but you're coming across as needlessly insulting. There are twenty-two stadium organists who have articles about them on Wikipedia, all but one of which were written before I put this template together. They are working musicians who play music, usually live, for some of the largest sporting events in the United States. It's fine if you don't personally think the template should be on Wikipedia, but show me a single Wikipedia article about stadium janitors or stadium ticket sellers? Your stance has been noted. Jessamyn (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
            • what a classist statement about janitors. That said, this template pulls together many musicians who might not have a page and have much press in various baseball literature.Kmccook (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see this template as a useful way to connect together the pages about people working in this role. I would suggest an article be created talking more about this role and its resurgence. - Dyork (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - As seen from a country where organists seem to be either general keyboard players or play in churches, an article about this position would be informative and educational, so please write it. Palnatoke (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looks like this template will work out better 1) with a lead article about Stadium organists (can do) and 2) with all the non-notable organists not included for now. I can look and see if any of them hit notability requirements, but that's a larger project. Thanks for feedback everyone. Jessamyn (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This fails the criteria at WP:NAVBOX, items 2, 3, 4, 5, and given the breadth and width, 1. I would not object to converting to category or similar. Certainly if no consensus or kept, it should have its non-links removed per WP:NAV. --Izno (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, Category:Stadium organists is better suited for this purpose. Renata (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, As above, I feel like this template offers something the category doesn't (retired vs. working, and a full slate of people though that may be of questionable value) and could easily be supported by a Stadium Organists article but I haven't wanted to write one since I was waiting for the results of this discussion. Accordingly, if the template is kept, I will write a Stadium Organists article and elide the non-notable names from the template. If it's deleted, I won't. Jessamyn (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep or Listify. Might have been better to WP:Write the article first to establish notability. Still, a Template or a List Article would be more informative than just the Category. — (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list would be much better than a template to cover these people. In particular, a list could include a brief description after the names of those organists who don't have articles yet (along the lines of "organist at Comiskey Park, 1951-1960"), whereas that kind of information can't reasonably be included here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Good point. If the Template ends up being deleted, I hope a sandbox copy can be saved somewhere as a good head-start on a List article. — (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted pages are not gone. You can always ask an admin to mail you a copy of a deleted page. Or you save a copy now to your device. Paradoctor (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox disputed islands[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox disputed islands with Template:Infobox islands.
Essentially the same scope for the primary geographic parameter set (which I haven't analyzed but I would assume that the main template is a superset), the ownership of these islands is just kind of tacked on. Whether a territory is disputed should be a facet of the territory itself rather than its own infobox. Izno (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Merge to Infobox islands, no reason to separate, however I do think that the disputed island template is pretty cluttered and needs to be simplified. Like "country_claim_largest_city_population" is pretty unnecessary to add to something that is about the island and not the country claiming it. PyroFloe (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --Izno (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per PyroFloe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge: per PyroFloe. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep {{Infobox disputed islands}} for the same reasons as previously mentioned in the last nomination (which wasn't linked here for whatever reason). To quote a number of the reasons given last time, as they still apply:
    "well-defined subset of articles with special requirements. Island box doesn't support the crucial "claimed by" fields." (Future Perfect at Sunrise)
    "That they are islands is secondary (and superfluous IMO) to their status as disputed territory." (Int21h)
    "It is absolutely not redundant. Before I decided to create this template, I tried to come up with a good way to incorporate it into the regular islands infobox template, but I could come up with a way to do so due to the reasons already mentioned above. I spent a lot of time researching how to do this and trying to figure out the best way to do it. There's really no efficient way to merge these templates." (Me)
  • I will say that I'm open to some sort of Lua module addition that incorporates and streamlines the functions of this template, though I don't know how to do that myself. However, as I mentioned the last time this template was nominated here (and contrary to the opinions expressed by PyroFloe and Izno), there are (currently) many reasons to keep this template separate, foremost among them the fact that the disputed nature of the territory is usually the thing that gives the territory its notability. Most disputes are decades or centuries long, and most of the places using this template are uninhabited (or barely inhabited). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep separate. It's not just because this template needs to cover additional pieces of information compared to the standard islands box (those could obviously be merged into the generic template). It's more because some of the same pieces of information that the generic box also supports need to be presented differently – e.g., info about administrative parent divisions need to be integrated into the several "claimed by..." groups. If that were to be merged properly it would lead to an enormous piece of conditional clutter, which would presumably make the resulting super-box even harder to maintain. I just don't see the benefit in that. Fut.Perf. 10:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:State results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election[edit]

The pages are already linked on {{2020 United States elections}}. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Russia–United States proxy conflict[edit]

This template is infrequently used and many of the articles listed are not related to the concept of the proxy conflict between Russian and the United States. The category with the same name as the template was deleted. The redirect page should be deleted as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nominator's rationale for the CFD. --Izno (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and the CfD. Was the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation a proxy conflict between Russian and the United States? Just because the US supported the Ukraine surely doesn't make this a proxy war/conflict. All seems somewhat tenuous to me. Nigej (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:China–United States proxy conflict[edit]

Similar to the Russia-United States proxy conflict template; should be deleted because it is infrequently used, articles listed are not related to the concept of the proxy conflict. Some of which include before the U.S. and China reestablished relations in the 1970s when Nixon visited China. Those conflicts have nothing to do with a proxy conflict between China and the United States. Its former category of the same name was deleted as well. The redirect page should also be deleted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • The former category link is a copy paste from the Russian above. Was there ever a Chinese category, and where? --Izno (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Izno (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

February 27

Template:Iraq War Coalition troop deployment


Not particularly necessary as a separate template any longer. Izno (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete This is purely static information, it has received no substantial edits since May 2019, so storing it in a template no longer serves any purpose. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Used 4 times, is this to be substituted in all transcluding articles? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    That was my intent, yes. The template doesn't need updating anymore, so any value of having it in the templatespace is nil. --Izno (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    That is likewise my intent. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete As a template it is unreferenced and there doesn't seem to be a Iraq War Coalition troop deployment article or similar, so really it should only be in the article(s) where the references are. Nigej (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

February 26



Recent and redundant fork of {{Authority control}}, to which any missing art-related identifiers should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, not a redundant fork. We are not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of all possible identifiers. The template has been discussed at ANI, no objections were forthcoming.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at ANI (link?) is irrelevant. ANI is not TfD, and deals with matters requiring administrator intervention (which template forks generally are not) only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. "Recent" is hardly relevant. I agree that all missing art-related identifiers should be added to Authority Control, as no identifiers are added to ACArt at all. All ACArt does is hide a number of less relevant identifiers for most art-related articles, and only show the ones that are most useful, using Authority Control. For example, at Pablo Picasso, this reduced the 43 identifiers (rough count to 17: so still plenty of identifiers, but just keeping these with most relevance for art and/or enwiki. As no real, accurate argument has been formulated why this would need deletion, and the deletion reason shows a misunderstanding of what happens with the template, I think this can be speedy kept. Fram (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Even more reason to delete it, then, since it seems this is just an attemt to run around your failed attempt to delete {{Authority control}}. There is no need to hide identifiers; and those hidden by this template are not "less relevant" - or do we have no articles on, (for example) Spanish, Catalan, or Australian artists? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Basic misunderstanding of the template purpose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not a redundant fork, because it is a wrapper template rather than a fork in the first place. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant fork. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge Unnecessary fork of {{Authority control}}. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Delete On looking closer, it isn't a fork (as the 1st edit summary implied), but a wrapper to chose specific identifiers to show/suppress. In that case, it should just be deleted, or it should be argued on the authority control template talk about whether it's worth defining subsets of authority controls for specific topics (e.g., 'authoritycontrol|select=art'), although I generally think that would be a bad idea anyway. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Serves no useful purpose.14GTR (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Why on earth are we thrusting this machine-readable metadata gibberish in the faces of readers? Ideally keep it on wikidata where it belongs, or bury it in an infobox if you must, or the talk page, where it can safely be ignored.

    Case in point: Vincent van Gogh is "BNF: cb11927591g (data)BPN: 32545490, 31473481GND: 118540416KulturNav: 2192c545-cc43-43b4-8abd-1cd22af701dcLCCN: n79022935NLA: 35130087RKD: 32439SNAC: w60g3k35SUDOC: 027176207ULAN: 500115588VIAF: 9854560WorldCat Identities: lccn-n79022935"

    What? Theramin (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    • @Theramin:; the template ACArt is an attempt to reduce the amount of gibberish: while it keeps the poor formatting (another aspect I want to improve one day), it tries to make sure that you get less of it, and that you no longer get the ones that are not useful for the subject of the article on enwiki (they are useful on Wikidata, and on some other language-wiki, but not here). Fram (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The reduction is not sufficient. What is a reader meant to do with the dozen or two random alphanumeric strings we append to these articles? For whose benefit are we doing this?
      • But in any event, this conversation seems to be proceeding on the mistaken assumption that the template is limited to biographical articles about artists. And in some cases that might make some sense, if we need to distinguish John Smith from John Smith from John Smith (although each has a different middle name and different dates of birth and death). But we don't need to indiscriminately spam each article with a dozen or more different and inconsistent ways to distinguish between them:
        John Smith (engraver): AAG: 10244AGSA: 5538BNF: cb14976542g (data)GND: 118797697ISNI: 0000 0001 1798 0891LCCN: no2004097781NLP: A2703768XNSK: 000625969NTA: 318564599PLWABN: 9810574858305606SNAC: w68r01t2ULAN: 500006468VcBA: 495/153815VIAF: 89128657WorldCat Identities: lccn-no2004097781
        John Raphael Smith: AAG: 2238AGSA: 3811, 10212BNE: XX1477259BNF: cb14958759t (data), cb135364416 (data)GND: 121151611ISNI: 0000 0001 1678 3773LCCN: n83013596NGV: 5386NKC: jo2004214942NLA: 36339895NLI: 000451836NTA: 137665938PLWABN: 9810621842105606RKD: 73455SNAC: w6699rkxSUDOC: 050664549TePapa: 14254Trove: ***:1248450ULAN: 500116497VIAF: 79202309WorldCat Identities: lccn-n83013596
        John Warwick Smith: BNE: XX1763808GND: 13335380XISNI: 0000 0000 6633 1823LCCN: nr91033082PLWABN: 9810546202705606RKD: 73458SNAC: w6jq1bxnTePapa: 2116Trove: 1257227ULAN: 500009954VcBA: 495/39708VIAF: 313041903WorldCat Identities: lccn-nr91033082
      • I am not at all convinced that we need to distinguish Vincent van Gogh or Pablo Picasso from all the other artists called Vincent van Gogh or Pablo Picasso, or indiscriminately supplement the long lists of references and external links that those articles already contain with yet more links to bibliographic identifications for them.
      • In any event, this template and its older sibling are not just appearing on biographical articles: they are also popping up all over the shop, including for example articles about paintings where the template displays nothing at all save an error message [5] (before I removed it) or adds just one external link which adds nothing helpful at all (ditto, again). There are examples of the templates on hisorical periods and musical instruments and concepts such as Curiosity and Eloquence. With all due respect to our colleagues in Germany, we don't need the Gemeinsame Normdatei and Deut­sche National­bibliothek to tell us what these mean, or distinguish them from other things.
      • Look, perhaps we could assign a unique identifier to each article - I don't know, perhaps unique number - and maintain a database somewhere that collects all the incompatible bits of "authority" information assigned by the dozens of different external institutions together in one place for ease of reference. Maybe also collect other relational information and metadata, such as references and dates and so on. But there is no need for all of that undigested information to appear on the face of the encyclopedia, and certainly not without some thoughtful selection of what should appear in each case.
      • Oh, I give up. Why am I wasting my time on this nonsense. Theramin (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • If you wish to reduce the number of identifiers we use, raise an RfC. Template forking as fait accompli is not the way to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that we had some policy that decreed that all IDs available in Authority Control have to be shown on all pages. IDs are added all the time on the basis of a discussion between very few people at the template talk page (fine), but creating a wrapper which makes the template more focused for specific groups of articles is not allowed? No identifiers are being removed from authority control (never mind from Wikidata), but that doesn't mean that all of them have to be shown (when available) on all pages. Fram (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
        • We have them displayed by consensus. If you wish to change that consensus, start an RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Starting a TfD while misunderstanding what this template does, then changing your reason to something completely different (and also wrong), and at the same time demanding an RfC? No thanks. I have introduced this template at ANI, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, and at Wikipedia talk:Authority control. It has been added to very high profile pages by multiple editors (though most by me, as I do it systematically). Others thanked me for these edits. Apart from a concern about the name of the template, no issues were raised, until out of the blue this misguided TfD appeared. If the people who actually edit these art pages have no issues with it and many seem to welcome it, then I see no reason to start an RfC based on your "consensus" based on a few editors and a lack of alternatives, or while your TfD is ongoing. Fram (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
            • I understand very well what this template does; it removes linked authority control IDs from biographies, without consensus to do so and as a work around to your failed - indeed, WP:SNOW-closed - attempt at deleting {{Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep' Per Fram; much less crufty than the full one. I see no editors who actually add content in this area want to delete. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • People are arguing for deletion (or merging, no idea how that would be done) because on the one hand it is a "redundant" or "unnecessary" fork, and on the other hand because it is an end run around the failed deletion of the main template. Obviously, it can be one or none of these, but it can hardly be both at the same time. Since ACArt is fully dependent on authority control, it is hardly an end run: deletion of authority control would make ACArt worthless, and ACArt shows AC identifiers, only not as many. So not an attempt to delete the template through the backdoor (like I said, something like Auguste Rodin now shows about 17 IDs, roughly half of what it showed before. Which also shows that it isn't a redundant fork, it has clearly different results, a different output. It is now used on some 8000+ pages, including many high-profile ones, and the editors of these pages seem either not to care or to approve. The template obviously still can be improved (which I plan to do this week), but deletion seems unawarranted. Fram (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Note; the template has been somewhat improved to now allow the addition of specific IDs for one country (e.g. the National Library of Japan can be shown for Japanese artists, but hidden for others). More improvements of the template are welcome! Fram (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speaking as an art historian and someone who works in the cultural sector: it is extremely useful for people like me to have a comprehensive selection of links to external datasets about an artist on Wikipedia. A comprehensive selection helps to demonstrate an artist's worldwide influence (or lack thereof). The links to authority control databases are a jumping board to other resources, usually via national libraries. Its comprehensiveness enhances Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy and useful resource for art history and in the cultural sector in general, especially as no other resources around the world provide this comprehensive interlinking. Reversely, if Wikipedians start making subjective selections of identifiers that are deemed OK and others that are deemed not, that's not doing Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral resource any good. Spinster (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Spinster:, "especially as no other resources around the world provide this comprehensive interlinking." is not true. The comprehensive interlinking is done at Wikidata: Wikipedia displays only a selection of these anyway (in the template authority control). Relying on Wikipedia for this functionality is not correct, this is something where you should rely on Wikidata (all the links are stored on Wikidata anyway, nothing displayed in either Authority Control or in ACArt is stored on enwiki). Fram (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Spinster, which other resources or information can you for example find through the two RERO links for Mark Twain? 12? How many enwiki readers will have any use, ever, from these links? And on the other hand, for the few people like you for which this is useful information, then why stop at the 40 or so links we already have in the authority control template of that article, and not add the countless others listed in the Wikidata item? Why is the selection made by authority control acceptable and your go-to place (instead of Wikidata directly), but the selection made by ACArt unacceptable? Fram (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename to {{Authority control (arts)}} per Template talk:Authority control#Template:ACArt name. Not a fork, but a wrapper. Some users have expressed a desire to truncate/only show a subset of IDs, usually as it relates to a/their particular subject area. I see no harm in this.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Tom.Reding: Woulld it be practical to add a parameter to Template:Authority control to handle this? There are way too many templates at Wikipedia as it is. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Robert.Allen: that depends on what you mean by practical. Can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? Probably not. It's better to build discrete systems on top of each other than to put them all together. See Template talk:Authority control#Template:ACArt name for some examples.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per Spinster, Gamaliel and 14GTR. Smirkybec (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The guideline WP:EL states that "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." The previous TfD for the authority control template establishes that some or many of the links it provides are useful (and should not be deleted without replacement), but the assertion that the identifiers in that template must be linked in their entirety, rather than a select subset, is in plain violation of that guideline and lacks consensus. Obviously it would be impractical to specify exactly which identifiers to link for each individual biographical article, but creating wrappers like these for broad biographical categories (like artists) seem like a useful intermediate step to help bring our articles into compliance with WP:EL. I understand the appeal of "comprehensiveness" as an abstract quality, but Theramin's comments show very clearly how useless it makes this template for most readers. Choess (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. As an editor who works almost entirely on "artists", it seems like an unnecessary distinction. Also, I like having authority control information at the bottom of the article and do not consider it cruft. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi @WomenArtistUpdates:, two questions. First, can you please give some examples of articles where the ACArt template is used (some 10,000 pages now) where some authority control has disappeared that you found useful? I tried to eliminate only those of no use in an enwiki article, but it may be that there are some I need to reconsider. You can see the full list here. Second, if I may; I can't help but notice that apart from Mike Peel and PigsontheWing, who are both heavily into Wikidata and templates and thus logical appearances here, all delete votes are from people who are either members of Women in Red or seem to be closely associated with it. It seems unlikely that only this group would arrive here to vote "delete" as a pure coincidence (it is not as if the template is directly connected to WiR in any way), so do you (or anyone else) know where and how this discussion was advertised? Thanks! Fram (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Fram It actually is a coincidence. I know there was a discussion because the articles I have created are on my watchlist and it has been lit up with changes to the authority control template.I will not engage further with you. I hesitated to even vote on this as your reputation precedes you. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Fram There is no grand conspiracy, like WomenArtistUpdates, I saw you editing many articles I have created and/or have in my watch list and decided independently that it was not an improvement. Smirkybec (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Thank you! Fram (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I just noticed this (I was mentioned, but not pinged). I think it's important to note that Andy posted to the GlamWiki facebook group about this template several days after starting this TfD. I'm saying this for transparency's sake, although I'm concerned that Fram will instantly pounce on it and try to yell conspiracy where none was intended, and I note that there seem to be past on-wiki discussions about this topic that don't seem to have been linked here (there was a deletion debate, something on ANI, and maybe other discussions - somewhere?). From my side, I was already aware of the template before then, and was going to look into it: the facebook post prompted me to look again a bit sooner, and led to me posting my !vote above, but didn't influence my comment - it just meant that I posted it a bit earlier than I would have otherwise. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Fram (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral I would need some examples of what kind of identifiers are excluded by ACArt. Generally I work on fairly obscure artists and the more identifiers the better, but as long as useful information isn't being lost, I'd be in favour of keeping an an artist-specfic template. Curiocurio (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Curiocurio:: these are the ones excluded by default; ACM-DL,, BIBSYS, BNC, BNE, Botanist, CANTIC, CINII, CWGC, DAAO, DBLP, HDS, IAAF, ICCU, ISNI, LIR, LNB, MBA, MBAREA, MBI, MBL, MBP, MBRG, MBS, MBW, NBL, NCL, NDL, NKC, NLG, NLI, NLK, NLP, NLR, NSK, NTA, ORCID, PLWABN, RERO, RID, RSL, SELIBR, S2AuthorId, TA98, TDVIA, TE, TH, TLS, Trove, UKPARL, USCongress, VcBA. In many cases, one or two can be re-included by adding a country-specific parameter, e.g. "country=ES" will also display BNE and CANTIC. (See Template:ACArt/doc for more on this). New IDs which are added to authority control are by default included in ACArt: they need to be explicitly excluded in the template code to be hidden. Fram (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Fram:: Thanks for providing the list. I went through it as best I could. There are many obviously unsuitable databases excluded, especially those concerning science and technology. I am somewhat troubled by the exclusion of many national libraries, although as you say many of them can be reincorporated by using a country-specific code. This requires a a level of sophistication on the part of the editor however. Curiocurio (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • The intention is indeed that the relevant national libraries will be shown by using the parameter. I plan to soon start on Spanish artists, and those I will by default give the "country=Es" parameter. As an example, I looked at article 1001 of the ones now using the template; Jean Raoux. It had 11 entries in the old version, and 8 in the new one, removing isni, a Polish database[6], and the Vatican library[7]. I don't think any of these three added anything of value to the article. Note that this person has 40 identifiers at Wikidata! Fram (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I sympathize with the above comment that many artists, especially Eastern and niche ones, are not in too many databases, so limiting the amount is unhelpful for them. Additionally, 99% of readers don't even know the authority control links exist. Why limit links for the 1% that do? Users are making it seem like these links are causing readers seem internal pain or confusion on "There's too many links which do I click??"—but once again, most readers don't care (making this a useless distinction) and most artists are not Van Gogh (making limiting the supposably "overkill amount" of links unproductive). Aza24 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Aza24: can you give some examples of artist articles where ACArt has (or would) remove identifiers you find useful? In most or all cases, the most likely, logical, prevalent links aren't removed (e.g. worldcat and VIAF are left alone, as are the Library of Congress and all art-related IDs), and for countries where an ID exists for e.g. their national library, an easy parameteris available to add that one (e.g. "country=CZ" for Czechia will add the NKC). So a few examples would help me to understand in what cases the template is actually unhelpful. Fram (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Fram, I made the mistake of doing little research before my comment and now find that some minor artists that came to mind are little effected by such a template (and have rescinded my comments above accordingly). However, I still question any positive impact the template gives the reader, and furthermore, it seems improper to create such a template as the result on an ANI discussion, which seemingly overturns a long term status quo on the use of authority control. What I would like to see, is a larger conversation on the subject, potentially exploring a realm of possibilities with creating equivalent templates for composers, writers, politicians etc. Before such a conversation, I don't know if I can support a specially curated template for artists and no others. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you for re-evaluating. I created one for arts/artists, because this is by far the largest group of topic-specific authority IDs we now have. Other professions often only have one or no specific ID in authority control (e.g. for sports, we only have the IAAF, and nothing for other sports if I recall correctly). My plan was to build country-specific ones next, which only show the IDs from either English-language sources (e.g. Library of Congress), and from sources with a country- or language-connection to the topic (so for Belgium, I would show IDs from English language sources plus Belgium, France, the Netherlands, perhaps Germany, but not from elsewhere). But when this TfD is closed, I'll probably try to write an RfC to get wider input on this, as opinions are quite divided among this small sample of people. We'll never be able to please everyone (show nothing vs. show everything is hard to combine), so it would be good to know if the current situation pleases most people, or whether something different would get the most support. It will require a good explanation of the whole setup though, as I have noticed in many discussions that most people have no idea what happens and what is possible. Fram (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a bad idea to distinguish people, especially if their main notability is not based on being an artist. Now references to libraries are deleted. It would also set a precedent for even more subdivisions. KittenKlub (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I have trouble understanding what you mean here. This template should normally be applied to articles about people whose main notability is being an artist. We distinguish people and articles in general all the time, no idea why this is a problem. We have e.g. specialized infoboxes for people based on their main claim to notability, and these show or suppress fields which other infoboxes may or may not have, based on what is most relevant for the person and their occupation. And no references are deleted, authority control are not references anyway: they are external links, taken from Wikidata (where they all remain). Do you have examples of articles where this template made things worse, examples of libraries which provided a valuable external link to that article for enwiki readers and which are now gone? Fram (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Ru Paré is known as WW2 resistance hero who happened to be an artist as well, and you changed her to Art, because she has an artists category, and thus deleted the references to the libraries. Besides that it is extremely unclear for most people who simply put Authority Control underneath a biography. There's no need whatsoever to have x versions whose purpose is to remove content. KittenKlub (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you. I have added the "country=NL" parameter, the Dutch National Library is back in the authority control template now. People are still free to put authority control in their articles, nothing has changed at that template. But people now have a choice: opinions are clearly seriously divided over whether we should display as many authority IDs as possible (and note that there are many, many more than are being shown through the main authority control template anyway: e.g. for Ru Paré there are already 5 additional identifiers in Wikidata which aren't included anyway), or a select, more tailored subset. The division would be "full" at Wikidata (as it is now), and "precise" at enwiki (which it isn't now, it is now a rather random selection of IDs with a one-size-fits-all approach). And yes, "precise" would require either specific templates (like ACArt) or parameters at authority control (say, "authority control|art" or something similar). If the latter would get introduced, ACArt could very easily be changed to call that specific parameter. Fram (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I remain with my delete vote. Before you know it, you have one for musicians, authors and who knows how many more. Besides that those acronyms are totally obscure for most people anyhow, so one or two more entries is no big deal. KittenKlub (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
            • I hope to change the acronym/ID combination in the template to a descriptive namelink, but I can't do it all at once. A template that said (with the names as links to the ID page) "Biografisch Portaal * Library of Congress * Royal Library of the Netherlands * Netherlands Institute for Art History * Virtual International Authority File * Worldcat" would be a lot clearer. If this improvement would be created at the authority control template, it would automatically also appear in the ACArt template. Fram (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template appears to be unnecessary and possibly deleterious, since it may omit useful links. If pruning is needed, it should be done at Wikidata. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • How would you omit links which Wikidata wants but we don't? We have no say over what Wikidata includes or not. The pruning is done at Template:Authority control (for all of enwiki), and then further here (for a specific, though large, group of articles) because we have no say over what Wikidata includes (and there is no reason that we should, they cater for more than just enwiki). If you want to include everything that Wikidata has, then perhaps it would be better to add that to the sidebar, similar to the way that interwiki links are shown, that way, no one here needs to maintain code, request addition (or removal) of IDs at template talk:authority control, ... Anyway, every attempt is made to not exclude useful links but only the (for these articles, and on enwiki) useless ones. For example, for Jacques Callot, ACArt keeps 14 identifiers, but omits 11 others, e.g. this, or this, or this. We can hardly ask Wikidata to remove these, as they are correct and necessary links for jawiki, sewiki, ... And we can hardly include all Wikidata IDs, they have more than 100 different IDs for Jacques Callot (and new ones are added all the time).
    • TLDR: We can't do this at Wikidata, we already (in the standard template) omit many links, and the ones further omitted here are carefully chosen and are really of very little value for enwiki readers. Fram (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you can explain why, for Jacques Callot, and for every other biography using this template, you think ISNI, Trove and Vatican library IDs, for example, are "useless"? Perhaps the Catholic church never employed artists? As for "How would you omit links which Wikidata wants but we don't?", that is already possible (albeit rarely desirable) in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
        • The comment I answered was "If pruning is needed, it should be done at Wikidata": you reply about how it is done here, which doesn't answer the question, and is thus hardly relevant as a reply to me. Now, ignoring the snark in the questions, to Jacques Callot, and the suppressed entries: have you looked at them? The Vatican Library entry doesn't really tell us anything, not even whether he was ever employed by the Vatican or the Catholic Church in general. Take for example Rubens, obviously employed by the Catholic Church: his entry is not very informative or useful, is it? Even for artists who did work for the Vatican, the authority file doesn't give any additional information[8]. So yes, for nearly every reader of enwiki, for artist articles, this is a useless ID (I haven't checked if it is any better for e.g. writers). ISNI doesn't seem to have any information not already in an easier to read format in other entries of the authority files. Trove, I suppose I could add that one as it is in English and useful for Australian readers. Fram (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
          • The question you asked, and to which I responded (and indeed, quoted in my response) was "How would you omit links which Wikidata wants but we don't?". So much for snark. Furthermore, I didn't ask you about the pages linked to; I asked you why you thought the identifiers are not useful. Not only have you ignored that question, but you are aware of the difference between the two, or should be, as it was the crux of opposition to your failed attempt to delete {{Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
            • Do you really think many people would support the AC template if it was just IDs as such and not links? I didn't realise that your question about the IDs was so literal and extreme. So no, I don't think the raw IDs (any of them) are useful in enwiki articles: we have Wikidata for that kind of stuff. The IDs as links are useful if the linked page has additional information, preferably in a manner understandable to most readers here. So e.g. the Vatican page is not useful as an ID nor as a link. Unless your answers are in a neutral, impersonal fashion, I'll not reply to further replies by you. Fram (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
              • Right. So now we can see without doubt that you do not support the purpose of {{Authority control}}; and we already know that your attempt to have that template deleted failed as a snow close, because consensus to use as designed is massively agaist you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
                • The purpose? "Direct benefits to readers are direct access to these linked works where available (e.g. finding a library holding a particular book on a topic)." The links that have been removed do not have that benefit for our readers. The consensus here, even with your canvassed audience, doesn't seem to be that massively against me either. Fram (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I have readded Trove, it will again show up at all articles that use ACArt and where a Trove ID exists. Fram (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Suppression examples: for anyone wishing to see/find pages with suppressed IDs (i.e. the ID must exist on WD & be suppressed via this template), Category:Wikipedia articles with suppressed authority control identifiers (7,803) currently contains 7,578 pages, and 7,530 of them (99.4%) transclude {{ACArt}}. There are another ~3,200 {{ACArt}} transclusions that aren't currently suppressing IDs b/c they don't exist in WD yet, so looking at the transclusion list would not be efficient.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fram. I'm sympathetic to the arguments that the normal AC is too bulky to the point of being useless. An attempt to improve relevance on a given article seems, to me, a good thing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

February 22

Template:Round corners


Insufficiently complex to require a template at this time. Izno (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete - can't see why this requires a template. It's easy enough to add the relevant CSS, and thereby allow for customisations (e.g. radius) as needed. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • weak keep, used over 8000 times and much easier to type than the corresponding css, but I would support replacing this with something like {{box|shadow=y|radius=1em|text=...}} and/or banning the use of this in articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    Its uses are almost exclusively outside article space already. Box, among one or two other templates, does indeed exist for the person who wants round corners. Of the 8000, 5000 are in talk spaces, and nearly the entirety of the remaining 3000 are on user pages. This template is similar in sense to others I've recently nominated that can't use the more proper mechanism, which is templatestyles. --Izno (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is an excellent support tool for use in the user namespaces. Lets you type in {{Round corners}} instead of the lengthy inline parameters border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);. That's quite a reduction in complexity, and a substantial convenience, especially for those who can't recall all that from memory (like me), or who do not have time to track down an example for copying and pasting. As this template greatly simplifies adding round corners, especially for new users, please keep. A bonus for having this in template form, is that if the code ever needs to be tweaked, you can do that for all 8400+ pages just by changing the template. Looking at the template's history, we can see that it has been tweaked many times over the years, making having this template well worth it.    — The Transhumanist   12:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

February 16

Template:Members of the First Legislative Yuan


This is a massive template, with only a small fraction of the entries bluelinked. There is no reason to have something this large that does this little. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm in the process of creating articles for around 85 of the people listed (who were the first women MPs in China). They're all valid redlinks as the people in question pass WP:NPOLITICIAN and 575 of them were linked to the articles using {{ill}}, but this has been removed for some reason. The template has a majority of bluelinks. It's fairly common to have these kinds of navigational templates (see e.g. {{Members of the 5th Bundestag}} which also appears to have a majority of redlinks) Number 57 11:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'm happy to userfy until the majority of those pages are created. As per the usual arguments, the existence of one redlink-bloated template isn't a good reason to create another. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Recommend procedural withdraw and replace with wider RFC, without prejudice to re-listing in light of outcome of that RFC on issue of templates like these which are likely to have non-English blue-links available. If I had to take a position on this particular one case, I would say keep, as useful if it has or soon will have inter-language links assuming the 575 links are restored. However, this class of templates - templates which are mostly filled with links that will "always be red in English, not due to notability but due to lack of writers with the interest or the language skills to create a page, or if a page is created, it will be very small compared to the non-English page," should have a wider discussion. As for cases where there likely will NOT ever be inter-language links or English links, I usually prefer list-ification or category-ification. I say "usually" because there are some things, like Nth legislature of the state of Y or Yth parliament of the country of Z, where may of the "Nth" in the series are well-developed, but a few are not. In those cases, for the sake of consistency, I prefer keeping them all in the same format, even if many of the "older" (pre-20th-century?) ones are full of redlinks. As above, I'm also open to a wider RFC on cases like this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    We don't put {{ill}}s in navboxes, and we don't create navboxes that are 90% redlinkes (whether there are 50 or 500 total). Primefac (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    WP:NAV is pertinent. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Surely this should be a list article, eg. List of Members of the First Legislative Yuan. It serves no useful purpose being turned in a vast template, much too large to useful for navigation. Nigej (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment the template is mistaking being complete from being navigation. Just strip the template of all redlinks, and reformat into a single listgroup of the exiting bluelinks. Thus it wil function to navigate between extant articles. Just as how musical band templates only list extant album articles and not every album the band published. -- (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete – This navbox fails several points at WP:NAV. The majority of its links are red and provide no navigational aid; with >800 entries, it's too big. Several links point to a wrong target. It's also malformed, not using hlist properly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: but cut all redlinks template is useful in the quite a few articles it is used in. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with davidwr. We should figure out whether we should link to other languages if it's the best option, especially now that browsers can translate pages as you read them. Now for something else: If it does get kept, some of the subsections should get merged, e.g. the "Frontier Ethnic Groups" section. That would reduce the length, which is definitely a problem. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I would have no problem merging the district rows, so the list appears by province. Number 57 16:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete for size per WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX. A constellation of navboxes might be reasonable from a NAV/NAVBOX perspective to resolve the size concern, but while WP:RED has a consensus that 'actively being worked on' be permitted, I still sit here and say 'what good is this navbox to me (in English, on that point)?' So I also tend toward removal of the redlinks not actively be worked either, should such a constellation be developed. --Izno (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

February 9

Template:Expert needed


As I posted on the talk page in October:

[D]oes this template ever work? It doesn't seem to have a way of actively notifying WikiProjects or other circles where someone who says "Hey, I know a lot about X, let me help" can actually do so. It just sits there in a category. There is a "reason" field, but I never see that used either. I never see people who use this template bring it up on the talk page. It's just a drive-by tag that's slapped on for no reason because an article is underutilized, and it literally never seems to do any good.

For instance, Music of Arkansas has had an "expert" tag since 2012, but the tagger never said anything on the talk page, nor did anyone else. I sampled a whole bunch of uses of this template, and not a single one had anything in the "reason" field, nor any relevant discussion on the talk page. It also doesn't seem like one has to be an "expert" to improve an article[...]It seems that the mere purpose of this template is redundant; in the Music of Arkansas example, {{tone}} and {{reorganize}} seem to do a better job at explaining the issues in the article.

Is this just my confirmation bias, or is this a valid concern? Is there any proof that its use actually helps in any scenario, or is it just 100% prone to drive-by tagging and superfluous to other maintenance tags? I saw the same thing happen with {{expand}} ages ago for much of the same reasons (excessive drive-by tagging, little to no explanation whenever the tag was used, redundancy to other tags).

In short, Is there a way to fix this template and make its presence more prominent to alert users who might actually be experts in the field, or should it just be deprecated?

Everyone involved in the ensuing discussion seemed to have a similar take to mine: that they've never seen it actually result in an article getting improved, that the template itself is prone to drive-by tagging, and that there are far better ways of notifying relevant editors of an article's need for improvement. Even the addition of a "reason" field does not seem to have helped any, as no one ever seems to fill it out (or worse, as on Alcoholic lung disease -- that one had both {{expert needed}} and {{cleanup}}, whose reason field stated "this article needs an expert").

The 2017 MFD, closed as "keep", had similar discussion points:

  • Whatamidoing:

    I've been watching this template on medicine-related articles for much longer than five years, and its actual effect appears to be: absolutely nothing. Outside experts don't edit it, and usually nobody else does, either. I suspect the tag of discouraging some less-than-supremely-confident editors from even trying to improve these articles. There is often no apparent rhyme or reason why the article was tagged, but there is a small tendency to tag "expert needed" when the problem is "the current version of the article doesn't agree with my POV"[...]or "I didn't understand this article, so I'm asking for an expert, even though subject-matter experts often fill articles with incomprehensible jargon"[...]But my main problem is that they just don't work.

  • Nyttend:

    I've never seen improvements resulting from using this template, and while that can't be extrapolated as far as "improvements have never resulted from using this template", I expect I'd be aware of occasional benefits if they exist. This template is about as useful as {{expand}}[...] it says "It would be nice if this article were better" but doesn't give any details, and in fact it's even less useful, because at least "Please help improve this article by expanding it" specifies how to fix the identified problem. This one doesn't even address what's wrong.

Nyttend had previously nominated the template for deletion in 2013 based off the precedent of {{expand}} being deprecated, but that discussion also closed as "keep".

In both cases, most of the "keep" votes were WP:ITSUSEFUL, or vague support like "I've seen it work before", "it's used on a lot of articles" (so was {[tl|expand!), or "it might be useful to someone" without any evidence of the sort. The 2013 TFD suggested making the "reason" field mandatory, but this does not seem to have been implemented, and people are still using it without filling in the "reason" field at all.

tl;dr: The issues dictated in the previous two MFDs still seem to be valid, and have not changed one iota since 2013. With all of the above in mind, plus the precedent established by the deprecation of {{expand}} way back in 2010, I think that this template should be deprecated. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)|1=Expert needed}}

  • Comment: Template:Example doesn't seem to be the template you mean. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate and create new templates There is, in some cases, a genuine need for an expert eye on articles, but Music of Arkansas is definitely not such a case. Rather, certain topic areas are very technical and complex and a non-expert wouldn't even know where to begin. I would suggest a template series, including things like {{expert math}}, {{expert physics}}, {{expert computer science}}, and since these templates would be specific areas, they could have a mechanism for notifying wikiprojects. That said, the existing template uses should not be deleted in mass, but instead any new uses should generate an error message while old uses remain as is (if this is technically feasible). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • That would be a very bad thing, and offer nothing that cannot be done by parameters in a single template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • CommentDelete I agree with what's said above. My impression is that it's often not true that the article/section needs an "expert", it just needs someone to do some work on it. For highly technical subjects it could be appropriate (I'm thinking of something like Hungarians#Ethnic affiliations and genetic origins - a meaningless rag-bag of statements), but even then more specific hatnotes would perhaps be better. Not keen on the template series idea above - I just think we need to stop this template being used inappropriately. Maybe some firm wording - and make the person adding the hatnote look for experts. Sometimes I think that adding hatnotes is just laziness. Nigej (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete As I commented on the talk page when this was first mooted:
    Thinking it might be useful, I've attempted to use it a few times, with a both a reason and discussion on the talk page, but I fear I was wasting my time. One of the instances you deleted earlier today (at Henry Eccles) does have a very good reason posted to the talk page, but it's not been addressed since 2011. At least in its present form I can't see that this template has any utility.
    There have been plenty of suggestions over the years for ways to get the template to actually do something useful, but when the evidence shows that it's failed over a 15 year period it needs to go. I'd also agree with the speculation that it may well be having a negative effect in that it implies to editors that only an expert can deal with whatever problems someone has noticed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and make it work Have a bot post announcements on relevant WikiProject talk pages, and put a note on the editor's talk page saying which WikiProject talk pages it put the bot-notice on and whether those WikiProjects are active, semi-active, or inactive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Davidwr: People have been trying to "make it work" since 2013. The last two MFDs had similar suggestions to yours, but no one has wanted to put in the effort to implement any kind of solution that'll raise this template's profile. It's clear from that big a length of time that no one wants to maintain this. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Consider adding a stipulation that it can be removed if no talk page discussion is started. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing: As many other people have proven in this and the last two TFDs, that would mean removing literally every single instance. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No, not "literally". I took a quick look at articles using the template, and there are absolutely instances where reasons are given. And even if 90% were to be removed, what would be the problem? Wouldn't that make the tag more useful by removing instances where it's unhelpful? I think such a stipulation would be a good idea. Prinsgezinde (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • An aside I work more with categories than templates but I thought I'd add that Wikipedia has dozens of empty categories for articles that need an expert's attention (Category:All expert subject categories). If this template gets deleted, I might see if something should be done about them as well. Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate while occasionally useful, Wikipedia does not rely on expert editors - and there aren't really any experts looking at these queues, making this one of the worst "wishful thinking" cleanup templates. Other templates should generally suffice, with appropriate reason parameters. However, this shouldn't be substituted or deleted until all existing transclusions are evaluated and either removed or converted to a more relevant cleanup template. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I do admit it's often in need of a stated reason, but I would say that about a lot of templates. I don't think that's a very strong reason for deletion. Besides, I still think it calls attention to an important state (one that many articles are in) between "This article is a mess" and "This article is great", somewhere in the range of "This article is okay, but suffers from a range of complex issues". I've often seen it used as "I'm not familiar enough with the topic to be certain, but I'm 90% certain parts of this article are bullshit". In topics like history, it can be very difficult to find out for a layman what 14th century source is or isn't reliable. Same goes for other expert fields. In cases like this, an expert could much more effectively check the quality and reliability of the article. The first problem here is that when you get too specific, an expert will never be found. There are no experts on "Hills in Vermont" on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of experts on Geography. The second problem is that experts aren't typically going to stumble upon these articles, especially since the tag is often added to relatively low profile pages. I'm certain many people add the tag believing this will bring special attention to the page from an expert, and why shouldn't that be made possible? You mention that the template doesn't post to WikiProjects. Why wouldn't this be something that could be done technically? Prinsgezinde (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I can agree with the original reason for suggesting deletion, but I think there is still a need for keeping the template. From what I take out of the responses so far, it says just as much about the use (or lack thereof?) of talk pages and WikiProjects. This template serves a dual purpose; along with improving highly technical articles, this is a resource for (re)building articles out of stubs or start-class status. Does Wikipedia have expert editors? On an official basis, no, since all of us can edit (nearly) any article; in practical terms, this is not true, since we have to take into account the resources, knowledge, and interests that each editor brings here. Unless using source-editing to add this tag, the reason parameter is essentially mandatory, which goes a long way in better justifying its use (answering "Why?" for everyone at a glance). Instead of deleting this outright, this template may be in need of some updating to improve its functionality; this is a discussion for its own talk page, of course. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The last two TFDs have had people suggesting improvements to its functionality. None of these have been implemented except for a "reason" field, which no one ends up using. I have asked for examples of this template providing the intended result and gotten literally zero evidence. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, I would support making the reason field mandatory for new instances between a finite number of possibilities (maybe mapped to wikiprojects?) that add the article to a subject-specific list. That way experts in the field can find them. If there is no mechanism for experts in a particular field to locate articles requiring an expert in their field, then I agree the tag is pretty useless. If there is no technical way to do that or no will, then maybe change them all to {{too technical}} or {{cleanup}}. Jdcooper (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think we can more or less agree that the intention of this template—having someone qualified review and/or rework an article—is a valuable one; the issue is whether its execution and implementation as is actually end up solving those issues, and especially whether there are better ways of making that happen with the other tools we already have.
The biggest issue is that {{Expert needed}} has no effective means of contacting those experts. This seems to be because this template occupies a weird non-committal space between your average cleanup template and a proper workflow—it lacks the specificity and urgency that would accompany something like a request for comment, for example. There are a handful of processes that fulfill a lot of what {{Expert needed}} is trying to do; I'll list the ones that come to mind first (and please feel free to correct/add on after me):
  • Flagging attention=yes on an appropriate WikiProject template on the article's talk page. This is slightly more useful than {{Expert needed}} because it at least theoretically notifies that WikiProject (more like putting a request in the mailbox than dumping it in the driveway), but it has the same issue of "passing the buck" and hoping that someone is monitoring the "needs attention" category. Other issues: it doesn't show up in the article itself (though that could be considered an upside, considering that burying it in the talk page leads to slightly less drive-by tagging), and it doesn't allow for naming a reason (although that's (hopefully) subsumed by discussion on the talk page). It also is supposed to be used "sparingly," but then again so is {{Expert needed}}, so that doesn't mean much for our purposes.
  • Adding a request for comment from an appropriate WikiProject. This has the benefit of actually being tracked by Article Alerts, which means that there's a high chance that someone will actually respond to your query. The issue, of course, is that "query" is the operative word—RFCs are for specific questions and their resolutions, not general issues—and this doesn't end up in the article text itself, either.
  • Submitting the article for peer review. This solicits advice, but from a general audience—not experts in the field.
All this is to say that this template is trying to handle quite a few things at once, in subsuming both general verification and RFC-lite, and without any of the multi-step parts that make those less prone to the sort of spamming and stagnation that this one is. You can make the argument that {{Expert needed}} occupies a unique niche amongst these other processes; you can just as easily make the argument that it doesn't—what's most important, though, is that at the very least we know exactly what we're losing.
The main unanswered question, then, is simple: in deprecating this template, what would take its place?
LogStar100 (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I saw this TfD from the template in Linearized gravity. It's been there for 12 years. Clearly it didn't work. Tercer (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The template has been placed without clear action to follow. Not working. JohnThorne (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate in favor of Template:Disputed and cleanup templates. fgnievinski (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although many of these templates have been on articles for a long time, it does have a good reason, because someone who is an expert on one of the subjects might see it as they are reading a page, and edit the article because of it, when they easily might not notice there is any problem at all if the template isn't there. This isn't really able to be measured, and probably happens a lot. Many other templates also don't have descriptions on the talk pages, so that isn't unique to this one. I don't see a real need to get rid of this now. Eric Schiefelbein (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You're just restating what the template is supposed to be for but ignoring its inherent flaws. It was on an article for twelve years where nothing happened. I get that there is no deadline, but that doesn't mean that maintenance templates can just sit gathering dust forever like this. I have seen zero evidence of any so-called "experts" coming to rescue an article, and no one has ever been able to come forth with a single instance of this template serving its intended purpose. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. For anyone who's on the fence about this one, I implore you to compare the current set of articles using the template and the historical backlog (WikiBlame to see when the template was removed), because it is painful. Stuff like Arizona Stadium (inexplicably) is the most notable, but most of it is just removal because of how vague and unhelpful it ends up being—let alone the fact that in actuality it means "soft rewrite, but I don't want to do it." I can't think of any circumstances where this template isn't superseded by one of the myriad other better ways of soliciting help. –LogStar100 (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the help of an expert is needed, it will be apparent to the expert, almost by definition. So it's not just that it doesn't serve any purpose. But it also cannot serve any purpose. It's had its time in the sun. It's had its chances; people have tried to improve it. Please remove it. Run to the hills! (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • On the rare occasions where I've encountered this template, my impression has been that a major aspect of its function is to inform readers. Its message is fundamentally "This article treats its subject matter in a superficial way, and it may outright misrepresent it." The implication of this template for editors is that the problems of the article aren't reducible to issues of completeness or sourcing, and that they aren't fixable in a day spent thumbing through textbooks. What other templates are there that convey the same message? – Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Uanfala: Template:Disputed, Template:Confusing, Template:Technical, etc. fgnievinski (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'm struggling to see any sort of overlap – even partial – between Template:exert needed and these templates: the last two indicate issues with style, while Template:Disputed is used, according to its documentation, when an article's truth or factual nature is in dispute. There are many disputes that can be resolved without any special expertise (e.g. by simply looking up a reference work), and conversely, the sort of issued flagged up as needing expert input don't necessarily involve disputes, and only very rarely boil down to a simple problem with factual accuracy. – Uanfala (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    You said: Its message is fundamentally "This article treats its subject matter in a superficial way, and it may outright misrepresent it." Misrepresention allegations are synonym to content dispute, no? And for allegations of superficiality, there's Template:Missing information. fgnievinski (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Template:Missing information is used when there are concrete gaps in an article's coverage, not when the coverage is present but it's superficial and not sufficiently informed by the literature on the subject. – Uanfala (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete . I don't think you need to be a expert to edit a article. Second, there are a lot of people trying to improve it. We don't need to be a expert to edit Wikipedia. Larry Z Contact me my edits 22:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. If a article needs expert attention then the expert should go through proper channels like the respective WikiProject or through other templates like Cleanup/Disputed in addition experts will find which articles need their attention in relation to the existing templates regarding quality of articles. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia would be a very different place if we had expert editors like this template is calling for. Whether better or worse is a good question. But we don't, partially because of what happened with Essjay 14 years ago. And we're never going to, in this iteration of the project anyway. On that basis, the template has to go. ◦ Trey Maturin 18:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless. Action is never or hardly ever taken on it. (I say "hardly ever" just because one should "never say never".) Kill it. Lou Sander (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete serves no purpose other than to put off likely editors who feel that they are not the called-for expert. and as per other comments is a very vague tag and as mentioned above wikipedia is not for expert editors.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm leaving aside the perceived failure of this template to attract editor attention (and isn't that a problem with most content-related maintenance templates anyway?). The real issue is that it's used to flag up a serious problem with an article's content, and one that is addressed to the readers first and foremost – removing this template from any of the 4,300 articles it's used on is completely out of the question. Replacing it with another template wouldn't work either, as there don't seem to be any that come close. Changing the template's wording may, however, be an option – its message can easily be rephrased to avoid the taboo word "expert", or to give a clearer statement of the article's failings. – Uanfala (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do agree that it currently lacks effectiveness, but as Prinsgezinde mentioned there indeed are a lot of things that can really only be described as "it's clearly bad but I don't have enough time to find out how" in the site. I recommend making |reason= mandatory just like what's already been done with {{cleanup}}. --Artoria2e5 🌉 09:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. We already have other templates for the vague "someone should do something here" that do not imply you need to be an expert to do it. This is Wikipedia, after all. Zarasophos (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Drive-by tagging is problematic because it is useless if we don't know why it needs "expert attention". For the less technical topics, Google Scholar will work as long as you have at least an undergraduate-level understanding of the subject, and overly-technical articles already have their own tag for when we do need an "expert" to clarify the article; {{Disputed}}, {{Confusing}}, and {{Missing information}} are likely to be useful as well. I've got a feeling that nobody is trying to process these tags... –LaundryPizza03 (d) 08:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Many of the most unsuitable tags do date back 10 years and more. See eg Barnard Stadium (from 2009) which apparently "needs attention from an expert in Rugby union or South Africa". Nigej (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete except where reason is set. All articles not assessed as being "good" or above should in an ideal world get attention from an expert, but orange banners everywhere won't make that any faster. Tagging articles ad hoc as needing attention is superfluous; it's not a proper triage system to find the articles most in need. OTOH if someone has written in a reason then the template should be substed onto the page so it can still be acted upon. User:GKFXtalk 17:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Pause I think there is room for more creative solutions, rather than the one-size-fits-all choice of deletion/keep. I looked in one of my areas of interest and found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics#Things_to_do which lists on its third line "Apply your expert knowledge to improve an article Category:Mathematics articles needing expert attention" There I found over 160 articles, many with specific concerns raised. I don't think all that information should be thrown out. On the other hand I would agree with removing tags with no further information and more than a couple of years old, if there is a way to do that. We could also encourage other projects to adopt some existing expert needed categories like Mathematics has. Is there a tool that would list the number of items in such categories so the backlog might be more apparent? The total number of articles tagged Expert needed is small enough for a concerted cleanup project. Let's give this some more thought.--agr (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps it does just need a massive purge. eg Boy, List of newspapers in Canada "The specific problem is: Canada doesn't have just one faith-based newspaper, right?" Ice hockey in Bosnia and Herzegovina "The specific problem is: inadequate content on the historical and cultural aspects of the subject". The question is whether that really solves the fundamental problems - it's too easy to tag and nothing ever happens. Nigej (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, cleaning up questionable existing uses of the template is definitely a good idea. On List of newspapers in Canada, for example, it should probably be replaced with something like {{expand list}}. Ice hockey in Bosnia and Herzegovina could simply have all its maintenance templates removed: it's a stub, so these problems are obvious without banners at the top. Boy, on the other hand, looks like a good use – the placement of the template in April 2019 was accompanied by a talk page post which triggered a series of discussions, touching on the very point of the article's existence. – Uanfala (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The trouble with the Boy example is that it although there was a general discussion, it's not obvious that it did get edited by an expert, and now the tag is simply a reminder of that discussion, serving no useful purpose. Seems to indicate that perhaps there needs to be a time aspect to the tag. Delete after x months but let it be readded. We need to force the tagger to do some work. Nigej (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Well, Boy is probably not the clearest example, as the tag is used in conjunction with other tags (for completeness and style). Still, setting an expiry date on the template is, in my opinion, a solid no-no. The template is not a time-limited request for assistance (at least it's not just that), it primarily signals to readers that something substantial is off in the article's content. This sort of message shouldn't be removed until and unless the issue has been resolved (WP:DETAG). Would we ever dream of automatically removing {{unsourced}} or {{POV}} from articles that have remained unsourced or one-sided after x months? – Uanfala (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm of the view that leaving large numbers of inappropriate "expert" tags around, because there's a chance we might delete an appropriate one, a much worse approach. Some sort of review is needed when the tag is added and then at intervals thereafter. And if people are not prepared to do that, it should be removed. Nigej (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • keep but update the template. Updated template shouldn't work without "reason=" parameter, and at least one wikiproject. The mentioned wikiproject should either be notified, or there should be an automated list displaying the articles with the tag. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just came here from an article that did have the reason set, and even in that case I feel it wasn't specific enough to be actionable. How is it intended to encourage experts to make an edit? If someone is reading about a subject they are an expert on, they won't need a tag to tell them it is rubbish. If categorization is the goal, then a category without a tag accomplishes that (though cleanup categories are their own kind of disaster). If a non-expert sees the tag, is there a desire to have them take some kind of action? Seems to me the only effect it might have is to act as a "someone at one point thought this article was crap" warning. I will admit that I come at this with the opinion that most other cleanup tags are not helpful and should be deleted, though this one is worse than most. — RockMFR 14:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and update the template. I agree that the updated template shouldn't work without "reason=" parameter, and at least one wikiproject. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm the notorious drive-by flagman. But I think this behaviour is widely underrated. I'm able to contribute as much as I do mainly because I actually use Wikipedia heavily in my own research; I'm never at Wikipedia for Wikipedia, but for myself first of all. And that's a good thing, because I'm using Wikipedia while scratching a real itch and it puts one into an entirely different mindset about what issues need resolution in the here and now. As they say, with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. Except that didn't always turn out to be true. But there is a strong analogy, and it does work here: with enough orthogonal agendas, most problems will finally come to light. I'm big into comparative advantage. There's no point in me fixing what any other editor might notice. There is a point in my addressing what only I am happening to notice, because my present mission has just rubbed my nose into it. In the large, my mission is to build a giant map of all the knowledge I need to integrate together according to my particular vantage point on how systems theory plays out in the modern world. Well, systems theory is found everywhere, and therefore so am I. I'm depressingly well travelled, almost to the point of self-mockery.
Generally I'm mainly trying to use the Wikipedia leads to establish my coordinate system, so the majority of my edits address problems with the lead. But I often come across sorry articles in a terrible state of affairs, and when I can, I try to break the back of what's preventing other editors from chipping in. Some articles are in such a sorry state, the casual editor simply doesn't know where to begin. There are those here who believe that all editor projects begin by starting a homestead on the talk page. Yeah, no. If I did that I would soon be a citizen of Wikipedia, and unemployed in the real world. A wizard arrives exactly when he means to, and then he buggers off ASAP. Maybe I launch a couple of fireworks with my bushy eyebrows to delight the children, but then I'm off to the next page. I do some of my "back breaking" work because I can (there's the comparative advantage term kicking into action). Because I have actively engaged with with ten of thousands of Wikipedia leads, I know a right proper mess when I see one. I didn't pick that number "tens of thousands" out of the air. I maintain my own personal wiki, where I often copy key sentences from Wikipedia leads into what amounts to a shadow wiki. Today I have 24,974 pages in my personal wiki invoking template:Wikipedia, which is what I do to mark the page as a shadow page to (usually) the same page name on Wikipedia.
Sometimes I come across pages where I would like to break the back of the existing gridlock, but I simply can't, because I can't even fake knowing enough to not potentially make the situation worse. For these I often slap on an "expert needed" template, always with a reason, rarely with an associated talk entry. I'm not trying to justify my behaviour, I'm merely offering up honest description. Just in my last 1500 edits or so here on Wikipedia (less than two years most likely), I see edit comments about my use of the "expert" templates on the following articles:
I'm not here to advocate that my judgement is generally steady and sound. On the contrary, my wiki travails continue morning, noon, and night, come rain, sleet, or snow. But I do generally try to do mostly the right thing while passing through. 25,000 pages actively pillaged (countless more visited without the T-shirt), and the six above pages had me entirely stumped as to how to fix the central problem. I think there's a tremendous amount of non-survivorship bias at play in this discussion. The whole point of expert needed is that some pages become mired in non-productive quagmires and that you really do need to pass the torch to some future editor—quite possibly some long future editor, because we don't actually compel participation (though we grind hard on people for not homesteading on the talk pages). You can make these templates go away, but you can't make the underlying problem go away. Think about it. The reason= default text could easily be "this foe is beyond my powers", aka I'm not the right wizard for this mission, aka this ain't my particular Balrog. Without delving into my particular wizardly powers, what I can say at least is that I have impressively bushy browwicks, and generally my browwicks don't sag unless the "wizard wanted" sign is one for the ages.
I've finish off by saying something about "expertise" in general. I've read two book in over the past two years on the subject: The Death of Expertise (2017) and Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren't the Facts (2012). I don't recall these books clearly now, but the general tenor was that expertise is a complicated construct. Remember how we forked off that otherpedia that never found its wings? It was all about toeing the line of traditional expertise and authority. I think the real problem is that few people want to ride into the fray under the banner of "expert for general hire". And we don't actually need a true expert, what we actually need is someone who is sufficiently immersed in the topic area to be fluent in snipping the right colour wire, so as to put the article back on its feet again, when no-one else dares to pick up the wire cutters; I'm rarely trying to summon an actual "expert" so much as an ecosystem appropriate Crocodile Dundee. G'day mate! Crikeys, this page is a right mess. Toss me a shrimp on the barbie—actually a prawn, but he's not sure we're not American—while I snip a few of the worst wires and trim a few of the worst barbs in this soupy brier patch. If it were up to me I'd rename these template pages "Crocodile needed" and be done with it. Taht's the real problem here, IMHO: we're trying to summon an Oxford bow tie (see The Russia House (film)) when what we actually need is a Bowie knife.
Meanwhile, the bullhorn itself is not the problem. It mainly needs to be pointed better; and even then don't expect miracles, because many of the pages this gets slapped onto are legitimately hurting units. Are you thinking that if we eliminate these templates, people who are now doing template drive-bys are suddenly going to start homesteading on the talk pages and really finally at lost last roll up their sleeves to fix the problem? If so, I respectfully submit that you're completely off your rocker. This whole expert-needed mechanism is orthogonal to homesteader culture, and not in the least antithetical. Just my long-winded two cents. — MaxEnt 21:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
You should consider making a TLDR summary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
You mean you can't understand "This whole expert-needed mechanism is orthogonal to homesteader culture, and not in the least antithetical."? Me neither. I'm a "brevity is the soul of wit" man myself. Nigej (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very discouraging to new/non-expert editors. Articles with the tag almost never get proper attention with the template and simply scares people away from editing articles in need of attention. Wretchskull (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete tagging seems to be completely arbitrary. Any article would theoretically benefit from an "expert" on the topic. This template does not help in any way to attract these experts or help other editors. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no persuasive reason to remove this. It's perceived failure to attract attention doesn't seem a good reason to me - that's a sign that people ought to be more familiarized with it, not that it should be removed. Besides, the same argument could be made for virtually any template about the needs of an article, yet I don't think anyone would want to remove them all. Second, the notion that it scares off editors is not a concern to me. If an editor does not possess expert knowledge when it is required, then it's good that they don't edit. If someone possesses expert knowledge, they won't be scared off. If the template was improperly applied then I trust that anyone with enough knowledge to contribute to the article would realize this. --Karlshammar (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - can attract COI editors and say they are experts on the subject. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This does look like it's heading toward "delete" or at least "deprecate". Those saying "keep" are calling for improvements that were suggested in the last two TFDs (e.g. making the "reason" field mandatory, notifying WikiProjects) but never implemented then either, which shows a clear lack of interest in maintenance. (Nor do I see how notifying WikiProjects would help; I post on WikiProject talk pages all the time and not once have I ever gotten a response.) So far, not a single person suggesting "keep" has shown any evidence that the template has ever carried out its intended purpose, while many people saying "delete" have shown evidence that it has not. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • If you're looking at the raw vote count, yeah – more people want it deleted. But that's overlooking the fact that pretty much none of the serious concerns raised by the "keep" comments have been addressed. – Uanfala (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the point of the comment is that the main (or perhaps only) argument of the "keeps" is that it could be turned into something useful, but based on previous evidence that won't happen. Surely it's up to keeps to show that something will happen this time. Nigej (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Completed discussions[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.


There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions[edit]

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


Param mapping
    mapping = {
        # Header / misc
        'boxtype' => nil, # only support boxtype = 'locomotive'
        'Farbe1' => nil, # color
        'Farbe2' => nil, # color
        'Baureihe' => 'name',
        'Abbildung' => 'image',
        'Name' => 'caption',

        # General
        'Nummerierung' => '', # "Number(s) allocated to the vehicle(s)"
        'Hersteller' => 'builder',
        'Baujahre' => 'builddate',
        'Indienststellung' => 'firstrundate',
        'Ausmusterung' => 'retiredate',
        'Anzahl' => 'totalproduction',
        'Wheel arrangement' => 'whytetype | aarwheels', # ambiguous? which one is it?
        'Achsformel' => '', # same as above
        'Gattung' => '', # some form of class (eg "S 37.19")
        'Spurweite' => 'gauge',
        'Höchstgeschwindigkeit' => 'maxspeed',

        # Wheels (should wheelbase sub-params be used in [[Template:Infobox locomotive]]?)
        'Laufraddurchmesser vorn' => 'leadingdiameter',
        'Laufraddurchmesser hinten' => 'trailingdiameter',
        'Laufraddurchmesser außen' => '', # Outer carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives
        'Laufraddurchmesser innen' => '', # Inner carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives
        'Laufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'Treibraddurchmesser' => 'driverdiameter',

        # Weight, dimensions and Axles
        'Leermasse' => 'locoweight', # "Total weight of vehicle when empty"
        'Dienstmasse' => 'tenderweight',
        'Reibungsmasse' => 'weightondrivers',
        'Radsatzfahrmasse' => 'axleload',
        'Höhe' => 'height',
        'Breite' => 'width',

        # Steam traction / cylinders
        'Zylinderanzahl' => 'cylindercount',
        'Zylinderdurchmesser' => 'cylindersize',
        'Kolbenhub' => '', # "[[Piston stroke]] - I think current template requires this to be <br>'d onto cyclindercount, if so, that should probably be changed in template"
        'Heizrohrlänge' => '', # Heating tube length. totalsurface/tubearea is provided, but this is an area, not a length?
        'Rostfläche' => '', # "Grate area"
        'Strahlungsheizfläche' => '', # "Radiative heating area, Firebox + combustion chamber"
        'Überhitzerfläche' => '', # Superheater area
        'Verdampfungsheizfläche' => '', # Evaporative heating area, Firebox heating area + combustion chamber + heating tubes + smoke tubes (total heating area)

        # Misc
        'Steuerungsart' => 'valvegear',
        'Tenderbauart' => '', # Tender
        'Wasser' => 'watercap',
        'Brennstoff' => 'fueltype + fuelcap', # in practice, may solely be 'fuelcap'
        'Lokbremse' => 'locobrakes',
        'Bremsen' => 'trainbrakes',

        # Undocumented
        'VorneLaufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'HintenLaufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'LängeÜberPuffer' => 'length/over bufferbeams', # ?
        'Kesseldruck' => 'boilerpressure',
        'AnzahlHeizrohre' => '',
        'AnzahlRauchrohre' => '',
        'IndizierteLeistung' => '',
        'HDZylinderdurchmesser' => '',
        'NDZylinderdurchmesser' => ''
Parameter comparison
Infobox reality talent
competition parameter
Infobox reality competition
season parameter
Result from the merge
(Infobox television season parameter)
Delete (unnecessary)
logo image Rename to image
logo_size image_size Rename to image_size
image_alt Keep (change any uses of logo_alt to image_alt)
caption caption Keep
season season_number
(Infobox television season parameter)
Delete (unnecessary)
N/A Delete
aired released
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename to released
first_aired first_aired
(Infobox television season parameter)
last_aired last_aired
(Infobox television season parameter)
judges Keep (change any use of "judge" to "judges")
coaches N/A New parameter, merge over
presenter Keep (change any use of "presenters" to "presenter")
host host Keep
copresenter N/A Delete, merge content to "presenter"
cohost N/A Delete, merge content to "host"
broadcaster network
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename to network
competitors num_contestants Rename to num_contestants
N/A New parameter, merge over
country country
(Infobox television season parameter)
num_tasks num_tasks Keep
runtime N/A Delete, unnecessary
num_episodes num_episodes
(Infobox television season parameter)
website website
(Infobox television season parameter)
winner-name winner Rename to winner
image N/A Delete (this one is for the winner image)
winner-origin N/A Delete, unnecessary
winner-song N/A Delete, unnecessary
winner-genre N/A Delete, unnecessary
N/A Keep, rename to winner_mentor, winner_coach
runner-name runner_up Rename to runner_up
last prev_season
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename (but may not be required)
next next_season
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename (but may not be required)
N/A Delete, unnecessary
Template updated with the new parameters, just need to convert old uses now. --Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Soon as my other bot run finishes I'll get on it. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thank you! Let myself or Gonnym know if you have any questions. I hope my table above will be useful in figuring out what needs to be kept, replaced, or outright deleted. And as Gonnym said, the new parameters are all ready to go once the merge has been made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll have to re-think the usage of the bot, though... {{Infobox reality talent competition}} is an infobox proper, while {{Infobox reality competition season}} is designed as a child/subbox. Some might be easy enough to convert into an {{infobox television}} usage, such as at Singapore Idol, but in places like World Idol it will need merging into the main IB. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Correct. Whatever had {{Infobox reality talent competition}} will ultimately now need to have {{Infobox television season}} as the infobox proper, and the {{Infobox reality competition season}} as a child/subbox through |module1=. If I can help define or clarify anything for you to help you with the bot, let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Doing... TheTVExpert (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've written some regex for AWB but my problem is that I don't know how (or even if it's possible) to set a whole row as a conditional check. Currently this fails if the template isn't written in this exact order. Any ideas? @Primefac: have any ideas?

Find: \{\{Infobox reality talent competition\n.*\|.*name.*=.*\n.*\|.*logo.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*logo_alt.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*first_aired.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*last_aired.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*judges.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*coaches.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*host.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*cohost.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*broadcaster.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*competitors.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*finalsvenue.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*num_tasks.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*image.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*caption.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-name .*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-origin.*=\s?(.*)\n\|winner-genre.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-song.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*runner-name.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*runner-image.*=\s?(.*)\n\}\}

Replace: {{Infobox television season\n| image = $1\n| image_alt = $2\n| module1 = {{Infobox reality competition season \n | host = $7\n | judges = $5\n | num_contestants = $10\n | winner = $15\n | runner_up = $19\n}}\n| network = $9\n| first_aired = $3\n| last_aired = $4\n}} --Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oof, that's a bit nuts. I'll try to dig into that regex soon, but I'm starting to think that using an AWB module to save, store, and modify those parameters to convert the template use might be the best way forward. The other thing we should probably do is find out where the template is used alongside {{infobox television}}, since we shouldn't convert it to "season" if that's there (instead, just folding it in). Primefac (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym and Primefac: maybe an oversimplification, but since {{Infobox reality talent competition}} is now converted into a full wrapper, can't we just subst it? (after cleaning it up for subst, ofc)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Template substitution isn't my strong side so if you know how to do it, then I'm all for it. --Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I know how to turn it into a subst-able wrapper, however I don't know how if it achieves the acceptable results here. Primefac has looked at specific cases above it seems, so he may be better placed than me to answer that part. But if it works, that makes achieving the merge easier than regex-hell. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
In a word, yes; I think cleaning up post-merge will be easier than all of the complex silliness above. I'll put it on my list of things to do. Right after I make my list of things to do... Primefac (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym and Favre1fan93: I've made a substable wrapper in the sandbox based on your wrapper. Go to any transclusion, plug a /sandbox on the end (or change to {{Infobox reality talent competition/sandbox}} if it's using a redirect) and preview. This should be how it looked pre-wrapper. Then chuck a subst: in front and preview, and this is how it'd look being substed. By my eye, testing on a couple of pages, this all looks correct, however the winner's national origin isn't being mapped in the wrapper (Gonnym?). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: is there consensus to remove the various parameters removed in the current wrapper? See eg pages in Category:Pages using infobox reality talent competition with unknown parameters, for example The X Factor (British series 11) when previewed with the sandbox version (which will show the old template v before your wrapper convert). It seems like many labels missing? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Navigation templates[edit]

Link templates[edit]


2020 February 1Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • At this point this is ready for large scale replacement. I said a while ago that I could do it but due to me being quite busy IRL this seems unlikely to get done in a timely manner. If you feel like doing a large scale replacement job feel free to take this one. --Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Trialpears, what large-scale replacement? I (foolishly?) jumped into this rabbit hole, and have been in it for over a day now. This is a very complex merge; I've got the documentation diff to show fewer differences, but there's still more to be done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


To convert[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) 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).

  • None currently

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. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices[edit]