Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/All current discussions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Current discussions

[edit]

November 30

[edit]

Template:Template for rename

[edit]

I don't see prospective use for this entrypoint because WP:TFD specifically is only for deletions and merges, not renames, which should be carried out with {{requested move}}. Thus it is not helpful to have this template here. Awesome Aasim 19:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2025 Kolkata Knight Riders squad

[edit]

Squad list is featured on the main article as part of the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline of Arizona history navbar

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. This single-article TOC template was used until its article was merged as redundant. It is no longer useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman glyph

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2014. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orbada version

[edit]

No transclusions. This is a software version template for an article that was deleted and for software that was removed from the list page. It is no longer useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Ironman Heavymetalweight Champions/intro

[edit]

This is unused article content that appears to be usable only on List of Ironman Heavymetalweight Champions (2000–2009). – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Articles with wikipuffery progress

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this category tracking template is no longer useful after this merge of {{puffery}} into {{promotional}}, per this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject Washington Commanders

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Washington Commanders with Template:WikiProject National Football League.
Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Washington Commanders subproject is a subproject of WP:WikiProject National Football League so the subproject should be added the parent template and usages replaced. Gonnym (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major Special Characters

[edit]

Unused duplicate of {{contains special characters}}. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was literally just about to put it on a page Washweans (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which page? And why can't the preexisting template be used instead? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dont give me that sass. the preexisting one makes it seem sometimes that "oh ok yeah just like a few characters" it's not an actual warning. Washweans (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Washweans perhaps you could propose a change on the old templates talk page rather than making an entirely new template. Also Delete per nominator and for reasons already discussed on Washwean's talk page. Gaismagorm (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – we don't need a different template to tell readers that there are "extreme amounts of special characters". It's an informative message, not a warning, and the information we need to convey doesn't depend on how many special characters are used. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two templates are not the same. {{Contains special characters}} is for characters that need font support, while this is just a "this article uses a lot of non-English characters". So what? What issue does that identify? Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deprecated stub

[edit]

No transclusions. There is limited discussion linking to this template, most of which is from 2010, when it was created. I don't know if it was ever used, or just transcluded in one place until recently, when it showed up on the unused template reports.

It may be redundant to {{Deprecated template}}.

If it is used only sometimes, it should have {{transclusionless}} added to its documentation, with an explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not entirely redundant to {{Deprecated template}}. It's always substituted rather than transcluded, and is only used rarely. Not sure how many stub templates it currently (or ever) been used on, but deprecated stub templates are usually cleared quickly and either deleted or redirected. Don't think losing it will cause much problem. Originally it was made because a few parent stub types were regularly sorted out (e.g., {{geo-stub}} to all its by-country children), and someone who didn't know how stubbinng worked would nominate the emptied template for deletion. I think there are other templates that will stop that happening though. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure there is even reason to merge anything if the usage is so low. It's also not setup as a subst only template so I don't think that statement is correct. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Egyptian royal family

[edit]

Page contains less than five people, all of whom are closely related and would already be linked together, limiting its usefulness. 2601:249:9301:D570:9061:13F5:EDBD:C800 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a bottom navigation template, which takes less visible space. Remove non-links. This has enough links for a viable navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CURRENTCENTURY

[edit]

This could easily be manually updated by hand since centuries only change every 100 years, and I don't even think Wikipedia will last that long. If it somehow does the current century can easily be changed. TheWikipedetalk 16:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 00:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – it seems marginally more useful than {{CURRENTMILLENNIUM}} (which was deleted three years ago), since there's a nonzero chance that Wikipedia templates will still be around in some form in 75 years. As Jonesey said, it's also more self-documenting. As for "manually updating by hand", @MouseCursor:
  • Are you proposing to just edit the template to hard-code the current century? Then TfD isn't really the place to propose that. Start a discussion on its talk page, or be bold.
  • Are you proposing to subst and delete the template? Then it couldn't easily be changed anymore!
jlwoodwa (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jonesey95 & no reason to make it harder to update the century. Just set it and forget it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 29

[edit]

Template:CompetitionRecordSemifinalist

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commons license reviewer topicon

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GIMP user topicon

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 under G7. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, or documentation. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G7. -ZhaoFJx(Talk) 00:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:GHSA Class AAAAAAA

[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions, no blue links, and no main article. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
these GHSA navboxes are for local high school athletics in the US State of Georgia. The athletic governing body eliminated their 7A bracket, but it is possible they may bring it back. I would recommend keeping these navboxes in case that happens. EmperorKen (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Tom Humphries

[edit]

DS editnotice blanked in 2021 with the summary "Case not ongoing anymore". No longer used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Ireland

[edit]

Blank editnotices created as a test and later blanked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Pole

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G3 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains no useful template content. AusLondonder (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as vandalism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cv-unsure

[edit]

Deprecated and no longer used. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should be used instead if a copyright violation is likely but not able to be confirmed? Traumnovelle (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We don't fish for copyvio; it should be tagged with {{copypaste}} and if nothing can be proven then the tag removed. Half the time we just removed the content as unencyclopedic or unsourced, which should have been done regardless. Wikipedia decided to not to have precautionary principle and takes up too much time and effort for us folks at Copyright problems to be reasonably expected. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that this discussion (Is {{cv-unsure}} useful to you?), while not high participation, has one of the more active copyproblems admins pointing out its current redundancy, Special:Diff/1256073496 hasn't been challenged, and we've been trying to clear this category for over two years. I've notified CP talk of this discussion. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abigail Adams Smith Family tree

[edit]

Unused and only two links for the family tree. None of the other members have articles and possible they are not notable. Not much use for a template to navigate with. And there is only one Adams family article that is related to this, but it's mainly about the political family of former President John Adams and John Quincy Adams. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greater Lansing Activities Conference

[edit]

Unused and a navbox for a defunct conference. No use here. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 28

[edit]

Template:Rollback and reviewer granted

[edit]

How often are people getting both of these rights at the same time? I don't see why we should have a template specifically for this instead of just using {{Rollback granted}} and {{Pending changes reviewer granted}} separately. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – these are "thematically related", so I can see why the template was created, but I don't think that outweighs the costs of duplicating templates. If this could be reimplemented as a "thin wrapper" around {{rollback granted}} and {{pending changes reviewer granted}}, I'd support keeping it. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 27

[edit]

Template:2025 road cycling season by team

[edit]

No links at all. Not 2025 yet. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yukiyo Teramoto

[edit]

Unused and no mainspace for filmmaker. A draft exists but unlikely to meet notability standards anytime soon. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Politics of Bremen

[edit]

Unused, no mainspace, contains irrelevant links, or links to general politics topics about Germany instead of Bremen, and huge blocks of text for the Judiciary section. No use here. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wilmington Radio

[edit]

Templates in use for Delaware and North Carolina radio markets; unsure where this more ambiguous template would be used Kawa (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GUAM Leaders

[edit]

GUAM is an inactive organization. It simply doesn't matter today. It is not talked about in the news. Countries in it have diverging geopolitical priorities. I don't think we need this navbox listing four people, some of which haven't really ever interacted with this organization since they took office, I can't see much use for it. And the bottom of the articles of Maia Sandu, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ilham Aliyev are already bloated with enough navboxes. Super Ψ Dro 12:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railway accidents and incidents in 1972

[edit]

Unused copy/paste without attribution duplicate of Template:1972 railway accidents, Template:1973 railway accidents, Template:1974 railway accidents, Template:1975 railway accidents, Template:1976 railway accidents, Template:1977 railway accidents, and Template:1978 railway accidents . Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – 'Railway accidents and incidents in xxxx' is the format currently accepted within Wikiproject Trains for these templates, as opposed to the old 'xxxx railway accidents' format. However, all existing 'Railway accidents and incidents in xxxx' (about forty of them, from 1972 to 2022 or so) were erroneously created as copy-paste from the old templates, instead of the old templates being moved to the new title. I'm not sure what's the best way to tidy this up. All years before 1972 will now be done the proper way; for later years' templates I suppose some admin action is required to sort them out. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    History merge is needed for those that aren't tagged here. These can be deleted and then the current one moved. Gonnym (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not that the template content is the same between old and new templates (I'm talking about template years 1979-2022): the content has been reformatted to make it neater and more legible, which was the main idea behind the migration from the old style templates to the new ones. The content of the new templates should be preserved; only the histories should be merged. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, including history where possible. See also User talk:The Emperor of Byzantium#Railway accidents and incidents in 1979. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the new ones, which have no significant history. If there is a new consensus name, the existing templates can be moved to the new name(s). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not that simple, it's not just a case of WP:CUTPASTE: the old template's content was reformatted and then put into the new templates, giving a neater and more legible layout based on the {{vad}} template. Deleting the new templates would wipe out a lot of good reformatting work that was indeed backed by project consensus on both the new template's name and its new layout. I'd be happy to do the work required to sort out this cock-up (since I did most of the aforementioned reformatting work), although I'm not an admin (nor do I aspire to become one), so I'm a bit limited in what I can help with. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – To clarify the work that was done here: compare the old template for the year 2002 with the new one. It's not just that the name has changed; the content is significantly different (and is laid out in a much improved format in the new template). Any action intended to restore the full template history should ensure that the current content is preserved. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cinema chains in Canada

[edit]

Navbox template with only one item in it. As always, the purpose of navboxes is to navigate between related articles, so a navbox serves no purpose if there's only one thing in it. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The related category has more entries, but it's neither's the nominator's or other editors' job, to fix or transclude navigation templates that the creator of the template didn't care enough to do. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as I've already voted): one article is still showing that this template isn't wanted. The onus on adding transclusions should be those wanting to keep the navbox. Either the navbox is useful on all of the links it has, or it isn't (WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). Gonnym (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now on 16 articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikispecies redirect

[edit]

I start from the philosophical perspective that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we should therefore make use of the sister projects when they help us build a better encyclopedia, but that otherwise we should give them no special preference over any other content anywhere else on the internet.

This template was boldly created in 2017 without a larger discussion (or at least nothing was mentioned in the edit summaries). It takes a similar form to the much more widely used {{Wiktionary redirect}}. However, unlike Wiktionary redirect, which helps us provide information readers searching for terms that would never warrant an article, Wikispecies redirect functions more like a loophole in our notability guideline. The vast majority of its uses are for biologists that would not be notable for an article.

We have notability standards to constrain the size of the encyclopedia and reduce the maintenance burden, and I do not see a reason that we should carve out an exception for biologists just because our parent organization also happens to run a non-encyclopedia project that — unlike us — finds it appropriate to create a database of biologists. Such an exception opens some floodgates: If the WMF created, say, a Wikipaintings project that had a database of all visual artists without a notability bar, would we want soft redirects there? How about soft redirects to any concept with a Wikidata item? Or let's say we find a highly reliable non-WMF database of musicians — why not create soft redirects there for all musicians that can't survive AfD?

Either a biologist is notable and should have an article, or they are not and should not be included in Wikipedia. The only redirect in the latter case should be "go search the internet". Sdkb talk 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. See, for example, this deletion discussion; there were no uses or foreseen uses, so the template was deleted. Should the community decide that a link to meta was necessary, it would likely be restored. This is an example of it going the other way. Even if the regular soft redirect template was technically disallowed from being invoked into the mainspace, attempts at it would lead to disarray -- at the bare minimum, this serves to plug such holes until the community makes a decision about retention or deletion.
We must also remember that the general rule for the creation of a soft sister redirect is for a topic to have a less-than-encyclopedic scope and be either commonly wikified words or repeatedly recreated (WP:SRD and Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project). At least some of the scientist soft redirects that use this template probably have several wikilinks on other pages in the encyclopedia (but, regardless, that is an individual case matter for rfd). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. This is a discussion venue, and I'm using it to start a discussion about whether this template should exist or not. Sdkb talk 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Wrong venue. Nominate the redirects that use this at RfD, not the template. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery, my argument is that this template has no valid use case, so this is the intended venue. Sdkb talk 05:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is fundamentally about the merits of redirects, not templates. Suppose this were closed as delete. The template couldn't be deleted without orphaning it. The redirects that use the template couldn't be deleted without a discussion at RfD since TfD has no authority to delete redirects (other than those pointing to templates it deletes). So what would happen? * Pppery * it has begun... 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a template that is used to categorize redirects; an example usage is a page like this. If this is closed as delete, these pages would be blanked and then eligible for deletion under {{db-blanked}} or another criterion. I'm not sure TfD has authority over soft redirects.
    Overall, this seems the most appropriate venue. If you're concerned about visibility, I can put notices on WT:Redirects or one of the village pumps. Sdkb talk 05:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern isn't visibility. My concern is jurisdiction. What you're really asking is to delete a bunch of redirects, including ones that previously survived RfD. And this TfD would do that by the back door. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And my concern is WP:BURO. If you'd like to move the nomination to somewhere you consider more appropriate, go ahead. Otherwise, we'll consider it here. Sdkb talk 06:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, RfD is the best venue to discuss redirects. So I suggest this nomination – which is really about redirects, not a template – should head over thataway. J947 ‡ edits 07:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a lot of these while linking up new enwiki pages to Wikidata. There are a number that have articles on other Wikipedias, which might be worth investigating. For others, the wikispecies articles might provide interesting bases for new enwiki articles. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WT:WikiProject Redirect has been notified about this discussion.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikibooks redirect

[edit]

This template has been around since 2017 but has only 6 mainspace transclusions, so it has never caught on. It has a theoretical use for book titles that are not notable for an encyclopedia article, but in that case, a corollary of the notability backdoor argument I made about {{Wikispecies redirect}} applies. Sdkb talk 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WT:WikiProject Redirect has been notified about this discussion.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikimedia Commons redirect

[edit]

This template has been around since 2017 but has only 7 mainspace transclusions, so it has never meaningfully caught on. I'm not sure what sort of title it would be used for — perhaps a name of a photo that's somehow famous enough that people might reasonably search for it but not famous enough to be notable? In that case, I'd find it inappropriate, per a corollary of the notability backdoor argument I made about {{Wikispecies redirect}}. Sdkb talk 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted some of them slightly, but those all seem like great local targets! It may now be appropriate to consider the deletion of this orphaned template; however, it would need to be restored if the community ever decided it was appropriate to target something to this sister site through a discussion at RfD (bar a blanket community prohibition against it and as the regular soft redirect template is not used in the mainspace). It must be pointed out that deleting this actually causes more potential maintenance for the community than keeping it. The template is very stable and requires little maintenance. Generally, when a redirect is created to commons it is as a hard redirect (or regular soft redirect). A bot converts the former (to regular soft redirects) while human hands convert the latter. If this is not available as a solution, then every one must either be targeted locally or listed at redirects for discussion (as when people create a soft redirect to a foreign language wiki). Thus, it reduces the workload to retain this in the event it becomes useful—which is why I am still, albeit less-adamantly, in the keep camp. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The concern with keeping it is that its existence is likely to promote inappropriate usage. Sdkb talk 20:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WT:WikiProject Redirect has been notified about this discussion.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive-index

[edit]

This template is only used on a handful of manually-curated archive indexes. It can be replaced with {{archive|type=index}}. Something similar was suggested at the previous merge discussion several years back but not implemented. Rjjiii (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 26

[edit]

Template:Lil Wayne series

[edit]

I am proposing deletion with the same justification as Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_6#Template:Kanye_West_series—Template:Lil Wayne already does the job with a more thorough listing of articles and the list of related people and companies in the Lil Wayne series is similar to the deprecated 'associated acts' field of Template:Infobox musical artist (see that 2Chainz and Captain Chronic were added to the template, unlinked, with no given justification). It also wouldn't be viable or relevant enough to use this template on many of the pages it lists. Miklogfeather (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2026 NFL season by team

[edit]

These navbox templates will not be usable for two years and do not have main articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paula Deen

[edit]

Two entries. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 16:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchors of CBS This Morning

[edit]

Textbook WP:PERFNAV. These are hosts of a TV programme. --woodensuperman 16:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oxygiene 23

[edit]

One album, lots of redirects. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 16:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Tampa Bay Buccaneers

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Tampa Bay Buccaneers with Template:WikiProject National Football League.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers is not a WikiProject, but a subproject of NFL @ Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Tampa Bay Buccaneers subproject.

Add |buccaneers= to {{WikiProject National Football League}}, replace {{WikiProject Tampa Bay Buccaneers}}, then delete {{WikiProject Tampa Bay Buccaneers}}.

See similar previous TfDs:

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Pittsburgh Steelers

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Pittsburgh Steelers with Template:WikiProject National Football League.
Pittsburgh Steelers is not a WikiProject, but a subproject of NFL @ Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Pittsburgh Steelers subproject.

Add |steelers= to {{WikiProject National Football League}}, replace {{WikiProject Pittsburgh Steelers}}, then delete {{WikiProject Pittsburgh Steelers}}.

See similar previous TfDs:

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Carolina Panthers

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Carolina Panthers with Template:WikiProject National Football League.
Carolina Panthers is not a WikiProject, but a subproject of NFL @ Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Carolina Panthers subproject.

Add |panthers= to {{WikiProject National Football League}}, replace {{WikiProject Carolina Panthers}}, then delete {{WikiProject Carolina Panthers}}.

See similar previous TfDs:

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monsters (2010)

[edit]

Two films. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 15:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mimic

[edit]

Three films, no franchise article. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 15:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Terror Within

[edit]

Two films. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 15:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cyborg Cop

[edit]

Three films, no main article. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 15:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Arrival 96 series

[edit]

Two films. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 15:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Hidden

[edit]

two articles only. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 14:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 25

[edit]

EYOF figure skating templates

[edit]

Despite having the word "Olympic" in the name, this is not in any way a major skating competition. We also do not have templates for all skating disciplines at this event. As it is, many figure skating articles have become excessively cluttered by a voluminous number of templates at the end, such that it's difficult to see the forest through the trees. We really need to be more judicious in terms of which templates are truly the most beneficial. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2023–24 Celtic Challenge table

[edit]

template's are not used for other rugby union seasons. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Then I guess the likes of the URC template for the season, Template:2024–25 United Rugby Championship table, the Super Series Template:2023–24 Super Series league table etc. must be figments of my imagination. Aedis1 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2024–25 Celtic Challenge table

[edit]

Template is not used for other rugby union season's so not needed for this one SimplyLouis27 (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book Marks

[edit]

New template with only two uses that generates article text. Using templates to generate article text is generally discouraged. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book Marks2 should be deleted. the other two are required. What do you mean "text is generally discouraged". you gave no substantive evidence of this. provide specific policy or guideline citations that outline this. While it's true that templates generating article text can sometimes be problematic, they are not inherently "discouraged". There are many widely used that generate consistent, reusable text without issue. and even parallels to this like RT already exist and are not being discussed for deletion. In this case, just like the one I just indicated, the template promotes accuracy and uniformity for articles discussing reviews aggregated by Book Marks, which benefits both readers and editors.
And it only has two uses because I just made it. naturally the template has limited usage at the moment because it is newly created. Deletion based on current usage isn't a fair metric for assessing its utility. Templates often start small before wider adoption. If this template is retained, I plan to integrate it into relevant articles to demonstrate its potential.
template streamlines and standardze how we represent Book Marks review data across articles. It reduces the likelihood of inconsistencies, ensures grammatical correctness, and simplifies future updates to format or wording. Editors can still adjust the parameters for flexibility. Create a template (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
update:
1. I'm using only Template:Book Marks and Module:Book Marks now. The others are unnecessary.
2. I've provided substantive edits to the Template:Book Marks/doc to demonstrate not only usage and flexibility; also defending its utility, potential, and overall benefits to wiki community — both editors and readers. Create a template (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually curious about the guidelines here as well. Just from the Rotten Tomatoes template you linked, I looked at the talk page, which linked to two TfDs: one in May 2021 with result "keep" and one in March 2022 with result "no consensus". Within the second discussion, I found a clear guideline citation: WP:TMPG (permalink) guideline #1 which says Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. They should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader. Retro (talk | contribs) 11:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support deletion here. Even if using templates to generate article prose was a norm, there is no consensus that this specific text belongs in articles at all. To the contrary, two different discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels were very skeptical of drive-by citations to review aggregators. In my view, those who wish to cite Book Marks ought to write sentences like normal, and ideally write a meaningful book reception section while they’re at it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I worry that my comment was too harsh. I do think the specific sentence generated by this template is acceptable. However, when the sentence is generated by a template, it becomes harder to integrate into the rest of the reception section, and thus hinders the development of the article into its best form. So I still support deletion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:How-to

[edit]

Propose merging Template:How-to with Template:Manual.
These seem to say the same thing, in different words ("contains instructions, advice, or how-to content"/ "written like a manual or guide").

Reducing the number of available duplicative templates makes it easier for editors to find the template suited to an issue which they wish to flag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IranNCSGN

[edit]

No point in external link template for a dead link. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grand Slam in figure skating

[edit]

Incomprehensible and unwieldy. I would like to clarify that this template features five separate tables, some very large, while one features only one person, and no explanation as to what the differences are between the five. Additionally, all tables feature all four skating disciplines. As it is, many figure skating articles have become excessively cluttered by a voluminous number of templates at the end, such that it's difficult to see the forest through the trees. We really need to be more judicious in terms of which templates are truly the most beneficial. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I've never heard these terms used in figure skating (as opposed to tennis). I watch a lot for decades and decades and tv never used it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skating scores templates

[edit]

Incomprehensible and unwieldy. As it is, many figure skating articles have become excessively cluttered by a voluminous number of templates at the end, such that it's difficult to see the forest through the trees. We really need to be more judicious in terms of which templates are truly the most beneficial. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 24

[edit]

Template:PIE

[edit]

Replace usages with {{lang|ine-x-proto}} and delete.

Proto-Indo-European language has been supported for a while now by {{lang}}, which additionally provides various checks, validations and categories, that this template does not.

The main difference between the two templates is that PIE does not italic the text or adds an asterisk (*), while Lang does. That means that when replacing, if a PIE usage

  • has an asterisk, it should be removed
  • wraps the template in italics, they should be removed

See this edit as an example.

Also somewhat related, "pie" is incorrect to use here as that is the language code for the Piro Pueblo language. Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Who's Who

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Absolutiva (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who in the UK is considered generally unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#RfC - Who's Who (UK), due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. Absolutiva (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:-ve range

[edit]

Single-use typing aid template; no documentation. Creating in 2008. Subst and delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List spam

[edit]

Redundant to {{Promotional}} (into which {{Advert}} was recently merged) or to {{Promotional section}}. Has only seven transclusions, which can be replaced by one or other of those (e.g. [8]).

Reducing the number of available duplicative templates makes it easier for editors to find the template suited to an issue which they wish to flag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PHF profile

[edit]

PremierHockeyFederation.com has been a dead link since a couple days after the PWHL purchased the PHF in June 2023. There's no likely hope of recovering any stats, and no suitable redirect. MikeVitale 16:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the site is dead. The template seems to already have been removed as it is currently unused. Gonnym (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-hmd

[edit]

Unused language template. If text in A-Hmao language should use "Miao Unicode" for proper rendering (and not for stylistic or user preference) then that can feature can be added to Module:Lang. No need for additional language templates. Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2027 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification – UEFA group tables

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was move to userspace Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sports template. The template states that the first matches will be placed in over a year. Create the template then. Gonnym (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to my own userspace until more detailed information is available.
@Gonnym: I would be willing to move this now to quickly close this nomination because I am not a huge fan of bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure if you can move this without leaving a redirect or just tag the redirect for speedy deletion after you move it. Gonnym (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: The move is done, and the redirect has been tagged for WP:G7. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Module:User:Poster Nutbag/SandboxModule

[edit]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Poster Nutbag/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:User:Mr. Stradivarius/whitespacebug

[edit]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Mr. Stradivarius/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:User:Mr. Stradivarius/region topic

[edit]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Mr. Stradivarius/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:User:Mr. Stradivarius/previewbug

[edit]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Mr. Stradivarius/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:User:Mr. Stradivarius/portalCheck

[edit]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Mr. Stradivarius/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:User:Mr. Stradivarius/pageSubster

[edit]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Mr. Stradivarius/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:User:Mr. Stradivarius/icon

[edit]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Mr. Stradivarius/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:User:Mr. Stradivarius/html

[edit]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Mr. Stradivarius/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:User:Mr. Stradivarius/gambiarra

[edit]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Mr. Stradivarius/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:User:Mr. Stradivarius/ah

[edit]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Mr. Stradivarius/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:User:Mr. Stradivarius/RGConvert

[edit]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Mr. Stradivarius/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:B-Robo Kabutack

[edit]

WP:NENAN. This navbox has only two blue links. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one valid link, not enough for a navbox. Gonnym (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/UEFA Euro 2020 final

[edit]

Editnotice no longer needed. Event is long over. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Suite PreCure episodes

[edit]

Editnotice blanked as no longer needed, after talk page discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Life Speaks to Me

[edit]

Editnotice was blanked after the target page was changed to a redirect per AFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/J Street

[edit]

Editnotice was blanked as no longer applicable to the target page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Dengeki Sentai Changeman

[edit]

Editnotice was blanked because its content was no longer valid, according to a talk page request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Alzheimer's disease

[edit]

Editnotices no longer in use. They were blanked when FA status was removed from the corresponding articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Testcase

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Testcase with Template:Test case.
{{Testcase}} is referred to as the legacy version of the spaced {{Test case}}. They should be merged. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do think that the amount of coding that would be required to create a wrapper for the old template so that all the params can translate into the new one would be overly burdensome, and I don't think that the time spent reprogramming old test cases to follow the format of the new template would be worth it. As such, I don't think that template merging here would improve the encyclopedia on a net basis, so I think they should be kept. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replace all usages (122) and delete template. Don't merge anything that the new template can already do, and only merge specific features if actually needed. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that outcome, too. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 23

[edit]

Template:Metamask.com

[edit]

I don't really see a purpose of this being a template, as it appears to just be a copy of the text of MetaMask. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Home video game console

[edit]

Editnotice blanked as no longer applicable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Hippocrates

[edit]

Editnotice no longer in use. It was blanked when FA status was removed from Hippocrates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Archive/sandbox2

[edit]

Unnecessary fork, hasn't been updated in over five years. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is still a viable approach to solving a still-present user-visible bug in the template. DMacks (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged the current talkpage regarding the bug, so it's now part of an active discussion. Hopefully the bug will get fixed (in which case, sandbox not need) or this TFD has reminded me to take another look at it. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I moved this when moving the module for a merge, but the sandbox2 page is not needed. Like the nominator says, it hasn't been used in years. Rjjiii (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SandboxN pages should only be kept if work is still being done to them. These are not pages we should keep indefinitely. Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It it literally linked in an active discussion. DMacks (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where? "What links here" has no "Talk" namespace link there other than your talk page from the TfD notification. Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template_talk:Archive#Later_archives_not_linked,_take_n+1 the diff link in my "(alternately..." comment from 12:12, 24 November 2024. DMacks (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you used a URL and not a wikilink so there would be no way for it to appear on the link list. That said, calling it an active discussion is a bit of a stretch, as it was only active after the sandbox was nominated. If it wouldn't have been nominated, the template would likely continued to be forgotten. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your ABF is noted. Seems pretty simple to consider that things get forgotten-about until someone else notices to remind one to revisit and act. Otherwise it would be forbidden to object to XFD of anything that was ignored for a while. As can be seen from several recent XFD of my old items, I have no problem letting things be deleted (or even explicitly endorsing such) when I no longer have current plans to act use them. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use Ugandan English

[edit]

I am unable to find any discussions leading to the creation of {{Use Ugandan English}} by Cobaltcigs. Ugandan English explains that this dialect makes use of phrasing that would not be acceptable here on Wikipedia per MOS:COMMONALITY, and uses misspelled standard English words. We would never accept those misspellings here, so these templates should probably go away. I have found no information about whether Ugandan English is based on British or American English, so I can't recommend conversion to a redirect at this time. Evidence supporting a redirect is welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Uganda's sole official language was English through 2005, and it remains one of the country's two official languages. There is a distinct variety of English that took hold there (Ugandan English), and it makes sense to keep this template specifically for that variety in line with MOS:ENGVAR. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sourced evidence for differences between Ugandan English and standard American or British English that would be relevant to written work here at Wikipedia. I was unable to find any in the Ugandan English article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At this stage nom has failed to provide any compelling reason to delete this template. English is an official language of Uganda. Per WP:TIES articles related to Uganda should use the variety of English used in Uganda. The nom admits they have no idea what spelling variety is used in Uganda. That's not a reason to delete the template. AusLondonder (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence that there is a variety of English used in Uganda that is different from standard British or American English. Please provide sources or an example of Ugandan English spelling or vocabulary used in a Wikipedia article that would not be used in an article about another place. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that you consult the relevant scholarly literature, such as this 2016 paper and this paper from 2000. That there is a distinct variety of English in Uganda is totally uncontroversial among scholars.
    I don't understand the basis for your claim that [t]here is no evidence that there is a variety of English used in Uganda that is different from standard British or American English. In fact, I would kindly ask in return: do you have scholarly sources that you are basing that radical claim on, or is the push to delete this template based merely on sloppy guesswork? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Ugandan English different from British or American English in a way that is applicable here on Wikipedia? We can't accept misspelled words or non-standard phrasing that would not be understandable by the majority of English speakers, so this template is not usable as a guide for writing articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I keep seeing "keep" votes in these related discussion that read as if their pride is hurt, and not arguments based on the actual issue. These templates are meant to inform editors that the spelling of this article should use a specific variant. If Ugandan English has no unique spelling to it and it uses American English, then there is no need for that template. We could, to quite the masses, add to the documentation and banner that Ugandan English also uses this. Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Ugandan, so my pride is certainly not hurt. What evidence is there that Uganda uses American English? AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

Template:WikiProject Lanka Premier League

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Lanka Premier League with Template:WikiProject Cricket.
These 4 projects were redirected into the newly created Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Asia cricket task force. They should now use the project banner with a new asia parameter like {{WikiProject Cricket|asia=yes}}. Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge, these templates could instead be converted into wrapper templates for {{WikiProject Cricket}} by using the following code,
{{WikiProject Cricket{{{{{|safesubst:}}}ifnotempty|{{{class|}}}|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}!}}class{{{{{|safesubst:}}}=}}{{{class|}}}}}|Asia=yes}}

@Gonnym: It could be done once the draft banner in Template:WikiProject Cricket/sandbox is moved to the main one. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio please explain how exactly that wrapper with the parameter |Asia=yes works with your oppose. Gonnym (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: If a wrapper template like below for example has been added to a page, it will be substituted as the following one,
  • {{WikiProject Example|class=C}} will substitute as {{WikiProject Cricket|class=C|Asia=yes}}
  • {{WikiProject Example}} will substitute as {{WikiProject Cricket|Asia=yes}}
Tools like WP:RATER has native support for wrapper templates and will substitute them directly. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:WikiProject Africa banner wrapper templates for some examples... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 04:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd take a look at those pages you'd see that I've edited a lof of them. My point was that you can't use |Asia=yes as it doesn't exist. Why doesn't it exist? Because you just opposed it's addition. Gonnym (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in this situation a wrapper is incorrect. The wrapper does not set |Pakistan Super League=yes, |Indian Premier League=yes so a user using these would end up with an unexpected result, unlike Template:WikiProject Angola which does set |Angola=yes. Gonnym (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't oppose the addition of |Asia=, I opposed the template merger which would result in the previous templates being left as redirects. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Let's keep the discussion here only then.
Now, what would exactly be done if the TfD is made consensus to merge... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: The edit request I placed on the talk page involved the implementations of,
  • FormerFA, FormerFL, FormerGA, Current event and Cricket Collaboration
  • Re-worded text for |MAIN_TEXT=
  • New image for |IMAGE_LEFT=
  • Taskforces for ICC, Women's cricket, Africa, Americas, Europe and EAP
How any of these are related to this discussion??? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with the first 3 bulleted points, I oppose the task force one as I've explained being a separate discussion from the merge as the merge was the exact point of it and we would end up here anyways, which is a WP:DISCUSSFORK. Gonnym (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the task force, I've explained above, that adding |Asia=yes to the template will allow for the merger of these 4 templates, which you've opposed. Additionally, you've proposed making them wrappers, but that adds more confusion as they don't produce the result a user would expect to get from them, as they aren't a 1:1 wrapper, but a wrapper of a redirected name. That's isn't really helpful. Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: But, what about the other 6 task forces; they are freshly new ones-no mergers - we can add them to the banner now as they are unrelated to the TfD. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Merge WikiProjects back into this project the question was regarding a merge of four Asian projects, but at the end of the discussion you proposed creating additional task forces. Are you sure that is the actual consensus there? See KjjjKjjj's comment My only main concern is that some of the task forces might be inactive most of the time due to little coverage. Creating task forces pre-emptively where no one actually said they'll be a part of and which would stay inactive isn't helpful. I'd say close the ones you created (other than Asia) and wait until a group of editors actually want to work in that area. Note that there is a lot of maintenance required for task forces, even inactive ones (categories, templates, gnoming, etc.). Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear consensus for Asia task force (see the comments of that discussion, task force was endorced by me too, despite initially proposing a merge). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Buckethead task force

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Buckethead task force with Template:WikiProject Musicians.
At the TfD 1 year ago, it was suggested to merge Template:WikiProject Buckethead task force with Template:WikiProject Musicians.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym, Cyfal, and WikiCleanerMan: pinging all participants of the previous TfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll be a little rude and just say completely delete. There were many WikiProjects created for single artists and bands which unsurprisingly are inactive or just flat out dead. The last non-bot related post on that project page was 15 years ago. Just delete and get rid of stale projects. We should stop supporting indefinitely stuff like this. And this goes for most music artist projects. Gonnym (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the task force exists as a child of a specific WikiProject, the only reasonable target for changing the template's target is that one's parent. Any other concerns should be redirected elsewhere, such as WT:COUNCIL or WP:MFD. "Merge"/"delete" in favor of yesteryear's suggested target. Come back to TFD if and only if an MFD resolves that WikiProject Guitarists probably shouldn't exist, at which point I anticipate the final target will be WP:Musicians. Izno (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell

[edit]

View the holding cell at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1083806995"