Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 15 August 17 >

August 16

[edit]

Template:Tramway de Nice

[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. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; removed in 2016 in favor of an SVG map. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barcelona Metro routemaps

[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. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; the parent articles of both templates were merged into Barcelona–Vallès Line in 2015. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:49th Newfoundland and Labrador provincial election-mini

[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 subst and delete. ✗plicit 03:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 49th, 2003, and 2011 templates are single-use and should be substituted where used. But the 50th should be deleted as it is an inaccurate template that states it is for the results for the 2019 election, although no information on the article correlates with this template. 2011 should be substituted on the two articles it is used on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (with substitution where needed). The purpose of a template like this is to cross-reference information across multiple articles so that they can't be edited in contradictory ways that make it harder to sort out what's correct and what isn't. If a template is only being used on one article, then it should just be coded in that article rather than being chunked out to a separate template. For what it's worth, "50th" is actually for the 2021 election, not the 2019 election, as revealed by the fact that the Liberal Party leader is Andrew Furey rather than Dwight Ball — but it's incomplete and not used in 2021 Newfoundland and Labrador general election either, so it's not necessary. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete (and delete the 50th one) Unnecessary single-use templates. Number 57 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2011. Substituting the content onto two separate articles is an inferior solution. --Bsherr (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2011's second use was improper and not relevant, and has been removed. So it's now a single-use template just like all of the others. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per above. Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:West Bengal 2004 election summary

[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. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2001 is unused. West Bengal 2004, 2010 and 2015 is similar to templates that were deleted on July 27. Used on multiple articles with very little information and without a clear purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This not a navigation template nor is an overview of supposed election results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Bangalore templates as the results have nothing to do with the specific wards and are the results for Greater Bangalore. The specific election articles of 2001,‎ 2010, and 2015 already have such tables. The West Bengal template also doesn't belong on the pages it is transcluded at, but sadly there isn't a 2004 Indian general election in West Bengal and placing it in 2004 Indian general election] does not seem appropriate. Not sure where this should be used. Gonnym (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:2004 Indian general election in West Bengal could probably be restored and the table used there. Gonnym (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't because like the last batch, no information can be gained from these templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's ok also. Gonnym (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2007 Manitoba general election

[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 after replacement via substitution. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2007 is unused as the 2007 election article uses a different table. 2016 is single-use and should be subsitutied on the 2016 Manitoba general election article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. single use does not mean they need to be deleted. Also, there are lots of sub-templates used on multiple pages. Ebbedlila (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Templates should not be the place for election results. The core issue with these templates is that if they are used for one purpose and very unlikely to be used anywhere else. Having a simple table for the results on the election articles is the best way to do so. The templates have very little need or reason to be updated. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the 2007 template, subst and delete the 2016 template per nom. Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (with substitution where needed). The purpose of a template like this is to cross-reference information across multiple articles so that they can't be edited in contradictory ways that make it harder to sort out what's correct and what isn't. If a template is only being used on one article, then it should just be coded in that article rather than being chunked out to a separate template. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2007/subst and delete 2016 Unused or unnecessary single-use templates. Number 57 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:El Alto municipal election, 2010

[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. Based on this and other similar discussions on this page, the only use on an individual's article is inappropriate (and has been removed), but if the table is desired for the general election page, feel free to get an admin to copy over the contents. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused nor do I believe it has ever been used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now as in today as the article was just created. However, this should be substituted on the same article as this is now single-use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional subst and delete or just delete. If the table is needed, it should be subst to 2010 Bolivian regional elections#Mayors results (however, that sections is using prose so it might not be wanted there). It should also be removed from individual "Electoral record" sections as transcluding huge tables for a single row of data is just pointless Gonnym (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Anderson Family

[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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completly made up family, there is no real use in this template. ★Trekker (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that it's not actually helpful for navigation, having been included in this made up family isn't actually defining or too noteworthy for many of the people linked.★Trekker (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't a made up family tree. All these people exist and are related to each other in the way the template presents them. This is a historic wrestling family and their importance is of note. Not only will this not be deleted it will be expanded upon as its missing people from the list. --BokeATong (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Star Wars drafts

[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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation box solely designed to contain links to drafts means this will never be used in mainspace, the purpose of drafts is not to create an alternate collection of articles for the reader that aren't official articles, they should solely exist to work towards being published BOVINEBOY2008 02:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Drafts should never be on a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with a navigation template to aid readers in moving between drafts of a similar topic, especially since there are many in this instance, and readers may not be aware of categories. Additionally, the template is solely for the draft articles (so there will not be a cross-pollination of other namespaces) and is coded in such a way that it will produce an error should it be used in the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Readers should not be casually reading and navigating through drafts. They are drafts because, for one reason or another, are not ready to be articles. This is essentially encouraging a secondary Wikipedia that does not need to meet WP:N. For editors who wish to work on Star Wars related drafts, they can find such links in categories or possibly the task force could create a page with a running list. BOVINEBOY2008 22:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NAVBOX clearly states: Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. This most certainly fits that bill, and nothing else at NAVBOX nor WP:NAV saying anything about restricting the type of namespaces used in such, especially considering there are many navboxes that are to navigate between template space and the Wikipedia namespace. The draft space is no different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NAVBOX also states that it should generally follow particular guidelines including "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." and "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." Neither of these apply in this case. BOVINEBOY2008 16:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Template and project space aren't articles either, and again, there are a multitude of navboxes to aid editors in moving around to relevant templates or project space info, so once again, no different for this instance. I don't know how the part you mentioned about "See also" is relevant at all in this matter, as that would never be the case in its use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't make any sense as a navbox.
    • Readers should not be in draft space - it is not indexed, does not show up in search results, and is not linked from the main encyclopaedia. The entire point of draft space is to give articles a place to grow before they are ready for public view. There is therefore no point in making templates to aid reader navigation through draft articles.
    • From WP:Navigation template - "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles". None of these articles are related in any kind of meaningful way that would make a natural reading list. They aren't all part of some connected series - there's everything from characters to video games to TV series to fictional planets listed here spanning 30+ years and multiple movies, time periods and spin-offs.
    • From WP:Navigation template - "Navigation templates provide navigation among existing articles". None of the things in this navbox are existing articles, They're all drafts in varying levels of completeness and presentability.
    • By design stuff moves into and out of draft space on a regular basis - keeping this up to date is going to be a lot of maintenance for little benefit.
    • The template servers as a Wikipedia self-reference. This template is grouping pages by their progress through an internal Wikipedia process rather than by their content.
    • The functionality of the template is redundant to Category:Star Wars drafts.
192.76.8.91 (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Alberta general election, 1905

[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. ✗plicit 13:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1905, 1909, and 2012 are single-use and should be substituted onto the respective election article. The 2008 template should be substituted on the politician article and onto the election mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Subst to election articles. Remove from individual "Electoral record" sections as transcluding huge tables for a single row of data without any prose is just pointless. Gonnym (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (with substitution where needed). The purpose of a template like this is to cross-reference information across multiple articles so that they can't be edited in contradictory ways that make it harder to sort out what's correct and what isn't. If a template is only being used on one article, then it should just be coded in that article rather than being chunked out to a separate template. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete (although per Gonnym, remove the 2008 one from the biographical article). Number 57 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2008. Multiple transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2008 template's second transclusion was a non-standard use of this kind of template; provincewide party standings tables are not used in the individual party leaders' BLPs as "election results", because they're not about the party leaders as individuals the way individual riding vote count tables are. So that usage has been removed, and 2008 is now single-use just like the others. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Football at the Summer Olympics – Women's tournament winning manager

[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. With the men's variant of the template now nominated, the consensus here is to delete. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically a category disguised as a navbox template, and as such is a misuse of template space (see WP:TMPG). This should be made into a category (I'm unsure whether it is really that good of a category, but that's another issue), and the template deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except this really falls under navbox crust. Crust is a major issue with these football/soccer templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:World laws pertaining to animal sentience

[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 Mixed. I find the argument that these maps are a pictorial representation of data persuasive, and hence lack of sourcing is a valid rationale for deletion. The result for LaundryPizza's group 1 is therefore delete. I'm willing to restore any of those to draft space on request for anyone willing to work on the sourcing.

Since these maps are data, then SYNTH is a valid rationale. However, SYNTH requires that the sources are synthesised in order to reach a conclusion not found in any source. No one highlighted any conclusion that had been reached by synthesising sources. Bringing together data from multiple sources is not prescribed in SYNTH or anywhere else. Bringing together data that was not compatible would be problematic (population data in which children were only included in some sources for instance). Nobody made a case for this either so group 2 result is keep.

The only criticism of group 3 was that the sources were on Commons rather than Wikipedia. I'm not going to delete anything that is so trivially easy to fix per WP:SOFIXIT. Group 3 is therefore keep. SpinningSpark 19:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from a May 28 Tfd where LaundryPizza03 brought light to these templates. The template that was deleted from the discussion was the concern of Original Research. These templates fall under this as there are no sources to support the claims of the animal rights and laws these templates are supposed to bring to light what is legal or illegal in which part of the world. If deletion is granted to these 23 templates, I would recommend keeping the maps these templates use and keep them on the articles with a legend style infobox used for them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I note is that most of these maps lack any sources or list sources only on the file page, and are often missing most countries outside of Europe. Here's a rundown on all the nominated templates by sourcing:
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, same as LaundryPizza03, if I may be allowed to skip relisting the templates. I was going to additionally remark that I think World dolphinarium bans should be tweaked to provide the refs in the template, not in the image file, the way Foie gras and Circus bans do, but there are rather a lot (5) of sources on that one and, worse, Stunning requirements for ritual slaughter has even more of them. I can see it'd be messy. LP's analysis seems good, though, and we should toss the templates with inadequate sourcing (groups 1 and 2). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 04:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I already indicated in May 28 Tfd (on 4 June 2021): "I've created many of those templates but provided ample resources for everything, including literature, laws and reliable news sources. If there is any unsourced material or original research in anything I have created, please let me know and I'll try to fix it. There are indeed too many maps on Commons which don't cite their sources, or rely solely on unreliable sources, or too much on primary sources. That's why I'm an advocate for evidence-based mapping, and am trying to set the right example, as you can read on my user page: c:User:Nederlandse Leeuw#Mapping issues (essay). I hope that eventually we can establish a guideline on this, because numerous maps on Commons are crap, but unsuspecting Wikipedians keep using them in articles, and unsuspecting readers keep thinking these maps are accurate." But nobody has answered that comment. I'd like to know how these maps and templates are supposed to work if these are bad examples, then I'm quite willing to try and fix everything to comply to the rules. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is 'SYNTH' about the sourcing in Group 2? Since when is it not permitted to provide multiple sources to prove the same thing? If anything, Wikipedia encourages that, and frowns upon Template:One source. Moreover, since when is allegedly having 'oddly specific categories in the legend' a reason to delete an entire template? Let's talk about how we can best present information instead of simply deleting information when we don't understand why it is presented in manner X. Also, since when is it necessary to mention sources in the template rather than the image file, and if so, wouldn't that make it needlessly messy (as JohnFromPinckney notes)? Finally, all countries in "Stunning requirements for ritual slaughter" are sourced; I challenge LP to find a single country that isn't sourced, because I source everything I map. In short, I want references to clear rules - be it on English Wikipedia or on Commons - on both maps and templates so that everyone knows what to do in order to make maps and templates that comply to the rules, and there aren't just arbitrary deletions of what may well be very valuable work that is insightful for readers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion (unsourced templates) To be clear, I did not create any of the unsourced templates in Group 1; they merely served as my inspiration for creating the sourced templates in Groups 2 and 3 (except for World circus bans and cosmetic animal testing, created by @RockingGeo:). But on what basis do we simply delete templates on English Wikipedia merely because the image file on Commons is unsourced? Seems to me that (A) we at least add a Template:Citation needed inside the template on English Wikipedia and/or a "Datasource missing" template in the image file description on Commons in order to give the template/map creator an opportunity to provide sources for a period of time before we resort to deletion. Alternatively (B) we can simply remove the template from articles until it is properly sourced instead of deleting the template right away; no reader will see it when it is not used anywhere. We could even do both A and B instead of simply deleting unsourced templates. Deleting a template simply because no sources are provided seems to me an overreaction and not to solve the problem, and it's not how we usually address the same problem in texts when it seems that the information is probably legitimate, but we just need a reliable source to verify it and thus we use a "Citation needed" template to ask the author (or any other user who happens to amble along and would like to solve the issue) to provide RS. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even unsourced text can be removed from the article, see WP:UNSOURCED. Regarding the deletion of the template. If the template is removed from the article and is unused, there is no real value in keeping it around. It also clogs reports and search results. If someone here wants to work on it, they can request for it to be moved to their user page or just fork it. Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can, my question was whether it always should, the answer to which is clearly 'no', otherwise we would not have templates like "citation needed" and "refimprove section" that allow users to provide sources for seemingly legitimate information in due time. So why wouldn't we do the same thing with unsourced templates that seem useful and legit, but just lack sources? I stand by option A of adding "citation needed" templates to the unsourced templates and "datasource missing" templates to unsourced maps (whichever option we choose to list the sources, if not both). Your criticism for my option B makes more sense; yes, if a template is actually not ready for use in the mainspace yet, we might as well move it to someone's user page instead until it is (if we agree it's not ready yet and someone offers to fix it inside their userspace). I agree with you about that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion @WikiCleanerMan: Why are you in favour of 'keeping the maps these templates use and keep[ing] them on the articles with a legend style infobox used for them' on the one hand, but deleting the templates on the other? This does not follow from your argument that the templates constitute original research and should thus be deleted; you're merely arguing for presenting the same information from the same maps in a different way, namely 'legend-style infobox' rather than template. Therefore, the nomination as currently formulated lacks justification. We can talk about what is a good way to present information (and perhaps establish new rules if helpful), and whether the sources should be mentioned in the template/'legend-style infobox' or in the image file, but those discussions are separate from the question whether original research has been committed in these specific cases. I therefore need to oppose the nomination as a whole. But I'm very willing to talk about how to best present this information, and to establish new rules to help users how to do this best, because it seems that these rules do not exist yet when it comes to sourcing maps (as I noted previously under 'Comment' and on the 28 May Tfd). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said recommend. The reason for this is because I don't see why the maps have to be on a template. My main argument is that the templates don't add anything to it. Because again, the templates don't have any information that can be gained nor verified as stated above. But if the maps should be nominated it will be on Commons, not here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so you just don't like the template format of presenting these maps. You don't actually accuse them of committing original research (you don't even necessarily accuse the maps on Commons of original research). I think this fundamentally undermines your case for deleting these templates, and I think you should withdraw your nomination. As said, beyond this nomination, we can have a very interesting and good discussion about 1) if these templates are a valid way of presenting information (especially in articles such as Animal rights by country or territory, where all of these templates are currently used, while some are also used elsewhere in the mainspace); I have not yet seen you or anyone else here invoke an actual policy rule why this would be invalid; and 2) whether the sources should be mentioned as references in the template/'legend-style infobox', or in the image file on Commons (and I've also not seen any invocation of any rule that it should be one or the other yet). I'm interested in hearing your and other users' opinions about that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never said that and has nothing to do with liking or not liking. I'm not withdrawing because there is no reason to. Again, no information can be gained from these templates because these fall under OR. The templates are the issue, not the maps. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if these templates "fall under OR", can you cite the relevant part of WP:OR for me then, please? Secondly, why would your recommended 'legend-style infoboxes' comply to WP:OR, but these templates would not? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • English Wikipedia rules for citing sources of maps As I noted/argued above, there seem to be no clear rules on either English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons about the need to cite your sources for maps, let alone where and how.
  • WP:MAPS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions, MOS:IMAGES, WP:IMGDD, Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research etc. say nothing about citing sources for maps; they are chiefly concerned with not violating copyright, which extensions to use, and appropriate file titles.
  • The best I've been able to find so far is Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps#Citing sources, which says: "As maps can be politically charged, it is important to cite your sources and/or your methodology when editing or creating any map. This is particularly true for historical maps." That's it. It does say 'it is important to cite your sources' (we could interpret that as 'you need to cite your sources', which I'm all for), but it doesn't say where or how, e.g. whether these sources must be listed inside the "[[File:....]]" parameters within an article, or a template or 'legend-style infobox' (either in the form of references or footnotes), or on Commons within the image file description (as I have been doing).
  • Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop merely provides an 'Advice to requesters': "Sourced requests: If possible, please try to provide a reliable source to create a map. This includes a map already on Wikipedia with a reliable source or an external link." So they don't consider citing reliable sources necessary, just advisory, let alone that they instruct users where and how to cite sources (imo this policy is way too lax).
  • Even the essay Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles (WP:MAPCITE) says very little about maps used as illustration, and the only thing it says about using reliable sources for self-created maps is this: "Editor-created maps should be careful to only depict details supported by reliable sources in the article and common information that would appear on any published map relating to the subject. For user-created maps based on GIS or satellite images, it is acceptable to use details already present in the database used to create the map. Before adding details to third-party created maps, ensure that the addition both meets the above criteria, and that the derivative work will not create issues with copyright laws." It only recommends 'depict[ing] details supported by reliable sources in the article', it does not say anything about how or where the map should mention or refer to those reliable sources (inside "[[File:....]]", the template/'legend-style infobox' or the Commons image file description).
Therefore, I conclude that no such rules exist on English Wikipedia yet, and so they cannot be invoked to argue for the deletion of any of the above templates, as no existing rule has been violated. Secondly, I think we should use this opportunity to develop and establish such rules for these and future cases. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The analogy with the 28 May Tfd fails, because in that case there were issues with the reliability of the sources, and the way these were used, and that's why that article and template were deleted (which I supported btw). That's not the issue here. This nomination lacks justification. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion was rather interesting to read, and both sides have valid points. I have a different take on this that I didn't see as I read the above comments. I hope this fresh viewpoint helps break loose the gridlock on the issue.
I think the rules of OR and SYNTH apply here. The maps in question were not published outside of Wikipedia (with appropriate Commons permissions) and then brought in to Wikimedia to be used in Wikipedia articles. Instead, these maps were created by a Wikipedia editor IN ORDER TO be used as "visual content" in Wikipedia articles. That, by our usual definition, is SYNTH (a subset of original research): Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
The maps are not just "an image", but are in fact being used as "data".
Had these maps been published outside of Wikipedia then you could cite the article or webpage on which they reside. Or had they been posted outside of Wikipedia in a manner (location, authorship, etc.) giving permission to use the image, then the image could be brought into Wikimedia and the "source" (the original webpage) would therefore be mentioned on the Wikimedia page for that image (in the parameter/section "Source"), and then the image could be inserted into a Wikipedia article (and possibly used in a template). Of course you would want to know that the source of the image (map) is a reliable source.
It isn't their addition to Wikimedia that is in question here (NL made the image; NL uploaded it), but the inclusion of those images in Wikipedia articles... which brings in the question of "reliable source". Who or what is the source of the data, who modified the RS text data (from elsewhere) into SYNTH image data (these maps)?
Again, we're looking at SYNTH by a Wikipedia editor, not a map made outside of Wikipedia (on a reliable source website) and brought into Wikimedia/Wikipedia for use AS DATA.
Let me repeat that: These maps are DATA (not simply images). Platonk (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Platonk, thank you for giving your perspective. I'm interested to know which points you think are valid in the discussion above.
The suggestion that there may be SYNTH was also made by LaundryPizza, but without any reference to a policy; I asked for clarification under 'Question', but so far I have received none. How creating maps 'IN ORDER TO be used as "visual content" in Wikipedia articles...is SYNTH' does not follow from the passage you cited. These maps just collect information from multiple sources, they do not 'reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' I'm very rigorous about how I use my sources, I do not extrapolate from them in order to reach conclusions not mentioned in the sources. If you really do think so, then please provide some examples. You keep mentioning that the maps are 'data', so what? Nothing in WP:SYNTH says maps can't be data.
There is no requirement whatsoever for Wikimedians to only create and/or use maps based on existing maps outside of Wikimedia (and if you carefully read what I wrote, especially my Mapping issues essay on Commons, you'd know that). If you really do think so, then please cite the relevant policy.
The reliable sources on which the maps are based are all carefully mentioned on the description page on Wikimedia Commons under 'Summary', parameter 'Sources'. For example File:Beak trimming laws world map.svg is based in 15 reliable sources. I don't understand why you would question whether the maps are based on reliable sources; not even the nominator WikiCleanerMan seems to have a problem with the maps themselves or their sources, only with the templates in which the maps are embedded. (Besides, as I pointed out, there are in fact currently no rules on English Wikipedia or Commons that state that maps must be based on RS, let alone where those sources must be listed. And as I said, I'm all for developing new rules for these things, and I've already made efforts to set a good example myself; you may disagree with my proposed solution to the lack of rules and offer your own alternative, but you can't accuse me of violating rules that do not exist yet). Regardless, whether these are RS is a separate question from whether SYNTH has been committed, and these two are separate questions from whether the RS should be mentioned in the form of references in the image caption on Wikipedia or in the Source parameter on Commons, and all these three questions are (probably) irrelevant to whether these templates should be deleted or not, which this discussion should actually be about. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

All Z-number templates

[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 all. I'm trusting that user:Primefac will now carry out the bot work promised on this. I will not actually delete anything until Primefac tells me it is ok to do so, or perhaps they will delete them when ready. SpinningSpark 15:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple deletion nomination for all Z-number templates from Z1 through Z208 (or beyond): these templates should all be deleted. "The entire premise for the existence of this template family is false." See Template talk:Z number documentation. Note that contrary to the documentation in Step 1 at WP:Tfd#Listing a template under 'Multiple templates' which says, 'Tag every template', I am tagging only Template:Z1. If someone wants to tag the other 200-odd templates or write a bot, be my guest. Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications: attempting to follow the notification step III, I've notified creators of Z1, Z208, and Primefac, who has been active in this topic. See Template talk:Z number documentation. I scanned Z2 through around Z8, and the code doesn't even seem to be there anymore, so I don't want to send hundreds of pointless notifications out. I'm willing to send a dozen or two, if someone can point me to the ones that are actually in use. I'll notify the Templates WikiProject also. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are replaced with a comment that can easily be searched for if one isn't already present I would be fine with this. I really don't have a strong opinion here though as long as it's still easily trackable. --Trialpears (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trialpears:, I'm no authority, so quoting Primefac here:

    ...the fact that commented out text is not searchable is incorrect; an incode: search finds any piece of text in the source. As an example, {{Z15}} is associated with {{uw-softerblock}}.

    It would be up to the substable templates who wished to be trackable, to use a hidden comment like almost all substed templates already do, to ensure that they were trackable. Probably most already have it, and the rest could add one. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (insource:.) Izno (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I stared at that for a while, until the light bulb came on. Very handy. Here's an illustration; compare the "what links here" search, with the advanced search with the insource keyword:
    ▻ What Links Here: Template:Z15
    ▻ Advanced search: insource:"<!-- Template:Uw-softerblock -->"
    (Note: to actually verify the results, you'd have to list all of them and sort, but they should be the same set.) Thanks, Primefac for the tip, and Izno for the keyword correction. Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, apologies for the typo on the template talk. I've updated it there but noting here for the record that the quote above did correctly include my typo. Primefac (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as an effort is made to make sure there is an associated comment present, I'm happy. --Trialpears (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trialpears: Re-reading this later, I realize now I perhaps didn't understand you. Are you saying that you're okay with supporting it, as long as removal (by bot or whatever) replaces the transclusion of the z-number template with a hidden comment in the code, like, "<!--{{Z-nnn}} removed by consensus at [[Link-to-here|Tfd]]-->"? If not that, then what did you mean? Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there isn't already a html comment for tracking one should be added when removing the template. An explanation of the removal seems unnecessary. --Trialpears (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, with abstention: If it is decided to delete all of them, then I will not object, but we must first understand why they are there. I only discovered Template:Z number documentation recently. It's purpose is thus... the User Warnings listed at WP:WARN are all substituted. When one of these substitution templates is applied to a user's talk page, it is not always easy to later determine from the source code which template was applied to the user's talk page. The Z templates are meant to be a way to determine which template was substituted on the page. It does seem a little redundant if the original template is named in a hidden comment, but that's what I've come to understand the purpose of the Z templates. Note, there are two templates I could not add their Z number to because they were protected; if the Z templates are deleted, please make a notation of this when closing my edit requests 29 July 2021 and 29 July 2021 (2). Thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. To attempt to answer the question of why these exist, the oldest one (Template:Z1) dates to 2009, whereas the current search system has only existed since 2014. It's entirely possible that searching for commented-out text wasn't possible back in 2009 when these templates were created. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I think this was a valuable set of templates when they were first created, but the search tools have sufficiently advanced since their creation and they are now unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general note, since such things often get brought up (and I'm honestly surprised they haven't yet), if this does close as delete I can put my bot on the task, and will make sure that if the related templates do not contain a commented-out piece of text (for example, {{helpmessage}} does not contain <!--Template:Helpmessage-->), the removal of the Z template (for example {{Z163}}) will be a replacement with said text (and the template will be updated accordingly). Primefac (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, save for deprecated: Just because the transcluded templates might show up in a search doesn't mean they're easily sortable. For example, when I searched for "<-- Template:uw-talkinarticle3 -->" in the User Talk namespace at [1], far too many results appeared. This is because "Punctuation marks are ignored", so I was actually searching for "Template", "uw", and "talkinarticle3", even though I used the "exact search" field. Removing the comment tags made the search results output things that weren't even in the desired namespace ([2]). The worst part of this is that none of the pages listed under [3] appeared on either search, despite the fact that they all contained the text "Template:uw-talkinarticle3". I may be doing something wrong here, but in case I'm not, we should keep the Z templates. Also, for simplicity's sake, it's far easier to check the "What links here" of each Z template than to fix whatever I was doing wrong while searching for the specific texts.
Keep all, save for deprecated: Checking the "What links here" page of a Z template is easier than searching, and the templates use hardly any server resources.
Thank you for your time. Opal|zukor(discuss) 13:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your search was wrong regardless - you need to use insource as indicated above. 9 uses jump out accordingly. Izno (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Opalzukor This is mostly due to you not using an insource search like this which can also be improved with regex. I can't say I'm super convinced in the value of this proposal but it can give a lot better results than you got. --Trialpears (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno and Trialpears: Thanks a ton, will save this tip for the future! Will adjust comment accordingly. Opal|zukor(discuss) 22:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to filter the WhatLinksHere results for the User talk namespace. It seems the advanced search likely does have all the correct results, although it also yields false positives. Daß Wölf 08:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Z-number) Sidebar issue about tagging and notification
[edit]
Sorted

As mentioned earlier, I tagged two templates, and notified two creators, one involved user, and two WikiProjects. That leaves another two hundred untagged templates, and an unknown number of unnotified creator-users. Does anyone see a problem with this, or have a suggestion how to ameliorate the lack of tagging/notification? The first eight templates I checked that were at one time associated with Z-number templates (Z1–Z8), no longer use them, and I quit after that, jumped to Z208, and tagged that one. Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked templates connected with {{Z9}} – {{Z20}} in the doc page, and the only one that still contains a Z-template is {{Help me-nq}} (Z20), and there's no point notifying its creator, because their last edit was in 2011. Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications: I started with the most recent, as they're probably the more relevant, with more chance the creator is still active.

Notification summary for Z208 – Z180

Notifications go to creator (in col. 3) of column two template.

Z# template user notified remarks
{{Z208}} {{Uw-subtle4}} MJL 07-30
{{Z207}} {{Uw-subtle3}} Tornado chaser 07-30
{{Z206}} {{Uw-subtle2}} no no z-transclusion
{{Z205}} {{Uw-subtle1}} no no z-transclusion
{{Z204}} {{coimove}} Sdrqaz no userfied
{{Z203}} {{autocn}} Cortex128 07-30
{{Z202}} {{WP_search_protocol}} Fuhghettaboutit 07-30 also Z1
{{Z201}} {{uw-talkinarticle3}} Opalzukor 07-30
{{Z200}} {{uw-talkinarticle2}} Opalzukor 07-30
{{Z199}} {{uw-talkinarticle1}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z198}} deprecated
{{Z197}} deprecated
{{Z196}} deprecated
{{Z195}} deprecated
{{Z194}} deprecated
{{Z193}} {{Uw-test3}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z192}} {{Uw-test2}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z191}} {{Uw-test1}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z190}} {{Uw-vandalism4im}} Luk 07-30
{{Z189}} {{uw-vandalism4}} IRP no inactive 2011
{{Z188}} {{uw-vandalism3}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z187}} {{uw-vandalism2}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z186}} {{uw-vandalism1}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z185}} {{AfC-warn-NPF}} DannyS712 07-30
{{Z184}} {{Under review}} Winged Blades of Godric 07-30
{{Z183}} {{Uw-tilde}} Khukri 07-30
{{Z182}} {{UAA-no edits}} Beeblebrox 07-30
{{Z181}} {{Please ping}} Kephir no inactive 1 yr
{{Z180}} {{Uw-ecgaming}} Primefac 07-30

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-relist discussion
[edit]
Question to anyone who might know. Can a subst always templates like the ones these Z templates are added to have two states, one which is what is subst and the other which isn't? What I mean by that, say {{Sdd}} is subst to a talk page, but after doing that instead of {{z4}} being left behind, something like {{sdd|<param>}} is used, which outputs nothing. That way, we don't create additional templates for each template but also have the usage of "what links here", while at the same time still using a substitution template. Gonnym (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, no. The closest we have that would even be close is Module:Unsubst, which incidentally does exactly the opposite (prevents substing) but allows for a "subst with nothing and end up with something extra" type functionality.
That being said, I don't think we'd be able to hack/re-engineer the module to give some sort of subst-only version; what would happen when you subst the {{sdd|<param>}}? Would that be an unsubst? It's nesting layers of substs that I cannot see working properly. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, had a feeling it isn't possible. Another option can be to have a sub-template ({{sdd\link}}) added at the end. This is similar to the Z templates so we aren't saving any template space, but at least the process is much more clearer. The name informs what template created it, there is no need for a hidden comment and when a template is deleted there is no need to leave behind a "deprecated" Znumber. This idea is just to try and find a solution for the transclusion feature some editors above wanted. Gonnym (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I guess we could have every template have a blank subtemplate that is transcluded purely for the sake of tracking... if that makes the two "keeps" above happy, then I would be all right implementing that. Primefac (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doing that would defeat the entire purpose of this proposal. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as I said it pretty much is the same. I actually came back to revert my comment after giving it more thought, but apparently you two were too fast. Gonnym (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thinking about it more, it would also cause implementation issues, as there would be no centralized list of these subpages, new subst-only templates might not have/use them, all of the /docs would need to probably list the subpage so that it could be tracked. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all "What links here" is a more convenient and reliable way to search for templates and transclusions; and even if it's not, I see no evidence that this causes an unnecessary strain on resources or is otherwise unhelpful. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

[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 after replacement. The weight (both in numbers and in strength of argument) lies with those in favour of a simple replacement followed by deletion. Primefac (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:UserTalkArchiveBox with Template:Archives.
{{UserTalkArchiveBox}} is an archive box with less features than {{Archives}} with little advantages apart from the image being to the left of the Archives title rather than above which can look better since this template is automatically collapsed. All the features of {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} can easily be added to {{Archives}} and some of the features of {{Archives}} would be able to be used in this format aswell (Image change, stop collapsing...) which they currently are not. Terasail[✉️] 12:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • How exactly do you intend on implementing this? I'm not a big fan of having two collapse options in {{Archives}} if that's your plan. --Trialpears (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trialpears: I did a rough attempt in the sandbox with a new parameter: |utab= (should probably be renamed to something else). If the templates are not mergerd, {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} should probably be deleted in favour of {{Archives}}. Terasail[✉️] 15:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more inclined to just delete and replace, but given that this is in user space I know that is controversial. After looking at all 123 uses of the template only a small minority should actually have a collapsible box as it now serves to hide one or two links in which case just a normal non-collapsed {{Archives}} seems like the best replacement. The only users who have boxes that benefit from collapsing and have edited in the past few years are @Pi, Jbmurray, Kurykh, Nthep, A930913, Nick, Sturmgewehr88, and Adirlanz:. In these cases a replacement is just a change in style without being a significant improvement. If you guys are fine with a replace and delete I feel that would be by far the best solution from a maintenance and ease of use standpoint. If you have any questions about archiving I'm happy to assist and can ensure it will continue working after a potential conversion but with visual differences. I will shortly make an actual !vote shortly outlining the significant positive impacts of consolidation. --Trialpears (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked into the functionality details enough yet to be comfortable making a formal !vote, but on a high level, these seem like templates doing the same thing that we ought to be able to find a way to merge. That could either be done here, or as part of a larger talk archiving overhaul of the sort I know Trialpears is working on. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to echo the same point: I don't know all the details about the two templates, but if they are similar and can be merged without a downside, then it would be desirable for good house keeping. Thanks. Al83tito (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete Undecided on merger. This template is a rarely used archive box similar to the ones we have previously consolidated to streamline the process of setting up an archive over the past few years. The vision is that it should be as simple as putting {{Archives}} on a page to get a good archiving solution with lots of easily accessible and well documented configuration options instead of the previous method of choosing another box if you wanted some variation, usually with differing syntax and little overview of what other options are available. In the quite near future there are also plans on integrate auto archiving support by bot into {{Archives}} which wouldn't be available to {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} users. While replacement of this template isn't essential for any of these plans it would simplify the choice of archive box streamlining that process and make it easier for {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} users who want to change anything in the future. --Trialpears (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More information about planned archiving reform can be found at User:Trialpears/Archiving manifesto. Nothing there is set in stone, but it is a rough roadmap. --Trialpears (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am generally in favor of consolidating redundant code/templates/functionality. If the {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} functionality can be incorporated into {{Archives}}, I request that the talk template have the same width and default color (yellowish) as other templates on talk pages, using a style parameter. Somerandomuser (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Somerandomuser It will do both those. It only appears white on non-talk pages (such as WP:RFPP) as that is the color scheme usually used there (you can read a bit more at {{mbox}} I believe). --Trialpears (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and remove: I am in favor of consolidating redundant code/templates/functionality. Thank you Trialpears for addressing my concerns. Somerandomuser (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above. ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions: Template:UserTalkArchive is tied with Template:UserTalkArchiveBox, and as such has more information in its template doc, so I would recommend examining it first before any action is decided. If the {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} is made redundant by merging its functionality into {{Archives}}, then I would recommend similar to {{UserTalkArchive}}, merging its functionality into Template:Automatic archive navigator. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agreed that should also be consolidated, but it doesn't really have any impact on the present discussion. They can be used completely independently of each other and there are probably differences in how they should be handled. --Trialpears (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care As a long-time user of this template, I've got to say that I'm not fussed about this at all. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care so long as the process of changing is invisible to me as a long time user, that I don't have to do anything significant. I don't even mind if my talk page gets changed in the process. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete. Not every flavor should be supported and having an easier code to maintain while also having a more standard user experience is a much better ideal. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no compelling reason or evidence of a real problem has been provided that it needs to be merged, deleted or replaced. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional merge assuming a satisfying implementation and smooth migration is proposed. MarioGom (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t care, it seems the nom just switched me across [4] and I cannot tell the difference from the old version [5]. Cavalryman (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    No I just changed a parameter of {{Archives}}, there should be no actual change to your template and you were not using {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} Terasail II[✉️] 02:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This sounds like an idea without a concrete solution so far, minimum disruptions needs to happen if there is going to be a merge or deletion of this template. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sturmgewehr88 I wouldn't agree with that characterization. While there are two proposals for what to do, merging and replace and delete, both are themself thought thru. For merging the appearance and such would be preserved and all that would need to be done is changing {{UserTalkArchiveBox|Archive list}} to {{Archives|Archive list}}. For replace and delete the replacement would be similar but instead of implementing a new appearence for a collapsed archive box the one already supported by {{Archives}} would be used. This would be a change like {{UserTalkArchiveBox|Archive list}} to {{Archives|Archive list}}. In this case I also suggested uncollapsing unnecessarily collapsed boxes, it really isn't necessary for just one or two links and the apparence of the box would change anyway.
    For a template with as few uses as this one, just a bit over 100, the process would also be mostly manual and all edits would be individually reviewed. If you have any other questions feel free to ask! --Trialpears (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent - I have been using the Archives template for my talk page for years. I just hope you don't make a mess of the one I use, as it is perfectly satisfactory. LynwoodF (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There really is no solid discussion from the nominator on why this should even be done. – The Grid (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete. No need for two templates with similar functionality when one can support all necessary features. czar 04:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per Trialpears' rationale above. —Bruce1eetalk 06:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete. These are two archive templates are in the header above, not three. --Diegopeter2013 (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per Trialpears' rationale -- DaxServer (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional replace and delete As long as a plan can be put in place to either change the template to eliminate any disruption for any of us using the old template, or (preferable IMO, if it can be done seamlessly), using a bot to wholesale change every use to the new template, with parameters that exactly replicate the old ones. The latter would be trickier, and would mean modifying people's user/user talk pages (controversial, at best), but would mean not having to deal with backwards compatibility in the future. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Pardon my ignorace. I bet you will have the answer to this. If one template gets merged into another one, what happens to the pages with the old template? Does a bot go a replace the deprecated template with the new template? Or is the expectation that all articles will have some active editor that will manually update them? Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Al83tito Templates are put into the holding cell whenever a discussion closes with consensus for change where they remain until the consensus is implemented. How implementation is done can vary a lot depending on context, but for this template it would probably be me or Terasail go through all pages using the template and perform the suitable replacement. If I were to do it I would use AWB which does it semi-automatic with manual checking of each edit. There is no expectation that users with the template on their talk page do anything. --Trialpears (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No evidence of a real problem has been provided and no compelling reason for deletion has been presented. Furthermore, no concrete solution has been presented. Keep these as they are -- no need to fix what isn't broken. - tucoxn\talk 00:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because I don't want any of these changes fudging up the format and layout of my talk page. It was very clever and tricky template placement that was exactly what got my talk page looking the way I wanted it to. Huggums537 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to Replace and delete per subsequent discussion with Trialpears. Huggums537 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch back to oppose. Strike "replace and delete" then unstrike "oppose" per comment by Godsy below. Final answer. Huggums537 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your user page uses {{Archives}} and not {{UserTalkArchiveBox}}. Regardless of outcome the appearance of it will not be changed in anyway, that is only on the table for the ~100 pages using the latter template. --Trialpears (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, I know exactly which template I'm using. I've just never been convinced when anyone tells me their fiddling around won't affect me in any way at all, but they haven't fully put it to the test to see if it actually will or not. If it could be proven it wouldn't affect me, then I would happily and gladly support your suggested replace and delete. Huggums537 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Huggums537 Completley reasonable. Most editors don't know or care about implementation details since they have better things to do.
    If the replace and delete option gains consensus it would not involve any edit to the {{Archives}} template and could thus impossibly affect any of those transclusions. If the merge option gains consensus the extra parameter would be implemented in the test version of the template, presumably by Terasail, and then the output be compared to almost 50 testcases at Template:Archives/testcases if the code generated by the test version is the exact same as the live version with a specific set of inputs the test will collapse and display in green. If not it will show a side by side comparison. By confirming that all current test cases green it can be ensured that only new uses with the parameter are affected. If you want, I could ping you when the new version is finished so you can confirm for yourself that it's the exact same. --Trialpears (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, sounds to me like the no edit to the Archives template would affect me personally, and most other people the least. It also sounds like the least trouble to implement. You've convinced me to support your proposal. Huggums537 (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete, otherwise merge. No need for multiple alternatives, which are just confusing for the reader, and novice editor. With just 122 vs. 41947 transclusions, the community has already made clear its preference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to comment I don't understand the relisting. There's plenty of activity. There is obviously substantial opposition. What is left to discuss? Compare how a merge decision was bulldozed through in the recent case of Auto Archiving Notice, despite serious concerns by several unrelated editors, using weak spurious arguments such there were three times as many supporters as opponents (as if quantity trumped quality of argument?) If this RfC ends up pretending a merge decision was the consensus here too, it's time to re-evaluate the overall wipeout of archive-related templates and the very few editors responsible. I thought the point of having these discussions was to address concerns, and if they aren't resolved, then at least openly acknowledge them as ultimately not-crucial. As opposed to acting as they were not even made. CapnZapp (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CapnZapp I would agree that there is some opposition to this proposal, but I'm unsure what you believe are the unaddressed high quality opposition arguments here. I see editors opposing the proposal are mostly in one of two camps, either they don't find the reasons to merge uncompelling or they have concerns about implementation difficulties. For the latter I've tried to address them, it is after all an important part in making the outcome as good as possible, but If I've missed anything feel free to let me know. The former argument I feel should be weighed just as highly as most support !votes since neither cites policy or are otherwise especially strong.
    If you have gripes with how the Auto Archiving Notice merger is being handled I would suggest commenting at Template talk:Talk header#Sandbox version where most post-TfD discussion about it has occured and I plan to implement the new template version and start combining templates in a few days. You are also welcome to my talkpage. I presume I am in the group of editors you are talking about and would like to know if there's anything you feel I should do differently. --Trialpears (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete; replace UserTalkArchiveBox by Archives, per nominator and Pigsonthewing's rationales. Veverve (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Complex and seemingly unnecessary. Adding the features of a template with under 200 transclusions to one with over 40,000 might cause many more potential issues and snags than the net benefits. Well enough left alone. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Godsy What are your thoughts on the replace and delete proposal which wouldn't involve changes to {{archives}}? I share your concerns about a merger though, hence why I'm still undecided about that option. --Trialpears (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trialpears: I would oppose that as well, because those using {{UserTalkArchiveBox}} may lose functionality. Nothing is gained besides having one less template around, which is not much of a benefit (besides perhaps a minuscule lesser maintenance burden over time). The trend of consolidation and supposed streamlining school of thought as of late may be growing a bit too strong. Simple templates are often more convenient than complex amalgamized ones; easy use for the average user does not include a plethora of parameters etc. Also, I do not use auto-archiving (however, e.g. anyone who wishes to use it can simply switch to a different system if it is not built into both templates).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a user who has always thought that more options are better, even if it's not the popular vote, and Godsy has reminded me of this. I'm switching back to oppose. Final answer. Huggums537 (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete. Same rationale as Pigsonthewing. Soapwort (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to close this merger proposal as "no consensus", and then open a second discussion for that "replace and delete" proposal. Otherwise you will always have plenty of voices that you don't know what they're responding to. Of course if you want to replace a template, perhaps best first to create a draft of the replacement so people can decide which one is better the replacement or the original-to-be-deleted. If it helps count this as a non-vote for oppose. (What I am opposing deliberately left vague.) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, this is now ridiculous. If you're going to relist this until everybody agrees to just let you delete the template, please just say so. Thank you. (This is an obvious case of no consensus, or what we call Keep in practice) CapnZapp (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace and delete, no need for a second template that does the same thing. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge and replace/delete. Godsy says it well - the downsides and potential downsides to users, especially those who are not technically minded, far outweigh the very minimal benefits that will almost all accrue to a small group of very technically literate template maintainers. Thryduulf (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Having a few various options is better, and lesser available options is inferior. This also has the potential to mess up the archive notices on user talk pages and article talk pages in the event of a sloppy merge, which wouldn't surprise me if this merge were to occur. This merge proposal is searching for a solution to a problem that does not exist. North America1000 13:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace. I think this is a noble consolidation proposal. That being said, I don't see any use in allowing for the box to be a banner, or being able to collapse the index list. SWinxy (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub

[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 no consensus , with NPASR provided that this template (either in name, categorisation, or use) cannot be cleaned up and/or "fixed" by the normal processes. Primefac (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a stub template; unused; appropriately replaced by the VAV Project talk page Stub-Class article template. Her Pegship (?) 18:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: added it to 10ish articles ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 23:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, it meets TfD #2: The template is redundant to a better-designed template. Until you added the template to those 10 articles, the template was not used on any articles, unproposed at WPSS, and redundant to {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}, which accomplishes the WPVAV purpose appropriately. (N.B. The wording of the template is simply a copy/paste from a correctly formed, correctly used stub template.) If you want to propose {{veganism-stub}} and/or {{vegetarianism-stub}}, please do so at WPSS - but please read the proposal guidelines on that page first. Thanks. Her Pegship (?) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your interpretation of redundancy would mean we can't have stub templates for topics covered by Wikiprojects, since you could always use only the project talk page template. This interpretation is not consensus, or can you shown otherwise? It would entail eliminating Template:Agri-stub and many others, too, since WP:AGRICULTURE can categorise stubs via its talk page Template:WikiProject Agriculture.
Your other issue seems to be that under WP:NEWSTUB, stub templates should go through the Wikiproject Stub Sorting discussion process. But having skipped the process is no deletion reason for templates at WP:TFD#REASONS. WP:NEWSTUB is part of WP:STUB. That's just a guideline, not Wikipedia policy. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply, says WP:GUIDES. In the present case, common sense tells us that if there are 147 stubs categorised by the VAV talk page template, then there is obvious scope for a stub template to be displayed on some of those articles itself. We can skip deletion and submission to WPSS, since it is obvious it would pass at WPSS. let's not be WP:BURO when instead we can use the existing stub to entice more people to add material to stubs, thereby improving Wikipedia (WP:IGNORE).
As to not being in use: I'll use it, and I'll make sure to recommend it to the other VAV wikiproject members.
As to your proposal for separate vegan and vegetarian stub types, I think their scope would be too small. Anyhow, most articles could use both stub templates since they usually discuss both vegetarianism and veganism. Perhaps you could convince me on this point, but not on deletion of the only stub template we have. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 22:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation, since {{Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub}} was unused and {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}} existed for the use of the VAV project, was that the {{Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub}} had been created in error and replaced by {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}. My original explanation was not clear, I think. (Also, it looks like the majority of the "Stub-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles" are about people who are vegans or vegetarians but are not notable for that fact. Just saying.) I don't feel strongly enough to pursue this further, so I will step back and allow others to form a consensus. Her Pegship (?) 04:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:DragRaceProgressTable

[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 no consensus. There is a numerical parity from the voiced opinions, so we must look at the strength of arguments. The primary reason given for deleting this template is that we should not be "hiding" article content in templates purely to avoid vandalism (i.e. the article should be protected instead). Those in favour of keeping this template are frustrated with the huge amount of vandalism on the articles due to the tables, but feel that protecting the entire article is too high of a barrier to editing, since protecting an entire page to prevent vandalism of one table is overkill. WP:TMPG got bantered about a lot, but it is a) a guideline, and b) uses the dreaded "should not", which is not an absolute prohibition. Of course, it is the reason why we are seeing the precedent set in recent years to delete single-use templates, but just like with guidelines (and even rules) there are always exceptions.

I've looked at a number of these articles, and the amount of IP vandalism has significantly dropped since removal of these tables (see my personal note for more) without apparently decreasing the productive IP edits (which are not insignificant). With this set of templates at this point in time (i.e. this should not be seen as any sort of precedent) I am just not seeing a consensus to delete. Having read through the entirety of the other discussion, and taking this discussion and consistency in mind, I am overturning the previous close (per the usual protocols) to "no consensus" as well (I believe too much weight was given to TMPG among other things) and restoring the template.

There were some calls for outright deletion because of accessibility issues; unless these issues are insurmountable they are not valid reasons for deletion. That being said, I highly suggest those concerned start a discussion about improving these (and other) progress templates to give the best options and help to create something that all readers can experience properly. I am happy to help with the creation and/or implementation of some sort of meta template, if necessary, to facilitate standardization and accessibility across all of Wikipedia (since obviously, this isn't the only show that uses this style of table).

Just to reiterate a few points, a) this close should not be seen as any sort of precedent, b) this close does not preclude a future nomination of the grouping, overhauling the template family, etc.

On a personal note, I will say that I'm rather surprised by the amount of vandalism that is still continuing at the template pages, and would strongly suggest those who are interested in this subject to request protection, because that's the whole reason why you moved these pages out of the article in the first place. Also, if "finding the information hidden away in a template" is an issue, I would suggest adding {{vte}} links to the template calls for ease of access. I would also request that future nominations of a single template out of a family (as some sort of "litmus test") be limited to "types" of templates (e.g. election templates, convenience templates, etc), not "template 5 out of 10 of a very specific group". Primefac (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template's sub-pages hold table content which is used in one article (for each sub-template). Article content shouldn't be held in templates but in the article itself as it makes editing harder and eventually these templates have less watchers than the actual articles. If vandalism is an issue, then it should be handled by the current systems that are in place. Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5 was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5. Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The content of these templates was present, for many years, in the Wiki code of the affected articles. Many of those tables (especially in recent seasons) were vandalized so frequently that maintaining them was effectively impossible. After several discussions—such as here and here—the templates were put in place and swiftly ended the vandalism. As an example of the extent of the problem, take a look at the edit history of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) in the eight months prior to the template's introduction on April 16. The vast majority of the article's edits from August 2020 to April 2021 (well over 1,000 edits) were to the progress table, and nearly all were disruptive edits (or reversions thereof). And that's just one article; the same is true of other recent season pages.
For the record, I don't care whether the solution to this vandalism is to use these templates specifically, but indefinite semiprotection of all the articles seems worse: we shouldn't prevent new editors from making manageable (and often helpful) edits to other parts of these articles. And, as one can see from edit histories, the vandalism is not coming from a few easily blockable IPs/accounts. It's more or less a new editor every time, so individual blocks would not be effective at all. Armadillopteryx 18:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as the last Drag Race template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and overturn deletion of Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5. Per Armadillopteryx. We shouldn't let a vague "that's not what template space is for" idea get in the way of a very effective solution that has local consensus. Sounds like this solution helped solve a big problem, and costs us nothing to keep implemented. I do not see how deleting these templates improves the encyclopedia, it just creates more work for the few WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TfD cannot overturn the deletion of Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5. Only DRV can do that. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Armadillopteryx and Wugapodes:. Thanks for your participation. If you feel comfortable with it, please consider giving a bolded vote, for maximum clarity. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination gives no policy based reason for why we should voluntarily open up articles to more vandalism or prevent good-faith editors from improving parts of articles that normally do not experience disruption. WP:TMPG says "Templates should not normally be used to store article text", but notice this is not an absolute prohibition; when there are extenuating circumstances it may be the best course of action (see WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO). Storing tables in templates is not uncommon, suggesting the nomination's position that article content must be held in the article is not well supported by actual practice. For example {{2004 Summer Olympics Calendar}} is used on a single page to make editing the page easier, and this is common across articles in that set given the size of Category:Olympics calendar templates. FIFA World Cup articles use a system of templates to store tables, for example {{2014 FIFA World Cup Group A table}} and further examples at{{FIFA World Cup group table sidebar}}. Mass-protecting pages when disruption is specific to one part is a net negative; our responses to disruption should be as specific as possible without creating collateral damage, and keeping the encyclopedia open is a good reason to go against the typical use of templates at WP:TMPG. Moving frequently disrupted content to other pages and then transcluding is fine and even advisable given policy because it prevents the bulk of disruption while minimizing collateral damage to good faith editors, resulting a net improvement of the encyclopedia. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving frequently disrupted content to other pages and then transcluding is fine and even advisable given policy - what policy is that? Also, if you'll look at the history of TfD over the past few years you'll see that single-used templates are almost on a daily basis subst and deleted. Additionally, showing examples of bad practice does not make it good. Most unknowledgeable editors just copy what they see without even giving it half a thought. Using your Template:2004 Summer Olympics Calendar example, see how the table doesn't even use correct column and row headers or offer non-sighted readers a way to "see" what each cell is colored. Fails both in accessibility and in basic HTML 5 semantics. Bad examples, are still bad examples. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read what I wrote you would see the clear and prominent policy links justifying your out-of-context quotation. Specific formatting is a surmountable problem that can be fixed without deletion, and your proposed solution, substituting and deleting, wouldn't actually fix the problems you point out. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like a reasonable IAR situation. This stops the disruption while allowing editing. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonnym. Just to be clear, are you proposing we also delete all the sub-pages of this template? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a sub-page cannot stand on its own. See WP:G8. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging participants from the previous discussion who haven't already commented: @CCamp2013, Isaidnoway, Bsherr, and Frietjes: * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Tables must be accessible for visually impaired readers - do not use colors in background to communicate important information, screen readers can not read colors, and do not use abbreviations to communicate important information, screen readers do not know what BTM2 and ELIM stand for, and there is no text (important information) accompanying the numbers in the top row to indicate what they stand for. Visually impaired readers and editors should not be ignored on Wikipedia. We should be striving to be more inclusive. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These sound like good reasons to reformat the table, not to delete the template. These arguments would apply also if the template contents were substituted into the article. I agree that the tables should meet accessibility guidelines. Armadillopteryx 16:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:TFD#REASONS which contradicts your rationale: Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Deletion is not cleanup, and substituting the template will not fix any of the issues you described. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To demonstrate how flawed the original rationale is, I made this edit where I added {{abbr}} to the abbreviations which completely resolved their issue about abbreviations not being accessible (see WCAG H28). Clearly if someone spent a day on this all the above concerns could be resolved without deletion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit did not fix the abbreviation issue for screen readers, so it is not completely resolved as you claim. I have been arguing for months that various sorts of tables in a wide assortment of articles with ill-advised table formatting are not accessibility compliant, some issues I've fixed myself when there has been no major pushback from other editors, and I've tagged a few, but more often than not (based on my experieces), there are arguments similar to the ones being made here, it can be fixed, it can be reformatted, etc. but nobody ever follows through and the tables remain inaccessible.
A recent RfC at MOS:TV about this genre of TV elimination-style reality programs, ended with a consensus that these sort of tables should comply with accessibility guidelines. But like I said above, no one followed through and implemented the consensus, and the tables are still inaccessible. I suggested this table in the RfC as being compliant with a few minor tweaks, but my suggestion didn't receive any tractin. Editors have opined that it is ugly (God forbid we have an ugly table that is accessibility compliant). So in light of the fact that no one ever bothers to actually fix or reformat these tables for accessibility, I stand by my delete !vote. When an editor gets the time to tackle this longstanding issue, they can easily be restored to the articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is your solution better for accessibility (which should take precedence over any and all aesthetic concerns), it has the added bonus of actually being verifiable, unlike this 'high' 'low' nonsense. Daundelin❁ 17:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just also wanted to note that I did not nominate this template for deletion, as you appear to acknowledge above. But, having said that, if the result is keep, then I would expect that the accessibility issues will be fixed by normal editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can stand by your delete vote, but suggesting something be deleted out of spite is not very compelling. Even if this wasn't kept, the accessibility problems would still not be resolved, so your position doesn't lead to the outcome you want because it will still be present in the article just not as a template. I don't know how all screen readers parse HTML, but both the Web Consortium and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text state that use of the <abbr>...</abbr> (implemented by {{abbr}}) is best practice for making abbreviations in text accessible. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this wasn't kept, the accessibility problems would still not be resolved - and therein lies the problem. Wikipedia pages should be easy to navigate and read for people with disabilities. But more often than not, that is simply not the case. People with disabilities should have equal access to Wikipedia pages. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that people with disabilities should have equal access to pages—but this still isn't a reason to delete the template; it's a reason to bring the table into compliance with accessibility guidelines. You're welcome to join the ongoing discussion about how to do this. Armadillopteryx 15:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm very happy that accessibility concerns are being brought up and hopefully addressed in this discussion, you'll notice that accessibility fixes weren't a reason for deleting the template, so not sure why this keeps being argued against. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice the !vote you've just commented under very clearly has accessibility as its rationale. That may not have been your justification for the nom itself, but it is a reason for some delete !votes. That is why it's being addressed. Armadillopteryx 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after substitution. if there are vandalism problems, then protect the article. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete. Purposefully making editing more opaque for everyone is an unacceptable solution to respond to vandalism. That's not what templates are for. --Bsherr (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The alternative is making the entire article uneditable for most people via page protection. If making editing more opaque via template is an unacceptable solution, surely prohibiting editing the whole page is worse, yes? — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If these are such hotspots, then yeah, protect the page. Making the table harder to find doesn't fix the problem of disruption, it just makes it harder to find and fix the source of the disruption when vandalism inevitably occurs on the template itself. --Izno (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps also add in a user-accessible version as well? Sorry if this has already been disputed but wouldn't a good solution just be to have both versions of the table included on the Wikipedia page? For example, this table for users with disabilities that hinder them from properly reading the original table. And the original table for people who are able to understand the information properly and who find the more accessible version difficult to read because of the size of the boxes. Wouldn't this just fix everybody's problems? User:Taylveon 21:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see a concern about possible collateral damage from semi-protecting the articles (and the fact that this would also require semi-protecting a large swathe of articles, and I see a concern about persistent disruption due to these tables. I don't have first-hand experience of the other activity on those articles, so I don't know whether semi-protecting would be a better option, but even then, having a standardised template for this one series seems like a good idea. So there's both an IAR reason (prevent disruption while keeping pages more accessible to both editors and readers [by enforcing stricter accessibility requirements]) and the fact that this is, actually, a proper template, i.e. "It usually contains repetitive material that may need to show up on multiple articles or pages, often with customizable input.". So a rather easy keep from me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see and understand why this has to be up for debate but in all honesty I find that deleting these tables is just not right. As the show has grown it’s popularity throughout the years so many people know the terminology of being placed “HIGH” or “LOW” from these tables on Wikipedia. I find the tables a lot of helpful and very informal on how the queen’s track record is seen and how people see how the queens process throughout the show is shown and also can see which queen was deserving of the overall win of the show. I see no purpose of the deletion of these tables but there need be some sort of policing. Yes these table are easily accessible to edit and anyone can put their own flavor text to them when in reality it’s not right and they just want their favorites to look good. So just keep them and move on from this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtvnetwork (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rtvnetwork: This isn't about deleting the tables, or even arguing about their fansite-like problems. This is just about deleting this particular template (which is being used to standardise the way the tables are being displayed). You might wish to amend (if you wish to address the deletion concerns - see the deletion policy) or strike your comment. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: Okay my apologies for adding on to the conversation. I just saw that the “template was being considered for deletion” on the main pages and I just thought that there was an issue with fan biases with them and also with the UK season 2 not even being on it’s main page. I remember when that season was airing nearly halfway over, it got messed up and the whole main page for season 2 of the UK version doesn’t have one or can’t have one because it’s currently locked. But anyway I apologize for jumping to quick to adding my comment but I just them to stay as they are and not to be deleted. If you wish to delete my comment go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtvnetwork (talk • contribs) 04:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been pointed to you by RandomCanadian, the table isn't being proposed to be deleted or changed in this discussion. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per Gonnym, Frietjes, Bsherr. --Izno (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete per above. Protecting the articles is a better method for dealing with vandalism. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per above. This sort of content should be in the actual article, not hidden away. Nigej (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5 was deleted at TFD before this TFD, and we can look at it as a microcosm of what will likely happen if this TFD closes as delete. If you look at the article's history, since the table code was placed back in the article, there has been a very large amount of disruptive editing of the contestant progress table. I count 26 revisions by 6 different users over the course of a couple of days. I do not see a good explanation for why the table should be changing this much for a season that concluded in 2013. I do not see a good reason why experienced editor time should be spent trying to decipher these 26 edits when we can just keep the status quo of transcluding these tables, which is working well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The longstanding problem with Drag Race articles has been a constant stream of anonymous or single purpose editors who edit the articles solely to falsify placements in the tables, swapping safes and bottoms and highs and lows and/or outright misrepresenting final placement orders to reflect how they personally wanted the judges to rank the contestants instead of how the judges actually ranked the contestants. As noted by several above editors, this commonly ramps up to dozens or even hundreds of such edits per day; I've occasionally been involved in reverting in the past, but found that it was a constant distraction from my other editing goals and walked away from it, but not before quite reluctantly (with support from other editors) placing some of the pages under permanent (not ideal) and extended-confirmed (not ideal) sprot that I really didn't want to have to apply. Some other solution is necessary, because the articles as a whole shouldn't have to stay that heavily protected in the long term — and if moving the tables over to templatespace, so that they can be protected there while leaving the core text of the articles open for other edits, is the only other viable alternative, then that's preferable to leaving all of the articles permanently overprotected. I wish there were another alternative (such as the ability to protect a section without having to protect the whole page?), but so long as people feel entitled to fuck around with the placement tables at their leisure, there really isn't. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin comment: I'm working on a close for this, but still looking into a few things; more comments and !votes are welcome, but my goal is to close this within the next 24 48 hours or so. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't believe accessibility concerns are outright grounds for deletion. This whole discussion originates from the catastrafuck on Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2), and having a template is a better way to avoid disruptive editing. The notion of a template in and of itself doesn't appear to the issue. Whether the template needs to be improved or not is another matter (it probably does). Spa-Franks (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Deus Ex chronology

[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 no consensus. Arguments boiled down to essentially opposite sides of the "it's cruft/OR" debate, and there's no clear consensus either way.

I'll note that (potentially due to how this TFD was framed) almost none of the other templates in the cat were discussed, so there is no prejudice against (re?)nomination of those templates if they are found to be individually lacking. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this template for deletion along with all others within Category:Video game fictional chronology templates. Three major reasons.

  • (A) These templates conflict with the real world tone of Wikipedia. In the video game project, we have made great strides in recent years to reduce the focus on fictional details (characters, plots) and emphasize real world information (development, reception). (WP:VGSCOPE #5)
  • (B) I am not confident each chronology can be properly verified, and may include headcanon interpretations. Take for instance Template:Metal Gear chronology which has a long explanation on which media to include, and which to omit. (WP:VERIFY)
  • (C) Some of these are not plot-centric franchises, like Metroid or Contra. Sources do not often discuss the "series story" for these franchises. Efforts to link them in some massive chronology was never the intent, and was done after the fact by the developers to appease obsessive fans. (WP:UNDUE)

In short, this content is better left for fanwikis. TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is a not a fan site and there already exists a navbox for this video game series. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From readers' view. Video game's plot and timeline are some importamt part. People look up it on wikipedia always want to know plot clearly. So when we could just search wikipedia for it easily, why must delete them and force readers to look up on other site, it's unnecessary make matters complicated. Wikipedia should help readers find what they want to know easily, not focus on forms. And we don't know what's problem with chronology template, it's not some over detailed plot or something, doesn't change overall overall neatly format or something.--SimonWan00 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reasons given by the nominator do not justify the deletion of the template. The template serves to place the reader, in a didactic way, the chronology of the plot. In fact, the template is very important to bring complete information related to the game. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or effectively merge this into the article prose. Assuming this isn't WP:OR, third party coverage about the sequence of the stories can be covered in a plot section of the main series article. That's the way that chronologies are meant to be addressed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, and a separate article or template is inappropriate. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:AINTBROKE. I am fairly sure no one will confuse this for a real-world dating scheme, but when the year is actually 2027, feel free to add "fictional" to the name. It has a useful function for readers to put the games' stories in context.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After looking into this, I'm not convinced that Deus Ex's chronology needs this degree of unpacking: there's only a few major titles, their placement relative to one another is not complex, and their stories do not appear to be closely tied together. So while it's important to note that Human Revolution is set 25 years before Deus Ex, it's probably not important to note that it's also 45 years before Invisible War (which it has little ties to)— which is to say, a simple "set X years before/after…" in the prose is enough, and this template is a bit much. I wouldn't be opposed to hardcoding the chronology onto the series-wide article, but I don't think it needs to be a template transcluded on each game's individual page. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Chronological arrangement of story events in a series should only ever be used in the article for the series itself, and never for other articles. Even then, it must be detailed out encyclopaedically to readers why it was arranged in that manner by the developers, writers and/or producers (whichever is relative to the medium of the series). Furthermore, to include this template on separate articles for each entry in the series is excessive, not only by going against WP:UNDUE, but because if editors think readers need this to navigate between entries in a series, they overlook the navbox that may already exist for that purpose. GUtt01 (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:AINTBROKE. The template is important as it enriches the article's informative content. The purpose of the Template is to show in which context in the time the game's plot is located. A quality encyclopedia seeks to deliver complete information about something. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC) strike duplicate !vote[reply]
  • Delete - Trying to illustrate some sort of continuity without sources is WP:OR. Even if the chronology could be verified with WP:PRIMARY sources, the template would still violate WP:DUE. I don't think there are any WP:SECONDARY sources to justify a template like this. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The whole series isn't that complicated, and the timeline placement can be communicated perfectly well through prose, so I don't see the need for a chronology. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Prince William Railway RDT

[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. Primefac (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from Prince William Railway Company in 2010 during refactoring and not re-added. There is a more comprehensive template on the article about the line. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Entwine

[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. No opposition, reasonable arguments. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of the album articles listed in this navbox have been redirected to the main article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:I Can See Your Voice (South Korean game show)

[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. Primefac (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merged with {{I Can See Your Voice series}} for consistency with the other related series Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Malaysian general election, 2018 (Selangor)

[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. ✗plicit 15:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused, appears to have already been merged with the main article. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Malaysian general election by state tables

[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. subst and delete. ✗plicit 15:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

only used in one article, should be merged with the article and deleted Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Malayan general election by state tables 1950s

[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. ✗plicit 14:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused or only used in one article, should be merged with the article and deleted Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Standard gauge line Queensland

[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. ✗plicit 12:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; unclear where it could be used. Mackensen (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:State Educational Institutions of Tamil Nadu

[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. ✗plicit 12:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template does not have any content since creation. There are two transclusions, both of them did not add much value to the article. -- DaxServer (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jafferton route diagram templates

[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. ✗plicit 08:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and don't correspond to any railway line that I can identify. The creator may have been testing something. Mackensen (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Battipaglia–Reggio di Calabria railway diagram

[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. ✗plicit 08:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; superseded by {{Salerno–Reggio di Calabria railway RDT}}. Mackensen (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway (header)

[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. ✗plicit 00:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused fork of {{Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway}}. Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_16&oldid=1146412461"