Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Review/Message boxes)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 16 34 50
TfD 0 0 2 1 3
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 2 4 6 12
AfD 0 0 0 53 53

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

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

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

Note:

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

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021_September_17#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at Tfd. Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

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

  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

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

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

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

{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
III: Notify users. Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors[edit]

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

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

Notifying related WikiProjects[edit]

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template[edit]

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

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

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

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

Twinkle[edit]

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion[edit]

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

Current discussions[edit]

September 17[edit]


September 16[edit]

Template:Pronunciation-Non-English[edit]

This template is a completely unnecessary duplicate of Template:Needs IPA and Template:Pronunciation needed. I don't think there's really any benefit to splitting requests for pronunciation guides into "English" and "Everything else". Aside from the fact that this is using the wrong type of message box the issue this is supposed to be used to tag is rather minor and does not require a full banner template. The template is also a technical mess, with broken mark-up, template loops and non-existent categories, and does not sort tagged pages into any kind of clean-up or maintenance category. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:2016 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign[edit]

A single-use template that's actually a fork of an infobox. Infoboxes like these are not used as separate templates. This should be substituted on the endorsements article for the 2016 Bernie campagain. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Réseau Ferroviaire Rapide routemap[edit]

Unused since its creation. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Pennine Bridleway[edit]

Unused since its creation. Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Archive list long inline[edit]

{{Archive list}} with some options pre-specified, almost all transclusions are through {{Warning archive notice}}. Just using {{Archive list}} is preferable since that makes it more configurable. --Trialpears (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 07:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

September 15[edit]

Template:Jeb Bush series[edit]

These are just a few problematic sidebar templates for U.S. politicians who have ran for the presidency of some other notable office. But these sidebars shouldn't be around given the few links, uses, and the lack of aid in navigation for the subject matter. Some of the are unused or used on the subject matter's article, linked to article sections. The last three, Herman Cain, Eric Adams, Henry Clay are barely used. Sidebars should be for the more prominent, in this case, American politicians, those who are or have been president, and if they have run for the highest office like that for Hillary Clinton. Clinton is more prominent given her long career. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. The templates improve the pages that they are used on, and the claim that Hillary Clinton is more prominent than all of these individuals is unpersuasive, especially given the inclusion of a template relating to (for example) Henry Clay. I don't think that winning a party's nomination for president should be a necessary condition for a U.S. politician to have one of these templates. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Well Henry Clay's series doesn't have enough to stand on its own. Really I can't see why any of these have to stay. The Ted Cruz series failed for the same reason. He ran for president, didn't get the nomination or win. And yet there wasn't enough for navigation which is what all seven of these have.--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:KLIA statistics[edit]

Single use template, not so heavy as to require a separate page. Izno (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete If the information can be put onto a page then it should. But not on a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

September 14[edit]

Template:Climate of India by state or territory[edit]

A largely red-linked template with the majority of blue links being redirects. Used on only two articles. One of which regarding the climate of one of the states passes notability, the rest I have prodded for the lack of references and failing GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Citation-attribution[edit]

Suboptimal and redundant to two other templates, due to ambiguous usage. Looking through transclusions I've found two types of uses. The first, like at Salton Sea, would be clearer using {{PD-notice}}. The second, like at Order of the Red Banner, is redundant to {{Source-attribution}}. The wording of this template isn't clearer in either context than that of the templates it's redundant to.

I propose that transclusions of {{Citation-attribution}} be manually replaced with either {{PD-notice}} or {{Source-attribution}} depending on their location in the article, then the template either redirected to {{PD-notice}} or deleted. As there are only around ~450 transclusions, I'd be willing to take on this task, but I'd like to get consensus to do so first. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • {{citation-attribution}}—a template that can be placed in an inline citation at the end of a sentence, sentences or a paragraph that incorporates text from a source that is not under copyright.
  • {{source-attribution}}—a template that can be placed in the References section of an article if the article incorporates text from a source that is not under copyright and there is no source specific template listed in Category:Attribution templates.
The two templates generate different statements for inline citations "One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a work now in the public domain:"  and for the source section"This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain" I suggest rather than deleting either of these templates (as they complement each other), {{PD-notice}} is redirected to {{source-attribution}} as its notice is nearly identical. -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)  
  • Comment: I think something like this can work, though it would be worthwhile to more fully sketch out our objectives here before proceeding. There is a nice symmetry in the names of the {{citation-attribution}} and {{source-attribution}} templates, but the {{PD-notice}} template invokes the concept of public domain—which is the kind of attribution that these templates seek to provide. (At the same time, most of the other templates prefixed with "PD-" are used for file attribution, and I am ambivalent about making that template—which works a little differently—appearing among those in alphabetical category lists.) Also, there are many other templates with similar purposes, and ideally they ought to all be fairly consistent: see for example {{DANFS}} (which is this kind of notice, but citing one specific popular reference), {{Include-USGov}} (with 30000 transclusions), the many items in Category:Attribution_templates (which cover a lot of specific cases) and {{PD-old-text}}. Could we address whether it is possible and desirable to approach these consistently? TheFeds 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    @User:TheFeds It is because of the Category:Attribution_templates name and the use of "attribution" in Plagadism guideline that I originally named {{citation-attribution}} and {{source-attribution}} as I did (it is discussed in the archives on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism). I have run some searches using "insource:/" There are currently about 12,000 instances of {{PD-notice}} of which 9,717 are inline. The wording of template {{citation-attribution}} be much better suited for inline citations. No such problem exists with {{source-attribution}}. I think that this conversation would be better continued on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism as all three of these templates exist to help stop plagiarism on Wikipedia and it is there we are likely to find more people who are interested in the use of theses templates and will be knowledgeable enough to reach an informed consensus. -- PBS (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

OTO Award for TV Show – Entertainment / TV Series navboxes[edit]

On these two navboxes, there are only two actual pages that one can navigate between (really just a single page on the first template, but two on the second). Most other navboxes in Category:OTO Awards navigational boxes provide legitimate navigational assistance, but these two do not. No prejudice against recreation if the redlinked articles get created, though. -2pou (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The red links could be unlinked; would not the blue links for the years be of some use? – Fayenatic London 16:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out, Fayenatic london. I did not even realize those were links (I think because the <small> tags make the font so thin). That does make me a bit more hesitant. The yearly pages are really captured by the main {{OTO Awards}} navbox; however, there could be value in associating that year's page with a particular redlink if trying to encourage article creation. Curious what others think, but I think I still find these boxes unnecessary overall given the overlap with the main navbox and that the potential prompt for article creation (outside each year's page) would only come from either Partička or Oteckovia. -2pou (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Missouri Democratic primary, 2008[edit]

Two templates which display results of each county's respective results in both party's primary election in the state of Missouri which is already featured on the 2008 Missouri Democratic presidential primary and 2008 Missouri Republican presidential primary. For counties in each state, the only information in table format that is notable enough to display is presidential election results, not party primaries. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Lcss[edit]

Used on a bare handful of pages, looks like it was an experiment that stopped being needed a long time ago. Izno (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Andrew Yang series[edit]

Every article this infobox is on already has a better infobox. I would like to remove them all. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough for a sidebar template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep There was already an AFD for this and the result was keep. Helpful to navigate between Yang's campaign for President, his books and races he has been in. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    • There was an XFD filled with Yang fans during the heat of the campaign. Which of these articles needs a second (or in the case of 2021 New York City mayoral election, fourth) infobox? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Klass 6a[edit]

Template created in April 16 with content in Polish about a school(?) and external links related to that school (including a Microsoft Teams room) at some point. Recently blanked by one of its contributors. Never transcluded anywhere. Isabelle 🔔 15:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:100 players who shook the Kop[edit]

As per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Template:100 players who shook the Kop, it's a fans poll which had an article about it deleted many years ago. As such, this is not an encyclopedic content, as it's not a club-recognised Hall of Fame (which we do have templates for) Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and evident consensus at the WT:FOOTY discussion. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not a constant list, not a hall of fame, not even supported by an article. – PeeJay 16:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seems just POV and not any 'official' HoF list (which would probably be acceptable). Eagleash (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete needless.Muur (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete When I came across the template yesterday I thought it list cruft and posted to WT:FOOTY. It seems Joseph took the initiative and sent it to TfD which I agree with. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Clog Wolf Howl 10:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Complete fandom piece, not an official Hall of Fame. Let it walk alone. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:3DEP[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; deleted as G2 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what this template is for, it's basically useless. Here's 28 and did I make a mess? 10:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Q28: this falls under multiple speedy deletion criteria - having a week long MFD discussion about speedy deletable pages is just a waste of time for everyone. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Users[edit]

Very old template (created 2006) used very infrequently that duplicates links provided on the mediawiki interface. Having this confuses editors and in many instances the links are red anyway as they are not maintained. I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Outdated. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Although it may be outdated it provides a clean interface for users to quickly access relevant subpages on their user page, even if the links are now duplicated elsewhere. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

September 13[edit]

Template:South Sudan political divisions[edit]

Propose merging Template:South Sudan political divisions with Template:Former States of South Sudan.
The "former states" template actually reflects current states, as of February 2020. The "South Sudan political divisions" title seems more appropriate for this template because of the 13 South Sudanese political geographic entities, 10 are states and 3 are not. "Political divisions" is used in other similar templates, for example that of the United States' political divisions. Lhimec (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw-notenglish-contrib[edit]

Propose merging Template:Uw-notenglish-contrib with Template:Uw-notenglishedit.
An old, single-level user notice created by 7 (talk · contribs) that is rarely used as Twinkle does not use it. This template has been used just six times since it was created back 11 years ago (compared to hundreds of uses for {{Uw-notenglishedit}}, which was created in 2014). As such, {{Uw-notenglish-contrib}}, with similar message text, is redundant to {{Uw-notenglishedit}}. Eyesnore 22:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Sub judice[edit]

This is a quite scary template (created Dec. 2018) that seems to be advising (in a very non-specific manner) to defer to the government and not publish anything on the page the courts might not want. That sort of deference is totally misaligned with Wikipedia's values, where we write an encyclopedia based on verifiable reliable sources, regardless of what anyone in power wants. In practice, this template probably discourages negative information, even when it's well-sourced, which is not desirable. We have WP:NOLEGALTHREATS protecting editors against legal action, and any edit so slanderous as to not be covered by that is surely in violation of BLP or other notices on the page, making this redundant. I'm also nominating some forked templates in the same family, where the same concerns apply. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, I hope editors remember that we have an awful banner blindness problem on talk pages; the question is not "could any editor possibly find this at all helpful", but rather "is this essential to have on every page related to legal proceedings when most will presumably already have lots of other banners"? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I have dug up the circumstances behind my re-creation of this template, and it appears to have been related to a high-profile ongoing criminal prosecution which had an extremely strict suppression order in place in the relevant jurisdiction. Several large media organisations had just been hauled into court over breaches and many local Wikipedia editors may have breached the order unknowingly, placing themselves at risk. The intent of the template, rather than to intimidate anyone, was simply to alert local editors to an unusual and temporary risk within their jurisdiction. It is in the interest of the proper administration of the encyclopedia that our editors not get sued into oblivion.
Having said this, I can understand that subtlety may not be realised by all editors who add the template to a talk page, and that the template may remain in place for a period exceeding that which is necessary. In this respect it has a time-sensitive and limited scope in the same way as {{Current}}. For these reasons I am comfortable to support Delete or redesign if that is what people would prefer. Cheers. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that context—the impetus for creating this in the context of the George Pell case makes sense. I remember that that case ignited a firestorm of criticism from free press advocates, so hopefully nothing like it will come up again, and if it does, we'll likely want to have a conversation about whether we should abide by the orders or not.
To give my own context, I came across this at Talk:Marilyn Manson, which might give an indication of how it's currently being used. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the Marilyn Manson situation. Is it possible an editor might write something about it that could make them liable to prosecution in the jurisdiction they are under? (BTW, WP:NOLEGALTHREATS doesn't apply, because that's about one editor threatening another, not about breaching orders of a court.) Nurg (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@Nurg, sorry I missed this comment before. I know of nothing a reasonable editor might write on the Manson page that would make them liable to prosecution: there is no suppression order or anything like it that I know of, and U.S. free speech laws are much more lenient than most other Western countries due to the 1st amendment tradition, so any such order in the U.S. would prompt an outcry far louder even than the one over the Pell order. Part of why I'm seeking deletion here is that this template is incredibly prone to overuse: its wording refers to all situations in which a subject is facing prosecution, but it really applies only when there's a suppression order or similar. I want to assume good faith on the part of the editor who added the tag at the Manson talk page, so I'll keep the example hypothetical, but adding this to a page for a subject facing controversy but where one does not want that controversy covered is extremely tempting. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia should not have something like this. Contrary to the views and policy of this site. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete – I'm content to leave legal matters to the Foundation. If they have concerns, they're sure to let us know; if they don't, there's likely no need for such a template, particularly given its intimidating appearance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think it's intimidating, it's a legitimate warning to editors that they ought to be particularly careful. PatGallacher (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. I think the point of this warning is that while Wikipedia as an institution tends to follow the law in the state of Florida where it is based, individual editors may face tighter restrictions in the legal jurisdiction where they live, where they are not protected by e.g. the First Amendment. PatGallacher (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging AKeton (WMF), who seems to be the contact person for WMF Legal—would you have any perspective on this? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful template to warn editors where they may need to take extra care when editing. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The suggestion below by TheFeds to restrict the use of the template to edit notices only is one that I fully support. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - no different to the notice whenever you edit a living person's biography, telling you to avoid libel. "In practice, this template probably discourages negative information, even when it's well-sourced" - as news sources have to follow the same rules, there is actually a scarcity of local sources around the time of criminal trials in the UK, apart from verbatim reports of what is heard in court. I do not see this template as deference because in one case which I won't name, I have seen it written that a famous man has been arrested despite the UK press being banned from naming him - nobody on Wikipedia has wanted to remove the foreign source naming him. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    It's very different from the BLP notice, since WP:BLP is a Wikipedia policy, whereas "abide by suppression orders from all governments, even when reliable sources covering a topic are available" is absolutely not. Are we going to put a notice on every controversial China topic, for instance, advising "hey, if you're a Chinese editor, maybe don't add details on Tiananmen Square?" See also the WP:NODISCLAIMERS guideline. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Weird template. Seems like a scare tactic. Surely, no one's ever going to be held in "contempt of court" for adding information of public record to Wikipedia. ili (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. These 5 templates can (currently) be separated into 3 categories: the main template (which has numerous transclusions), the New Zealand one (with one transclusion), and the other three (no transclusions). The one New Zealand transclusion is an entirely appropriate use for a case of permanent name suppression. It was also used not long ago for a case of temporary name suppression and then, as appropriate, removed when the name suppression was removed by the court. One person was convicted for breaching the suppression by posting that subject's identity on a website (not Wikipedia) – so it is possible that an editor under New Zealand jurisdiction would be prosecuted for breaching the suppression on Wikipedia. That said, it does not necessarily follow that use of the template is essential. And its wording may not be entirely appropriate, as it is mainly used in name suppression cases, not merely because something is "sub judice". I am not familiar with the legal situation in the three jurisdictions that the templates with no transclusions apply to. With respect to the main template with numerous transclusions, it sounds like it may be a question of whether it is sometimes or always being used inappropriately, i.e. where suppression is not legally required. If always inappropriate, deletion may be warranted. If only sometimes inappropriate, modifying the wording (including perhaps the template name) may help to limit use to where it is appropriate. Nurg (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is a matter for local jurisdictions to handle in conjunction with WMF legal in those cases where censoring is "necessary" for those jurisdictions. In the general, we have evidence that it's not necessary; of the tens or hundreds of requests WMF receives only some 1-2% are acted on at most with deferral here, where we have strong basis against censoring for those jurisdiction (NOTCENSORED, etc. etc.). --Izno (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per Izno. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't see this template as referring to suppression orders or US 1st amendment privileges as the nominator suggests. As per other keep votes, this is merely a reminder that the subject of an article is "subject to current legal proceedings", and that editors should take greater care when deciding what to add, particularly tabloid-ish or poorly sourced additions. I note that even in the Marilyn Manson case, well-established editors (1,000+ edits) have added content sourced from Daily Mail and Page Six (The New York Post's celebrity gossip column). Plus, not all English-language users on Wikipedia are provided US 1st amendment protection, note the sub-templates from territories like New Zealand, Ireland, Gibraltar and Bermuda. Obviously there is a need for this is certain circumstances. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, it's referring to suppression orders, since that's what sub judice involves and that's the context that led to this template's creation (see the delete or redesign !vote of the template creator above). Regarding the "merely a reminder", every BLP page has the big red {{BLP editintro}} editnotice, which is plenty sufficient warning to abide by the BLP policy. Some editors will of course always ignore warnings, no matter hold aggressive, but the solution to that isn't to spam banners at them, since the more banners a page has, the more likely editors are to get overwhelmed and read none of them. Lastly, I think it's important to note for the closer the context that you are the top editor at Manson's page, where you have argued against including information about the sexual abuse allegations against him, added the sub judice template to that page, and accused me of tendentious editing on a level I've never seen before for making this TfD nomination. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    The template mentions not "suppression orders". I don't really see how "banner blindness" comes in to the equation here, since that article refers to ad space on external websites; I don't see one mention of Wikipedia talk page banners in that entire article, so why it's being raised here as an issue is beyond me. Me being a primary editor at Marilyn Manson's page was implied by my vote text above, so there's no nefarious connotation there as you suggest. As far as your tendentious editing goes, your listed point above – re this TfD – was merely one of the reasons. Your lack of NPOV, your edit warring, as well as your potential gaming of the system by adding an inaccurate "nutshell" to the WP:MANDY essay which you then cited during the current RfC in favor of genuine policies such as WP:BLP, were my other reasons. But these all serve to distract from this TfD. If you wish to continue this discussion, take it to my talk page, where I'll be happy to continue discussing this. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the parent template (and merge' the rest into it). To portray these as in any way being advice to "defer to the government and not publish anything on the page the courts might not want" is to grossly misrepresent their purpose, and the nature of sub judice cases. They are in no way anathematical to Wikipedia's mission. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not think this template discourage adding infomation, only reminds them of Sub judice for those who are unaware. Also arguments made by Unknown Temptation and Homeostasis07 are convincing.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The salient point re Contempt of Court is "to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired". We should not be publishing things that have the potential to adversly affect the course of justice, which may involve forcing abandonment of trials or miscarriages of justice, no matter what the jurisdiction is. Fundamentally this is a BLP issue.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would prefer to have an RFC and a clearly stated Wikipedia rule about not being allowed to do whatever this is forbidding against, before we start putting banners like this on talk pages. Seems to violate the spirit of WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. Yet another banner to contribute to banner blindness. I spot checked a couple of the "what links here" articles, and this banner is sometimes used on articles about Americans. According to the article sub judice, this legal concept may not even apply in the U.S. except for attorneys speaking about their clients. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace the New Zealand template with the main one. Delete the three unused templates from minor jurisdictions. They are unnecessary duplicates. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep (or merge). There's some discussion about merging at the previous TfD. There's at least one other prior TfD here. In reply to some of the comments above, this is not about what we can publish, or what we're allowed to do, it's not about reliable sourcing, and it's not about deferring to courts. It's also not about viewing things from a US legal point of view, or from the WMF's point of view. It's about making people aware that, as I put it in the previous TfD, some editors may face a higher than normal non-obvious risk of breaking the law. I think that's a reasonable and appropriate explanation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    Merging this template won't be enough to solve the issues with it. If it is to be kept, it will at minimum need much stronger documentation specifying that it should be used only for articles where sub judice concerns actually apply, which they do not for all but a tiny handful of the cases where this template family has been used. Per above, I'm skeptical that even that would be enough to prevent misuse. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Sdkb: which articles have been tagged with the templates under discussion that you feel should not be tagged? Which do you agree with? Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    Novem Linguae discussed spot checks above. Every use of this template for an American is invalid, to start, as sub judice isn't a part of American law in any way that affect a Wikipedian. And most of the uses for non-Americans aren't pertinent, either. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    There are only few uses of the template. As I see it, the siiuations are:-
Bob Dylan, American citizen, American criminal case ongoing.
Prince Andrew, Duke of York, British citizen, American civil case ongoing.
Wiley (musician), British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
South Thanet (UK Parliament constituency) - not a person, no ongoing legal case.
Claudia Webbe - British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Sixfields Stadium - not a person, no ongoing legal case.
Gylfi Sigurðsson - Icelandic citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Norman Bettison - British citizen, no ongoing legal case.
Peter Tobin - British citizen, no ongoing legal case.
Stanford Financial Group - not a person, no longer in existence, no ongoing legal case.
Katie Jarvis - British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Craig Mackinlay - British citizen, no ongoing legal case.
Charlie Elphicke - British citizen, no ongoing legal case.
Ryan Giggs - British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Ghislaine Maxwell - British citizen, American criminal case ongoing.
Benjamin Mendy - French citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Natalie McGarry - British citizen, no ongoing legal case.
Margaret Ferrier - British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Jared O'Mara - British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Jack Letts - Canadian citizen, no trial underway at this point in time.
2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis - not a person, no ongoing legal case.
2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings - not a person, Sri Lankan criminal case ongoing.
Virginia Giuffre - American/Australian dual national, litigant in several ongoing American civil cases.
Gabriel Matzneff - French citizen, French criminal case ongoing.
Sasha Johnson - British citizen, victim of a shooting which is an ongoing British criminal case.
Those entries in bold are where I feel that is is appropriate to use the template. In the case of Sasha Johnson, it is probably better to use it than not to. Where civil cases are involved, I'm not sure that sub judice applies, even in the UK. However, this is probably best clarified at WT:LAW. Where a template is being used inappropriately, then it should be removed. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The bold entries represent cases where the template is only possibly appropriate. This template was written specifically with suppression orders in mind, and it's not appropriate to just slap on any BLP who is subject to a criminal case. Googling a selection of the bold entries (from the U.S.), I'm not seeing any indication of suppression orders or similar factors that would raise sub judice concerns. I conclude from that that nearly all of the current uses of the template are inappropriate. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: - see Contempt of Court#England and Wales. As a British editor, I need to be aware of our laws about the reporting of criminal and civil cases. The British Press are restricted in what they can say about such cases. For example, they are often prohibited from naming defendents/litigents. These restrictions do not apply outside the UK. So it is often the case that checking reporting elsewhere, such as in the US, these details can be found. I, as a British editor, would be in contempt if I were to add such details to a Wikipedia article. An American editor, as long as they were not in the UK at the time, would be able to add such details without being in contempt. Whether or not the edit should be made is another question, but they would not be in contempt by doing so. That is why my bolding is only on cases where the British legal system involved. I feel that I am unqualified to comment on cases outside the UK, so I won't do so. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The symbology of the stop sign (red octagon) and hand clearly implies a prohibition and and imperative instruction to stop. This is too strong a message to send in these circumstances. It cannot be presumed that most editors are subject to the order of a particular court. If kept, the symbology should be toned down. TheFeds 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Restrict to editnotice and merge to a single template (possibly with a jurisdiction parameter taking a country code, and a place for a citation to the order). (Deletion is also acceptable to me.) If we grant that a court might validly impose a ban on the public discussing or publishing about a judicial proceeding, then restrict the warning to those who are liable to actually put themselves in jeopardy by editing. The editnotice accomplishes this if appropriate instructions are placed in the {{sub judice}} template's documentation. The editnotice process (requesting on the talk page) will serve to build consensus that a prohibition has in fact been ordered, and that the court's order is valid (as opposed to, for example, obviously ultra vires and therefore of no effect). This curation will help address Mjroots' valid concern that the template is being applied prospectively without clear evidence of need. At worst, the request will fail, but anyone can read the talk page discussion to be notified of the circumstances and conduct themselves as they see fit. TheFeds 16:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    That seems like a very good solution to me. If the information truly is essential for someone editing the page itself, then the editnotice is the appropriate. And I trust template editors to use this appropriately much moreso than I do anyone who can edit a talk page. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    I think that the ability to create editnotices is restricted to admins. There need not be a discussion before an edit notice is created, an admin may do so off their own back, as I did at Gylfi Sigurðsson. That said, the creation of such an edit notice should be challengable via the article's or creator's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    I create editnotices a bunch as a template editor. I wish more others could create them as well, but in this case, it'd work out. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    This would be all well and good if current template usage was all we needed to go on. It should be noted that after the trial of the teenage boys convicted of the murder of Ana Kriégel, the judge in that case specifically criticised Wikipedia and Wikipedians during his closing summation for providing links capable of identifying those boys. Sure, those editors were following all current guidelines in their edits, albeit citing their edits to low-quality sources like user Facebook accounts, but that didn't make the ramifications of their edits any less significant or troublesome. Suppression orders are in effect for various reasons throughout the world, in English-language territories and elsewhere. An article on the English Wikipedia may still be subject to sub judice, regardless of where the case originates. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not censored, and the use of this sort of template is something that is much better handled by the WMF legal team than it is by editors (legitimate or otherwise) who desire to potentially gag information. Quite frankly, this language Wikipedia does not historically give a damn about these orders that originate outside of the United States, and the template itself carries an implied legal threat. I understand the desire to protect editors from existing gag orders enforceable in their home jurisdictions, though this sort of template's use may well have a chilling effect that extends far beyond scope. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: I have a feeling that over the years, the needle has swung worryingly towards censoring of embarrassing information in the public record about public individuals, both on- and off-Wikipedia, and the infamous deliberate blindness of the British courts to Things Literally Everybody Knows doesn't help matters. For one rather recent example: the identity of one of the perpetrators of Bloody Sunday was identified in Parliament, and unlike the times we used said identification to name footballers shagging around or oil companies dumping waste off the coast of Africa, we decided to continue to remove the name out of said paranoia even though there was no legal liability for any editor whatsoever. If there truly are any contempt of court issues with editing articles, that's for WMF Legal to take action on, not random editors to slap templates on. Sceptre (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Your example of the Bloody Sunday perpetrator is worrying. If this template is being misused to disguise/hide something that has been offered to the public domain via parliamentary privilege, please link to the page where I'll be happy to take steps to rectify that misuse. Otherwise, this template has nothing to do with information disclosed to the public, either by commercial [newspaper] or British "parliamentary privilege" means. It refers primarily to information disclosed by exceptionally poor quality sources, like Facebook account posts being linked by Wikipedia users to identify 14 year old murderers when a country like Ireland has strict laws prohibiting the publication of any personally identifying information of minors. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • To be honest, it’s not just a issue with Wikipedia; paranoia over contempt of court in the internet age has effectively prevented an entire city from properly mourning a great miscarriage of justice. The worrying thing at the Bloody Sunday article is the use of revdel rather than this template, but all the same, there is a worrying chilling effect that the use of this template carries.
    Hell, in some cases, placing the template could itself be contempt where a notable but unidentified person is involved: most recently, Sigurdsson in the brief “everyone knows but nobody’s published it yet” period last month— there’s not that many 31-year-old international footballers who play for Everton—but also, there was a recent case where a former Tory minister in his fifties was arrested for [but not charged with] rape last year, and his identity was easy to deduce because only one of the men that fit that description was conspicuous in his absence from public life. Sceptre (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Furthermore, looking into the context behind the template’s creation – effectively trying to scare people from editing articles regarding the ongoing saga of the Catholic Church covering up pedophile priests – I’m of the opinion the template should never have been created in the first place. Wikipedia should not be in the business of hagiographic editing of biographies where reliable sources breaking open that facade exist by the hundreds. If there really was a problem with Australian editors editing articles relating to Cardinal Pell, then WMF Legal would’ve taken action. As far as I know, they didn’t. Sceptre (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If there is no clear consensus, at some point this should be closed as 'No consensus', with no prejudice against any or all of the 5 templates being relisted individually, in which way it might be easier to get a consensus for some or all of them. Nurg (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches[edit]

It has been suggest by a couple of editors at WT:Football#Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches that this template is not needed. I also feel it does break the WP:OVERLINK (MOS:DUPLINK) rule after it's been embedded in a club season page. I am not a fan of having data separate by multiple templates either, it does make it more difficult to find where to edit that information. (Template clutter?) Govvy (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Govvy (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and comments at the discussion referred to. GiantSnowman 15:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The template prevents code duplication and keeps information updated. Instead of having the exact same football box template on the group stage page and each one of the 2 club season pages, you have only a single copy. Once it is edited – it updates the transclusions on the other page at the same time.
    The template also allows transcluders to set some of its parameters, such as |result, which is important to many editors. With the support of users such as SuperJew and Ortizesp, as well Spike 'em that is undecided but sees "an obvious use in updating the same information in one place rather than 3. We transclude things like league tables for a reason, this is reusing match information in a similar manner.", and the fact that the template is currently transcluded in pages that otherwise possibly won't have this information at all – I can't see why we shouldn't use match templates for all tournaments.
    Having said that, I do see Govvys point about possible clutter, and would agree for a separate template for the matches of every group – for the matches to be more easily found. yet again, the same 'problem' is true for the group stage tables templates that hold all group tables in a single template. Deancarmeli (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep templates seem to be useful (avoiding duplication) and most of the "not needed" arguments seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than based on any policy. Spike 'em (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep seems useful and prevents duplication.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep (edit conflict) Firstly the proposal is worded badly, implying that there was consensus on referenced talk page section that the template is not needed, while there is no consensus either way currently. Furthermore, apart from a mention of WP:OVERLINK, none of the comments objecting have content beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Regarding WP:OVERLINK, it isn't a problem, since a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.. Regarding the advantages, use of this template (and others of the same idea), prevents duplication of information multiple times (for example: the same matches are repeated on 2019–20 UEFA Champions League group stage#Group C, 2019–20 FC Shakhtar Donetsk season#UEFA Champions League, 2019–20 GNK Dinamo Zagreb season#UEFA Champions League, 2019–20 in Croatian football#Dinamo Zagreb, 2019–20 in Ukrainian football#UEFA Champions League to name a few), with said duplication prone to part of it being out-of-date and more prone to errors and misinformation in part of the articles where it's duplicated. Having the information in one place also makes it easier to maintain and watchlist for vandalism (one page with the neccessary information instead of multiple pages which contain much more information which isn't relevant to topic). --SuperJew (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Reply @SuperJew: OVERLINK clearly states a link may be repeated. That doesn't mean to repeat the link continuously over and over again. When you goto a club season page and look at all the results for say the Premier League. Are you going to continue to repeat the same club link of that season page over and over again. It's really isn't needed. This should be the same decision when the template is embedded. It should strip the name of the club of that season page to stop that DUPLINKing. I only posted this TfD because I was under the impression is wasn't wanted by a number of users. Govvy (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Reply @Govvy: The team name can be unlinked in the club season page with a bit more code. If that is the only issue, and more people will support this cause – it will be done. Deancarmeli (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Reply @Govvy: This isn't a popularity vote where we post TfD beacause you are under the impression something isn't wanted by a number of users. Post a TfD if you believe the template should be nominated based on your thoughts and based on policy. --SuperJew (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete The suggested usage of the template is for club season articles but it does not conform to the Manual of Style for such articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Reply @Deancarmeli: There have been enough discussions regarding the format of the MOS to suggest that if someone proposed adding a continental section, it would be exactly the same as the rest so it's a moot point. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Reply @Stevie fae Scotland: There have also been discussions supporting the usage of the football box template. As it stands, the MOS states that the continental competitions should be completely removed from club season pages. As this is obviously preposterous, let us use this opportunity to give it a long overdue update. Every format other than the football box template will restore the problem of duplication. As the football box template is already in wide use, abd the discussed template solves the duplication problem, it seems like the obvious solution. Deancarmeli (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Reply @Deancarmeli: I'm sorry, but no. The MOS doesn't state continental competitions should be completely removed, it's an example of a season in which a club didn't qualify for a continental competition. Only circa 200 clubs in Europe qualify every season so it is a relevant example for the vast majority of teams but it obviously doesn't mean that editors should ignore a certain level of competition. I would be happy to support updating the MOS but I doubt you'll get consensus for the football box as others have tried and failed before. Collapsible football boxes which are auto collapsed don't meet WP:ACCESS and the football box has a horrible problem with WP:LINKROT because editors just randomly post a link in the |report= parameter and don't properly cite it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Reply @Stevie fae Scotland: All these problems are irrelevant to the discussed template. Don't want it collapsed? Its default mode is uncollapsible. Afraid of broken links? The template centralizes data, enabling easy upkeeping of all transcluding pages. So, there is no argument not to use it. As for the MOS: Guides should be as complete as possible. It should show international competitions, with teams no qualifying to them simply not implementing that section – not the other way around. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete What's on the temple is article content that belongs on the necessary/related articles. Substitution the content onto those articles. Having templates filled with article content is counterproductive and really underscores the purpose of template use and space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@WikiCleanerMan: What is the purpose of template use and space? Do we have a limited amount that we need to keep it for certain cases? --SuperJew (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Stevie fae Scotland. It's not necessary and it is against MoS. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Reply @Microwave Anarchist: "It's not necessary" is not an argument, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why is the current system better than the proposed template? As to "it is against MoS", please show us where it states how continental competitions should be displayed in club season pages. Otherwise, it's just a headline without substance. Deancarmeli (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Deancarmeli: - My argument is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because I am making no assessment of the value of the content, merely stating that transcluding from a separate template seems to be a much more difficult and confusing system, so as far as I'm concerned, my point doesn't fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your second point is moot as Stevie fae Scotland says as there is pretty clear concensus for wikitables over footballboxes, regardless of whether the MoS explicitly states to add a Continental section. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @Microwave Anarchist: First of all, and it's important, there is no difference in content between the template in discussion and the match boxes at 2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group stage. They are the same match boxes, only that from the template they can be transcluded into club season pages and don't have to be copied, updated and maintained separately there, cutting down the updating work by at least 3.
          ◌ Secondly, as to "transcluding from a separate template seems to be a much more difficult" can't be more difficult, as int the team pages you only transclude the matches once and they update automatically once the source is updated. When all pages transclude, without "rouges", each editors help all other transcluding pages without even knowing it, and not just the readers of the specific page they're currently editing.
          ◌ Thirdly, even if transclusion was "a much more difficult and confusing system", this argument was moot as the group table are transcluded from Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group tables and the template subject of this duscussion is built in the same format.
          ◌ Fourthly, Stevie fae Scotland made a claim, he didn't provide any evidence for it being true. I think that this discussion further proof that there isn't a "pretty clear concensus for wikitables over footballboxes".
          ◌ Lastly, from you: Why should the current system go on, and we shouldn't switch to using the match templates? What benefits does it has? How is it better? Deancarmeli (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
          • @Deancarmeli: Consensus can be shown from discussions here and here, (and I'm sure there's plenty of others) which show that consensus exists for wikitables. There are multiple sitewide guidelines, such as WP:ACCESS, which advises against use of collapsible templates due to issues it creates with screenreaders. For me personally, tables are clearer to read as all information is available at a glance and they are also sortable. Why, in your opinion, is the football box template better? What benefits does it have over a table? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
            • @Microwave Anarchist: Actually, your first reference shows no consensus for the use of tables while strongly stating that the MoS was outdated even back then, more then two years ago. Your second referene isn't a discussion about Football boxes, and the only one in it claiming – without proof – that there is a consensus against the use of them is Stevie fae Scotland, the same user who made these false, unsourced claims in your first reference and in this discussion.
              As to MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, there is no problem with collapsible match boxes, as they are defaults to "uncollapsed" for readers without JavaScript. The sortability of the tables is irelavent, as the tables in the outdated MoS are unsortable. Changing that in the MoS is a different discussion, and definitely can't be stated in favor of its current version.
              The benefits of the template in discussion are, to state a few:
  1. Reducing labor:
    As all matchboxes are transcluded from a single template, there is a need to make only one edit per match, instead of 3 for clubs and 5 (!) for national teams (tournament page and both teams' fixtures sections and results pages).
  2. Keeping more pages updated:
    With the need to insert the transclusion only once and lack of updating it, pages otherwise unedited will still be updated. Currently, 10 club season pages still transclud this aggregated template. Some of them may not be kept updated without it, and the fact the will be with it raises the question why whould they be updated manually and separately, when it can be done automatically?
  3. Reliability:
    When the data is store in a single location, vandalism is more easily spotted. This verify that every displayed match on every page is sourced correctly, which is a current issue.
  4. Standardized appearance:
    When all pages transclude the same template, they all look the same. This help to enforce the MoS (that should be updated accordingly).
I truly believe that using this kind of aggregating templates in tournaments which matches of appear on multiple pages is the way to go. It will reduce editing labor and help keeping with WP:RELIABILITY, while keeping the main tournament pages look the same and allowing editing in a manner the is already done for the group tables. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Deancarmeli: I didn't pick out the best expamles there of concensus, so I've found a few more. This, this and this are all further examples of concesus on this subject and the fact that the MoS has remained intact despite multiple proposals to change it also shows that there is concensus for the 'football box collapsible'. In response to your points, the fact that the MoS is outdated in the opinion of some users is completely irrelevant. I'm not well read on accessibility issues so I'll not comment on WP:ACCESS/MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. Sortability is a way in which the MoS is outdated IMO, as sortability provides a plethora of benefits, such as making information more easily accessible from the table (i.e. with attendance, you can just sort it to find the varitaion in attendance rather than expanding every football box and then manually comparing). Though only one edit has to be made to update it which is obviously a benefit for the editor (though if your inputting hte same information each time, you can just copy and paste), it is a more confusing system so requires and editor who understands it to be able to update it as new users/users unfamilliar with this system would not be able to update it. I fear that it could have the opposite affect in terms of vandalism as less people would be watching the results template, especially after a season has finished so vandalism is less likely to be spotted and a single act of vandalism would afftect more pages. As for your last point, the standardised appearance should obviously be wikitables as they are what the MoS says, which is backed up by consensus and if not WP:ACCESS then MOS:LIST and MOS:WHENTABLE which recommend tables for sporting results. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: First of all, your second referene is kind of funny, as Govvy, the current nominator, comfortably claims in it that "MoS is just a guideline, not a policy directive." and is joined by Dr Salvus and SuperJew that speaks for the use of templates instead of tables. In that discussion, again Stevie fae Scotland and you have claimed the "there have been plenty of discussions over the past few years showing a consensus towards results tables" – always without proof. This is an unproven claim made again and again by the same people, not a fact.

More over, as I've written before: The MoS doesn't specify how international competitions should be displayed, so referring to it can't help building a case in favor of using a specific style.

Your third referene again shows no consensus for the tables, while pointing out the the MoS was barely updated since the creation of Template:Football box collapsible and definitly since the creation of aggregating templates like this. Even if the MoS covered international competitions, and it doesn't, it would be outdated. A Good point that was made against the use of templates in that 2017 discussion was about the reliability of match report links wich is one of the many problems that this discussed template solves.

Your first referene, from 2014, also doesn't show any consensus in favor of the tables. More over, the main criticism against Template:Football box collapsible in it is MOS:COLLAPSE, which may have been merited 7 years ago, I truly don't know, but is meritless now. The boxes defaults to "uncollapsed" for devices not supporting JavaScript so there is no WP:ACCESSIBILITY problem.

As for you saying that the template is "a more confusing system", I'll argue that it is created the exact same format of Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group tables, which is a format widely used throughout Wikipedia for tables. Why is the format good for tables, with all its benefits, but not for matches?

You fear of vandalism of the template is baseless. First, it will be handles exactly like the groups tables template. Second, there is a much higher chance for unnoticed vandalism in the club season page of one of the 32 teams than there is for one in a centralized template, connected to all clubs season pages and to the tournament page itself. Much more users will be watching it then would the X season page of club Y.

It seams to me that all arguments and claims against the use of this template were answered. Deancarmeli (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Microwave Anarchist: I think there are two issues being confused here. One is how should discussed template be implemented. Meaning, should it be in the format of the footballbox as it is currently or should it be in the format of a table. This is a discussion which has been had many times, and what I have seen hasn't really reached a consensus (and you yourself say the MoS is outdated, so you can't cite it to support a consensus). Personally I've said a few times that if the table is the way per the Mos, the matchbox template should be updated to display in a table format, which would keep the ease of editing hardcoded tables don't have. Despite a few editors agreeing, this never was continued and ended in no-consensus. But anyways this is not the relevant point. The relevant issue to this discussion is the second issue - should the discussed template be implemented, regardless of the format. Think about it like this - if the template was formatted in the way you think is the "correct way", do you support it's staying on Wikipedia or do you still opt for its deletion? I personally think it should stay for reasons stated above - primarily as it allows to edit the data in one place instead of multiple places, and as Deancarmeli has expanded. --SuperJew (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deancarmeli: I'm sorry, but all the discussions cited show that there is no consensus to ignore the MoS on the format of results tables, and the fact that the MoS still recommends the use of wikitables serves as evidence to that. If you wish to see the MoS changed, feel free to start an RfC on it but no similar proposed changes have been successful previously.
The MoS doesn't specify how international competitions should be displayed, so referring to it can't help building a case in favor of using a specific style. - I don't know why you keep bringing this up; obviously, if it recommends one format for one competition, it would recommend that for other competitions. Would you suggest that it doesn't apply for German club season articles, for example, as the lead says it is for a Premier League club's season?
As for the use of templates for tables that are transcluded, I believe it was fairly recently agreed that templates should be deleted and tables transcluded directly from club articles precisely over fears/expamles (I can't remeber which) over increased vandalism. As per your assertions over the rate of vandalism, maybe my claims of increased vandalism are baseless, maybe not, but the fact is we have very little evidence to argue either way, and your arguement is based of assertions such as much more users will be watching it then would the X season page of club Y, which I seriously doubt. Perhaps it would be best if we were both to drop the WP:STICK on this as it seems increasingly unlikely that we will reach an agreement.
@SuperJew: Apologies, I have been arguing on two seperate issues here and could have been clearer. Obviously, it should be in the format of a table, as that is consensus, sitewide guidelines recommend the use of tables for this kind of thing and they appear more encyclopaedic IMO, but you would be right to say this is not the right place for that discussion. As for the crux of this issue, I explain my objections to this model above, and feel with the use of wikitables, the transcluded template would be even more difficult to maintain to the point of being completely unworkable as a system. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Microwave Anarchist: There is a stick I can't drop: There is, and it seems that never was, a consensus for using tables over templates. The fact that tables predated templates doesn't mean they were preferred over templates when the later didn't exist. We have seen many attempts to amend the MoS, never reaching a consensus either way. This, with a new (and dare I say improved) version is another attempt to make progress. As it stands now, not only that Template:Football box collapsible exists – it is used in this very WikiProject. As it used in 2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group stage. The template subject of this discussion aggregates these very templates – not one more, not one less – and enables their transclusion to other pages without loss of functionality. Please explain to me why should editors labor updating information that could be updated automatically? Why, when team A plays team B, shouldn't team A's page be updated when an editor updates the match data from team B's page? What purpose does this extra labor serves, when at best it can keep data as updated as this template provides, but mostly less?
The MoS needs updating. This style should be in the new version, IMO, as it uses a template already appearing in many to most club season pages, is labor reducing, reliability increasing and generally help keep more pages updated. I still claim that nothing here goes against the MoS since it doesn't address this kind of competiton, but even if it was to go against it – the MoS still must be updated.
As to my assertion: Yes, the match template is bound to be watched more than the page of the least watched team in that competition. I can't see why it shouldn't, after fully transcluded to all relevant pages.
As for going back to hard coding tables into articles, there is a slight difference: As I still favor the separated template, there is no loss of template functionality when incorporating Module:Sports table into an article and transcluding its table from there. There is a loss of template functionality when trying to do so with match boxes. Deancarmeli (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@SuperJew: I have started work on a template that could be used in the way you've suggested. It's available at User:Stevie fae Scotland/Football result list and User:Stevie fae Scotland/Football result list start. I could do with a bit of help on it though as there as some things that I'd like to make optional between different tables eg colours, number/competition columns so that it can be used as broadly as possible. It uses similar parameters to the footballbox but not identical so it would help for pages that don't meet the manual of style currently but there would still be a bit of adjusting. I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Requested templates so hopefully that will move things along, any other help/ideas appreciated though.
Also, most recent discussion (as far as I am aware) which reached consensus for using tables over footballboxes is here Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland: With all due respect, your suggested template does noting to improve on Reducing labor, Keeping more pages updated and Reliability – which the template in discussion does. Moreover, with respect to Argentina and its national football team results since 2020, a discussion in that kind of talk page can't be set as precedent for a general discussion like this. Deancarmeli (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm replying, it just gets diluted when you're going round in circles like this. The reason I highlighted that was to let Super Jew know that it hadn't been forgotten and in hope that other people with more experience creating templates may be able to help out. The point in that template is different to this one but unlike this one it does actually conform to the MoS. The Argentina discussion is also completely relevant because you are saying this should be used for lists of results on club season articles and that discussion reaffirmed consensus in favour of using tables for lists of results. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Not round and round, strait to the point:
  1. The MoS Is outdated.
  2. The MoS doesn't specify how international competition should be presented.
  3. The table format never had a consensus over the match box template format.
  4. The template in this discussion aims to update an improve the MoS.
  5. The template in this discussion reduces editing labor.
  6. The template in this discussion saves code, using the same data on multiple pages instead of duplicating it on each, risking some of them to be forgot and get outdated.
  7. The template in this discussion help to increase information reliability.
  8. The template in this discussion keeps more pages updated than any other suggested system.
  9. Discussion in the a specific sub page of the Argentinian tame can't be used to establish a rule to guide all project protocols, with all due respect.
  10. The unfinished you suggest is currently not working and does nothing to solve any of the major problem the the template in this discussion was created to solve. It is currently irrelevant and only aims to distract from the reasoning provided in favor of the template in this discussion.
So, can we please stick to the point? Let's address this template, its structure, and this structures' advantages and disadvantages going forwards. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Thanks for pointing out the new template in the making. Seems over my level of editing/coding on Wikipedia (which is why I prefer using templates and not hard-coded tables). If in the end the call is also with parameters, than in the end it is a question of aesthetics, and therefore even though personally I prefer the way the matchbox looks over the table, there is no reason to prefer one over the other. Though, I'm still not sure I understand the real issues against the matchbox which rule it out in the eyes of some editors. But, anyways as I answered Microwave above, this isn't the point of this discussion. The point is should the discussed template be implemented, regardless of the format. --SuperJew (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


  • Updated format
    I've added "v·t·e" boxes to matches, to make editing easier. Example:
16 September 2021 (2021-09-16) HJK Finland 0–2 Austria LASK Bolt Arena, Helsinki
21:00 (22:00 EEST) Report
Referee: Kirill Levnikov (Russia)
Note:


Any thoughts? Deancarmeli (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
looks pretty bad, the VTE links should be automatically added by the template/module, not by hand using the "notes" parameter. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • delete doesn't conform with the MOS for Football per above. if you want to change the MOS for Football, then open a discussion at WT:WikiProject Football. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    • reply Maybe I've missed it. Could you please provide a link to the specific section in the MoS regarding international competitions? I've never seen one, especially not one prohibiting the usage of Template:Football box collapsible which is used for most internationally competing clubs.
      As for the "v·t·e", you're welcome to suggest a way to improve link insertions. I'd be happy to learn. Deancarmeli (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Grey line[edit]

Content is style="background: #EFEFEF" and apparently the template is used for translations of articles including fr:modèle:Ligne grise; in that case, the content should be moved to {{Ligne grise}} and that template be made subst: only; any direct transclusions should also be subst:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the template is used in a number of articles and it simplifies translation work. I support the proposed amendments. --TadejM my talk 09:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently complicated to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • make substitute only which will assist with translation from the French WP or delete. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • make subst only so it can still be used by translations, which seems like the only valid use case for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete without substitution. This template is used in coloring rows with a grey color which has no semantic meaning and which means it fails in being accessible. I've checked some random uses and it also appears that there is no standard logic for when it should be used - See for example Ranks in the French Navy#Military chaplains which as far as I can see, does nothing; or at Military chaplain#France where a proper table header ("! scope="col") should be used instead. Tables in general should also not be colored just because they can. Whatever incorrect style fr.wiki uses should not be forced on us. Gonnym (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete without subst and certainly do not make it a subst-only template, per Gonnym. --Izno (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Pakistan–Russia relations[edit]

After this template was merged with the Pakistan–Soviet Union relations template. I decided to clean up the template by removing unrelated articles and Soviet-Pakistan relations articles as this is for Russia, not the Soviet Union. The template, unfortunately, doesn't have enough articles about the relations between Russia and Pakistan. Also, the user who created this is a confirmed sockpuppet who has used and abused multiple accounts over the years. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, thank you for cleaning up the template/separating from Pakistan/Soviet Union. Despite being created by a sock, this template is still useful and has reasonable potential to continue being useful. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The navbox doesn't have enough links to navigate through the topic. Especially not in the individual sections. Potential usage is not a policy nor a standard to keep. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Bangladesh–Pakistan relations[edit]

After making two changes to the template in the reorganizing process, the first edit, I removed links to categories and red links. The second edit, removed unrelated articles between Bangledesh and Pakistan's relationship. Now, unfortunately, there aren't many articles outside of the Bangladesh Liberation War. There already exists a template for this conflict., thus making whatever rationale for keeping pretty weak. Outside the links to three articles that have nothing to do with the conflict itself, and if the links to the 1971 conflict were removed, then there isn't enough to justify having a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep The bilateral relations are historically significant given that Bangladesh was once part of Pakistan. I don't see what's the harm of keeping this template, there's more than enough topics regarding Pakistan-Bangladesh relations, historical or otherwise, on Wikipedia. Mar4d (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Mar4d, have you taken a look at the two edits I made and what the template looks like now. More than enough topics are not found in the general relationship between the two countries. The majority come from Category:Bangladesh Liberation War. This category has its own template. And if I had removed the section about the war, then there would be four articles in the template. And it still wouldn't be enough to navigate through or with. WP:NOHARM is not a valid argument. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I've added more articles to the template. Mar4d (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Mar4d. This template is already useful, and has strong potential to be useful in the future with future articles created about two neighboring states. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The navbox doesn't have enough links to navigate through the topic. Especially not in the individual sections. Potential usage is not a policy nor a standard to keep. Also the other articles added by Mar4d still don't add much to the template. The section for the 1973 war is the only part that has a navigational purpose, but it's largely pontless as there is a template for the war and not enough exists for the other topics about these two countries' bilateral relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Hurricane Ida series[edit]

Useless navbox. There are only two links to articles here - Hurricane Ida and Hurricane Ida tornado outbreak and only two other relevant links - Category:Hurricane Ida (which isn't really useful as it simply contains the two articles already linked, plus this navbox) and c:Category:Hurricane Ida (2021). This isn't sufficient for the navigational template to be useful to readers. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep see the example, yes is linked but if there a Hurricane related (article) we added this series Template:Hurricane Isaac (2012) series and Template:Hurricane Isaias series . HurricaneEdgar 09:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    @HurricaneEdgar: honestly, I think something like {{Hurricane Isaias series}} should be deleted too. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep People are working on another article right now so I don't see what the point in deleting this would be. NoahTalk 11:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    No one outside of the WikiProject would know this - I think these navboxes shouldn't be made until other related articles are published. Otherwise, I can understand why this was proposed for deletion. – The Grid (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The two links are not going to be the only ones there. An article for Louisiana impacts will DEFINITELY be needed and I wouldn't be surprised if an article is made for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast impacts as well. We need to keep this.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep because there are already some people who are drafting separate articles for its effects in the U.S. (specifically Louisiana); though I must note that, as mentioned in the talk page for Ida's main article, it has not yet reached the point that it should be split. But for this template, I think it should still be kept, just like in the Isaias series template. Vida0007 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Yes if we want to cover Ida and its impacts in full then yeah it probably will need further articles, but i do not see the need for this navbox, until it has more than 5 or 6 articles especially since we already have a category devoted to Ida.Jason Rees (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep We already have drafts for Northeastern US and Louisiana, the former of which is nearly ready can could be sustained in articlespace. Also, Isaias and Isaac both have templates.Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to make this a separate comment to better address the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones crew: no one outside of the WikiProject would have known related articles were in draft. I think these navboxes shouldn't be made until other related articles are published. Otherwise, I can understand why this was proposed. – The Grid (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:MLW World Middleweight Championship[edit]

A template that was deleted once before for having one link. Now it has four which fails the rule of five for the necessary minimum amount needed for navigation for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough links. I don't understand the idea of one template for every wrestling title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:San Diego Film Award for Best Feature Film[edit]

These are unused templates that only had one blue link in the first place. Also, the article for the award was deleted at AfD as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Film Consortium San Diego. -2pou (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete both Not enough for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

September 12[edit]

Template:November 33rd and[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; deleted as G2 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

At first instance, appears to be a hoax template. SPA account. Whiteguru (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Template:Unicode chart Lycian Fonty[edit]

Unused template for non-existent Unicode block. Duplicates Template:Unicode chart Lycian. DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Duplicate template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't an exact duplicate - they've added a character to the U+1029D position and updated the unicode version to 14. That being said version 14 is currently a draft, the official standard does not currently include this character and it's pointless making a new template, when the standard is released we can just update the existing one. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
FYI: Unicode 14.0 won't include U+1029D. As far as I can tell, no one has even proposed a character at U+1029D, making this template even more baffling. DRMcCreedy (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a leftover from a sock of a serial vandal who liked to add templates like this to unrelated articles here is a typical edit. - MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox competitive programmer[edit]

After noticing this template through a current TfD discussion for a module in it, I do not see the reason to have this template when {{Template:Infobox person}} is sufficient here. This template is essentially promoting a website about its arbitrary ranks. Also, merging is not needed here. – The Grid (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:NBA color[edit]

Propose merging Template:NBA color with Template:Basketball color.
This template has the same exact call to Module:Sports color as {{Basketball color}} ({{#invoke:Sports color|color|sport=basketball}}), so these are the exact templates, just with a different name. This template is another duplicate as {{BIC Basket color}}. Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Is this basically just replacing calls to {{NBA color}} with {{Basketball color}}?—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. See as an example:

Template:BIC Basket color[edit]

Propose merging Template:BIC Basket color with Template:Basketball color.
This template has the same exact call to Module:Sports color as {{Basketball color}} ({{#invoke:Sports color|color|sport=basketball}}), so these are the exact templates, just with a different name. Even if this was used more than 4 times there would still be no need for the same template. Gonnym (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Baseball alternative primary color[edit]

Unused baseball color templates. Gonnym (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:BAFLPrimaryColor[edit]

Unused British American Football League color templates. Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:AFP Cavaliers roster[edit]

Unused roster with 1 blue link. Gonnym (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:THL color[edit]

Created 4 years ago and still unused. Couldn't find the articles for the teams listed in the /doc either. Gonnym (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:NFLusealtColor[edit]

Unused sport color template. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Australian soccer updater-W[edit]

template is now a subset of the Template:Australian soccer updater template, store all of the data there for each season, rather than the need for having a second one split by gender. Accidently did this via WP:PROD before seeing that there is guidance to only use on articles. Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I just think it's more easier when updating than doing it in one template as you' would constantly be looking through long lists to find something. English football articles have done this as well, so I did the same action as them while creating these templates. FastCube (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
It is a long list, but the single set of data for female competitions is the W-League, and it is right near the top next to the A-League. This hierarchy matches the levels of the unofficial football pyramid, and currently none of the other club articles list other than the highest men's information in their infoboxes. I also disagree with your term 'constantly'. This updater template is specifically designed to be edited for each league only once at the end of each season. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hard really to comment on this TfD as there is no documentation whatsoever at Template:Australian soccer updater or Template:Australian soccer updater-W. But in general, at more than 1000 lines long, that data should really be in a module which is much easier to read than in a template. Gonnym (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete There's already a template for this. This one is redudant. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

September 11[edit]

Template:List of Major Empires[edit]

There are four main reasons why I this template should be deleted:

  1. It isn't in use anywhere
  2. Inclusion criteria are extremely unclear (what makes an empire "major"?)
  3. It appears to contain a significant amount of original research, I don't think many people would classify USA and China as empires, and there's also the afformentioned issue of defining what counts as "major"
  4. It is redundant to Template:Empires 192.76.8.74 (talk)
  • Delete A navbox for this already exists. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Stable version[edit]

This is a template intended to identify versions of an article that are stable and could be reverted to in case of edit wars or significant determination in quality over time. This does indeed sound like a good purpose, but I don't believe it works in practice. First of all the template would have to be somewhat up to date to be even somewhat useful. We currently have 50 transclusions, all except for 10 are older then 5 years and of those 10 only Talk:Lok Sabha, Talk:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Philippine game show) and Talk:iPad (4th generation) are less then 100 revisions old.

Even if we have a decently recent revision tagged here I don't think it could satisfactorily resolve the issues it sets out to resolve. If we have an edit war it's likely that either neither party would be satisfied with a revert if it concerns new information or it's just giving the early version (likely identified as stable by one of the parties in the dispute) precedence without doing anything to resolve the fundamental dispute. It's also likely the person would dispute the legitimacy of the stable version.

If the article quality has deteriorated reverting to an old revision is probably not the answer. That would throw out all the good work in the intervening revisions. --Trialpears (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There's just no way besides reviewing edit histories for revision tagging simply for stability to be practical. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

September 10[edit]

Template:Gaziantepspor squad[edit]

The club has been dissolved. There are no players at this club anymore, since it doesn't exist anymore. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - defunct club does not need a 'current' squad navbox. GiantSnowman 15:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Module:Codeforces Color[edit]

I don't think it's appropriate to blindly copy the color scheme from an external website when displaying ranks in an infobox like this. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Indic glyph[edit]

I honestly don't know what to do with this template. As a general infobox supporter, this is simply excessive. I think it could feasibly be turned into some sort of 'gallery-like' template in a non-lead section of an article, but this template is not something anyone should have to deal with in the lead.

Listed for deletion, but definitely seeking discussion. Izno (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Is this really an infobox in terms of how it is used? It seems like it is grouping a whole bunch of historically-related glyphs so that the reader can observe their similarities and differences as used in different languages. The problem with reducing the complexity is that a glyph with the same meaning and name is represented differently in different scripts, and there is no clear way of prioritizing any of the major ones over each other. So instead of a Latin letter's infobox where there is a clear primary representation, here there are about 10. (Also, maybe the major editors of the template, User:Kutchkutch and User:Vanisaac, might be interested in commenting.) TheFeds 23:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    Right, it's really just not an infobox with that much crud in it. The crud might be valid to put somewhere on the page, again, in some sort of gallery thingy, but this is just a mess as-is. Izno (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe the only action needed is to improve the formatting? It looks like it is transcluded in just 52 places (mostly the Indic glyphs themselves), and in each of those cases there seems to be a need to represent several different scripts that share the same glyphs in different forms. At least doing it this way ensures consistent visual presentation, even if that presentation is unusual for an infobox, and leans hard on Unicode to be intelligible. Maybe it could be changed to not inherit the infobox styles, if that is an issue? But I don't think most readers will be particularly harmed by its presence (even though people who don't read these languages might be confused by the symbols themselves). I can imagine that if assistive technology output (like from a screen reader) gives priority to an infobox, this one is going to give them a whole lot less benefit. (That's speculation; I don't know if it is actually an issue.) TheFeds 06:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    The reason for using infobox was mostly just to position it correctly on the page and to help organize the IAST/IPA/ISCII information at the bottom. If there is a better option for that formatting that doesn't have the drawbacks of using an infobox (Google scraping, etc.) I'd be happy to see it migrated over. Given Izno (talk · contribs)'s declaration that this is more of an invitation to discussion, would this be better handled as an WP:RFC at the talk page instead? VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 17:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    Nah, the D in TFD stands for discussion. Izno (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete, split tables, move to article proper, added explanations to tables. Infoboxes, in general, give a fast-glance summary of the article. When I look at Ka (Indic) as a random example I have no idea what I'm even reading. This means that it fails in its purpose. If the tables need more information to be understood then they belong in the article itself. Regarding the formatting, this infobox creates visually broken tables in mobile. Gonnym (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Would you be against converting this template from an infobox to a gallery thingy? Not a <gallery> or {{gallery}} but just some flex-box/list of items displayed like a gallery? Izno (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there maybe isn't an argument for a content fork here: Use the half dozen examplar characters and IPA/IAST/ISCII information as a true infobox that can include more infobox-like information, like the derivation of the Brahmi script via the Aramaic hypothesis and its cognates outside the Brahmic script family. Instead of running the navigation through the template, make an actual navbox - something like {{kana gojuon sidebar}} would probably work well - either appended by default to the infobox or as a stand-alone navbox. Then migrate this template to be a full listing of characters with codepoints, but format it in a way that allows for a more meaningful presentation - possibly a genetic tree showing the derivation of Indic scripts. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 20:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Not against a gallery or any other kind of presentation, so long as the content there is understandable by someone that doesn't already know what they are looking at. The current style fails in that. Gonnym (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Samantha Stosur[edit]

This is already on Samantha Stosur's article and Samantha Stosur career statistics. The only place this will go is on the bottom of Stosur's own article. Per discussions at Project Tennis I see no need for templates for every player in tennis. And these are being created suddenly by the same editor/clones Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete This is basically article content on a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Fyunck(click):, your ad hominem doesn't work here as an proof. You simply don't value navigation in the template. Templates' main point of existence for me is rivalries pages, coaches & other meaningful info that allows Wikipedia readers, not just tennis journalists, to get a clue about tennis. It's up for further discussion and not deletion. They have been created so far only for singles GSs champions or people with interesting careers and unique achievements (SF at a first GS). Sam Stosur template is not the best for cleansing, imho. You'd better start with the Jew, Template:Aslan Karatsev. Just kidding. Revolynka (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how you get the nomination as an ad hominem attack but your comment on here is absolutely not constructive. – The Grid (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Shreekant Ahire sandbox[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced user sandbox - also exists at User:Ashishraj 1906/sandbox GoingBatty (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Probably created as a test or by accident. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:A.S. Livorno Calcio squad[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 13:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Club no longer existing, excluded from football in 2021, all of its players released from their contracts. It has been refounded under a different name and restarting as a regional amateur club in Eccellenza. See [1] as a reference for the club's exclusion. (Please note only professional footballers are generally deemed to be notable, so playing for the refounded Livorno in this season would not be considered a factor of notability) Angelo (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Team folded. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - defunct club does not need a 'current' squad navbox. GiantSnowman 15:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Old discussions[edit]

September 8

Template:Articles on first-level administrative divisions of North American countries

[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. Izno (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This can be replaced with: {{Americas topic}} which shows all of the Americas rather than just North America. But it seems silly to have two different navigation scopes for this. This template also seems to be ill-maintained, as for the U.S. it links to U.S. state even though there are also territories and the District of Columbia. -- Beland (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Beland, aren't the other first-level administrative templates for the other continents the same as this? Wouldn't those be subject to a Tfd like this? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I have no idea; I only noticed this one while doing other things. -- Beland (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

August 24

Template:2005 United Kingdom general election

[edit]

All should be substituted where used since they are only used on the election mainspace, results article, and electoral history of the Prime Minister and runner up articles. Not much usage outside election-related articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. These template all have multiple transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    Still not a reason to have them remain as is. Substitution doesn't do much harm to them. And the most transclusion for one of them is four. That's pretty small and not overwhelming for one editor, whoever that may be, to take on that task. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    Transclusion means the content can be edited only once to reproduce the benefit to multiple articles. If you substitute the content, it's likely future editors won't even be aware other instances exist, let alone update it. From a server efficiency perspective, which we're not generally supposed to consider in adopting solutions, substituting increases the size of every of the articles containing the content, making every subsequent revision to the page enlarged too, which, over time, exceeds the cost of having a template. So, what exactly is the benefit to substitution? --Bsherr (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Templates like these have already been substituted. Hasn't made much of a difference in terms of the size of the article. In fact, all that changes is the top of the table format using this coding that I changed with one of the Russian templates that was substituted. Nothing really changed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
How would a substitution lead to content forking? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@WikiCleanerMan: Look at for example {{2005 United Kingdom general election}}. It is used in two articles: 2005 United Kingdom general election and Electoral history of Tony Blair.
If the template is substed, then its contents end up in two separate articles. That will inevitably lead to content forking, because the two pages won;t be maintained identically.
So I don't see any way in which substing would benefit either readers or editors. Why do you think that substing would help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The content display can be changed with simple coding. The same is done on the Blair article where other templates are displayed using section transclusions. The 2005 election article won't be affected that much since all that needs to be done is by simply changing the coding at the very top by turning it to a results table. I've done it before with the Russian election article example I linked above. The article content and size doesn't change. Substituting is preferable in most circumstances, including this one, because why would there be a need to have election results in a separate format. The content matter for the results should be on the related pages as it was inherently part of the article or articles to begin with. Election results should not be on their own templates since they have very little usage outside election or electoral record articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@WikiCleanerMan: that seems to consist of a lot of assertions, but it doesn't seem to address the point I made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
It does not and I did address your concern. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me like you're not understanding the purpose of templates. I explained why transclusion is better above, and your only response was a false one about article size. (If a template is 1000 bytes, and is translcuded onto two pages, that's 1000 bytes total. If the template is substituted onto two pages and the original template is deleted, that's 2000 bytes total.) Do you have any response to the desirability of avoiding duplicate code and content forking? If the solution you are proposing is section transclusion, why won't you drop the stick about substitution, which is clearly the inferior solution? --Bsherr (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - as British general elections are significant. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Partial subst and delete. Subst to election pages and remove from individual election results pages or sections. If a politician page needs a election results section, that should be their individual result and not a complete, and usually, very large table that has no relevance to the article. That would be akin to having complete Oscar results on a list of awards by actor pages. An extreme and horribile example is Template:2010 United Kingdom parliamentary election which has 58 rows and a giant seating image when all that's relevant is a single row of information. Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete in the same vein as Gonnym. --Izno (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Partial subst and delete Agree with Gonnym that these belong on the election articles but not on the election results of politician pages. Number 57 22:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • substitute and delete, transcluding where needed per above. Frietjes (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:European Parliament MEPs, 1958–1979 (Netherlands)

[edit]

All should be substituted. No need for these to be on a separate template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
For a detailed list like this, with links which may need to be updated and refs which may need to be maintained, it is much better not to create a content fork, which would be the effect of substitution.
It may be possible to subst each of the template into one of the pages which transcludes, wrap the relevant part in <includeonly> ...</includeonly> tags, and transclude that into the other page. I have not checked this, but in some cases that is a workable solution, whereas in other cases it adds confusion or clashes with other transclusions.
Note that the practice of transcluding electoral data from templates is widely used in articles on Canadian politics, where it seems to work well and be uncontroversial. So I see no problem with using templates here, which is why I oppose deletion unless there is clearly a better solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Multiple transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete. Subst to list of members articles and transclude to election articles. Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as with Gonnym. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Subst/delete/transclude per Gonnym. Number 57 22:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • substitute and delete, transcluding where needed per above. Frietjes (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Completed discussions[edit]

A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".

For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.