Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:TemplateData.
"WP:TDF" redirects here. For the WikiProject Cycling run Tour de France taskforce, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Tour de France task force.
Not to be confused with Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
  Dec Jan Feb Mar TOTAL
CfD 0 30 113 62 205
TfD 0 0 0 10 10
MfD 0 0 0 4 4
FfD 0 0 10 15 25
AfD 0 0 0 31 31
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and Modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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]

Shortcut

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 "general" or "template" 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}}. If it is a hardcoded instance or duplication of another template, tag it with {{Db-t3|~~~~~|name of other template}}.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects
List at Redirects for discussion.

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

Shortcuts

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:
  • For deletion: {{subst:tfd}}
  • For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:tfd|type=sidebar}}
  • For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:tfd|type=inline}}
  • For deletion of a module: {{subst:tfd|type=module|page=name of module}} at the top of the module's /doc subpage.
  • For merging: {{subst:tfm|name of other template}}
  • For merging an inline template: {{subst:tfm|type=inline|name of other template}}
  • 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.
  • 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/2020_March_18#Template:template_name.css */

Protected pages: If you are incapable of tagging a page due to protection, please either leave a note on the page's talk page under a {{edit protected}} header, or leave a note at the Administrators' noticeboard, requesting tagging of the page.

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 an template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets, such as "T3" for hardcoded instances.

Notifying related WikiProjects

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

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

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

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.

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

Twinkle[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.

Current discussions[edit]

March 18[edit]

Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Europe medical cases[edit]

Propose merging Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Europe medical cases with Template:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak_data/International_medical_cases.
Incorrectly formatted merge proposed by another user: correcting nom. with no opinion UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. People seem to be keeping the global table template more up-to-date than the Europe one, and have done a reasonable split of Europe into geographical sub-regions. However, including the Europe part in the Europe prose article would still be nice, even though it's horizontally quite large now. In fact, a reasonable case could be made for splitting the Europe template, because keeping it up-to-date is becoming heavy work as we seem to be entering an exponential growth phase in Europe (with the main exception being Poland, which is miraculously SARS-CoV-2-free, apart from suspected cases). An ideal solution would be if the "global" table included continental or sub-continental table components, in a way that continental or sub-continental tables could be used as templates without having to show the full global one. I suspect that this could be risky unless the method of doing this forces editors at any of the "sub" levels from making edits that mess up the structure of the combined super- or super-super-table. Boud (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment on comment I suspect such a template would indeed be easy to mess up and hard to maintain, and I don't even know how to start creating that without making the existing international template a lot more complicated... Renerpho (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having a table for Europe that can be used in the article about cases in Europe is useful. Please help keep it up to date! Renerpho (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I see a case for splitting out the international template by continent because of the sheer amount of data included and the lack of readability. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Please revert to the Rate Comparisons with Syncing the start date from the first 500 or 100 cases. This metric offers much more insight for comparing the ongoing outbreak between the different regions than Syncing the start date till the first 100 or 500 cases which offers a truncated view not necessaily indicative of the further development of the initial outbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.214.142 (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retire I think that changing the name - at least internally without a formal name change - to something like "in January and February 2020" and effectively freezing it as a resource to remain available for later studies for people (e.g. epidemiologists) who might find it useful. Boud (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:TV Tropes[edit]

TV Tropes is not a valid external link, it's WP:ELNO. It's trivial, user-submitted and has no editorial oversight. I could've sworn I AfD'ed this a long time ago, but apparently not. Pinging @Masem, Lee Vilenski, Salvidrim!, Sergecross73, and Dissident93:. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - I can think of some special cases where an EL to TV Tropes might be acceptable (on articles ABOUT tropes or where tropes are significantly covered) but in general it's an ELNO and doesn't need a template, which might implicitly encourage its use an EL. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thumperward/tropes: we still need to clean up rampant referencing, fwiw. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 12:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete There's nearly no moderated content on the site at all. IAR uses but no need for a template for those. --Masem (t) 17:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete but maybe turn it into a Wikimedia category, if it isn't already. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep but use the template page to indicate "acceptable" uses "(on articles ABOUT tropes or where tropes are significantly covered)". We can reiterate info about EL. I had used a TV Tropes EL without the template, which doesn't meet the "ABOUT" usage. StrayBolt (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't even using it on articles about tropes, since every aspect of TV Tropes is not moderated. In contrast to Know Your Meme where there is a team of moderators and assigned users to write a meme's history, there's at least some oversight of that, there's nothing like that at TVT. --Masem (t) 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep until it is shown that there is wider consensus such links should not be used and the temeplate is unused. Article content should not be removed the through the mechanism of TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I love TVTropes as a fun time waster, but it is already an ELNO item, and shouldn't be supported by a template. oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WT:VG and WT:TV have been notified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, others above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Do we know where it's being used - if it is just on pages about tropes, I think that's a reasonable appropriate use. If it's being used everywhere, deleting it would discourage use. Kingsif (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:History of the Persian language[edit]

Propose merging Template:History of the Persian language with Template:Persian language.

The template is being nominated because:

  • It is redundant and is barely used in any articles.
  • It does not provide much content within the few articles that include it and yet occupies a lot of space.
  • There is a more properly designed template (Template:Persian language) that could replace it.

—Rye-96 (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, this seems entirely sensible given the two templates mentioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- and I rarely support anything, so you know it's an eminently supportable position when I do. Jpbrenna (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox German railway vehicle with Template:Infobox locomotive.

The German template uses German-language parameter names; we normally allow this only for "shim" templates that must be substituted.

It also caters (mostly) for locomotives and (a few) rolling stock vehicles. The latter cases should be manually switched to {{Infobox train}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose unless the template is properly 'shimmed' so that it can be imported from German Wikipedia and automatically substituted as has been successfully done with other templates. In which case I'd be happy to support.Bermicourt (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Shimming could of course be done, is commonly done, and is not preclued by this proposal, so your empboldened "oppose" seems rather misplaced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Bermicourt. This looks like a lot of pointless rote work for no advantage at all, other than the regular foolish consistency. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Bermicourt, on the understanding that it would be shimmed. No obvious reason to maintain a separate template for German locomotives only, and it's confusing for editors. Contra Andy Dingley, there are plenty of editors who enjoy pointless rote work; without it, I doubt the project would continue to exist. Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose we've been here before, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 8#Template:Infobox German railway vehicle. {{Infobox German railway vehicle}} isn't just used for locos, it could be used for multiple-units, coaches or wagons. The idea is that an imported article starts off with {{Infobox German railway vehicle}}, and then is amended to use a more appropriate infobox. Those more appropriate infoboxes do include {{Infobox locomotive}}, but none of them are a straight drop-in replacement - manual assessment and adjustment is necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, we've been here before: the result of the discussion five years ago was no consensus. Do you suppose that we can never discuss the matter again, nor reach a consensus? As for the intention, the 320 current transclusons belie that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, in principle provided that all existing parameters of the subject templates are preserved in the merged template. Would this not work, Redrose64? Doug Mehus T·C 22:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Redrose64. This template started life as a translation-fork of the Infobox used by de.wiki, but it has not been kept up-to-date with changes to de:Vorlage:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug. I realised this when I tried to sprinkle some TLC on this template by starting to add TemplateData. Yes, this template does have issues - the Monthly Error Report that is now available via TemplateData seems to marking any parameter with an umlaut in its name as invalid even if it isn't; if you do a translation via the translation tool, you will have to put in the infobox afterwards as a cut-and-paste, as the de.wiki infobox is linked on Wikidata to Template:Infobox train. Having said all that, if the proposer is prepared to put in the hard graft and manually migrate the 320 instances, I won't revert his changes; but since the original concept of this template is as a aid to translation, I would oppose the merger even if there was only a handful of transculsions. — Iain Bell (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • "it has not been kept up-to-date with changes to :de:Vorlage:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug" then that is even less reason to keep it; it's not even useful as a shim. This is the English-language Wikipedia; we have a long-standing practice of replacing templates that don't work in English. "if the proposer is prepared to put in the hard graft" such conditionals are irrelevant. We have a number of volunteers who work on template mergers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Pigsonthewing. This is English Wikipedia, we should not use German Wikipedia templates especially when they are out-of-date and not linked to the German template, so not even usefull for translating. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support In the previous discussion, I supported the merge with some comments there about translation and fitting content into other infoboxes as appropriate. The German template was then, and I'm guessing is still now, used for more than just locomotives. We have other infobox templates for rail vehicles that are not locomotives, so as long as the correct English-language infobox template is used, I still support this. Slambo (Speak) 03:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. No reason to have a German language infobox here. The fact that we have over 300 transclusions of this means whatever intent this template had of being temporary, has failed. Whoever translates a page from the German wiki can take a few more minutes to also find the correct infobox. We also have a /Holding cell to take care of this process if anyone feels that a straight 1:1 conversion can't take place. --Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a few more opinions on if it should be (re?)converted into a translation fork/shim or if it's better to just do away with it and start over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 17[edit]

Module:WikidataFR[edit]

I've replaced the usage of Module:WikidataFR at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in France with Module:String and Module:Wd. All other uses of that module could be similarly replaced, rendering it -- and its impressively large number of dependencies (the other modules nominated below) -- unnecessary. Note that Module:WikidataFR and Module:Linguistique may qualify for G4 as recreations of Module:WikidataF and Module:Linguistic respectively, but I chose to TfD the lot instead of using speedy deletion because a TfD would be needed to clean up the remaining dependencies anyway. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Reducing workload[edit]

Unused. Alternatives are available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete Per nom, good catch!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Module:A or an/testcases[edit]

Contains exactly the same content as Template:A or an/testcases in a harder-to-use format (because the test cases are defined on a different page than they are executed on). (As with my past testcases nominations, I cannot figure out how to tag the page) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tolkien Gateway[edit]

This template is used to produce an external link to the Tolkien Gateway article on a Middle-earth related subject. However, Tolkien Gateway appears to be a wiki, so using it as an external link violates WP:LINKSTOAVOID #12. I'm not sure why we would have a template to insert and external link we're not suppose to use. Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep so long as this is in use in article space. TfD is not the right venue to propose removing content or links from articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Why not Andy? TfD has already handled such scenarios here, here, here, and here. We also delete a ton of other types of templates that are in-use in article space. TfD is the exact venue to discuss whether a template meets the community approval for existing. I personally wouldn't mind seeing links to fandom/wikia/other wikis, but the guideline is against linking to other wikis. Will (hopefully) return to this discussion later to see other editors have added any other reason to keep.--Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
      • It should not have done. That removed links from aritcles without any consensus from those working on the articles. At best, the templates should have been subst'd before deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Either way, the template should be removed from the pages, since using the Tolkien Gateway as an EL is against currently-established policy. Since the template does nothing besides produce the counter-policy external link, I see absolutely no reason why it should exist, regardless if it was used or not. Hog Farm (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
      • So remove the links from articles, and see if you are reverted. If not, there is consensus to remove them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as undesirable and unusable. I've also been told off at TfD for the exact opposite, for removing templates from articles where not needed and undesirable as prejudging the TfD: so, we both must and must not do so before asking for the template to be deleted. Shumshing wrong here, I shink. Frankly, we need less clutter of useless templates and of an unworkable, incomprehensible and randomly interpretable tangle of policies. If we are to remove the template from all the articles which have it, fine, but it shouldn't make any difference - look, suppose somebody has misguidedly placed a different template all over the articles of William Shakespeare for the past 10 years, linking to somebody's WilliWikiWebsite, does that mean we can't bring it to TfD? Of course not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I saw the comment you are referring to and I disagree with it. Removing templates from articles is perfectly fine (just like any other piece of content). If you are orphaning a template on 100 pages then that's a different thing and should probably seek consensus to remove it here or on some other highly viewed page. --Gonnym (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Stock market crashes[edit]

Propose merging Template:Stock market crashes with Template:Financial crises.
While perhaps making actual stock market crash entries within the Financial crises template bold, for instance. Or some other legend, as explained in the below bar of the the template (example: "Entries in bold = stock market crashes"). PPEMES (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Support I had already moved all of the entries in the stock market crashes template into the Financial crises template, and the latter template is the one that should be retained (since it is the broader template). I do not believe bolded lettering within the template specifically for stock market crashes would be appropriate since they are not the only type of financial crises. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Good. But perhaps they should have some kind of indicator such as "EventEntry^" or something, where "^ = stock market crashes" is indicated as legend below? PPEMES (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@PPEMES: I'm not sure I follow. Could you show me a different navbox template as an example? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:PHEIC[edit]

Propose merging Template:PHEIC with Template:Epidemics.
While a legend "phe" or something could be added to entries that are associated with Public Health Emergency of International Concern, itself linked in the "below" bar? PPEMES (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Merge. These could be handled in one template which would also allow readers to easily navigate between these articles. --Gonnym (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per Gonnym. Mgasparin (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:European route E[edit]

Propose merging Template:European route E with Template:BAB-E.
Same templates to provide links of European routes with marks. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose proposal—long term, we should be consolidating with {{jct}} instead of {{BAB-E}}. jct is the template that gets used by {{European route E}}. Imzadi 1979 → 03:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

    As a quick follow up, European route E should be substituted. Imzadi 1979 → 11:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Merge this and {{BAB-E}} with {{jct}} instead, since they just call {{jct}} in a simple manner. Merging may be a trivial matter of substing the existing templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

March 16[edit]

Module:Portal/config[edit]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Module:Population clocks[edit]

Unused except for a link from Wikipedia:Guide to Scribbling, as a "real but more complex module". Well, it isn't a real module if it was created and is used purely as an example. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - It might be useful as a tutorial example for people to look at, as it's a more realistic version than the code in the tutorial itself. It doesn't seem like it hurts anything to leave it. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Module:Parse chronology[edit]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • if I recall, it was being substituted awhile back (@Jc86035:). I have no objection to having it deleted. Frietjes (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Module:Offset[edit]

Module:Offset is only used on Template:offset/test, and Template:Offset is a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Module:OfficeData[edit]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:No ping/test[edit]

Seems to duplicate Template:No ping/sandbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Module:Nowrap list[edit]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:LucasArts game engines[edit]

Unnecessary navbox, with engines by one company, one of which is a redlink and do not particularly refer to one another. There's also already {{Video game engines}} soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Middle-earth races[edit]

All the entries on this template are included in Template:Middle-earth (which covers The Silmarillion and other books), and almost all are also in Template:Lord of the Rings, both of which are in wide use. I think we'd be better off without this template, which could simply redirect to the Middle-earth template. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Issno[edit]

Completely redundant/inferior to {{ISSN}}, created because someone didn't understand how to use {{ISSN}} of a very fixable issue. Possibly a case of WP:CSD#T3. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. This template makes a necessary fix to {{ISSN}}, which currently gives broken results for newspapers (and anything else that isn't a journal). I am not the template creator, but I've previously raised this issue on Template talk:ISSN link, where the one response was opposed to the solution of replacing the Worldcat link with issn.org. (Another solution would be to have a param that would replace "jrnl", e.g. with "news" for newspaper.) AFAICT the creator created this template in order to illustrate the issue, so it's a little unclear why it's being TFD'd before the problem has been resolved. If people want to keep the existing journal-specific behavior of {{ISSN}}, then we're going to need some other template for non-journals -- in that case I imagine we'd want to have this template handy as a starting point. -- Visviva (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Keaton Henson[edit]

Only 2 albums with articles, which already link to and from each other. Nothing else in Navbox that improves navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete WP:NENAN. PorkchopGMX 18:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, overkill for navigating between two articles. Frietjes (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Basketballyearcat/core[edit]

No longer used by Template:Basketballyearcat. Any existing uses will clear as the parent template is purged. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

March 15[edit]

Template:NorwaySocInCentury[edit]

Unused. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Wrestling at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs[edit]

Unused. Content has been merged into Wrestling at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Module:Speedy deletion[edit]

Unused (outside of its own testcases), and unlikely to be used given that the creator has vanished. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Southeast Asian conflicts detailed map[edit]

This form of template is only useful if it is (a) linked to by or transcluded on an article and (b) actually updated regularly. This set of three modules and a template fails both tests. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Agree this is not useful.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

March 14[edit]

Module:Bar[edit]

I doubt that a third template to render bar charts is really needed, given that Template:Bar chart and Template:Graph:Chart already exist. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Citation NOT needed[edit]

Unused and unlikely to be. Basically a joke template. Linneris (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete No one use this template.[citation needed] --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm going to dodge the question of whether this is ever going to be used and just say "Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template". * Pppery * it has begun... 15:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. A joke template that has the potential to cause confusion. Delete. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Brandy Clark[edit]

The "songs written" section should not be included since Brandy Clark did not perform these songs. It would be like including all the songs that Kris Kristofferson wrote on his template, or including every film an actor has acted in on their template. Take that away and you only have three albums which fail WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  • @Koavf: Because those songs are primarily associated with the singer, not the songwriter. Also see below where other songwriters such as Diane Warren do not have navboxes for their writing credits. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    TenPoundHammer, Note that there are now four album articles, the songs written, and the main article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It seems a little overkill to start creating navboxes for songwriters and then the possible bloat of navboxes to the articles with songs written by multiple people. I certainly don't see a need for templates for Diane Warren or Dr. Luke, who've written dozens of songs for other artists. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete when the majority of the info in the template is for stuff that isn't even her own recorded and released work, it seems largely unnecessary. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep in my opinion the list of notable songs written by a songwriter is certainly something that should be included in this infobox, much as buildings by an artchitect may be included although they were constructed by someone else. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

March 13[edit]

Module:New Taiwan dollar[edit]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Load NPP Modules[edit]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Module:MicroJSON[edit]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Module:Members[edit]

Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template, even assuming the mostly-inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction really needs this structured members list, unlike all other WikiProjects. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Suho[edit]

Premature creation. The discography, filmography, and awards and nominations links lead to subsections of the template's subject Suho. "Beautiful" is an Easter egg link to an album by the singer's group. "Exo" and "Exo-K" both link to Exo (band). Lastly, most of the topics do not have an article and should not be included per WP:NAVBOX. Ultimately, this leaves us with links to Suho's debut EP Self-Portrait, his group, his entertainment label SM Entertainment, and its related music collective SM Town where the singer isn't mentioned in the text even once. There is hardly any content here to navigate. ƏXPLICIT 12:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree with all of the above. As for the EP, it hasn't even been released yet. I don't see why this user feels the need to rush to create articles and templates so soon. Alex (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Earthquake in 2004[edit]

Fork of Template:Earthquakes in 2004. It was used on only one page (2004 Alor earthquake), but is now unused since I switched that to Template:Earthquakes in 2004.
Note that extensive series in Category:Earthquakes in year templates all use the plural form "Template:Earthquakes in YYYY". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Inadequate lead[edit]

NOTE: Please read the post and comment whether you support or oppose the "Plan" section, and if not in what way (which numbered steps).

This is not intended to be a discussion for general on-the-fly plans of what to do with these three templates. If you have your own plan that is radically different, please make your own topic.

Preface

This is quite a convoluted issue, so I apologise in advance for cluttering up this page.

I'm starting over from a previous 8 March discussion, because the issue turned out to be more nuanced than expected, and the first discussion became a mess trying to incorporate the new info into it.

I now have a plan, which incorporates elements of a merger, conversion and redirect. A simple merger is no longer the appropriate topic of discussion.

I will go through the issue from start to finish and present the plan I have in mind, in part based on the suggestions from Rich Farmbrough and Thumperward.

Issues

  • Issue 1: Identicality of the content of templates 1 and 2
{{Lead too short}} states the following:
"This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page."
{{Inadequate lead}} states the following:
"This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, please consider modifying the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
{{Lead too short}}'s documentation states the following:
"Place [the template] at the top of articles where the lead section is much shorter than what is recommended, relative to the length of the article. The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. If the lead fails to provide an adequate summary of the article's key points, without necessarily being too short, use the template {{Inadequate lead}} instead."
{{Inadequate lead}}'s documentation states the following:
Place [the template] at the top of articles where the lead section fails to adequately summarize the article (e.g., because the article has been expanded without the lead being adjusted to address the additions). If the lead is simply too short relative to the length of the article, use the template {{Lead too short}} instead. The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
Both sound a lot like they want the lead to be longer.
However, {{Inadequate lead}} is supposedly intended for leads that are not too short but are simply inadequate.
The only cues of this are:
  • The title
  • The directions to use the other template on each template's documentation page
  • The replacement of "consider expanding" with "consider modifying" in the template.
I didn't know they were two different templates until investigating a few years ago. Nyttend said the same thing in a discussion from 2012. After 2016, when {{Lead too short}} was made orange, I was wondering why I sometimes saw it in orange and sometimes saw it in yellow.
As you can also see, some proposed edits to each template over the years (mostly to the more popular {{Lead too short}}) have led to some drift between the two.
Discussions
The two templates have been previously either discussed, nominated for merging or merged and reverted in 2010, 2012 (1, 2) and 2014 (section "{{Lead too short}} vs. {{Inadequate lead}} (2014)", can't link it due to transclusions).
On 8 March I started another merger discussion (which I'm now cancelling and superseding by this discussion). This discussion revealed that 6 out of the 8 commenters agreed that the templates look too similar. To notify people of this discussion, I posted on the talk page of the creator of {{Inadequate lead}} and everyone who had previously been involved in discussions on this issue and was still an active user. As such, the figure might have some unreliabilities. I welcome any efforts by others to incorporate more users into this discussion.
Most of those in agreement also supported a merge of some sort.
Outcome
However, I then looked more intently at the transclusions of {{Inadequate lead}} and found that it was being used 50% of the time in a manner consistent with {{Lead too short}} and 50% of the time in a manner consistent with its intended purpose.
This meant a simple merger and redirect was no longer the right answer.
However, it does not mean {{Inadequate lead}} should survive, because we then move on to the second issue.
  • Issue 2: Redundancy of the intended purposes of templates 2 and 3
{{Lead too short}} was created in 2006 by FrummerThanThou.
In 2010, {{Inadequate lead}} was forked from {{Lead too short}} by Marokwitz and was nominated for merging back within 3 months, which failed due to no consensus.
In 2012, Marokwitz modified its documentation to direct the user to use {{Lead too short}} when the lead is too short. They did the same for {{Lead too short}} in the opposite way for when the lead is not "necessarily" too short.
However, given its supposed intended purpose, {{Inadequate lead}} seems to be redundant to {{Lead rewrite}}.
{{Lead rewrite}} states the following:
"The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. Use the lead layout guide to ensure the section follows Wikipedia's norms and to be inclusive of all essential details."
Its documentation states the following:
"Place [the template] at the top of articles where the lead section needs to be rewritten. Please give the reason re-write is needed on the talk page or in the reason parameter ... [demonstration follows]"
Currently, there are only two distinctions you could make between the two templates:
  • {{Lead rewrite}} requires change/replacement of the lead's contents, while {{Inadequate lead}} doesn't.
  • {{Inadequate lead}} is more vocal about the fact that the lead does not summarise its contents. {{Lead rewrite}} is very quiet about it but still mentions it in the fix: to ensure the section is "inclusive of all essential details".
Also, let's remember, it's implied that if you have to rewrite a lead, it does not adequately summarise its contents. So, let's assume on this basis that {{Lead rewrite}} does indicate a lead that does not adequately summarise.
Given this, we can derive some common and exclusive qualities/variables:
issue to be in lead, failure to adequately summarise, too short
issue to be in lead, failure to adequately summarise
issue to be in lead, failure to adequately summarise, replacement of content
I consider this a superfluous and pointless split of templates. I propose that it be resolved by a broadening of {{Lead rewrite}} to include inadequate leads that don't necessarily need to have their contents replaced.
By the end, it should look like:
issue to be in lead, too short
  • {{Lead rewrite}} (ideally renamed "Inadequate lead") requires:
issue to be in lead, poor content
Failure to adequately summarise is automatically implied in both.
I believe that the specificity and severity of the issue is best indicated by a "reason" parameter.
This leads us on to the following issue.
  • Issue 3: Parameters of all templates
As of the 8 March discussion, the three templates had the following parameters:
You can probably already see how this was problematic. Nevertheless, I'll give further notes:
  • Despite not containing a "talk" parameter, {{Lead too short}}'s contents stress that the user "Please discuss this issue on the article's [[talk page]]."
  • {{Inadequate lead}}, while intending to perform a similar function to {{Lead rewrite}}, which does contain a "reason parameter", does not contain a "reason" parameter, forbidding the user from specifying why the lead is inadequate. (It had been invalidly used 10/527 times, though.)
  • Despite containing the text "Please discuss this issue on the article's [[talk page]]", {{Lead rewrite}} does not provide a "talk" parameter, forbidding the user from specifying the talk page section. (It had been invalidly used 3/1,366 times, though.)
I requested the addition of a "reason" parameter to {{Lead too short}} due to the following:
Out of the 10 invalid uses of "reason" on {{Inadequate lead}}, 5 of them
a) were on an article whose lead was too short and
b) specifically described why the lead was too short.
I.e., they were better served by a {{Lead too short}} template with a "reason" parameter.
These included:
  • The Marais: "Fails to summarize most of the body, e.g., the centuries-old history, the Jewish and LGBT nature in modern times, and more."
  • Kathoey: "Lead needs to summarize the article, and except for a definition, entirely fails to do this."
  • Memorial University of Newfoundland: "The lead should summarize the entirety of the article, in rough proportion to the detail in each section."
  • The Bible and homosexuality: "Needs to summarize the content of the article per WP:LEAD."
  • Taxation in Germany" Does not adequately summarize the article" (I removed this reason after conversion to {{Lead too short}} due to the identical redundancy)

Plan

The following is my plan for how to deal with this mess and confine it to history once and for all.

1. On {{Lead too short}}, a "talk" parameter should be added (done). This should ideally be using the {{Ambox}} parameter rather than plain text and parser functions, as I found out that the Ambox automatically removes the associated text when the article doesn't have a talk page, while parser functions can't and would leave it with a red link (like the current textual versions already do).
2. On {{Lead too short}}, a "reason" parameter should be added (done).
3. Part of {{Inadequate lead}}'s "fix" wording should be merged into {{Lead too short}}.
Here is a reminder of what the two templates currently look like:
{{Lead too short}}:
"This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page."
{{Inadequate lead}}
"This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, please consider modifying the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
In my plan, {{Lead too short}} would look like this:
"This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. [Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.] To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's most important points in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
The differences are:
  • The addition of "To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines,"
  • The standard {{Ambox}} format (and location) for the talk page text
  • The additional text containing "in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article".
4. On {{Lead rewrite}}, a "talk" parameter should be added (done). This should ideally be using the {{Ambox}} parameter, for the aforementioned reasons.
5. On {{Lead rewrite}}, the text should be changed/broadened to accommodate more of the former intended purpose of {{Inadequate lead}}.
I propose the following change:
The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. to
The lead section of this article may be inadequate or in need of rewriting.
"need to be rewritten" conveys too much of a strict meaning, that the entire lead needs to be rewritten from the ground up, which is not always the case. I believe the above version better allows for issues with only part of the lead.
This seems to match the intended purpose of {{Inadequate lead}}. The number one thing this does is it allows {{Lead rewrite}} to be used when the lead is missing details but is otherwise not too short, rather than always needing to have its content changed/replaced. Thus, I believe it solves the issue.
Going through the transclusions of {{Lead rewrite}}, this does not seem to conflict with any of the uses of the template (as, indeed, it is the addition of a purpose rather than a change in the purpose).
6. Using the link here, all 527 instances of {{Inadequate lead}} should be converted to either {{Lead too short}} or {{Lead rewrite}} as appropriate.
7. Now there are two options. Given the new contents of {{Lead rewrite}}, either:
Option A: {{Inadequate lead}} should be redirected to {{Lead rewrite}}. (With this option, the title may not convey the breadth of purpose of the new template.)
Option B: {{Lead rewrite}} should be merged in its entirety (i.e., renamed) to {{Inadequate lead}}. (With this option, the title may better convey the breadth of purpose of the new template.)

Changes I've already made (that I probably shouldn't have before concluding this discussion)

  • Using the link here, I converted the 10 instances of {{Inadequate lead}} that were using an invalid "reason" parameter to either {{Lead too short}} or {{Lead rewrite}}. They now all have functioning "reason" parameters.
  • Using the same link, I converted the 3 instances of {{Inadequate lead}} that were using the valid "talk" parameter to either {{Lead too short}} or {{Lead rewrite}}. Currently, this means their talk parameters are ineffective, but this should be changed by the end of this discussion, as it was never appropriate for those templates to lack "talk" parameters in the first place.
  • On {{Lead too short}}, I made an edit request that a "reason" parameter be added and did the necessary sandbox changes. Jonesey95 made the change.
  • On {{Lead too short}}, I made an edit request that a "talk" parameter be added and did the sandbox and testcases changes, but I did it using text and parser functions (which would suffer from the red link issue mentioned above). Given the new discoveries, I would use the Ambox parameter. Regardless, Jonesey95 declined this change (and didn't seem to know what I wanted changing), believing it to be part of what was disputed in the former discussion and thus controversial. This new discussion should clear up the confusion.

Please comment whether you support or oppose my plan, with option A or option B, or comment any other input you have on it.

(Tags from the 8 March discussion not already mentioned: Funandtrvl Dominic Mayers Pigsonthewing Debresser DeNoel)

· • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Not sure, so I'll just say what I want to happen. Merge them all into one template with the name "Inadequate lead", have it say "This introduction isn't sufficient" with a reason parameter to allow it to say "This introduction isn't sufficient because of X", cause the other two templates to transclude "Inadequate lead" with a reason parameter saying "it is too short", and close the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I would not agree with the text, because it emphasizes the introductory aspect of the lead. A lead in Wikipedia is not only an introduction. It must also be a summary of the key points. In an introduction, it's not necessary at all to summarize all the key points. In fact, a good introduction might not cover any key point, except what is the question that is addressed. In Wikipedia, the summary aspect of the lead is as important, if not more important, than its introductory aspect. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Disagree, as this ignores much of what I said in the nomination, and I intend for there to be two templates remaining, not one. The text also isn't in line with the format of other Ambox templates; the reason should be clearly separated, not made into part of the sentence. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
SUM1 and Dominic Mayers, you're disagreeing because I accidentally used the wrong language. I use "lead" and "introduction" simultaneously: I say "introduction" because it's the first part of the article. Dominic, I'm guessing that you wouldn't be disagreeing if I'd said "lead"? And SUM1, obviously you wouldn't completely agree with my idea because you want two templates, but what do you mean with your latter sentence? Could you give me a sample of what you'd like to see? Not challenging you, just trying to un-confuse myself. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Indeed, it's much better when you replace "introduction" by "lead". A lead is NOT an introduction. It's both an introduction and a summary of all key points. It remains that merging the three templates is only a compromise for me. I really feel that we absolutely need a template with a title and a text that primarily focus on an important, yet specific, aspect of the guidelines: a summary of all key points. This one is vital for Wikipedia, because there is no requirement that a lead is verifiable, which is the main rule that guides us in determining the content of an article. So, the main rule that guides us for the content of the lead is that it matches with the article. That's why I find very important to have a template that focuses primarily on this aspect of the guidelines.
Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.
The problem that we face, which I did not appreciate until recently, is that this very important requirement is used under the three templates and {{ Lead rewrite}} covers other requirements as well. So, there is no ideal solution. If we merge the three templates, it will be difficult to focus primarily on this specific aspect, because, for example, a transclusion of {{ Lead rewrite}} could be a good summary of all key points, but too technical as an introduction. If instead, we keep {{ Lead rewrite}} as a separate template, then there will be an overlap between the two templates. It remains that, because it's so important, in my view, to have a template that focuses primarily on having a summary of all key points, that we should accept this overlap as a compromise.
Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Nyttend: "Insufficient" is wrong. It does not cover the range of "inadequate" (as in my plan) nor does it cover the use cases of {{Lead rewrite}}, which you'd know if you'd looked at its transclusions as per my original post. They include leads that are poor because they contain wrong content or content that is not in the body. "Insufficient" totally misrepresents this. As for the reason, no Ambox I've seen uses the formation "because of X". They use "The reason given is: {{{reason}}}", "The specific issue is: {{{reason}}}", "The specific problem is: {{{reason}}}", etc. Look at Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. "because of {{{reason}}}" is awkward and restrictive and forces the user to write unwieldy constructions like "the fact that it ...". And yes, your use of "introduction" was a major blunder, but I'll overlook it.
Your idea of transcluding both other templates into a "too short" {{{reason}}} again heavily misrepresents the current uses (including for the aforementioned reason) and looks rather like a rushed solution. As Dominic Mayers has said, it also doesn't take into account the lack of a "too short" guideline and thus misrepresents the guidelines. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think that a |talk= parameter is useful. Is this parameter used successfully in other, similar hatnotes? If so, please ignore my thoughts, which are as follows: (1) Linking to sections of pages, especially talk pages, can be tricky, so I think it's better to just link to the talk page, where it should be obvious which section is a discussion of the lead being too short; (2) Hatnotes should mostly have parameter consistency, which is why I added a |reason= parameter without any discussion. In general, I support a merger of these three very similar templates, because they are so similar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Jonesey95, I didn't address the talk parameter in my comment because I don't even understand the point of it. Can't hurt to have it, I suppose, so I don't mind it, but I won't advocate keeping or removing or modifying it. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jonesey95: So many Amboxes have a talk parameter. Just look at Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. While going through and adding TemplateData, I've encountered it in some 75% of them. Have no clue why this would be opposed or why it's considered "tricky"; it's built into the template. It's a link to a section, commonplace on Wikipedia. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but {{Lead too short}} must keep an emphasis on "summary of all key points" in the text, because a template must recall the guidelines.
    Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.
    In fact, if it had a chance to be accepted I would prefer merge 1 and 2 under "Inadequate summary": I carefully read options A and B. My understanding is that we make it complicated, because we are attached to the title "Lead too short". It can be simple, if we recognize that "Lead too short" is a bad title for an otherwise good template that was used a lot. The remainder of the two templates are too similar to make merging the templates an issue. Here are arguments in favor of changing the title "Lead too short" for "Inadequate summary":
    • In tune with guidelines. The guidelines says almost nothing about a short lead and when it does, it's either to say it's a good thing or that a summary of key points is needed. It says more about not too long and a lot more about a summary of key points is required.
    • No conflict. There are 8,326 uses of Lead too short. Yet, I doubt there is one case where lead too short means that it is an adequate summary that covers all key points, but only fails to introduce the subject. That's not what too short means. It implies that it's not an adequate summary. Here I want to say that I understand that it might still feel conflictual, because we are attached to the fact that in many cases the lead is obviously shorter than expected. Sure, but in all these cases it's also fine to say that it's not an adequate summary and then we solve the issue. The converse does not work as simply, because it might not be true at all that a non adequate summary is short.
    • Much simpler. It will be way simpler than going through all the 527 uses of "Inadequate lead" to move them either in Lead too short or Lead rewrite. These 527 cases will not need to be assessed and split into two less appropriate templates.
    • Can be made optimal for the Inadequate lead cases. These 527 cases already have the template that they need, except that the title could be even more specific. Why give them a less dedicated and specific template?

Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.
I would merge the "Lead too short" and "Inadequate lead" templates under the more specific and appropriate title "Inadequate summary". The outcome will be two templates: Inadequate summary and Lead rewrite. The latter would be used when the lead is an inadequate introduction or both an inadequate introduction and an inadequate summary. At first, I had a problem with this solution, because it seemed to me that "Lead too short" usually also means inadequate introduction and thus should not be merged under inadequate summary, but that's not a big issue. One might ask why not merging the three templates into one under Inadequate lead. I could agree with that. It fails to emphasize that there are two very distinct criteria for a good lead: it should be an introduction and a summary. But it's not so bad. It can be mentioned in the text of the template.
Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Disagree primarily down to the retention of {{Lead rewrite}} without changes, which goes against my plan. The appropriateness of the new transclusions of {{Inadequate lead}} is also threatened. If you read the issue, you'd find half were better served by a modified {{Lead rewrite}}. Fundamentally it's down to this disagreement: I believe the retention of a template ({{Lead too short}}) that says the lead "does not adequately summarise" is more appropriate, while you believe the retention of a template ({{Lead rewrite}}) that says the lead "may need to be rewritten" is more appropriate. For the reasons mentioned above (issue 2 and plan step 5), I do not. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing: Why not? I was going based on inaccurate information, and as far as I'm aware, I was allowed to do it as it wasn't a talk page. I tried to incorporate the new information, but it became too messy. Did you prefer I entirely rewrite my original post? What did you prefer I do? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
And is that a support or an oppose of my plan? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep template 1, merge templates 2 and 3 per option A, rephrase text of template 3 as proposed. By the way, I added the necessary parameters to the templates, not a problem. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This seems almost in line with my plan, but you seem to omit the addition of contents from template 2 to template 1 (step 3). Do you oppose this step, or you support the whole plan? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the parameters, by the way. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment from proposer: in the future, please comment whether you support or oppose my plan as it is stated. It cannot be adequately classified as a "merger of all three". This is too vague. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand "issue to be in lead". Did you mean Special:Diff/945409716? Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Dominic Mayers: What I simply meant by that was that the template requires the issue it's describing to be in the lead. It's one of the qualities that forms part of its purpose. But thank you for reading that far into the post, which others seem not to have done. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@SUM1: I still have no idea what you mean by "issue to be in lead". What exactly is the text in the templates that makes you think that they all require that? In any case, since it's every where, it's not important in the discussion. In my view, the following table describes the essential of your proposal (I ignore what is common to all templates):

Before After
Template Main points in text Template Main points in text
#1 Lead too short failure to adequately summarise, too short Lead too short too short
#2 Inadequate lead failure to adequately summarise Split under Lead rewrite (Inadequate lead, if renamed) or Lead too short, whatever applies.
#3 Lead rewrite failure to adequately summarise, replacement of content Inadequate Lead or Lead rewrite poor content.

Here is how I see it instead. Note that I am not interpreting the text in the templates. I am simply extracting the key points as written in the templates (still ignoring what is common to all templates):

Before After
Template Main points in text Template Main points in text
#1 Lead too short does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. ... consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Lead too short (should be renamed) does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. ... consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article ... it should also serve as an introduction.
#2 Inadequate lead consider modifying the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points in such a way that it can stand on its own Split under Lead rewrite (Inadequate lead, if renamed) or Lead too short, whatever applies.
#3 Lead rewrite need to be rewritten ... be inclusive of all essential details. Lead rewrite or Inadequate lead need to be rewritten in a way that introduces well the article ... be inclusive of all essential details.
Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.

For some reason, you want to have a dedicated template for "too short". This creates an unnecessary problematic constraint. It's problematic, because

  • It does not match with the text and the guidelines. The text, following the guidelines, mentions that we must summarize the key points.
  • The template cannot be used for articles that would otherwise fit perfectly given the text. You have to manually assess all the transclusions of {{Inadequate lead}} one by one. And the outcome is to split them into less adequate templates.
  • Most people in this discussion would even merge the three templates and thus get rid of "Lead too short". It's not needed.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers: I simply meant that the templates are describing that an issue is in the lead, in contrast to other templates that describe issues in the body or elsewhere.

I wanted to say I appreciate your effort in making those tables; I know how hard it can be to spend hours drafting up wikitext on an issue and have a high chance of it being ignored or rejected.

I get your point about there not being a policy for "too short". I believe this to be more of a qualm with the name of {{Lead too short}} rather than its contents. I think, or I hope, that you'd agree that its contents are relatively benign and are not the issue. They talk about summarising the key points. The reason such a template even exists and is named like this is not to prescribe a new rule ("Lead too short"); it's a reflection, a description of how the existing rule manifested itself. As you can expect, a high percentage of the time, a lead that doesn't summarise key points is a short lead. This probably made the editors name that template the more intuitive name. Note: I won't object to a rename of {{Lead too short}}, but let it be after all of this.

In your table, the description of "Inadequate summary" retains "consider expanding". In effect, this is more or less a rename of "Lead too short". It doesn't seem that different to my plan.

What my plan wants to address more strongly is the discrepancy between "Inadequate lead" and "Lead rewrite". Currently, according to your table, your two final templates would be too extremely close in description for me to accept, which is exactly why I have this following solution.

First of all, you have to acknowledge, if you are going to merge "Inadequate lead" with "Lead too short", that (as per the nomination transclusion links) around 50% of the uses of "Inadequate lead" are instead better served by a modified "Lead rewrite". I.e., telling the user to "consider expanding" the lead would not be appropriate for these cases. Therefore, simply merging these two templates would be problematic.

My proposal addresses this by loosening "Lead rewrite" to "catch" these instances of "Inadequate lead". Its purpose is not change, only expanded/loosened.

The difference in purpose should be such that "Inadequate summary/Lead too short" is for leads that inadequately summarise primarily because they are missing content, while "Lead rewrite (hopefully renamed "Inadequate lead") is for leads that are inadequate (doesn't even have to focus on summarise, just an issue that affects the lead section) because their content is poor/wrong but is not substantially missing. This includes content that needs to be changed/replaced, very minor things that are missing and content in the lead that is not in the body. The problem with the template was the text "need to be rewritten". It was just too draconian and not allowing of sufficiently wide uses. The later note in the template to include "all essential details" should merely serve as an exemplar of what a good lead should look like, not define the issue as not including these details.

The problem is the overlap. When a very short lead becomes large but still inadequately summarising, it starts to fall under "inadequate or in need of rewriting" as well. And continuing on that spectrum, you get leads that have any sort of issue in their content, which may or may not be related to summarisation, and they are only suitable for "inadequate or in need of rewriting".

My solution aims to cover these two ends of this spectrum.

What do you think? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree and I have modified my table to reflect my new understanding.
Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.
You wrote Note: I won't object to a rename of {{Lead too short}}, but let it be after all of this.. We cannot do that because many issues are completely different if we have a different title. It is a central aspect of the proposal. The way to avoid all the problems is to combine a clear focus with an overlap. A clear focus on one aspect of the guideline is very useful. Having an overlap, because we mention the other aspects as well, is also good, because we do want to recall the other aspects. As a bonus, it also minimizes the issue if an existing transclusion does not fit perfectly with the main focus.
The focus of a template should be taken from the guidelines. The guidelines say that it should be an introduction and a summary. So, here we have it: the two main focuses are "summary" and "introduction". The transclusions for {{Lead too short}} and {{ Inadequate lead}} fit reasonably well with the summary focus. The transclusions for {{Lead rewrite}} fit reasonably well with the introduction focus.
Well, it's possible that many transclusions for {{ Lead rewrite}} would fit better with the summary focus. Well, a compromise will be needed. Either we accept that and we keep two templates with the two main focuses or we don't and the only option left is a three way merge. I already said that I am OK with both compromises, but my preference is to have two templates with distinct main focuses.
I understand that you worked very hard to have templates with focuses that "match" existing transclusions and that you intend to give them text that avoid overlap. You came up with "too short" and "poor content" for the two main focuses. The problem is that it's a bit artificial. "Poor content" is a bit similar to "poor introduction", but too short does not match any guideline. I have a different perspective. I look primarily at how much the template convey clearly an important aspect of the guidelines. I am totally ok with overlap in the other aspects that are mentioned in the template, as long as the title and the main focus are dedicated to an important aspect of the guidelines. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Hidden content. Written by misunderstanding.
Just to add that I went through approximatively 20 inclusions of {{ Lead rewrite}} and I am now reasonably convinced that the majority of them fit under the summary focus. So, I understand the problem that @SUM1: tries to solve. I still disagree with the proposed solution. We cannot sacrifice the principle that the title and the main focus of the template should correspond to an important aspect of the guidelines. Oh well, we really need to make a compromise and accept that only {{ Lead too short}} and {{ Inadequate lead}} will be merged into a template that focuses on summary of key points, whereas {{ Lead rewrite}} will remain general, but still focus on the guidelines. The point is that having one template with a clear focus on such an important aspect as "summary of all key points" is too important. The fact that the other template overlaps with it is a necessary compromise.
Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge all three #2 and #3 are identical, at the very least. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: #2 and #3 are not identical. #2 is way more specific, in a way that is important and useful. It focuses on having a summary of all key points, whereas #3 can be used, for example, when the lead covers all the key points, but is way too technical as an introduction. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge all three – I use these templates interchangeably, and I could not decide which one is suitable. Merging all three template may zero out the problem. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge all three Same basic message with little variations. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge all three, or at the very list merge out "inadequate lead" as that is too ambiguous.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf, Soumya-8974, Dimadick, Tom (LT):
To which template, under which name and containing which contents? Do you support or oppose any element of my plan?
Be careful and precise about your vote. {{Lead too short}} contains exclusively too short leads, while {{Lead rewrite}} contains leads that have wrong content or content not in the body.
Check my original post for the transclusions and my notes on them. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
We support your plan. All three templates should be merged under the name {{lead}}. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Soumya-8974: If you saw, my plan advocates for an outcome of two templates: a split of {{Inadequate lead}} between the two others and a slight reword of each of the two others to compensate/improve. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
SUM1, I think we should merge all three. What is unclear? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: You haven't specified the name under which all should be merged to, nor the content of the template that should result. What about what I said was unclear? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
SUM1, You asked if I support "elements" of your plan. I support merging. I don't care what the name is. The content should be anything that says, "Fix this lead, see WP:LEAD". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: Ok, well my plan calls for an outcome of two templates, but it involves merging of content between all three (from {{Inadequate lead}} to each). I'm assuming your concept calls for an outcome of one template. This is why it's important to be precise. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
SUM1, I hope you can realize that it's very difficult for anyone to digest the novel that you've written. I can tell you're very passionate here but I cannot get into the weeds on the hundreds (thousands?) of words you've written here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: Thanks for bringing my long-thought-out plan down to a "novel". If not able to offer a productive comment, better to not comment at all. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

SUM1, You kept on asking, so I kept on giving my feedback. But novels are accomplishments. Take it as a kind of compliment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Convenience break for easier editing[edit]
  • Quick comment addressing something that was said above. I can envision a situation to which {{Inadequate lead}} would apply, but {{Lead too short}} distinctly would not — you have a huge lead for an article, but it still fails to convey a significant proportion of important information. An article like this would probably be an ideal candidate for {{Lead rewrite}}. I really don't think we should have a situation in which three very closely related maintenance templates could all fit: thus my desire to get rid of "too short" and "rewrite" in favour of using a general template with a parameter that permits an explanation if desired. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Nyttend: @SUM1: and others: I really appreciate the discussions that we have here. This is not a situation where people should quickly vote for an option. We need to carefully read the different proposals, the templates and a sample of their transclusions and discuss. I don't want to be rude, but at this stage it's clearly fine to ignore the quick votes. With the help of the previous discussions, my understanding is that there are two main reasons for disagreement:
  • Whether we focus on matching the guidelines or matching the current transclusions.
  • Whether we want specificity by having the requirement in the text or flexibility by relying on a reason parameter.
Let me give the reasons for the different cases:
  • matching the guidelines: The feeling/philosophy here is that a template is above all a way to convey a guideline. When people see the template they normally think "there is a template specifically for this, so it's an important point." This is particularly important for "summary of all key points", because it's the main rule that we have to determine the content of the lead.
  • matching the current transclusions: This is also very important, because if someone picked this template in the past for a reason, we want to respect that. However, if the reason is not important in the guidelines, it's less important. Important: In time, the transclusions will adapt themselves to the templates, whereas the guidelines should not do that. It's the templates that should adapt themselves to the guidelines.
  • specificity by having requirements in the text: The motivation is the same as for matching the guidelines.
  • flexibility using a reason parameter: I see it only as a practical fallback when every thing else fail.
My conclusion is that we should avoid three way merge as much as possible. Many say that they are very similar, etc, but we are not voting here. They all cover the same guidelines (or could easily be made so), but they emphasize different aspects and merging them is clearly a lost. Moreover, if ever we go for three way merging for practical reason, we should have a text that is as specific as possible about the key aspects of the guidelines and make a reason parameter ideally unnecessary, except for details.
Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Given the heavy weight of discussion toward merging all three, the only way this gets closed any other way is if more participants come in and support one of your options. You don't get to dictate to us the only possible options, especially when your proposals are way too long and complicated, and if an admin comes and closes this discussion in favour of one of those options, without more people coming in and supporting one of them, this is going straight to deletion review. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Your attitude toward me is useful, because it allows me to clarify that I will be happy with any decision, if it is taken after an intelligent discussion. Now, if people feel this intelligent discussion has already occurred without me and I did not help, then I apologize. I tried my best. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
And my proposal (I only gave one, btw) is given in a very short table (see above) and I see it as a way to help the discussion. Every thing else that I have written is to discuss opinions of others. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Nyttend: As I mention down below, their votes basically carry no direction or plan as to what the final template should be. No one would even be able to merge the templates if the discussion were closed with that outcome, as they wouldn't know what to merge to and what contents to merge. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • After some thought I am inclined to agree that we should ditch {{Lead too short}} (or make it an orphaned redirect) because a short lead per se is never a problem. It's only a problem if omits information which summary style would require, and which is covered by {{Inadequate lead}}. I would support adding a talk and reason parameter, possibly it would help if archive bots respected talk params. Reason is something I have been happy to use in templates which don't explicitly support it, in the past, but we seem more Lua focused, and reluctant to be lasseiz faire about these things recently. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 16:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC).
I also don't like the name "too short". It's really confusing. We should definitively get rid of it. But, I finally understood that the name does not matter at this stage, because I was incorrect to consider that it cannot be considered separately. This was pointed out by SUM1:

I get your point about there not being a policy for "too short". I believe this to be more of a qualm with the name of {{Lead too short}} rather than its contents. I think, or I hope, that you'd agree that its contents are relatively benign and are not the issue. -- SUM1

I do agree and support @SUM1: proposal. I am willing to help. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator: Unfortunately, despite my notice, virtually no one (except Dominic Mayers) has commented whether they support or oppose my plan and how. Their votes are problematic because they do not mention which template should remain nor whether (or which) edits should be made as part of the merger. I said on my notice, if anyone has their own plan to be voted on, please make a new discussion on it for it to be voted on or, at the very least, lay it out as clearly as I did here. Not only has no one voted on my plan, but virtually no one has laid out their own. "Merge all three" is basically a useless comment when you don't say which template should be left over and under which name and containing which contents. This was the purpose of my plan, which you haven't voted on but rather ignored.
Regardless, I will try to keep discussion afloat, as I put a lot of thought and effort into the plan so that something could finally be done about this. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think we need to keep the discussion afloat. Because this is not a proposal how to "merge all three", saying "merge all three" is not helpful. It's equivalent to a non vote. It's not a support for anything, because it's way too vague. @SUM1: I made two tables (see above) that are far from covering the current proposal, but I would like to know if they are compatible with it (especially the second one) or if my understanding is again wrong. Again, I only see it as a way to help the discussion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 12[edit]

Template:Infobox team athletics tournament[edit]

Unused template created for competition that has had only one edition SFB 23:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Thailand Division 2 League[edit]

only used in two articles which are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 19:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Map (dots)[edit]

Not a typical template, of course, but still. The map is a result of unsourced changes, and there is no explanation of what the map is really supposed to show. But most importantly, it cannot be maintained due to the huge scope it tries to cover. It now truly violates WP:IINFO, as it is an "indiscriminate collection of information", with a random selection of places which often change color on the whim of the editors. It is compeltely misleading and thus unecyclopedic. (Cf. Italy and other European countries compared to the number of affected cities.) WikiHannibal (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. These maps are indeed misleading as their captions suggest that every city that is affected by the outbreak is shown, but a lot of cities are actually missing. Furthermore, it is unclear what qualifies as an (affected) city, making inclusion/exclusion of a place highly subjective. ― Ætoms [talk] 11:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - this template, like many of the other coronavirus-related templates linked in Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, are used in an incorrect way. The first very bullet point in WP:TG says that templates are not used to store article content - this template (and the others linked in that navbox) do exactly that. This template is also not used (read: transcluded) in any article. The template should be deleted, and the content either merged into the article (if there is consensus for it) or just deleted altogether, like any other piece of content which does not have consensus. As a side note: navigation templates are not used to link to templates in main space. --Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • ​​​Comment: please see Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on linking to template namespace for discussion concerning this topic.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 23:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

March 11[edit]

Template:Ava Addams[edit]

Navigation template with no useful navigation. This is a performer by performance template where the subject has been deleted from Wikipedia and the blue-link articles do not even mention the subject. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Addition[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was boldly redirected to a duplicated template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I've redirected to {{Sum}}. If anyone want's to nominate that for deletion, I've no objection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:BDDecadesInCentury[edit]

Unused template, now replaced by the simpler, parameterless {{Navseasoncats}} and {{Navseasoncats with centuries below decade}}. (I removed the last 2000 transclusions today). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, now that {{Navseasoncats}} is possible (it wasn't when I first created the template to clean up previous ways this had been done), it's the better option. – ABCD (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:NorwaySocDecade[edit]

Unused template. Appears to have been used to create categories o the form "YYY0s in Norwegian society", but this search finds no such categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:BDDecadesInCenturyNoHyphen[edit]

Unused template. Its functions are now better performed by the all-purpose parameterless templates {{Navseasoncats}} and {{Navseasoncats with centuries below decade}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

March 10

Template:Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina

[edit]

Not very useful as it stands currently. Has a small list of his compositions (there's already a comprehensive "List of" his works). The remaining information (Style etc.) can be easily found on his biography. —capmo (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep Templates for composers are considered useful and worth keeping if there are 3 or 4 directly relevant blue links. This template clearly makes that hurdle.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - most of the 'List' entries do not yet have articles, but there is no hurry: when each article is written it can be added here. The template is already useful for navigating the existing articles and will become more so as it grows. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per those above. Useful and commonplace for such artists. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

March 9

Template:TV Fool

[edit]

Some links are outdated; may be linkspamming Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Csworldwide1 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Clear WP:SOFIXIT case with OOD links; site provides a clearer picture of a station's coverage area and there was never any 'linkspamming' intent with this template. Nate • (chatter) 17:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

March 8

Template:2020 Summer Olympics men's volleyball match A1

[edit]

Unused; Content has been merged into the main article Volleyball at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament. In place section headings replace the need for endless templates. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

delete after content merge. Frietjes (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. No reason to keep these in templates. --Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Gold Coast (Baja California)

[edit]

The main article for this template, Gold Coast (Baja California) has been deleted, so no use for this template. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. If the article is not notable, then the navigation template for the same thing is not notable and does warrant a template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Arda Realms Age1

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Arda Realms Age1 with Template:Middle-earth.
3 links in the template, 2 of which are already in {{Middle-earth}}. Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, template has outlived its usefulness. I've put the third link into {{Middle-earth}} also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    • It appears that you have removed it from at least one article. This pre-judges the outcome of a delete, and you should generally start with the TfD, rather than by substantially orphaning the template. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC).
Ah, sorry, I'm not used to templates-for-deletion. The template was and again now is transcluded only in the three articles (Lothlórien, Moria (Middle-earth), Beleriand) that remain in the template, all the others having been deleted by various editors as redirects. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, now that all three links are present under “Locations” in Template:Middle-earth. — Tonymec (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this seems to have no real reason for existing separately. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

Template:Ethnic groups in the State of Palestine

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Ethnic groups in the State of Palestine with Template:Palestine topics.
I was thinking first about merging the two minor templates. But then I thought, why not merge them both with the larger template for a better overview and less duplicate information? PPEMES (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: Duplicate nominations from 25 Feb merged here. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

March 6

Module:Film and game ratings

[edit]

Propose merging Module:TV ratings with Module:Film and game ratings

Basically identical, the only non-trivial difference is that Module:TV ratings defaults to a different background color. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion, the different color was to match the other TV templates and film/game ones. If that's not important, merging wouldn't be an issue. Kingsif (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
My point was, primarily, that even if you wanted the different default colors, you didn't need two nearly-duplicate Lua modules to do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to allow the color change. --Gonnym (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've corrected the header to suggest a merge, which is what I was always trying to do, but made a technical error when nominating. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tltts

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Tltts with Template:Tlxs.
Template:Tltts duplicates functionality of Template:Tlxs, which is more widely used. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

March 5

Template:Howie Hawkins series

[edit]

Most links are either redirects to Howie Hawkins or are loosely related to a third-party candidate with the exception of his presidential campaign. Template has only been edited twice overall. Wow (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep It's the same structure as Template talk:Jill Stein series, and the precedent brought up for that template's deletion showed that it's okay for any political leader to have one. Howie is already a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Green New Deal also isn't loosely related, he was the first ever candidate to campaign for it. Catiline52 (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
A year-old "no consensus" discussion does not really count as precedent. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Correct, this is not a precedent when the sidebars for Joe Walsh and Jeb Bush were deleted for similar reasons. --Wow (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. These templates are a case of unnecessary cluttering of the page, and at some pages, just plan spam. These usually also don't follow WP:BIDIRECTIONAL; Using the example of Jill Stein above, her template is used on only 5 of the 15 links. And to a lesser extent WP:EXISTING with {{Howie Hawkins series}} linking to two redirects. The WP:BIDIRECTIONAL issue can't even be really fixed. Look at 2016 United States presidential election for example for the huge amount of white-space caused by the these series templates, now imagine everyone in 2020 Green Party presidential primaries having one. If a navbox is really needed, it should use the bottom navigation style, which does not make reading articles annoyingly difficult as they are out of the way. --Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep links are not loosely related as described by User:Catiline52.--TM 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

March 4

Template:Offline user

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Offline user with Template:No Internet.

Outright deletion of the offline template was narrowly rejected in a recent discussion, with some "keep" !voters calling for this merge; merging these almost identical templates would be the next-best step. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as they're not quite the same thing. ——SN54129 09:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • One says ...will not have Internet access and will be unable to respond to queries., the other ...has no immediately available Internet access and will be taking a wikibreak of indeterminate length.. What is the substantive difference? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, slightly different connotations. Hog Farm (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I am trying to test a merge of those two templates on here. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Completed discussions[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools[edit]

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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

collapsed discussion just to keep things readable
  • Wouldn't this be solved by just making all of them auto-substitute? The templates are so simple that they're already substituable. --Trialpears (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    That is certainly possible for most of them. I do highly suggest you actually read through the discussion before just slapping a one-size-fits-all solution to almost 300 templates; some of them are not direct wrappers and some of them have extra content that may need to be considered. Additionally, all of them have a commented-out section giving the language - this should not be subst'ed. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have read it and will check that they actually are only a direct wrapper (using regex). before adding auto substitute, but if that is enough for 90% of them that's what I'll do after dealing with the unprotected templates. I also wonder what I should replace them with. I feel like In lang would be the best choice, but since this wasn't even a redirect an hour ago and there were so many opinions about it I thought it would be best asking you. --Trialpears (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry if I implied that you were going to rashly jump into this; thanks for being cautious. I would say that for anything that isn't protected and/or has <50 uses, {{language link}} would be fine to use in the wrapper (i.e. they can pretty much stay unchanged). I'll have to have a think about the higher-use ones, though; in particular, I'm going to look at the {{ill}} merger and how we dealt with combining multiple templates with very long names. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    {{in lang}} with rudimentary documentation created.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know what a substitution forcer file is, but I would suggest that if the list at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9/Link language wrappers § Templates with above 100 transclusions is intended to identify templates that should be substed from one template to another template, then that list is flawed. There are templates listed there that are also listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9/Link language wrappers § Non-standard templates.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    AnomieBOT require templates with over 100 transclusions to be added to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force for them to be auto substituted. I thought it would be useful having a list when that time comes. The first step will of course be fixing the unusual templates before starting substituting them. --Trialpears (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Is that even the right tool to use? Substing {{de icon}} templates will return {{link language|de}}<!--German--> (I'm not sure how categories are handled in these kinds of cases). But, if the intent of this whole thing was to replace the icon templates with a more appropriately named template (which {{link language}} is not) then how is the AnomieBot task the correct task? One task to troll through and subst all of the various icon templates and then another to subst all of the {{link language}} templates? Is that safe? Are there cases where {{link language}} is used natively where changing those transclusions to {{in lang}} would be the wrong thing?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I was planning on doing an AWB run to make sure all templates are only transcluding {{link language|langcode}} or whatever redirect we decide on using and then let AnomieBOT substitute it, which I think would do the job. The categories are handled by the template and removing the comments would not affect them. I'm not sure what's happening with {{in lang}}. It was only a redirect to link language a couple of days ago and I thought that was the intent based on the closing comment. Why do we have two templates doing the same thing now? Updating the original template would be better if you want to implement new features. --Trialpears (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    The only consensus reached is for removal of the wrapper templates: the various {{<xx> icon}} templates change to something. The close doesn't say to what those templates are to be changed. One might infer that they are to be 'unwrapped' to reveal the inner template which may not necessarily be {{link language}}; I suspect that to be the most common (and likely only) template that has been wrapped for this application. The use of {{LL}} as a redirect is addressed to the extent that a WP:RFD is required to do anything about it (an implicit no consensus). As a result of this RFC, {{in lang}} was created as a redirect to {{link language}} but never used for that purpose (redirect because no consensus to rename {{link language}}). I converted that redirect to a template as a way out of the mire that the fourth bullet item and definitive no-consensus declaration leaves us in:
    explicit consensus to remove (from article space) {{<xx> icon}} wrapper templates (first bullet point in the close)
    explicit no consensus to delete the wrapper templates (fourth bullet point in the close)
    consensus / no consensus not stated with regard to deprecation of the wrapper templates (implicit no consensus)
    What point is there to removing the wrapper templates from article space if we don't have a consensus to do anything with the wrapper templates themselves once the transclusions are removed from article space? We don't have a consensus for deletion yet the wrapper templates are marked with {{being deleted}} templates which contradicts the fourth bullet item in the close; both conditions cannot simultaneously exist (deleting something that we don't have consensus to delete). The close is mute on deprecation so apparently we don't have consensus for that either.
    So, a new template with enhanced features and different categories to replace any-and-all uses of the wrapper templates. This, I think, meets the single consensus we do have, to remove the wrapper templates from article space. A new template is not constrained by the contradictions of the close. The wrapper templates are left to be deleted in dribs and drabs as anticipated in the close.
    To answer your question: Why do we have two templates doing the same thing now? Yeah, there are two templates doing similar things; the original is constrained by the decisions (and lack of decisions) of an inconclusive RFC. The new is not constrained by that RFC and can be used to replace the wrapper templates in article space in compliance with the one consensus decision achieved by the RFC; the new template has features that the original does not: |link=, |cap=, multiple language support; the new template fills different categories; the new template name is consistent with what it does (preceding text – may or may not be a link – refers to something that is written in <language name>); the new template does not support |cat-lang= for the reasons stated at Template talk:Link language § the cat-lang parameter.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Since there has been no further comment I have done these things:
    1. written Monkbot/task 15: normalize lang icon templates
    2. created as a test bed:
      1. Category:Articles with non-English-language sources – parent category for sub-cats:
        Category:Articles with Abkhazian-language sources (ab) et al;
      2. Template:Non-English-language source category – documentation template for sub-cats;
    without objection I shall:
    1. start a WP:BRFA for Monkbot/task 15
    2. create additional sub-categories in Category:Articles with non-English-language sources according to those categories in Category:Articles with non-English-language external links that are not empty
    3. when approved, run Monkbot/task 15 to replace {{<xx> icon}} and redirects with {{in lang|<xx>}}
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't approve of having both {{link language}} and {{in lang}} doing the same thing. {{link language}} should be updated and then {{in lang}} be redirected. Other than that I think it sounds good. --Trialpears (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    Nor do I approve, however, they are not doing the same thing. It is true they are doing similar things but {{in lang}} is about sources and allows multiple languages to be references whereas {{link language}} is for only external links (which "sources" might be considered to include) and does not allow multiple languages. The latter also has a few issues with some extra parameters allowing strange categorizations. So in shorts {{in lang}} was resigned without the historic constraints imposed upon {{link language}} allowing it to be more flexible and potentially more things (if it is ever widely deployed to so such). If anything, after most of these transclusions have been updated to use {{in lang}}, {{link language}} could be updated to use/redirect to {{in lang}} (or just be deleted outright with the rest of the templates targeted by this RFC decision). 50.53.21.2 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm confused. You start out by saying Nor do I approve but then appear to talk yourself around to suggesting that the {{in lang}} should be deployed as I have outlined above. So which is it?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Trappist the monk There are now four templates using cat-lang after I fixed the easy ones a while ago: {{bal icon}}, {{ilo icon}}, {{nan icon}} and {{ksh icon}}. I think there are really two ways to handle this, either starting a CfD to change the names of these categories or modify Module:Lang. When this situation is dealt with we should sync with your improved link language template and then make sure all templates subsitute properly and then finally use AnomieBOT to mass subsitute these and then delete them. --Trialpears (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Your posting above is merely pro forma since you have already set AnomieBOT to work?
    I think that you meant {{bla icon}} not {{bal icon}}.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    I set it up for a few templates all with few transclusions. It was mearly for testing and if there's consensus to do it some other way it can be reverted. Based on those tests it worked exactly as expected. I'm ready to do the rest if you think my course of action is suitable. --Trialpears (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Apparently we are at deadlock because you object to {{link language}} (which, it appears, you wish to retain) and {{in lang}} existing simultaneously. I object to continued support of {{link language}} (which I want to go away) because the text that {{link language}} associates with in article text is often not a link. You think that all of the wrapper templates should be subst'd to {{link language}} and I think that the wrapper templates should be replaced with {{in lang}}. You did write above when discussing this topic with Editor Primefac: I also wonder what I should replace them with. I feel like In lang would be the best choice, but since this wasn't even a redirect an hour ago and there were so many opinions about it I thought it would be best asking you so perhaps we aren't at deadlock and are talking past each other.
    Still, at the moment, I don't see any consensus here to do anything there being only two of us participating.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    Why is it a problem that not all uses of link language are associated with a link? How would that problem be solved by using in lang? Since they have the same output I don't see any reason to keep them separate. I intend on starting another deletion discussion exclusively dealing with very low transclusion wrappers to gain consensus to delete wrappers under 50 transclusions. The arguments for keeping the wrappers don't apply to these and would be helpful for getting rid of a significant chunk of them. --Trialpears (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    The problem is one of semantics. These are taken from Amazons:
    * A. Klugmann, ''[https://archive.org/details/dieamazoneninde00klgoog Die Amazonen in der attischen Literatur und Kunst]'' (1875) {{de icon}}
    * H.L. Krause, ''Die Amazonensage'' (1893) {{de icon}}
    These sort-of-work for both cases because {{de icon}} isn't specific about what kind of text precedes the template. Change {{de icon}} to {{link language|de}} and the first example works because there is a link to a German-language source. The same cannot be said for the second example because there is no link.
    Change {{de icon}} to {{in lang|de}} and both examples work because {{in lang|de}} does not refer to links but does refer to the language of the sources. Editors are often 'literal' and are confused by template names that do not accurately reflect what the template does (one of the reasons that {{de icon}} and similar are not well named – template doesn't produce an 'icon', this is the sort-of-works that I mentioned above) so an editor reading the wikitext of the second example where {{de icon}} has been changed to {{link language|de}} may be confused by that because the second example does not have a link.
    Isn't it first necessary to decide what those wrappers under 50 transclusions are to be replaced with before you charge off and delete them? Why are you in such a rush?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    I am fine with using in lang as the template name. If we turned {{in lang}} into a redirect that would indeed be my optimal outcome. Can we start working on removing the last few cat-lang uses so we can redirect it now? Regarding the TfD: The main reason is that I kind of messed up yesterday CSDing 4 unused templates thinking there was an exception to the deletion no consensus for unused templates. A TfD would be a solution to this, but I guess they would also fall under T3. I will discuss with the deleting admin (Justlettersandnumbers) to see what they think I should do. --Trialpears (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    OK, I was pinged. Were those mistaken nominations, Trialpears? If so, they can easily be restored – just say the word! (oh, and give me the page titles if you have them handy). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    Justlettersandnumbers Yep they were mistaken, the discussion didn't actually reach a consensus to delete any of the templates, not even these unused ones. I think they would fall under WP:T3 and will probably tag them so they can be deleted after the 7 day hold. Please undelete {{Av icon}}, {{Arn icon}}, {{Ak icon}}, {{Als icon}} and {{Ajt icon}}. --Trialpears (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
     Done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    If you are fine with using in lang as the template name, what is the point of redirecting it? If we are settled that the template name shall be {{in lang}}, then the task ahead is to replace all instances of {{link language}} (and all of its redirects) with {{in lang}}. Deletion of {{link language}} (and all of its redirects) as unused to follow. What then, is the point of a making {{in lang}} into a redirect?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    If you prefer to redirect in the opposite directions that's by all means fine by me. As long as the end result is one template. --Trialpears (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Just to move this along, I support Trappist's proposal of replacing the icon templates with the new one. --Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    I still think that Trappist's solution is more complicated than necessary, leaving the inevitable merger of these identical templates for later will cause more work overall and replacing it with another template is a bit dubious when the consensus was "Merge to Link Language". I'm however confident that the end result will be basically the same either way and won't block the proposed implementation. --Trialpears (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    With regard to:
    {{bla icon}} see Talk:Blackfoot language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{ilo icon}} see Talk:Ilocano language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{ksh icon}} see Talk:Ripuarian language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{nan icon}} see Talk:Taiwanese Hokkien § language naming inconsistencies
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC) (bla) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC) (ilo) 17:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC) (ksh) 14:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) (nan)
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages § language naming inconsistencies
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    Trappist the monk, So now the cat-lang issue is fixed? Are we ready to start replacement? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    As of sometime yesterday, all of the sub-categories in Category:Articles with non-English-language external links were empty. These sub-categories are populated only by {{link language}} which is called by the various {{xx icon}} templates (and their redirects). I think that the time has (finally) come that the {{xx icon}} templates and their redirect can be deleted.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Is there something planned with the ~7k transclusions of Template:Link language not in mainspace still left? --Gonnym (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yesterday I started running the bot manually through the Wikipedia namespace transclusions; most of those are discussions of various forms so blanket replacement is inappropriate. All other forms of talk page should not be touched. I'll run the bot over the Help and File namespaces and manually over the Portal namespace. That will 'fix' the fixables.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Probably should also include the Draft namespace as some of those eventually will get to the mainspace so no point in leaving that for later. --Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    Monkbot did draft ns earlier this morning; about 170 drafts fixed.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    Great! How are we going to go about the deletion part? I would support nominating the 240 templates that had accumulated under 100 uses when I compiled the list at WP:LLWRAP#Templates with above 100 transclusions and then start monitoring how many uses Monkbot converts after that to determine when it's time for the rest. Perhaps the templates could be tagged as deprecated in the mean time to discourage use. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    A quick random sampling, by no means conclusive, showed that the templates in that list are marked as being deleted. If that doesn't discourage editors from using the templates, I rather doubt that labeling them deprecated will be more effective. Go do what you think should be done, don't forget the redirects and their associated categories ... There has been some consternation at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Categories appear empty, but then not empty so getting these templates into the normal process would seem to be a good idea.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yep, the current situation is quite awkward, mostly due to {{link language}} and {{in lang}} being in used at the same time. Could these be merged now that cat-lang is unused? The being deleted doesn't necessarily mean being deleted just that a TfD result is being implemented and should probably be removed when we are done with this process. I think a deprecation template and a preview only message like when using unrecognized parameters in infoboxes would be the best option to replace it. I will nominate the lightly used templates shortly (probably tomorrow) then. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Just adding this here to make my position clear on this, I oppose any "merge" (which you actually mean "redirect") which leaves us with the hundreds of pointless redirect templates. --Gonnym (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Low usage wrappers nominated for deletion here. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    First batch deleted without trouble, now I just want to know how well used the others are before nominating. Could Monkbot collect statistics on how often it converts each template?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialpears (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Monkbot/task 15 is just an awb script so collecting statistics for evaluation after the fact is beyond its capabilities. I selected a recent group of 100 edits made by task 15 from which I extracted these data (in no particular order):
    ko – 2
    cs – 1
    zh-hk – 1
    zh-hans – 7
    zh – 3
    es – 4
    fr – 23
    ja – 8
    sv – 3
    it – 10
    de – 7
    ru – 8
    arz – 1
    en – 5
    ar – 2
    nl – 9
    tr – 2
    no – 1
    uk – 2
    el – 3
    ro – 1
    id – 2
    hu – 1
    sr – 1
    he – 1
    pt – 1
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, I will look into making a list for the next batch. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • So down to around 6400 transclusions. Is there a technical reason why the talk namespace can't be converted? That has probably the most transclusions. --Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Not technical but political. I choose to avoid the conflict that might arise were my bot to edit other editors' talk postings.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems like we're mostly done here and the two open queries above can be moved to Template talk:In lang. The last thing I want to clear up before doing so is the being deleted tag. Could these be replaced by a deprecation cat since the TfD process is done. The reason I'm hesitent to do so because the close said there was no consensus to deprecate these. Primefac could you give your opinion on this issue as the closer? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    Isn't the normal process deprecation followed by deletion? The {{xx icon}} templates have been marked as 'being deleted' and, when they appear in article space, are soon-after converted to {{in lang}} by Monkbot/task 15. Perhaps the better solution is to unhide the {{being deleted}} templates in the remaining {{xx icon}} templates so that editors can see that they need to replace those templates with {{in lang}}. The 'being deleted' article-space messaging was hidden early-on when the messaging disrupted many articles; that isn't possible now that {{in lang}} has replaced nearly all {{xx icon}} and {{link language}} templates.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    I think a transcluded {{deprecated template}} tag would be best then. There isn't actually a consensus to delete these so having the being deleted tag is suboptimal while deprecated is accurate. I'll replace the tags later today and move this discussion to Template talk:In lang since we're done implementing the current TfD consensus. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

  • None currently

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

  • None currently

Sports[edit]

  • Merge to the corresponding club navbox:
Matches navboxes

Transport[edit]

  • None currently

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

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

To substitute[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Ready for deletion[edit]

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=944143765"