Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 59 0 59
TfD 0 0 0 0 0
MfD 0 0 14 0 14
FfD 0 11 27 0 38
AfD 0 0 54 0 54

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 pageEdit

What not to propose for discussion hereEdit

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 templateEdit

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

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

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

Listing a templateEdit

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_June_5#Template:template_name.css */

Protected pages: If you are unable to tag 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 editorsEdit

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.

TwinkleEdit

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.

DiscussionEdit

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

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

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

Closing discussionEdit

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

Current discussionsEdit

June 5Edit

Template:SubdashEdit

Only used in one userspace page, redundant to the actual character and {{En dash}} ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

June 4Edit

Template:Ponteland and Darras Hall BranchEdit

Unused, no incoming links or transclusions. Infoboxes generally belong in articles, and Ponteland and Darras Hall Branch has an infobox that looks like it is working fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Not WMFEdit

This hatnote creates an unneeded self reference and at the very least violates the spirit of WP:NODISCLAIMERS. It should not be used. Wikipedia has no obligation or even desire to tell people that the subject of a page is not affiliated with Wikipedia. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I created the hatnote template after seeing the message used with the generic {{hatnote}} on several pages. I believe we do in fact have some desire to dissociate ourselves from the likes of Metapedia, and also to clear confusion with respect to such things as WikiLeaks; the general public (probably) doesn't recognize that other Wikis exist independently from the work of the WMF. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 16:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: WT:HAT has been notified of this discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Indianapolis Colts 2020 draft navboxEdit

per prior discussion Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep per consensus at WT:NFL and the fact that there are navboxes for literally every other team in Category:National Football League draft navigational boxes. Unlike the navbox creators back in 2018, I intend on using the navboxes accordingly. The deletion nominator (Zackmann08) has a history of submitting many templates for deletion right before they are transcluded into the articles. (see here and here) Many of the arguments in that discussion are also naive and/or dated such as the idea that "since some players don't play for the team they were drafted by, there would hardly be any connection between them and the team". Many players from other sports such as Kobe Bryant and Jarome Iginla didn't play for the teams they were drafted by, yet there are still mentions of that fact in both of the overall biographies multiple times and at the bottom of the page. Or the idea that the draft infoboxes don't have a main article when in fact they do: the draft list itself. Additionally, the template doesn't even fail WP:ACCESS considering how simple it is to navigate through the navbox itself and the colors aren't even harmful or too bright. Also, the footer at the bottom is meant to make it faster and more convenient to access other navboxes in the navbox catgory without having to look through the category or searching it up. We have a whole bunch of these for not only sports, but other general topics such as film and music awards and politics. Team-specific draft navboxes represent a franchise's draft class and all of those players share a strong connection in that they were all drafted by the same team in the same year. An argument could be made for categories similar to that of NBA, WNBA, and NHL draftees, but that leaves a lot of large questions such as supplemental draft picks, undrafted players, pre-draft players, players that were drafted in pre-merger (AAFC, AFL, etc.) and post-merger (USFL, UFL, AAF, XFL, etc.) football leagues, etc. which would all lead to overcategorization. In fact, I'll allow @Dissident93, @DetroitFan7, and @Yankees10 to explain further. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The deletion nominator (Zackmann08) has a history of submitting many templates for deletion right before they are transcluded into the articles ... you do realize that Zackmann08 hasn't edited in 14 months and this was actually nominated by Frietjes? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I was referring to the nominator of the previous discussion. Not this one. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Being drafted is a notable accomplishment, so having them grouped by draft class (which aids in navigation) just seems logical. We don't need any sort of navbox for supplemental draft picks, which is something you might only see every other year or two, and undrafted players, since they should be treated as any other type of free agent (we don't create articles for every single player). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as mention above. Additionally the deleted navboxes of the mentioned TfD should be restored.--JTCEPB (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no substantial difference between these templates and the ones deleted in the previous TfD. Keeping these template would leave Wikipedia in a self-contradictory state, given that this TfD cannot overturn the previous one. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an opening for a mass spamming of navboxes in the bottom of articles. Is being drafted to a team, more important than being traded to a team? We don't have templates for players of a team for a reason, as it will quickly run wild on some player pages. Seeing as how WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says to that navboxes should be placed on every page it links, one would assume that the most important page, which in this case is the two links in the title Indianapolis Colts and 2020 NFL Draft, should we really have ~70 or so placed on the Colts page? Template:ColtsFirstPick is one of the worst ones, placed in the middle of an article as if it were real content, without even caring that more than 50% of our readers can't even see it. Also, I got to say, for a mass amount of templates, there is not even 1 page for List of Indianapolis Colts draft picks why is that? --Gonnym (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • One, there is a list of all of the team's draft picks: Indianapolis Colts draft history. Two, yes, being drafted is more important than being traded and receives a lot more media publication than you think. Being drafted is considered an honor in NFL culture (and many other sports around the world) as it implies that the player is considered a highly valuable prospect and worth investing in over other many other college players. Three, the template doesn't fail WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and your statement on that is ridiculous. By that measure, {{WWE Hall of Fame}}, {{U.S. governors}}, {{Group of Seven}}, etc. which all have bluelinks to Donald Trump should all be included at the bottom of his page yet they aren't. This isn't only true of only the president but many other popular figures such as Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau, LeBron James, etc. You're creating a ridiculous hypothetical which you know nobody would support, but are trying to imply is the absolute law, when it isn't. Also, lmao at that strange, unnecessary anecdote about {{ColtsFirstPick}}. I'm not even gonna bother on that statement as the navbox and its usage speaks for itself and reads like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per consensus at WT:NFL. Players are often categorized by their draft class and team's draft classes by year are often covered and evaluated by sports media. All the previously deleted templates should be restored. It should also be noted that the previous deletion decision was by a slim margin and likely would have reached a no consensus had there been another keep vote. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    The correct venue for discussing whether templates should exist or not is TfD. TfD decided, in April 2019, that this kind of template should not exist. The closeness of that decision is now irrelevant, and an informal discussion at a venue like NFL cannot overrule it. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Well I believe that they should be kept, as was discussed at that venue, and that previous draft templates should be restored. You are also completely glossing over the point that draft classes receive significant coverage and that is common to refer to players by their draft class. Hopefully this TfD overrules the previous one. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Significant coverage of players in terms of team draft class are not just limited to instant analysis (ex: ESPN, Sporting News, Associated Press) but also sustained coverage (New York Times, CBS Sports, ESPN). Sources clearly show that team draft classes are important and that who selects a player and where he was drafted is quite defining for an NFL player. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tunnel Rail StubEdit

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 Delete; deleted as G5 by Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 13:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"Tunnel Rail" is the signal of a sock of Linde Place; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linde Place for this new sock Spirit Place. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Template:Yugoslavian Government CabinetsEdit

The links provided in this template are all broken because there aren't articles for every Cabinet and Federal Executive Council of Yugoslavia, which is in-line with all other Cabinet/Council systems on Wikipedia. Of the 46 links provided on the template, all 37 of them are red. ItsPugle (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • keep, but remove the redlinks since they are not useful for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that redlinks have been removed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keepper Frietjes. The links in the template do have useful navigational value. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox pipe bandEdit

Propose merging Template:Infobox pipe band with Template:Infobox marching band.
WP:INFOCOL? Seems like at least some variables in Infobox pipe band that do not exist in Infobox marching band would be relevant there still. May as well simply merge it altogether, no matter if not every single page using the infobox would not call on every single available variable, comme-il-faut? PPEMES (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox drums corpsEdit

Propose merging Template:Infobox drums corps with Template:Infobox marching band.
Per WP:INFOCOL, would these two be similar enough to amalgate them altogether? PPEMES (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep both per Nikkimaria. Nosaj544 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:UsernamePolicyEdit

This template is used in only two pages, Wikipedia:Username policy, where it is a summary box, and Wikipedia:Request an account, where it is essentially a snapshot of the username policy. I'm proposing to substitute it into Wikipedia:Username policy and then transclude it into Wikipedia:Request an account using a Help:Labeled section transclusion. The template is not so big as to be disruptive to substitute into the policy, the policy is where it is most likely to be edited, and this will remove an unneeded extra layer for users wishing to edit it. Bsherr (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-generic4imEdit

The purpose of the previously existing {{uw-generic4}} is to provide a generic level-4 user warning when it would be needlessly redundant to the level-3 warning to have a specific template for the given behavior at issue. However, this newly-created template, uw-generic4im, fundamentally departs from that. Uw-generic4 is only used as the next template in progression from a lower-level, specific uw template. Having generic4im is problematic because the user receiving it will necessarily have had no prior warning, and therefore will not have received notice of the specific conduct at issue. Furthermore, the reason a "4im" generic template does not exist is that there is consensus that only certain behaviors warrant a "4im" warning and, for those issues, a "4im" template has been created. The generic template defeats that. Bsherr (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: if an editor uses proxies or creates a new account and starts (obviously) doing the same behavior as they were before, this template could be useful. I agree that it shouldn't be used in any other circumstance. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 01:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
If it is the same user, the level 4 template, not the level 4im template, should be used. --Bsherr (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's reasoning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. How is this useful? --Stay safe, PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•AC) This message was left at 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment as creator. This would also fit as {{uw-disruptive4im}}, if that could be plausible. Otherwise, I now see no reason for it to exist. CrazyBoy826 00:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

June 3Edit

Template:Infobox Looney Tunes Cartoons episodeEdit

Fork of Template:Infobox television episode, I don't believe there's any reason that the articles that use this fork cannot use the primary episode template. -- /Alex/21 23:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Renaissance music manuscript English sourcesEdit

Propose merging Template:Renaissance music manuscript English sources with Template:English Virginalist School.
The virginal books are such an important part of the English Virginal school that I had already put them in the "English Virginalist School" template. It seems pointless to have the exact same information in the "Renaissance music manuscript English sources" one as well. Aza24 (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Joanne tracksEdit

Redundant – all tracks with articles are already included in the navbox Template:Lady Gaga songs, and Template:Extra track listing states that this template should not be used if a navbox is already on the page that lists the songs. Richard3120 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Template:Extra track listings should only be used if a majority of the tracks are linked to existing articles and if the songs are not linked in an exisitng navbox (see Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples). This template falis both. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Artpop tracksEdit

Redundant – all tracks with articles are already included in the navbox Template:Lady Gaga songs, and Template:Extra track listing states that this template should not be used if a navbox is already on the page that lists the songs. Richard3120 (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Born This Way tracksEdit

Redundant – all tracks with articles are already included in the navbox Template:Lady Gaga songs, and Template:Extra track listing states that this template should not be used if a navbox is already on the page that lists the songs. Richard3120 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:The Fame Monster tracksEdit

Redundant – all tracks with articles are already included in the navbox Template:Lady Gaga songs, and Template:Extra track listing states that this template should not be used if a navbox is already on the page that lists the songs. Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:The Fame tracksEdit

Redundant – all tracks with articles are already included in the navbox Template:Lady Gaga songs, and Template:Extra track listing states that this template should not be used if a navbox is already on the page that lists the songs. Richard3120 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Template:Extra track listings should only be used if a majority of the tracks are linked to existing articles and if the songs are not linked in an exisitng navbox (see Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples). This template falis both. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox reality talent competitionEdit

Propose merging Template:Infobox reality talent competition into Template:Infobox reality competition season, because both are infoboxes for a season of a reality competition and per WP:INFOCOL. TheTVExpert (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per nom, the merging of the "talent competition" infobox into the "competition season" infobox. The latter is a module within the normal television season infobox, so we should maintain that functionality and add in whatever other parameters would be necessary from the former. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: See no issues with the merger of the two. GUtt01 (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: They're both "reality competition" for a reason and mostly sharing the same parameters. TVSGuy (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: To alleviate confusion over which one to use. werldwayd (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:The Legend of Zelda chronologyEdit

Per recent discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Unnecessary templates, this template should be hardcoded and live at The Legend of Zelda series page, not duplicated across every game article. Its width also interferes with accessibility on mobile and read-aloud devices. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Consensue is already pretty strong on what to do here, this is borderline WP:G6 really. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JOEBRO64 00:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Zelda chronology is complex enough to merit a visual aid, but it's best suited to a single, hard-coded inclusion on the series page rather than included on every game's page, since the individual games rarely have connections to more than one or two others— which makes including the full chronology unnecessary. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kawnhr. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Donkey Kong chronologyEdit

Per recent discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Unnecessary templates, the fictional "chronology" of DK video games basically duplicates the release order in real life and therefore, this template does not add any value when on articles that already have the main DK navigation template, which should be all of the linked articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - Absolutely nothing "chronological" about this. Donkey Kong is not a plot-centric franchise by any means, and this "chronology" is quite literally just a list of DK games by order of release. This serves no purpose. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fictional chronology of a video game series with almost zero plot present. Wikia-like cruft. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JOEBRO64 00:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Donkey Kronology. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Xenoblade Chronicles chronologyEdit

Per recent discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Unnecessary templates, this template doesn't really show a chronological relationship between three video games that take place in three separate continuities. It's also not really necessary to navigate between so few articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: Small correction: Xenoblade Chronicles and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 chronologically happen at the same time across two different dimensions, and in-game events are linked. Xenoblade Chronicles X however, is in a different continuity, as already noted on the template. The fact that editors (and hence readers) keep getting this wrong just illustrates the need to have the containing sidebar in the series' article. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 00:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - this “chronology” is useless. There’s only three video games and one can’t even be connected to the others. There’s not even enough to call it a chronology. There’s no flow, just some names in white space. And all that isn’t even taking into effect that these WP:INU chronologies are generally discouraged anyways, even without its glaring conceptual flaws. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sergecross. This template is utterly pointless, there is nothing "chronological" about this whatsoever and comes of as WP:FANCRUFT. This series has three games, and the plot of them can easily be explained in the text. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JOEBRO64 00:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. As said, four games across three separate continuities do not merit a visual or navigational aid. I understand that XB 1 and 2's worlds have some story connection, but I do not think this this table makes that apparent to anyone who doesn't already have knowledge of the series, nor that it cannot be covered just as well by prose within the relevant articles. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and others. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2Edit

Template:WikiProject Mount Juliet, TennesseeEdit

Unused template of an apparent inactive WikiProject. It is unlikely that a WikiProject for this subject is necessary; falls under the scope of WP:TN. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Country data SiamEdit

No Content. Should use Template:Country data Thailand instead. ชาวไทย (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Portal top bannerEdit

A "portal banner" that only displays information about the Connecticut portal. I don't see any usage of this, and if it is needed, it could be copied onto the portals. CrazyBoy826 20:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Timed blockEdit

Propose merging Template:Timed block with Template:Uw-block.
Duplicate template, this template does not mention appeal options, which is problematic. Unedited since 2011. Aasim 20:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep, different functionality, add appeal wording if you must. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, please take a look at this query. Thanks. Aasim 14:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Awesome Aasim: Just a note, the search you used would have only matched current blocks. The point of the template is to avoid the message saying that something is blocked when it isn't. Also worth knowing that you can use quotation marks to match an exact piece of text. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC).
Merge provided the functionality is kept. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

Template:Monarchs of BrazilEdit

All articles on this template are already linked through Template:House of Braganza, rendering it redundant. All the individuals are linked through Template:Brazilian imperial family. DrKay (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-test1-randEdit

Unused templates, unedited since 2011. Aasim 19:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What was the result of the test? How do you know this is unused, since they are subst templates? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, see this search query and this search query. Also NFD'ing {{Uw-test-rand1}} for the same reasons above. Aasim 13:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Try this search instead. It's quite likely that the creator may {{G7}} these, I will leave him a note. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

Template:Distressing articleEdit

Inappropriate talk page banner. This was originally on Talk:Timeline of the far future and was later copied to Template: space and transcluded onto a handful of others. But none of the uses are particularly warranted. I suggest outright deletion and removal rather than subst:ing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep I see why this is needed. Some people do tend to find certain wikipedia articles distressing, and complain about it in the talk. Wikipedia isn't a forum, so this can be an issue, so that's why it's important to use this template on talk pages. ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    We already have multiple talk page banners warning people that talk pages aren't a forum. We don't need this one too. People also like to use talk pages to say that the boys in their favorite band are just the dreamiest or to offer their own theories about the JFK assassination, but we don't craft a different notice for each type of reason people might want to use a talk page inappropriately. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    I am aware of that. However, this is a different type of talk page not a forum warning. we do need this template because it is used to mark articles that stand out due to it being distressing/hard to read, so as I mentioned above, people may complain to tone it down. This is be used to remind them not to do that. ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    FWIW as a page editor there have been few if any talk-page complaints on Timeline of the far future nor Global catastrophic risk nor Human extinction nor similar pages, at least in recent years; no objections to deletion from me. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I see how this can be useful, but I also see how it violates the spirit (if not the letter) of NPOV by placing the adder's attitude of what constitutes a "depressing/disturbing" article onto the talkpage (a la spoiler templates, albeit in the talkpage). Lots of articles from a variety of disciplines and topics can fit that category, but this is only transcluded on 4 talkpages, all of which are about the future. (Oddly enough, the original instance on the Timeline of the Far Future talkpage is not this template [and has a link to Asimov's The Last Question as an "antidote"].) I have no opinion on what should be done, whether this should be deleted or its use expanded, but the status quo is suboptimal. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    @John M Wolfson: To clarify, that article transcluded the template when I made this nomiation. At some point after, Serendipodous apparently restored it, again in violation of WP:COPYVIOEL, which I had removed from the template for that reason specifically. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough, my comment still stands. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to {{censor}} the other template is more widely used, better phrased and seems to serve the same purpose. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep (including merge) the wording is a little off, I'll tweak it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

Template:Duan Yu's family treeEdit

Family tree template that is only used on one article. Subst and delete. You don't need a template for this. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Downton Abbey film, family treeEdit

Family tree template that is actually completely unused in article space. If it ever gets used, it should be hardcoded in Downton Abbey (film), not in template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Hooligan family treeEdit

Family tree template that is only used on one article. Subst and delete. You don't need a template for this. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Xiao family treeEdit

Family tree template that is only used on one article. Subst and delete. You don't need a template for this. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Murder of Shaariibuugiin AltantuyaaEdit

Seems overkill for one article when the TOC is doing a great job providing in-article navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Clark Stories, P. 26Edit

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 Delete; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unused, and seems also not useful TheImaCow (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete This is a reference that the creator saved in the template space, and of no further use. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Chanakya. SpEdit

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 Delete; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unused, and is also not useful TheImaCow (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Template:Chang Arena, BuriramEdit

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 Delete; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unused, and is also not useful TheImaCow (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Template:Charlie’s Angels (Discord)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 Delete; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unused, and is also not useful TheImaCow (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not used, not potentially useful. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Fey family treeEdit

This family tree over a fictional family within the Ace Attorney video game series has absolutely no realistic use on WP, and is also filled with extraneous stuff (Marvin Grossberg is not part of the Fey family just because he is Mia Fey's mentor...). AlexandraIDV 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Pure fan cruft and in-universe. Many of the relationships on the family tree cannot be verified through reliable sources, and some relationships have been disputed. Any sources that are given are references to certain episodes of different AA games, but then gives no further context. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Cruft to the highest degree, nowhere near warranted. Lacks context, questionable decision-making, real-world importance, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. As much as I might DeLite in Ace Attorney, I can't abide this. Too much game cruft. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Fancruft of the highest order. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pearl Fey is Phoenix and Maya's daughter? And Mia is Phoenix's mother? I had no idea! Delete. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Yikes, I didn’t even notice that until now. For context for non-fans, the chart is deeply flawed as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the dotted lines are supposed to indicate non-familial relationships; Mia is also connected to Grossberg in the same way. But it's extremely confusing and liable to being misunderstood when there's no legend! — Kawnhr (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kawnhr: @Axem Titanium: That is exactly what I meant for it to mean. What is a legend, and how do I add one to it? KMWeiland (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
That’s not the case. Several canonically confirmed married couples have dotted lines connecting themselves to each other.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Birth date and age 49Edit

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 Delete; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unused, and is also not useful TheImaCow (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Template:Benetton Treviso 1998–99 FIBA Saporta Cup championsEdit

Unused and dosen't looks useful TheImaCow (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Austrian Imperial FamilyEdit

There is no "Austrian imperial family". The Empire was dissolved and all royal titles legally abolished in 1918. There is no archduke, no archduchess. They do not use these titles because they do not legally exist. This infobox is blatant WP:SYN. Guy (help!) 23:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Rename, seems like the infobox is more like - alive members / ancestors of the house of Hapsburg, which is a notable concept. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is an infobox with members of all other deposed royal families. This is an invaluable list of all members of this large, notable family. The name "Austrian Imperial Family" is the name that makes the most sense, there would be no precedent for calling such an infobox anything but. --Richiepip (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    Richiepip, it's {{infobox family}}, used on the family article. Guy (help!) 20:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    This should probably be Template:Habsburg-Lothringen family. The last Habsburg died 2.5 centuries ago. Place Clichy (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - completely agree with Guy, the idea that an Austrian imperial family still exists is an absurd fantasy.Smeat75 (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a fantasy. Just to take one entry as an example "HI&RH The Hereditary Countess of Neipperg". That links to Andrea von Habsburg, which says "However, she does not use her ancestral titles as a member of the House of Habsburg, since the use of such titles is illegal in Hungary and Austria." So where does this title come from? Apparently the only thing noteworthy thing this person has ever done is get married. If the template were converted to a simple list of members of the Hapsburg family, with their actual names instead of abandoned titles, then maybe it'd be OK. Milpack (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, Even though the Empire was abolished and the use of titles is forbidden under the Austrian and Hungrian laws, they retrain the title in pretendence wasn’t they? The name "Austrian Imperial Family" suit them most because it was the seat of they ancestors, and wasn’t intended to mislead the reader that Austria is still a monarchical state. -ชาวไทย (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • See above. Not all of them use the titles in pretense. So it's just something that Wikipedia editors have decided to call them. If we really want to have a template, then we should call them by their real names and title the template "Hapsburg family". Milpack (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The template strongly implies a falsehood, viz., that descendants of the Austrian Habsburgs still hold their ancestors' titles. It is a falsehood that, if not politically significant in 2020, could become so in the future. Wikipedia is not a seedbed for "alternative facts" that uphold radical or reactionary political doctrines. As for the notable concept of a person being descended from Austrian royalty, a category is a satisfactory way to organize that information. -- ob C. alias ALAROB 15:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment on my own vote: Checking German Wikipedia, there are articles on notable living descendants of the Austrian Habsburgs but no template relating to them. The articles also indicate that the use of not only titles but even the preposition "von" in front of a royal surname (e.g. "von Habsburg-Lothringen") is politically charged and subject to legal action in Austria. See esp. the article de:Karl Habsburg-Lothringen.
OTOH there is an assertion in de:Georg Habsburg-Lothringen that even though the subject of the article never uses his ancestors' title, he is "also often referred to in the media and socially as Archduke (medial und gesellschaftlich oft auch als Erzherzog bezeichnet)." However the statement may amount to original research. -- ob C. alias ALAROB 16:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see its been called House of Habsburg now which is fine, the template is useful to link various living members of this notable family various of whom a notable themselves. Its no different to having the templates listing all current members of a football team etc. Its not even unusual to see them called Archduke/Archduchess and there are countless sources which would support calling them as such so there is no harm in referring to members of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine by their historic titles, even the Belgian Royal Family says Princess Astrid married "Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este" rather than Mr Lorenz Habsburg-Lothringen! - dwc lr (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Members of this family who were alive in 1977 are called the "Austrian imperial family" in Burke's Royal Families of the World, and so it is not as simple as stating that all their titles were abolished in 1919 and only obscure self-published websites now accord them the titles. There are Wikipedia:Reliable sources that use this terminology to describe living Habsburgs. Content needs to be adjusted to agree with the available literature and common names, but wholesale deletion of sourced information isn't the way to go about it. DrKay (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Changing my "!vote": I've been convinced by the BLP issues raised, the lack of verifiability, and the pointlessness of the template as a navigational aid. My own searches for sources has shown that many people listed on the template are not called Archduke X of Austria, but are only found in reliable sources (or even primary sources) under a normal name, and that name is not necessarily either German or English, as the individual concerned lives as a private citizen in Spain or Hungary, or elsewhere. DrKay (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not convinced by the arguments presented by Guy but there are, in my opinion, good reasons to be rid of this template. It attributes grandiose titles to obscure living people who very likely do not endorse being called archdukes or archduchesses for professional, legal, or ideological reasons. It is impossible to verify how these people self-identify because they are so obscure. Furthermore, the template is supposed to be a navbox ("a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles") but completely fails as such because the vast majority of names in it are not linked. At best, the template is useless; at worst, it is a BLP and SYNTH nightmare. Surtsicna (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename to Template:House of Habsburg. There are enough bluelinks to justify the template, although we should take care that the royal titles given are what those people are actually known by, rather than just someone playing fantasy empires. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Ivar the Boneful, according to my count, there are 169 people named in the template, of which only 29 are linked, i.e. less than a fifth. Many of those 29 lack any apparent notability, which is being looked into these days, so the number of blue links is likely to significantly decrease. But even if what remains is deemed enough, how do you propose that we verify how these 169 people call themselves? The vast majority are entirely obscure, so we can hardly rely on common usage in sources. Surtsicna (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename: The issue seems to be over the name of the template. The template itself seems useful. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    • No, Jdcompguy, the problem is the impossibility to verify the content of the template (which concerns living people) and its uselessness as a navigational aid. Surtsicna (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Are you seriously trying to claim that it is "impossible" to find sources to verify the familial relationships between the members of this famous and historically-important family? Of all things, that's among the easiest types of information to verify. Jdcompguy (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Jdcompguy, I am seriously saying that it is impossible to verify that all these people call themselves Imperial and Royal Highnesses and archdukes or archduchesses. It is impossible to verify what they call themselves instead or what their legal names are. Impossible, because they are obscure, private citizens. Feel free to prove me wrong, however. Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
          • The bluelinks of the main section are a useful navigation tool and do not use the royal titles you mention. I think that whatever issues you have with the template can be resolved without deleting the entire thing. Jdcompguy (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
            • There are only 29 blue links out of 169 names and that number is about to decrease. If we take out the non-notable, non-verifiable people, the list is misleadingly incomplete, inaccurate by omission; if we leave them in, we contravene two policies. This sort of content belongs in an article, not a template. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • No, I also strongly disagree that this is about “the name of the template.” BLP issues include the counterfactual assigning of noble titles, which may violate Austrian law. (IANAL) ob C. alias ALAROB 18:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relevance as royal topic, irrespective of status in the Austrian republic. PPEMES (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • PPEMES, there is no indication that these 169 people view themselves as royal, claim to be royal, or that the general public identifies them as royal. Surtsicna (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • It's indeed possible that details within the template could and should be altered. I'm just not sure plain deletion is a convincing idea. PPEMES (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:2880:F00D:4E04:47EC (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I didn't understand the reasons for deletion—if there is any. --Foghe (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The reasons, Foghe, are that there are no sources confirming how these people self-identify or how they are commonly called and that the template fails in its purpose to aid in navigation because the vast majority of names are not linked. The template cannot state that 169 people claim royal status without sources. It is an egregious breach of WP:V and WP:BLP policies. I hope that makes it clearer, though it has already been written a few times here.. Surtsicna (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Ok clear, sources are inadequate, but it's just consistent with this I think. At the end it's true they are the pretenders. --Foghe (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        • But how can you say it's true without sources? Labeling them as pretenders without sources saying that they pretend to something is a violation of WP:BLP, especially since pretending to that something is a criminal offence in their homelands. Wikipedia is effectively alleging that they are breaking the law without any source backing it up. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, for what it's worth, the others templates listed here at Category:Royal and noble family templates might be worth discussing.
  • Keep and neutralize or rename to Template:Habsburg-Lothringen family, as the last Habsburg died centuries ago. I was at a function some time ago where the speaker was presented as Dr Michael Salvator Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria, so I'd say they do use royal titles, but not the ones used in the template. HI&RH is anachronic, and the template could probably be purged of most or all entries without articles. Place Clichy (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Place Clichy, can we really conclude, based on Michael Salvator Habsburg-Lothringen's example, that the other 168 people also use titles? It seems like synthesis to me. I am concerned that purging the template of the unlinked names will render it misleadingly incomplete - unless the template is renamed to something like Template:Habsburg-Lothringens notable enough for a Wikipedia article. And even then, many of these people do not call themselves Habsburg-Lothringen. There are people called "von Habsburg", "de Habsburgo-Lorena", "Habsburg Douglas", etc. Lumping them all up under "Habsburg-Lothringen" is difficult to justify. Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    You cannot conclude either that they do not use titles, or (as currently presented in the article) HI&RH. I don't suggest "lumping" every one under "Habsburg-Lothringen", I just suggest that it would be a better name for the template(and for the family as a whole) than Austrian Imperial family. There is a policy in Wikipedia against using redirects in templates, is if for selected individuals another last name is more pertinent (e.g. Habsburgo-Lorena) as reflected in the article's name we should definitely link to that. For the appearance of the link, in a family template, in this case a royal family template, first name and relation with other members (and, when applicable, courtesy title) are more useful than the variations of Lothringen/Lorraine/Lorena, which would be hidden by a pipe. As for the "completeness of the template, when a family reaches 160+ alive members, most of them not notable, attempting to list them all in a template only creates template creep, and anyway you cannot reasonably expect to keep up with the births and deaths. This should be better done in a list article. A template with the most notable members who do have an article, though, is definitely a useful navigation tool, maybe including a few red links if important or linked to an equivalent article in a foreign language. Place Clichy (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    It is not up to Wikipedia editors to conclude anything, Place Clichy. It is against WP:V and WP:BLP to attribute titles to people before sources are found confirming their personal usage. Listing people under "Habsburg-Lothringen family" with just their names suggests that they all share that name. Surely the person's last name is very relevant since it is in everyday use. People such as Géza von Habsburg and Walburga Habsburg Douglas are known professionally and internationally by these names; obscuring them is a disservice to the readers. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    Who says anything about attributing titles, and which titles exactly? Certainly not me. We can perfectly present the template without doing so. The only issue here is really is we want to have a navigational aid in the form of a template between articles who form a related set, and I have seen so far no rationale for not having that. About people you have cited, Géza von Habsburg is mentioned as also called Géza Habsburg-Lothringen in the first line of the article, and the "Douglas" part of Walburga Habsburg Douglas is a married name. Both articles are already a part of Category:House of Habsburg-Lorraine, so they are already "listed under that name", no more than renaming the template would do. My opinion still to purge and rename this template, but certainly to keep it. Place Clichy (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Bring back the Austro-Hungarian Empire and maybe there's a case for this. Until then, the idea that any modern person should be called His Imperial and Royal Highness is WP:FRINGE.
There's no evidence that these people use these titles, the vast majority aren't notable enough to have their own articles anyway, and the use of these titles raises significant legal issues, so WP:BLP clearly applies. This template is nothing more than Wikipedians making up gradiose titles and assigning them to people. Kahastok talk 16:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • But why delete? Why not just remove the gradiose personal titles and rename the template? Jdcompguy (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
At which point it's a template listing a large number of private individuals, most of whom do not have articles and will not have articles. Take out those without articles and you end up with a list containing disparate group of people whose only connection is sharing a great-great-grandparent.
The whole point of this template is to document the "Austrian Imperial Family". Remove the royal connection - as the Austrians did in 1918 - and you lose any reason to have a template. Kahastok talk 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Rob's suggestion of putting the ones who have articles in a category sounds fine. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Simplify reduce to those who historically were part of the "imperial family" or some reasonable facsimile, and remove the modern branches. Perhaps that information belongs in an article, without the, apparently spurious, titles, but probably not in this box. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

Foreign character warning boxesEdit

As brought up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Deprecate foreign character warning boxes?, the vast majority of readers are now using systems that are able to display a wide range of scripts, and the slim potential benefit these foreign character warning boxes used to offer is now outweighed by the clutter they cause. The templates for Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic, Korean, and Japanese have been deleted at TfD. I am now nominating for deletion these warning boxes for scripts that were introduced in or prior to Unicode 3.2 in 2002, excluding the ones for which issues may still be prevalent, per 59.149.124.29's comments in the above-linked discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, the age of the script being introduced to Unicode is not necessarily a foolproof way of knowing about implementation issues. Some Coptic support is as recent as version 7.0 in 2014, even though the unified "Greek and Coptic" block dates back to v1.0. The Indic template specifically addresses a problem that those scripts are encoded in Unicode to have vowels always follow the consonants they modify logically, even if the vowel sign is rendered before the consonant in writing, and there's the entire cavalcade of conjuncts being supported. There are still implementations that mangle Indic text in either or both of these ways, and this template warns of that distinct possibility. Tibetan is a whole rabbit's den of quirks and one-off rendering minutiae. I also know that there are some special rendering complexities with the Ogham space that make full support less likely. And then there are scripts like Cherokee or Deseret that are so simple, we probably could have gotten rid of this template a decade ago. But I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this, and I can only say that each of these writing systems needs to be investigated individually, with some effort to evaluate them on the basis of "these characters have been standardized long enough to be supported fully" vs. "there's a whole level of rendering complexity beyond just the characters that might not be supported". Unfortunately, I'd have to Oppose all except Cherokee, Deseret and Braille - I know those well enough - until that due diligence has been done. VanIsaacWScont 03:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Here's the first paragraph of Baybayin on Firefox on my Windows 10 desktop this morning (Internet Explorer is the same; MacOS Catalina is fine). The situation is definitely better than it used to be, but the rationale that a standard released in 2002 has obviously fixed these simply doesn't bear out (I'm willing to bet the majority of these templates were created several years after that). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • comment: Several of these scripts are still unsupported out-of-the-box on moden platforms (especially mobile phones). That said, I have never found them useful to begin with, as these boxes mostly appear in articles about these scripts, and the reader can be trusted to recognize the problem if, say, they are reading an article about runes and see placeholder boxes in place of runic characters. Under the general sentiment that (a) Wikipedia should't treat readers as idiots an (b) Wikipedia isn't here to provide tech support to people with font issues I would have preferred deprecation of these even when they were first introduced, but I refrain from "voting delete" because the rationale for keeping them around hasn't changed — may I suggest deprecation without outright deletion as a possible compromise. --dab (𒁳) 11:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think we're treating readers like idiots by telling them how to fix this. My experience is that when people experience Unicode font issues, they typically think it's a permanent device problem. If we can help them then we should try. I'm open to collapsing these into a single template, because I don't really think the fixes are so different as to require a per-script link to them, but not full deprecation, because this is still an ongoing issue with contemporary operating systems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Maybe we should ask, what are the use cases these templates are expected to serve? I can imagine a situation where I see boxes instead of text and realise my computer lacks the appropriate font. Personally, I would then look them up on Google, but I can see that having a link to a help page recommending fonts and providing download links can be helpful. The way the help pages are currently written, however, with instructions on text input and a lot much else, is simply too much detail for such users. I also doubt these templates are useful for more complicated cases, e.g. incorrect character sequence rendering. Readers who are familiar enough with the language to know that the rendering is incorrect would already know this and don't need help, while readers who don't know this won't see a problem so won't click on the box. Also, most of the problem is due to the box format itself. There's never a good place to place these templates. They get in the way of infoboxes and images, and the right side of articles are usually already cluttered enough (not sure if they're rendered on mobile, but if so, then they'd cause even more clutter there). A comment on the MOS talk page suggested hatnotes, but that's even worse IMO. I'm thinking that, in most cases, these would be better as a simple in-line template like (help) or at most (text display help). If their use isn't deprecated, there should be more concrete MOS guidance that these templates (whether the current boxes or inline versions) should only be used when the display of text is pertinent to the reader's understanding of the topic. So use them on articles about the language, but don't spam them on articles that just mention foreign versions of place names. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: informative comments above; I'd certainly be happy to see (much) less of these boxen. I suspect we could get away with a single (merged) template; and I'd suggest that the box would be less obtrusive if its text label could be cut down to 3 lines in place of the current wasteful 6 - it could just say something like "This article contains foreign text. Without proper rendering, you may see '?' or boxes." Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I would be all in favor of merging these to a generic template, but maybe it should have a parameter for some of the more common issues that come up with certain common scripts. {{Unsupported text|Indic}} might have an explicit link to Help:Multilingual_support_(Indic) and the Indic specific image from {{Contains Indic text}}, while a {{Unsupported text}} without an explicit script, or an unrecognized script would give a generic message, maybe with File:Replacement character.svg. And just as a side note, I've been creating Indic letter articles for the last couple weeks, but haven't used {{Contains Indic text}} at all. VanIsaacWScont 05:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I created two of these boxen but have never been happy with their effect on layout. It is to be expected that they will become less necessary with time, but that day has not yet arrived. I support replacing these with a standard {{Unsupported text|Script_name}} template. -- ob C. alias ALAROB 23:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with the nominator. I would much prefer it if enwiki were to enable MediaWiki's WebFont fetching by default, would improve those few articles that really do use uncommon scripts. I couldn't find any discussion on enwiki about whether it should be turned on by default, does anybody know if it has been discussed? – Thjarkur (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Thjarkur, I have no idea, though I've previously found documentation of the universal language selector and its implementation on enwiki to be very lacking and/or unclear. Maybe this should be brought up at the Village Pump? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have always found these boxes distracting and unnecessary. When foreign characters are included, they are usually included as "Language: [and then the script here]", so I know what language I'm missing. A second best option would be to use a technical means to show these only when a reader lacks the relevant font, or to only display these for rare languages where readers may in fact not have support. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: also, I think this discussion should be more widely publicised, perhaps on cent noticeboard, to get a greater variety of opinions, as it has the potential to set a precedent and affect a large number of articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment as nominator: Maybe this TfD wasn't the best approach to the issue. I'm seeing some common threads here, in that while not all of these scripts are indeed widely supported enough to warrant deletion, the proliferation of these templates is not a good thing and there should be some better way to assist the reader. I guess this discussion could be closed as no consensus, and back to the drawing board be it, to consider the various options. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: For the record, even if this discussion gets closed, I want to explicitly second (third?) Chiswick Chap's and Vanisaac's comments suggesting the templates be merged at some point in the future. I personally disagree with Chiswick Chap's proposal that the text in the template(s) be shortened and don't find the six lines clunky or obtrusive and think that using the term "foreign" would be inaccurate, "non-Latin" might be a better alternative if one is needed. The use of a parameter to specify what script or block of characters that are relevant sounds to me like an effective solution. Additionally, enabling WebFont fetching by default, as proposed by Thjarkur, additionally seems like a positive change. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a relisting note, there have been some suggestions to merge these into a single template, but all are currently wrappers for {{Contains special characters}}. Whether that "merge" simply means going from a named template to a piped parameter is potentially worth exploring more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge. I created two of these boxen (as I said in a prior comment) and I have always been dissatisfied with how they fail to fit in to article page layout. A template with piped parameters would be a welcome improvement, esp. if we can recruit some expert involvement to better integrate the template into page layout, maybe as an infobox element, or having infobox layout traits where no infobox is present. Until every user has a client that flawlessly supplies correct fonts for every kind of script, we need a stopgap measure like this. But we can do better than the current crowd of misfit boxen. -- ob C. alias ALAROB 19:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge all will then be beautiful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC).
    • We could ask for foundation help with this issue, it should be possible to tell which fonts a browser supports, and either display a warning only in cases where there is an issue, or even display a replacement glyph as per our maths rendering system. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

June 1Edit

Template:CreateaccountEdit

Propose merging the above three templates.
In essence the same template. Createaccount has a few extra dot points and AnonymousWelcome looks better. No reason to keep all three, though. Anarchyte (talkwork) 08:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Merge these templates are extremely similar in content, and should be merged. Will make our approach consistent, reduce template overhead + the likelihood that content becomes outdated, and also not confuse editors so much by providing three very similar ways to achieve the same goal. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • My first preference would be to redirect all to {{Welcome-anon}}, since that's almost surely a better option for any use case (it's not helpful to list out a million reasons to create an account; just tell them they ought to and most will, and give a link to WP:Why create an account? if they really wanna know). Second preference is strong support for merge per WP:CONSOLIDATION. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{Welcome-anon}}. I concur with Sdkb. That template is implemented in Twinkle, and has the most usage. --Bsherr (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Wikimedia Meta-Wiki redirectEdit

Unused template, I see no reason to link from mainspace to Meta-Wiki as Meta-Wiki is a wiki for coordination of Wikimedia projects and would not be useful to most readers, hence the name. We already have a template covered for {{interwiki redirect}}s from Project: and User: space to Meta-Wiki. Aasim 20:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep - The plain {{soft redirect}} (aka {{interwiki redirect}}, however, is not used in the mainspace. Instead, specialized soft redirect templates are used when redirecting to another wikimedia site. I anticipate this will eventually fall into use somewhere in the mainspace, though its need will indeed be quite rare. With the exception of {{Wiktionary redirect}}, most of the other specialized soft redirect templates only have 5-10ish uses (e.g. see Category:Redirects to Wikisource). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I am thinking about how useful this will probably be for readers because this template is intended for main namespace. I completely understand linking from Wikipedia to another content project, that is why I did not nominate the other soft redirect templates for deletion. I can see the "meta" interwiki redirect template as potentially problematic because I do not think readers looking for content on Wikipedia are going to be benefited by soft-redirects to Meta-Wiki. After all, if a reader searches "Wikimedia forum" by chance (which is so extremely unlikely that it would be better to invest our time and resources into creating more useful templates and redirects on the project), the page m:Wikimedia forum is going to provide no help whatsoever to them if they want to learn more about the topic. (In the example I gave, it would probably be better to redirect that title to something more appropriate on-wiki like Wikimedia movement.) Soft redirects to Wikimedia Commons makes sense (I can picture readers searching for "gallery of X images" or "List of images pertaining to Y" on Wikipedia, then we can direct them to Commons), soft redirects to Wikiquote and Wiktionary make sense as well and have use on articles like "X proverbs" and "[insert dictionary word here]", but an interwiki redirect to a non-content project like Meta-Wiki makes little to no sense whatsoever. Aasim 15:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused; I cannot think of a single page on meta-wiki that would be useful to a reader of the encyclopedia. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: WT:WikiProject Redirect has been notified of this discussion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:RecentgameEdit

I am fairly certain that we just don't need this template. Games are not special from a {{current}} perspective and even if they were, they don't have the kind of editing pattern that usually necessitates {{current}}. Izno (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Mandattabel rækkeEdit

Unused, and seems unnesescary TheImaCow (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Wycliffe Global Alliance participating organizationsEdit

Mostly red links. Fuddle (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • remove all the redlinks and the collapsible sections (see here), then reconsider if there are 5 or fewer links left. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and my comments at the last Wycliffe template proposal. Most are redlinks and links are better placed within articles.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Rating-10Edit

It should probably deleted in favor of {{Rating}} as were deleted {{Rating-4}} and {{Rating-5}}, because {{Rating-10|4}}  and {{Rating|4|10}}           give the same. Wikisaurus (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

May 31Edit

Template:CCTBMEdit

Unused, no obvious parent article, and no readily apparent need. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Roompot–Charles ridersEdit

Team is defunct, so the template is no longer required. Craig(talk) 14:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-nothereblockEdit

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 speedy keep. On the record: no consensus has emerged for this change, nor seems likely to, at this rate. (non-admin closure) ——Serial # 22:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This template does not identify a policy-based block reason. WP:NOTHERE is a supplemental page, and as such "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community".

WP:NOTHERE details some policy and guideline violations. However, most of these have their own specific block templates which should be used instead. This one is way too broad and unspecific, and because it encourages poor block practice, it should be deleted. In many cases, Template:Uw-deoablock would be the substitute, as it covers trolling, disruption or harassment. --Pudeo (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep because of so many cases where it's not a single policy/guideline alone repeatedly violated, but some of several. Two commons patterns are minor vandalism that morphs into some trolling or personal attacks, and substantial but not universal incompetance regarding citing sources or faithfully writing what they support with occasional copyvio. There's usually one "last straw" that leads to an admin hitting the block button but that alone is nowhere near the whole reason, and it's not major enough to go to a dramah-board (such that "per ANI..." could be the block reason). DMacks (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Ideally so, but there also are examples of first-instance indefinite "cowboy" NOTHERE blocks (for instance, where to draw the line with WP:AGF with new-ish users that cause disruption). Basically the usage of this template has broadened a lot. It would be beneficial if all blocks were explained with policy to the letter, which also helps with appeals. It is interesting how these templates affect de facto blocking policy, as for instance, there is no block template for "No personal attacks" - only harassment. My take is that this template is too much of a catch-all slammer that is contributing to lazy blocking practice. --Pudeo (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Then (as others below note) let's address those specific cases and potentially return this to its narrower scope if current individual practice isn't in line with what we want when we actually sit and think about it as a group. Sounds like you're trying a process of having the template tail wag the admin-behavior dog. DMacks (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It'd just be replaced with a generic WP:DE blocks, which like WP:NOTHERE is basically a catch all saying that there doesn't need to be a specific policy reference for a block if someone is causing issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTHERE may not be marked as policy, but WP:Blocking policy#"Not here to build an encyclopedia" is. —Cryptic 17:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The last major discussion there about NOTHERE blocks is significantly older than I'd thought I remembered, so it's probably worth revisiting. But deleting this template would be the last step of that, not the first. —Cryptic 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I find this template very useful when there are multiple or nuanced reasons for a block not captured by single-reason block templates. If I believe the reason for a "not here" block may not be obvious to the blocked editor or reviewing admins, I will also include the specific points of WP:NOTHERE the block pertains to, either in the block log or as a supplement to the template on the editor's talk page. If Pudeo knows of specific instances of the rationale being abused or "encouraging poor block practice" then those instances can be dealt with on a case by case basis as opposed to deleting a useful administrative template.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Widely used, and reason for deletion has no basis in policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTHERE isn't a policy, also, the wording is pretty broad - if I were to be blocked, I'd appreciate more clear wording. Maybe recreate or revise to make the wording more clear and usable. I'm not an admin and therefore don't employ this template, so take my vote with a grain of salt, but this is my opinion. -- puddleglum2.0 19:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment While this discussion is ongoing, a very visible notification appears on every userpage where the template is used that states the template is up for deletion and invites the editor to join the discussion. Obviously it is an issue as the notification is essentially inviting blocked editors to evade their block to join the discussion here and I imagine it will add confusion to to the appeal process.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why start with a TfD to challenge blocking practices? Seems WP:POINTy. El_C 20:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • It's explained in the nomination. Yes, individual shoddy blocks can be brought to AN/I, but the problem is that this template is guiding poor practice (in my opinion, anyway) and templates which are more accruately based on policy should be used. --Pudeo (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
      • It's explained poorly in the nomination. The exception being taken is with the blocking practice, not the template per se. This actively disruptive TfD should be speedy closed and the discussion shifted to VPP, where it is currently ongoing. El_C 21:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:NOTHERE describes legitimate reasons to block so there is nothing wrong with using this template. P-K3 (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Does_the_community_still_approve_of_NOTHERE_blocks?. That seems a better place than TfD to have this discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:NOTHERE is implicit, but not explicitly stated at Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Rather than discussing deletion of the template, it seems more sensible to discuss expanding the section on "Not here to build an encyclopedia" in WP:WHYBLOCK. The VPP discussion seems a sensible move. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per all the above reasons. Some people aggregate block reasons that can be summed up with this template. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, certainly. Make your case at the Village Pump discussion, if you feel strongly about it. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Prussian Royal FamilyEdit

This template has three major flaws, the first two of which are incorrigible.
a) It attributes princely titles to people who probably do not use them (e.g. the High Line architect Tatiana von Preussen) for reasons ranging from professional to legal or ideological. Because the vast majority of the people listed in the template are private citizens, meaning entirely obscure, it is impossible to verify whether they use the titles attributed to them by this template.
b) The template is meant to be a navbox ("a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles") yet it completely fails as such. Only 10 out of 70 people named in the template are linked; the rest are bare names.
c) There are no sources verifying the existence of more than half of the people mentioned in the template. Most of the people listed in it do not appear anywhere else on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. 100% agree; fails verifiability, not a navbox, and lacks sources verifiable claims and demonstrating notability. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, edit, and rename to House of Hohenzollern? PPEMES (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I do not see how that would solve any of the three flaws I listed, PPEMES. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: A) Wouldn't renaming to House of Hohenzollern be one way of dealing with that? B) and C) Only entries with verifiable sources should be included, if relevant. That's a template content discussion concern and not a template for discussion as far as I can understand. PPEMES (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@PPEMES: Renaming the template would not affect how we name the people listed in it. Removing non-notable people would make the template misleadingly incomplete while retaining unlinked names defeats the purpose of navboxes. This sort of thing belongs in an article; a template is just not the place for it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedians should not be inventing royal titles for people. These individuals are not princes or princesses of any existent monarchy because the Prussian monarchy was abolished. The idea that this is somehow irrelevant is absurd. Also, there is no point in a navigation template filled with people who do not meet our notability requirement. Kahastok talk 17:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - a tool for fancruft by people obsessed with moribund and defunct ex-royal families, laden with obscure non-entities. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with nom and nom's rationale. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: Of course the House of Hohenzollern still exists—the people at the top claim the title. It's just the family of the Emperor, not an invention; I don't see substative reasons for this deletion. --Foghe (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:AFC submission/draft/HD preloadEdit

Propose merging Template:AFC submission/draft/HD preload with Template:AFC submission/declined/HD preload.
Redundant template, should be merged to provide consistency over the AFC help desk. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 12:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:User Status/OfflineEdit

Few people use it, and there are already All in one Template. The redirection it sets delete with CSD G15, except for the corresponding parent page and the redirection set on the parent page. (And delete Template:User Status/Busy, Template:User Status/Not Active) SecurityXP C 03:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There does seem to be a template that duplicates this. I think the destination template looks much better though.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
SecurityXP, wrong venue. Because this is technically a "userbox", it should be listed at WP:MFD instead. Aasim 10:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:User Status/OnlineEdit

Few people use it, and there are already All in one Template. The redirection it sets delete with CSD G15, except for the corresponding parent page and the redirection set on the parent page. SecurityXP C 03:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There does seem to be a template that duplicates this. I think the destination template looks much better though.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • SecurityXP, wrong venue. Because this is technically a "userbox", it should be listed at WP: MFD instead. Aasim 10:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Narendra Modi timelineEdit

The substance of this sidebar is redundant to the lead of the Narendra Modi article, and that is the only article where this is transcluded. We already have a Template:Narendra Modi series, so this doesn't fill that niche either. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Template:Narendra Modi series is generally for editors and not readers. This template could be of great help for readers who don't want to go through the thorough reading inside the article (Furthermore many events in his personal life and political career coincide). Besides I've created the template after seeing Template:Mahathir Mohamad timeline which was created around 1 year ago. And I don't think it violates any Wikipedia Rule either. Manasbose (Talk) 06:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Every significant incident in this sidebar is already in the lead; everything else ought not to be in such a short summary. This is why we have article leads. If we have readers who are interested in the topic, but don't even want to read the lead of an article, then an encyclopedia is not what they're looking for anyway. You do realize your argument could apply to every single article on here? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep templates are meant as adjunts to editors or readers and Manasbose is at least one editor that feels that template is useful to speed up and localise editing. I think this is a good enough reason to keep the template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

May 30Edit

Template:Promotional singlesEdit

This template has been subject to two previous deletion discussions, in March 2011 here and again in July 2011 [User_talk:Nikmek99#Nomination_for_deletion_of_Template:Promotional_Singles_2 here] as well as a merge discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_16#Template:Infobox_promotional_single here. The template would rely on consensus that we're agreeing to promotional singles being included in the infobox of which there is no consensus or apparent discussion. There is no appetite for including promotional/limited release or countdown singles in the infobox, largely because they are so poorly defined and/or referenced and often contentious. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I don't understand why everybody keeps bloating the infoboxes with less significant information. Promo singles definition is vague in many cases. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: I left a warning on the creator's talk page asking why they had created this without consensus. As stated above, the difference between actual singles and promotional singles is not always obvious... and sometimes a promotional single later gets an official release (e.g. "Hair (Little Mix song)"), would it then be listed twice in the infobox? It's unnecessary expansion of the infobox with non-essential information that can easily be included as prose if it has sources. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with all the comments so far – "promotional singles" are not well-defined and can change. This is something for the main body of the article with sources if noteworthy, but not additional clutter for the infobox. Also, the accepted practice of "You are well-advised to seek the opinions of other editors before embarking on a design of a new infobox or redesign of an existing one" was not even attempted (Help:Designing infoboxes). A minimum amount of research would show that promo singles are controversial and should not be implemented without some discussion. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Thank you for taking this to TfD. I share the concerns presented above and agree that the template should be deleted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The concept itself seems dubious. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:2019 Georgetown Hoyas men's soccer navboxEdit

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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Per past discussions (for example here and here, and TFDs here and here), there is a consensus to not have seasonal/championship winning squad templates outside international football, as there are too many competitions for this to be viable. Instead, this squad information belongs in articles such as 2019 Georgetown Hoyas men's soccer team. Some of these templates also have a small number of links, as only a few squad members have an article. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 09:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep, this is merely an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, when a GNG consensus was reached on college national championship articles. I'd like to ask the nominator to not make disruptive edits. Thanks. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Disagree that it is an "IDONTLIKEIT nomination", this is consistent with previous discussions and consensus on navboxes (and therefore I do not see how it is disruptive). Also, I'm not sure how GNG applies to the template namespace, what discussion are you referring to? These squads are already present on many season articles, and not everything needs a navbox. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
      • When referring to GNG, he is referring to several discussions at WP:CHOOPS, WP:CFB, WP:COLLEGEBASEBALL, and other American sports WikiProjects. (See here and here for a few examples). KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. These are basically just partially complete rosters of team members, and such information is better handled as plain text in the team/season article in question. --Jayron32 20:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This content is better placed in articles as roster lists, with exception of high-level squads which may either be edited, or used in multiple articles, or need specific protections, and therefore benefit as a template. There's really no need for templates and, once entered, the roster lists are not likely to be changed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominator is making a startling conclusion between American college athletics and international club football. In college sports WikiProjects, it's normal to make navboxes specifically for players and coaches in recognized championship teams in popular sports since there is only one major championship in the highest divisions similar to that of Super Bowl, World Series, and NBA Finals championship navboxes since it generally viewed as a rare accomplishment to win such competitions. The main reason we don't do that for traditional club football teams is due to high amount of competitions each team plays in a season such as their country's domestic leagues and cups and continental competitions, so it's hard to decide which trophies count as major enough to deserve a navbox and which ones don't. The reason we do have navboxes for each squad participating in international tournaments such as the World Cup and European Championship for example is because it is considered a high accomplishment to even participate in them and represent your national team, let alone win. I can understand your frustration from a European perspective, but from an American one they are alright and perfectly fine. So, I'll tag @TonyTheTiger: (who helped start the navboxes) and everyone else at the college soccer WikiProject so you can hear their opinions. (Cobyan02069 — GauchoDude — GWFrog — swimmer33 — Jay eyem — US Referee — Joeykai — Bigredlance — 18pittsone:) You can also ask the communities in Category:WikiProject College sports too if you would like. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Comparing these navboxes to the Club World Cup is inaccurate - These are much more comparable to anything in Category:NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament champions navigational boxes for example. There is a consensus for American college sports championships navboxes see Category:American college sports championship team navigational boxes Joeykai (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kante4 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I share some of the concerns of the nom; I think some of these articles have some potential template creep issues, and there seems to be a consensus that only international tournaments should have these templates. I don't know that I entirely agree with that, but those tournaments are infrequent enough that they won't clog up an article. The same could be said for this tournament, however. And most of the articles that use these templates don't have creep issues and are unlikely to in the future. I don't see a compelling reason to delete other than the fact that these are college soccer templates (as opposed to something like basketball, for example). If we don't even keep something like Champions League winning squads, I don't see a compelling reason to keep these either. Plus a big issue with a lot of these is that they often don't show the entire team, since a lot of the players don't have articles. I'm leaning towards delete for these, unless one of these teams has a particular notability about which I am unaware. Jay eyem (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    • If we are going based on whether all of the players should have bluelinks or not, then shouldn't most of the non-league squad navboxes be deleted as well? Also, the navboxes exist to link notable players and coaches who participated in an important and highly noteworthy NCAA championship team and that is only if multiple players and coaches have bluelinks. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm not even sure why we have squad nav-boxes for non WP:FPL teams. However, these are at least current squads as opposed to historical squads, and some of these teams have a chance at being promoted to a fully-professional league. I dispute the idea that this tournament is important or noteworthy for the sport or even to college sports as a whole; the only NCAA championships where this situation would give me pause are football, men's basketball, and women's basketball. And while there don't appear to be any template creep issues here, I don't see a compelling reason for their inclusion. I really don't feel strongly towards deletion, but it's the way I'm leaning. Jay eyem (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure if comment is the appropriate header here, but I figured its the best way to put in my two cents. Per Joeykai above, I think NCAA champions get nav boxes. Basketball, and football obviously have the most coverage, and college soccer coverage is growing. I think it might be a delete now, but later become something that is clearly kept as coverage of college soccer on wikipedia grows. That would alleviate the complaints about the navboxes being a bit threadbare. However, the argument pointed out by Jay eyem saying that if there aren't Champions' League navboxes, there certainly doesn't need to be college soccer navboxes, really resonates with me. College soccer is clearly much less prestigious than the Champions League. I don't feel particularly strongly either way. Swimmer33 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The difference between something like basketball and American football vs. college soccer is sort of where this makes a difference for me. There's substantially more coverage for their tournaments than any other NCAA tournament, so I can see keeping those championship team navboxes, easy. Certainly at the moment I don't feel the same way for college soccer. I think these navboxes are kind of harmless, but my opinion also isn't strong either way. Jay eyem (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Many of these are partial rosters. A template with 3-4 players isn't a team. These should be deleted - at the very least the ones with under 10 players should be deleted. The ones with nearly a full team could maybe be kept (and maybe include the missing players not listed (without article links)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedPatchBoys (talkcontribs) 21:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete each project should set its own policy. Although I disagree with WP:HOCKEY on not having a lot of templates, I feel each sport is different. In this case, it seems WP:FOOTBALL has a policy. However, I disagree with RedPatchBoys. If a template has 4 blue links it is useful for navigational purposes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, per prior consensus at TFD and WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Customs servicesEdit

A more comprehensive but exactly same template exists as Template:Customs. Therefore there is no need for this template and I propose to have it deleted. The original creator is inactive and there have been insignificant activity on this template as well. Greateasterner (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, there is no need for two templates. But in case either is deleted, it needs to be made sure the templates are switched because each template is used in plenty of articles. So perhaps merge to Template:Customs so the fix is automatic. --Pudeo (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think deleting the nominated template would allow for the other remaining template to be cleaner as there is less redirects, since all the articles linked on the nominated template can be found on the other template too. Besides, there are many articles that have both templates which means a manual cleanup at these pages have to be undertaken even after deleting or merging the template, which I can undertake after consensus has been reached. Greateasterner (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to Customs Services. These two templates do the same thing and as per Pudeo it makes sense to merge them. They should be merged to "Customs services" because I think that is a much more specific and well-defined title than "customs".--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:MNC color and Template:MNC legendEdit

Propose deleting – These templates appear to have been created for the sole purpose of inserting a background color in table headers on two pages: List of National Monuments of Chile by region and List of National Monuments of Chile in Aysén Region. I removed the templates from the latter of these pages initially because one of them was causing lint errors with a <span> tag. I then noticed through the hastemplates: search operator that only one other page was using either template, so I removed it from that page as well. I also note that neither template has been maintained since 2012, and that the original author (Diego Grez-Cañete) was banned permanently in 2015. Since these templates were created for a very small purpose and were causing at least one page to generate errors, I propose they simply be deleted. I have placed tfd tags on them, but I have not notified the author due to the aforementioned ban. Dylan38 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Now that they've been removed from those two articles, there's no need to keep them. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Romance languagesEdit

Propose merging Template:Romance languages with Template:Italic languages.
Do you think this template should be merged with the {{Italic languages}} template, since all the Romance languages descend from Vulgar Latin, an Italic language, or should they remain separate, because this template has many more articles linking to it (158), than the {{Italic languages}} template (only 26)? PK2 (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep separate. These are about separate topics and have well-defined scopes that makes them easy to navigate. One is about romance languages throughout Europe. One is just about languages spoken in Italy. I don't think creating an even larger template is useful for readers and I think the current navboxes do an adequate job.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't disagree with Tom (LT) about keeping these templates separate but the reason I started this discussion is because I want to start a debate on whether or not these two templates should be merged into one or kept separate, because the {{Romance languages}} template has many more articles linking to it (158), than the {{Italic languages}} template (only 26), and also most of the articles on the Italic languages template (excluding Latin) themselves have less articles linking to them then the articles on the Romance languages template. Also, I forgot to mention in my first comment that the Italic languages template (the template that I created myself) is about the ancient Italic languages that were spoken in parts of present-day Italy before the Roman expansion in Italy (e.g. the Roman Republic), whereas the Romance languages template is about the Romance languages that descend from Vulgar Latin (from the 6th to the 9th centuries AD), one of the ancient languages, that are currently (or were formerly, but have since become extinct) spoken in Southern Europe, and since Christopher Columbus' discovery of the New World during his first voyage in 1492, parts of Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Oceania. I think I will do with this template what most users want me to do with it after 7 days -- PK2 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's better if they're separate: the Romance navbox is already pretty big, and the distinction between the two topics is notionally (if not genetically) very clear-cut. – Uanfala (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I would keep them separate for the reasons stated above (e.g., the Romance languages box is pretty big, and Italic languages is a well-defined topic). Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep separate. While all Romance languages are Italic languages, people seldom use "Italic languages" to refer to the Romance languages. When talking about "Italic languages", people often think of Latin and some extinct languages. Jonashtand (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Aircraft LessorsEdit

Fails WP:NAVBOX purpose. Either redefine it or delete it as it is unnecessary to rank. Störm (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep but rename. I think the overall topic is notable (aircraft lessors), so the template should be kept but the ranking removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • KEEP, rename. Fair enough to remove rank, perhaps rename template navguide as 'major' aircraft lessors? --Conrad Kilroy (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: If kept this should be a general template. Any selection is completely bias and WP:OR. --Gonnym (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Bavarian Royal FamilyEdit

This template is rotten in the core. It lists dozens of living people as princes and princesses despite there being no indication that they all call themselves so or that reliable sources identify them as such. It supposes that there is a defined entity called "Bavarian royal family" or "House of Wittelsbach" and further supposes that all these people associate themselves with this group. And even if verifiability and living people considerations were not issues, this navbox is useless because only 13 out of 51 names (by my count) are linked. The rest are bare names of people who may well distance themselves from any pretended royal status for professional or ideological reasons. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support deletion for the cogent reasons given by the nominator.Smeat75 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bavaria is not a separate country, it is part of Germany, which is a federal republic. There is no Bavarian royal family. Guy (help!) 21:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There WAS a Bavarian royal family, However that was when Germany was an empire and Bavaria was it Constituent states, just like the Free State of Bavaria of modern Germany which retain it own Ministers-President. ชาวไทย (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned by the nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename family member The template is useful for sorting the living family members, just get rid of the title (which seem to be the cause of nomination) AND get rid of the unlink, extended member. ชาวไทย (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • If we get rid of the unlinked, it's incomplete and misleading; if we keep them, it does not work as a navigational aid. Surtsicna (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, how about rename to House of Wittelsbach? PPEMES (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I've explored that possibility in my opening comment, PPEMES. It does not solve anything. Surtsicna (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure your comments on that refutes it. PPEMES (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
That's alright. I just wish there was more of an explanation of how it is not a major WP:V and WP:BLP concern to group all these people under the name of a former royal house without any indication that they associate themselves with it or claim a royal status. Wittelsbach is not even their family name. Surtsicna (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless as a navigation template. We should not in the business of inventing royal titles for people that they do not hold in real life, and we certainly shouldn't be indulging the idea that the abolition of the Bavarian monarchy somehow didn't happen. Kahastok talk 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, not useful. if someone wants to create more useful one, go for it, but this one is not useful with all the unlinked entries. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. Duplication of Template:House of Wittelsbach. DrKay (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:House of Wittelsbach. Based on my conversations with Germans, most of them don't realize that these people are still around. Allan Rice (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Furka Cogwheel Steam Railway s-line templatesEdit

s-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for the Furka Cogwheel Steam Railway. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Furka Cogwheel Steam Railway. All transclusions replaced. There are two dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: Added a missing {{collapse bottom}} that was causing formatting issues on the main WP:TFD page. Mz7 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, no longer needed (note, I removed the collapsing, since there are only two things being collapsed). Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

May 29Edit

Zürich S-Bahn link templatesEdit

Unused link templates for the Zürich S-Bahn. These were deprecated years ago by {{S-Bahn-Zürich}}; {{rail color box}} can also produce the same effect. There were no mainspace transclusions. Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:CTAEdit

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 no consensus or wrong venue Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unused except in one sandbox. It used to be a redirect but it's no longer formatted correctly. Jc86035 (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep as a redirect because a number articles are still linked to it and as such it IS used. The deletion proposal makes no sense. Peter Horn User talk 18:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep, shown as an alternative to   Central African Republic in Wikipedia:Inline templates linking country articles Peter Horn User talk 19:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
It is a redirect to Template:CAF. Peter Horn User talk 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Indie music scenesEdit

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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Navbox with ill-defined criteria, woefully underpopulated; if it were to be expanded, I'm not sure what objective criteria are necessary to expand it; what makes a scene "Indie" or not (i.e. what are some non-Indie scenes?) and what should or should not be included? It's not a great navigational aid, as a category handles the subject much better anyways. Jayron32 20:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, if we were to populate it with everything in Category:Indie music it would have way too much stuff, although that could be potentially managed by not including bands. if someone wants to create a generic Template:Indie music (without the bands), go for it, but this is not it. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Frietjes. Really there is no clear or objectively defining characteristic of 'indie' or what an 'indie' as opposed to other music scene is. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Old discussionsEdit

Completed discussionsEdit

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.

ToolsEdit

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

Closing discussionsEdit

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

To reviewEdit

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

To mergeEdit

Templates to be merged into another template.

ArtsEdit

  • None currently

Geography, politics and governanceEdit

ReligionEdit

  • None currently

SportsEdit

Template:Football_squad_player2020 February 1Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

TransportEdit

OtherEdit

MetaEdit

To convertEdit

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

  • None currently

To substituteEdit

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.

To orphanEdit

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

  • None currently

Ready for deletionEdit

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 IndicesEdit