Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 196 0 196
TfD 0 2 12 0 14
MfD 0 0 7 0 7
FfD 0 0 6 0 6
AfD 0 0 86 0 86

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template (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 template[edit]

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

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

Note:

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

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

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021_April_7#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at Tfd. Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors[edit]

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

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

Notifying related WikiProjects[edit]

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template[edit]

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

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

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

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

Twinkle[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion[edit]

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

Current discussions[edit]

April 7[edit]

Old unused module sandboxes[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 16#Old unused module sandboxes. It's been a few more months, and a few more sandboxes have fallen unedited for over a year. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Wikidata date[edit]

Only used in creator's userspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Module:Scrabble letters[edit]

Only used in creator's sandbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

April 6[edit]

Template:Dioceses of the Syriac Orthodox Church[edit]

90% of the links redirect to the page Dioceses of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and all the information of this template can be found at Dioceses of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Therefore, I can hardly see why this template is useful. Putting the Dioceses of the Syriac Orthodox Church in a "See also" section serves the same function, does not lure the reader into thinking there is articles for all those dioceses, and takes less space in the article. Veverve (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Xcelsior model codes[edit]

I see only two pages on which this template could be used, namely New Flyer and New Flyer Xcelsior, so it can easily be substituted instead of keeping it as a separate template. (It is currently also used on List of New Flyer Xcelsior production model codes but that page should be merged into New Flyer Xcelsior soon.) Eisthefifthletter (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep. One of the points of templates is to ensure that multiple uses of the same information doesn't go out of synch (particularly when formatted). AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:IN[edit]

Completely pointless template that is a textbook example of WP:Template creep. There is no point having a template that only produces the wikicode "In country X", it is easier for editors to just type those three words into the page. In some cases the template is longer than the output it produces (e.g. canada). The author added this code to {{in}}, which I reverted as it is inappropriate to bundle this into an unrelated mathematical template, but I think this lacks sufficient complexity to be worth having at all. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Per 86.23, not helpful. There are a bunch of templates that already deal with country names; unless this template is provably useful like {{CountryPrefixThe}}, and does something that cannot be done with any existing template, it should be removed. User:GKFXtalk 18:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • delete and salt per the rfd, easily confused with India. Frietjes (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's actually worse than the nomination makes it out to be. The purpose is not just to expand common country abbreviations, it is any "common" abbreviation. The template is not useful. -- Whpq (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Str ≤ ≥ len[edit]

Another unused string-handling template. Also doesn't seem to be working anyway based on User:Davidgothberg/Test43#Testing {{str ≤ ≥ len}} User:GKFXtalk 10:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Str sub find[edit]

Unused string handling template, obsolete to Module:String. User:GKFXtalk 10:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:People of the Sengoku period[edit]

I'm not sure what to do with this. The so-called "Sengoku period" is usually (I'm going by the apparent consensus of Japanese encyclopedias listed on Kotobank) dated to between the Ōnin War to Oda Nobunaga's entry into Kyoto or his slightly later abolishment of the Ashikaga shogunate, although some historians definitely use the term to describe a period ending with either the Battle of Sekigahara or even the Siege of Osaka, some 30–45 years later. I haven't seen any comparable templates for the Asuka, Nara, Heian, Kamakura, Nanbokuchō, Muromachi, Azuchi–Momoyama, or Edo periods, all of which have relatively clear beginning and end points—it goes without saying that the same applies for "muddier" periods like "Fujiwara" and "cloistered rule", so it seems really weird that an unclear/informal period classification like Sengoku has such a template. There are hundreds if not thousands of Japanese people in the 150 or so years covered by the broader definition of "Sengoku" apparently used in this template (I haven't done an extensive check, but a disproportionately large number of the "Three major daimyōs" and "Foreign people in Japan" more properly belong to the Azuchi–Momoyama or even Edo periods) who arguably meet GNG, so if all of such people were listed in this template it would become completely unwieldy. Anyway, ultimately I'm not sure if the solution would be to (i) delete this template, (ii) rename it to "Template:People of the Azuchi–Momoyama period" and split portions of it into new "People of the Muromachi period" and "People of the Edo period" templates, or (iii) keep it as is, although I should note that both (ii) and (iii) theoretically necessitate the creation of similar templates for other periods of Japanese history; so I figured it best to put it to the community. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

April 5[edit]

Template:MUNI icon[edit]

Now unused; functionality merged into {{rail-interchange}}. Mackensen (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  • delete, replaced by {{rint|sanfrancisco|...}}. Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:MUNI S[edit]

Unused and functionality merged into {{rail-interchange}}. The rest of the set was deleted in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 29#MUNI lines. Mackensen (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

April 4[edit]

Template:ÖPNV Vorarlberg[edit]

The template provides {{rail-interchange}}-style markup for Vorarlberg S-Bahn. We do have a growing number of articles about stations served by that system but this template is unused. I've added the necessary functionality to rail-interchange should anyone need it: [1]. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Integer format[edit]

Duplicates (some of) the functionality of {{formatnum}}. Removed from Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/layout (which is itself not used in mainspace) and otherwise not used. User:GKFXtalk 12:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Physical dependants[edit]

I proposed deletion of templates by this editor during a sweep of medical templates last year, however left this one as I wanted to have a think about it. It links a variety of substances, including medications and other substances, for which a syndrome can develop making it difficult to suddenly stop that thing. There are lots of different reasons for this though - including drug dependence and addiction, drug withdrawal, adrenal suppression, or rebound hypertension or seizures. It would be better to have this list in a textbook called "Medications which should be stopped suddenly with caution" because the contents of the list are so varied.

This template seems to be only used on three articles (and contributes to the awful navbox sprawl on alcohol) and for the most part the effects of "physical dependence" are not defining characteristics of the substances.

In my mind such a list is not helpful to navigate by and also too nuanced to be displayed in this way. I therefore propose it is deleted. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

April 3[edit]

Module:Delimited tag[edit]

In Lua this is generally unnecessary (with native functions already provided). For separated values we have Module:Separated entries. Izno (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Module:DartsBracketSets[edit]

No longer needed now that |aggregate=sets has been added to Module:Team bracket Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Great to see that these were merged. DLManiac (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Not a forum[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Withdraw. While I still believe this would probably be the fastest way to get a significant impact on the banner blindness with minimal impact, it's clear my opinion is in a clear minority. It's not worth spending more editor time on this matter. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This template is redundant to {{talk header}} which already in the second line of most active talkpages state "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Having duplicate messages and usually irrelevant information about the reference desk and village pump are great examples of things that contribute to banner blindness. The talk header message is probably far more likely to be read aswell since people start reading at the top and then stop before they reach lower down banners like this one. For the minority of pages where this is used without talk header it can either be replaced with {{talkheader}}, it's likely that notice is appropriate anyway since the topics the template is used on usually are more likely to attract participation from people who usually don't edit Wikipedia. For cases where its clearly irrelevant (say pages with no posts in 3-6 months) it can simply be removed. --Trialpears (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Template is a waste of time. -- Maudslay II (talk)
  • Keep: It's necessary to emphasize WP:NOTFORUM for some pages that face a lot of that kind of disruption. The note in the standard talk header is not prominent enough for those pages. We can remove the last sentence. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Tartan357. In my experience this is generally used appropriately on topics likely to experience forum-like behaviour and require a special message to remind readers / editors about this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the reasons mentioned above. I would also like to add that this banner visually seems to draw more attention than the quoted sentence at the top of the Talk Header, due to its thick border around it and the exclamation mark on its left. It is better to keep it, for emphasis. LongLivePortugal (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment While we regular editors don't react much to the talk header I would bet good money that is the most noticable part to a newcomer not knowing the purpose of talk pages. I would much rather have people pay attention to FAQs, arbitration remedies, BLP reminders, notices that the subject is controversial, explanations of previous consensus, links to other relevant pages, or basically anything else on the talk page. --Trialpears (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - The template serves as 'additional' reminder/emphasis on a few talkpages (this additional emphasis is independent of the standard talk page header). There is no reason to delete the template; if it is unneeded on a particular talkpage, just argue about removing it there, otherwise it has a clear reason to exist. --Mvbaron (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - the template is fit for purpose; and does indeed bring correct emphasis on a particular point where necessary. It's not as though this was being used on every talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, largely per Mvbaron two entries above. This template is very important on certain talk pages, and case-by-case issues (too many templates at the top of a talk page, an editor doesn't think the template should be there, etc) should be resolved on a case-by-case basis rather than through a deletion of the entire template. ezlevtlk
    ctrbs
    04:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, though to be honest, this is probably better as an editnotice. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - {{talk header}} is not a sufficient deterrent. All it says, in total, is: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. That does not elaborate on what that means. A user has to click through to the policy page and read a dense discussion of why a Talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss the subject in general. Instead, {{Not a forum}} explains exactly what this means & why it's important directly on the page. This serves an important function for users who are not as familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding Talk page discussions. If anything, the text should be more prominent, as it's easily missed in all the other header text. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's easier than writing up yet another warning. When it's needed, it's needed. Best to have it in the toolbox. Don't use it if you don't like it. - CorbieVreccan 18:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:UShistperiodFooter[edit]

This has become obsolete following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_21#History_of_the_United_States_by_period. The linked categories are already in the process of being deleted. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I know several navboxes where all links are deleted have been deleted as G8 and I don't think that's a stretch in any way, just not explicitly mentioned. --Trialpears (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wretchskull (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2[edit]

Template:Ted Cruz series[edit]

This template is politically biased. It is being used on articles about legislation – for example Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 in which Senator Cruz was just one of the many senators involved in passage of the legislation, and not even one of the most important ones (e.g. Senator Hatch actually introduced the legislation in the Senate, not Senator Cruz). I'm worried this template has promotional intent to promote Senator Cruz, and even if its creator didn't have that intent, it gives off the appearance of that intent even if the intent isn't there. Mr248 (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete but not because it's biased. Delete because the legislation doesn't relate directly to Cruz. Compare it with Template:Barack Obama series, which includes links like Early life and career of Barack Obama, Family of Barack Obama, Public image of Barack Obama, etc. This template has only Ted Cruz, Political positions of Ted Cruz, and Ted Cruz 2016 presidential campaign, and maybe the two Senate election articles, that are truly about Cruz. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete in agreement w/ Muboshgu, and it also just doesn't seem necessary. Plus, of the aforementioned articles where it might make sense to use it, Political positions… is a section of the main article, and the Senate elections don't have the template. -Coreydragon (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I created this template because it was a blank page, with literally nothing there, as the person who had created the static page was blocked from editing. I then decided it shouldn't be left just as a blank page, but rather as an actual template so it would be useful. I wanted to include legislation Cruz played a part in but my priority was legislation that had been signed into law. Obviously I didn't read through the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 article, otherwise I would have known who sponsored the bill, and that Senator Cruz was one of many cosponsors. When reviewing the legislation linked in the template, I found that the only piece of legislation that he actually introduced was Public Law 113-100. As far as the comparison to Template:Barack Obama series goes, I did not add something along the lines of Early life and career of Barack Obama to Template:Ted Cruz series because you could just as easily scroll down and see the section, and when compared to Template:Joe Biden series, this also proves my point about not really needing a direct link in the template because the closest thing to Early life and career of Barack Obama is split up in that template, but links you to the respective sections. When creating this template, I did not base this template off either of those templates, I based it off another template, which is also why you don't see things like the subject's early life. As far as it being politically biased, when creating the template, I had no intention of making it politically biased or to promote the subject. I included articles like his presidential campaign because I thought it would play an important role if it were linked in the template. Another person also stressed that "political positions" are a section of the main article, and while that's true, there's also Political positions of Ted Cruz, which is linked in the template. That same person also stressed that the two Senate election articles don't have the template, and while it may be logical to put it in them, I have been waiting until an article titled "Electoral history of Ted Cruz" is published (if anyone decides to do so). If you have any questions or concerns regarding what I said in this comment, do not hesitate to reply and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Unknown0124 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    Unknown0124, I accept that you didn't have any intention of creating a politically biased template. But can you understand how a reader might have a perception of such a bias even if it wasn't intended? We have a piece of legislation, which was supported by numerous Senators, yet Ted Cruz is the only Senator with a "series template" on the article on that piece of legislation, despite the fact that he arguably wasn't even one of the most important Senators involved in it, and none of the other Senators involved, not even those more involved than Cruz was, have such a series template on that article. It creates the impression of trying to draw special attention to Senator Cruz's contributions to the Senate, above that of other Senators, even if that impression was not intended. Mr248 (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    Mr248, I now understand that even though I did not intend to create a politically biased template, a reader may perceive such a bias. To improve matters, I have removed the template from Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 for the reasons you stated, because Senator Cruz was one of the least important Senators involved in the legislation, yet that template was the only one on that page. I obviously did not read through the article, otherwise I would have known that Senator Hatch sponsored the bill and that Senator Cruz had a lesser role in the bill. I also removed the link (in the template) to Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which I hadn't even read, but if I did, I would have known that Senator Cruz neither cosponsored nor sponsored that legislation. What's different with this article is that it did not have the template in question. Like I said in the last post, I created the template from a blank page because the user who attempted to create the template had been blocked from editing. I didn't want the template to remain a blank page, so I decided to actually make it into a template, and obviously I did a pretty terrible job as far as what to put there. Unknown0124 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    Unknown0124, Thank you for your changes, that is better, but I'm still not convinced that we ought to have this template.
    I think it makes sense to have a series template for a recent US President, because generally there will be so much to cover there will be multiple articles on them. I'm less convinced we need a series template for someone who is just a US Senator, even one who has had an unsuccessful Presidential campaign like Cruz has – keeping in mind that heaps of other Senators have had unsuccessful presidential campaigns too, and unlike some of them, Cruz never got as far as being his party's nominee. There are 100 US Senators at any one time, there are many hundreds if we count former US Senators too – do we want a series template for all of them? Admittedly Cruz is somewhat higher profile than your average senator, but still where do you draw the line between who is high enough profile to get a "series template" and who isn't?
    I understand your point about not wanting the template to be a blank page, but there is another option to consider in such a case – you could have tagged the page with {{db-blanked}}. Also, if it was created by a blocked user, another option is to tag it with {{db-blocked}}. Either way, it could have been speedily deleted by an administrator. However, it is too late for that now, we are now in the TFD process, and either it is kept or deleted as a result of this process. But keep in mind those are options if the situation ever happens again. Mr248 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    Mr248, I had no idea you could do that, with regard to tagging a blank page. I will take that into consideration the next time I see one. Unknown0124 (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The solution to end misuse of a template is not to delete it, but remove it from where it should not be. ~ HAL333 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Ateneo Blue Eagles 2011 FilOil Flying V Hanes Premier Cup Champions[edit]

The Filoil Flying V Preseason Premier Cup is well, a preseason championship that doesn't deserve a navbox such as this. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Australia–United Kingdom relations[edit]

Unused on the majority of the articles linked in the template. Doesn't do much for navigation as it lists a general overview of political figures from both countries such as Queen Elizabeth II and the current ambassadors. The articles listed under the eponymous category have only a handful of articles relating to the relations of the two countries. These include the Five Eyes partnership, UKUSA Agreement, Nauru Island Agreement, ANZUK. But the category also contains rugby tours of the Great Britains Lions which has nothing to do with their relations, and some include popular culture works such as a novel and a documentary film about Elizabeth's 1954 visit to Australia. I doubt there is much reason to keep this template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep I do understand the point the nominator is making, but I have used this template previously and find it does help me navigate between related topics. Because it's helpful as a navbox, I think it should be kept. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment But is there enough to justify keeping it? I will agree if you or anyone else would suggest that it needs fixing, but there aren't enough articles that are just about the relations between the two countries. Quite a number involves their relations simultaneously with other countries as I mentioned above. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I also like to point out there is no need for every country to have a bilateral relations template. And Australia and the UK don't have a pretty significant relationship where there are enough articles that stand out on their own. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Bridge over Troubled Water[edit]

Redundant to the existing navigational benefits of {{Simon & Garfunkel singles}} and {{Simon & Garfunkel}}. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: redundant to existing template. The only song included in this template that isn't included in {{Simon & Garfunkel singles}} is "Bye Bye Love", but it can easily be added to the latter template under "Other songs". Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:ASCII code[edit]

Much like the other old-style string handling templates, this has arbitrary constraints that can be avoided by using Lua. Specifically, this can be replaced by {{#invoke:ustring|codepoint|\character}} to handle the whole of Unicode rather than just printable ASCII. I have removed it from {{R from Unicode character}} and it is otherwise unused. User:GKFXtalk 12:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Led Zeppelin (album)[edit]

Redundant navigation to {{Led Zeppelin songs}} which already lists the songs with articles by album. If appropriate, merge the Outtakes group to that navbox. Deleted previously. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

April 1[edit]

Template:Ssdfs[edit]

This is a user sandbox in template space. Its only transclusion is in User:Gorsie Randier/sandbox. (The template was created by new editor @Gorsie Randier).
I suggest subst and delete. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:8TeamBracket-NCAA3[edit]

replaced by {{8TeamBracket|legs=3/3/1|RD1-RD2-path=0}}. Frietjes (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:8TeamBracket-NCAA6[edit]

replaced by {{8TeamBracket|maxround=2|legs=2|RD1-RD2-path=0}}. Frietjes (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:8TeamBracket-NCAA8[edit]

replaced by {{8TeamBracket|legs=1/2|maxround=2|RD1-RD2-path=0}}. Frietjes (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:8TeamBracket-NCAA9[edit]

replaced by {{8TeamBracket|maxround=2}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:8TeamBracket-NCAA11[edit]

replaced by {{8TeamBracket|legs=3/1/1}} and {{8TeamBracket|legs=3|RD1-RD2-path=0}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Parse number[edit]

Unused; this sort of meta-template is not very useful now that all new complex stuff gets done in Lua. Was being used in Module:Aired episodes until I moved the regular expression directly into that module. User:GKFXtalk 11:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • delete, all it does is remove anything after the leading numeric part of the input. this can easily be coded on an as-needed basis. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:FrenchSculptureCensus[edit]

Template no longer works. The contents get populated automatically from Wikidata, but the links they provide are no longer valid. I raised this at the template talk page a few weeks ago, but no reaction so far. Template should either be deleted, or hidden until the problem is fixed at the Wikidata side. It is used on some 300+ pages, some of them high profile ones like Auguste Rodin. Fram (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes I saw that already. Such a shame! It appears the website still exists, but apparently they gave all artists new identifiers, so it's not a question of just fixing a formatter url due to new website hosting. I think it's best to hide the template until someone can find a way to update the links. I don't see an easy fix. Jane (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Fram, I changed the url to use the archive of the site until the website is fixed. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I'll leave this open to hear more opinions and options (if any), but this seems like a good solution in any case. Fram (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


March 31[edit]

Template:Ride the Lightning tracks[edit]

Redundant – contains only three songs with their own articles, and all are included in {{Metallica}} which is already used on all three articles. {{Extra track listing}} states that "track listings should not be added to infoboxes if there is a navigation template or navbox at the bottom of the article which already lists the songs", which is the case here. In fairness to the relatively new article creator, this template and the other Metallica track template below are the last ones that they created before being made aware of this statement, and they have not attempted to create any more templates like this since then. Richard3120 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  • delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. People see one and they want to create these for their favorite artists or albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Kill 'Em All tracks[edit]

Redundant – contains only two songs with their own articles, and both are included in {{Metallica}} which is already used on both articles. {{Extra track listing}} states that "track listings should not be added to infoboxes if there is a navigation template or navbox at the bottom of the article which already lists the songs", which is the case here. In fairness to the relatively new article creator, this template and the other Metallica track template above are the last ones that they created before being made aware of this statement, and they have not attempted to create any more templates like this since then. Richard3120 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  • delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's really time to bulk nom a lot of these. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:8TeamBracket-Bestof3[edit]

unused after being replaced by {{8TeamBracket|legs=3}} and {{8TeamBracket|legs=5/5/1}} Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:8TeamBracket-Best of 3-5-7 Games[edit]

unused after being replaced by {{8TeamBracket|legs=3/5/7}} Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:8TeamBracket-Best of 3-3-5 Games-with 3rd[edit]

unused after being replaced by {{8TeamBracket|legs=3/3/5}} Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:8TeamBracket-9pins-with third[edit]

unused after being replaced with {{8TeamBracket|legs=2}} Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:16TeamBracket-9pins[edit]

unused, redundant to {{16TeamBracket|legs=2}} Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:32TeamBracket-9pins[edit]

unused after being replaced with {{32TeamBracket|legs=2}} Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Hong Kong and others[edit]

Redundant. Editors can use {{Hong Kong topics}} or {{WikiProject Hong Kong}}. It is weird to have a totally different functions on different space (which will lead to different view when moving a page between namespaces.) Sun8908Talk 13:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Same as above. The redirect of Template:(Country) to Template:(Country) topics or Template:WikiProject (Country) was discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 26#Template:(country) redirects and was deleted. I don't think it is useful to create these "hybrid templates". Sun8908Talk 13:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to add {{Lebanon}} to the list. Nehme1499 14:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • delete and salt as frequently confused with the corresponding flag templates. Editors write {{Iraq}} thinking this is the same as {{IRQ}} which is why the "topics navbox" for this subject is {{Iraq topics}} and not {{Iraq}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete (with the relevant topics / wikiproject) and salt per Frietjes. I agree this is a totally confusing arrangement. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

March 30

Template:4TeamBracket-Consolation

[edit]

unnecessary wrapper template:4TeamBracket with final/third round names swapped (should be substituted and deleted) Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 European Mixed Team Badminton Championships qualification stage Group 1 standings

[edit]

doesnt need to create as a template, only included in 1 article. Stvbastian (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

add some similar unused and single used template. Stvbastian (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

March 28

Template:Today's featured article request

[edit]

I cannot find any recent use of this template in the current process of WP:TFAR and there are no talk pages using it. It obviously has not been used in at least a year, given that it was designed for years in the 2010s. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 08:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Did you notify any of the TFA pages? Izno (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Izno: No, but I have placed a message now. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 17:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Welcome2 and related

[edit]

These are outdated forks of {{Welcome}} (or {{Welcome-retro}}, if you'd prefer) that have been sitting around since as far back as 2004. For {{Welcomenh}}, I assume (the documentation doesn't explain) that "nh" stands for "no heading", but {{Welcome}} already has a |heading=no option, so it should at least be turned into a wrapper. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Redirect Welcome2/5 to {{Welcome}} and wrapperify Welcomenh as nom. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Support with a new landing page coming best trim some of the overlap to consolidate for new page.Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to more standard templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to more standard templates. It is very confusing to have so many ways to welcome editors and means the less commonly used methods may fall out of date or be of lesser quality / receive less attention by editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

March 27

Template:Editnotices/Page/Adolf Hitler

[edit]

I think this template is redundant. It isn't as frequently vandalized as current event articles. Interstellarity (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ("It isn't as frequently vandalized as current event articles") is not a valid policy-based argument for deletion. Adolf Hitler is not currently as vandalized as it once was, but it's also under ECP, and no protection is intended to be permanent, so it could be lifted at any time. I do not see that having the editnotice is doing any harm whatsoever, and if it prevents even a handful of vandalizing edits over the course of a year, it's worthwhile having in place.
    I'll note that the nominator has never edited the article [2] or its talk page [3], so is not really part of the community of editors which protects the article from vandalism and inappropriate edits, and would therefore be less aware of the necessity for the editnotice from personal experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'd also point out that the nomination reminds me of the umbrella argument: "Ever since I started using this umbrella, I haven't gotten wet once. This is proof that there is no need for this umbrella." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see this as necessary either. The page is perma-ECPd today and into the foreseeable future, which seems sufficient to have entirely stopped all vandalism. That leaves the second half of the edit notice, which even if someone had started reading the first half (and not succumbed to banner blindness), they surely would not have made it to the second half. Delete --Izno (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • delete, as mentioned above, the page is ECprotected, so that should generally solve the problem, so this seems unnecessary. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

March 25

Template:Earthquakes in 1812

[edit]

There are way too many of these navboxes, with many having too few entries to warrant a navbox. I recommend condensing into navboxes by decade and century. Only going up to 1959 because after that we cover enough earthquakes for a navbox system to be useful, although some lists in this era are missing. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 00:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: You forgot to tag the templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I noticed that 1946 in particular links 9 different articles, what is your threshold of "too few entries"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete them all I don't see how these are related apart from the defining characteristic of being earthquakes. Surely our category structure can hold this information instead. I just don't see any navigational value provided by these navboxes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NENAN (an essay) says that "A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the "rule of five"" but that's just a single view of course, other's have different ideas - but that's the purpose of this discussion. These are navboxes (WP:NAVBOX)" so the question is whether these navboxes aid navigation or whether a different structure would be better (per nom) or even (per Tom) whether they don't aid navigation sufficiently to be worth keeping at all - after all {{Earthquakes by year}} also exists. Also seems to me that someone in say 2020 Elazığ earthquake is likely to be more interested in {{Earthquakes in Turkey}} rather than in earthquakes that happened in the same calendar year thousands of miles away. Worth noting that eg {{Earthquakes in 2020}} is already split by month so combining these into decades would fit in with that style eg {{Earthquakes in the 1950s}} split by year. Nigej (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • My idea would be to link things like this:
  • (Earthquakes by year template header) ← Earthquakes in 1932
We can easily combine the list of earthquakes with the template for earthquake articles this way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the quantity and the fact these are all used, I am relisting and will be adding the appropriate tags shortly. LaundryPizza03, please take better care of that in the future.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • merge to {{Earthquakes in the 1800s}}, {{Earthquakes in the 1900s (decade)}}, {{Earthquakes in the 1910s}}, {{Earthquakes in the 1920s}}, ... preserving years as redirects for simplicity. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

March 22

Template:Pakistan–Russia relations

[edit]

Barely used in most of the articles listed in the template. Much of it contains irrelevant articles and links to categories. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Yeah except for articles like Russians in Pakistan don't have much to do with their relations. Pages like these are generally categorized under a subcategory of the broader relations category. The same issue lies with the Soviet Union template as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Obvious on what needs to be done. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge and then use on articles. I agree with User:Shushugah that the navbox is still relevant in the Pakistan-SU context. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment And yet there are only ten articles listed under the Pakistan-Russia relations category. Most of what's listed in the template have nothing to do with their relationship. It links irrelevant topics. We can't have all countries with their respective bilateral relations created. It's only for countries with the most important like India and Pakistan for instance. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Pakistan–Soviet Union relations

[edit]

Same as the Pakistan–Russia relations template below. Barely used in most of the articles listed in the template. Much of it contains irrelevant articles and links to categories. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak Keep: This template is linked in only three main articles and needs cleanup Shushugah (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The only cleanup would be deletion. It's just useless to have around. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Obvious on what needs to be done. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge and then use on articles. I agree with User:Shushugah that the navbox is still relevant in the Pakistan-SU context. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment And yet there are only a few articles listed under the relations category of exact important. Most of what's listed in the template have nothing to do with their relationship. It links irrelevant topics. We can't have all countries with their respective bilateral relations created. It's only for countries with the most important like India and Pakistan for instance. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

March 21

Template:Emergency services in Scotland

[edit]

I have not been able to find any evidence for the existence of this so-called "Tier 1 emergency response" designation, and some of the links in the infobox are massively vague like "Scottish local authorities". Elshad (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete @Elshad: the designation does seem to exist (see here), but I agree that it isn't useful. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 12:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment "Tier 1" seems to refer to Category 1 emergency responders as defined under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, schedule 1; "Tier" is simply the wrong terminology. "Local authority" is not at all vague. In general it's an umbrella term for local governments in the UK encompassing many different types (at least five different types just in England). In the specific context of the Civil Contingencies Act it's precisely defined in relation to Scotland to mean "A council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994", i.e. a Scottish council. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    • OK, but why does it need a navbox? It bascially encompasses most aspects of government services in Scotland. As an example, a similar navbox for England (which doesn't exist, neither does one for Wales) would require the listing of every police force, local authority, NHS trust etc. I just don't think this navbox is providing any meaningful information. Elshad (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think I tend to delete here per Elshad's 26 March comment. --Izno (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this is useful either but not clearly inappropriate. It does not conform with most of the WP:NAVBOX criteria. --Trialpears (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:String quartet compositions

[edit]

Per the same reasoning as to why we removed the "By composer" section in {{Sonatas}}. The selection of string quartet articles here is quite arbitrary and restricted to overview pages. For instance, as there is no String Quartets (Beethoven), he is not included here. intforce (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: It seems that links to string quartets would be a better alternative than links by composer, and that this should precede deletion (to be negated, a hypothesis should always be considered in its best form). Hyacinth (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    Comment: I personally judge navigation templates by their usefulness to the reader only. A navbox titled "String quartet compositions" should list the most significant string quartet compositions, like its name suggests, not just an arbitrary bunch that happen to have an overview article. Any navigation template related to string quartets that excludes Beethoven, Schubert, Dvořák (just to name a few) by design is not useful. intforce (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have added Beethoven, Dvořák, Schubert. Dvořák and Schubert are section links but that's allowed in navboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment We have a list of composers, List of string quartet composers, but no navbox for them. We don't have specific article on List of string quartet compositions (although articles like String quartet and List of string quartet composers mention some compositions) but we have a navbox for compositions. Seems a little odd. Nigej (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. I will also add that the composers included in this template seem almost arbitrary. For example, I had never heard of Graham Waterhouse until this morning, much less knew he was recognized for his string quartets. But somehow Alban Berg, Anton Webern, Peter Maxwell Davies, Alfred Schnittke, and Tigran Mansurian (for starters) didn’t make the cut? We have Tchaikovsky, but neither Borodin nor Taneyev who were equally important in the history of the Russian string quartet. For that matter, where’s Myaskovsky, Prokofiev, and Shebalin? We got Dvořák, but no sign of Brahms or Schumann. Piston, but no Ives. It just goes on. A very silly, pointless template. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    Schumann is there. A navbox is for navigation to Wikipedia articles. At the time of the nomination, it listed all articles in Category:Lists of string quartets by composer (except Ligeti which was created after the navbox and added today). I have expanded the navbox to include section links for everybody else with a subcategory in Category:String quartets by composer. There could also be section links for composers with multiple articles in Category:Compositions for string quartet. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, that’s still going to be a no from me. The fact that a nobody is included, but not several historically important and well-known 20th and 21st century composers of string quartets speaks for itself. This template is poor and misleading, especially to a musical novice. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    The purpose of a navbox is Wikipedia navigation, not to tell what is important. Should it link to Tigran Mansurian#Chamber music which mentions number/title/year of some string quartets but nothing else? I think that would be misleading to users who click the link with an expectation to find more. Or should we only allow easier string quartet navigation when everybody who is judged important have articles about their string quartets? We don't delete Category:String quartets by composer just because some important composers don't currently have their own string quartet category. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    Try looking at it from the point-of-view of somebody who knows little to nothing about this music. Whether intentional or not, the template would seem to imply to such a reader that these composers were included for their importance in the development of the string quartet. Nowhere is there any indication that says to the effect that the only reason they were listed in this template was because they happen to string quartet pages navigable via this template. Which is why, to answer your question, it would be preferable to scrap the template or at least assemble it in a manner that has some kind of chronological/stylistic consistency. Which it presently does not, your recent edits notwithstanding. Your concerns are based on your perceived need for this navbox; I simply feel that given how erratically assembled it is, it serves no real need. What need does a navbox of random string quartets serve? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    I have added section links to Berg, Brahms, Ives, Prokofiev. They each have articles about two string quartets. I think that's enough for inclusion in a fairly small navbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why is deletion preferable to improvement? Given the specific criticisms this discussion has encouraged, we have plenty of information to improve the template. So why are you whining on a deletion page instead of improving the template and articles? Hyacinth (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    Please cool it with the personal attacks, friend. Nobody is “whining.” This discussion was meant to solicit opinions, yes? Well, you got one, even if it isn’t one you agree with. You believe there is something worthy here of being improved; I don’t. I also don’t think the problems it has can be easily repaired. There are a lot of composers who wrote notable one-off quartets which have been influential in the development of the string quartet. Why aren’t they here? If more editors turn out to disagree with me and the consensus is to keep the thing, whatever. That’s fine too. But I still think this template is, whether by design or not, misleading and poorly assembled. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: I think the majority of these links would fail the WP:NAV test. This particular grouping also basically fails every one of the criteria in WP:NAVBOX. --Izno (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

March 19

Module:Wordify

[edit]

This huge (and growing longer every day) module appears to consist almost entirely of features with no conceivable use case on the English Wikipedia. The only features that have some potential use here are the ability to convert a number to words in the English language, which is redundant to Module:ConvertNumeric, and the ability to display a number in lakh and crore, which, by itself is not sufficiently complicated to merit a Lua module and is already implemented in Wikitext via Template:FXConvert/Wordify * Pppery * it has begun... 20:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This module is intended to be used also by {{INRConvert}} as well as copied by other wikis. The original motivation was to get rid of {{FXConvert/Wordify}} and {{INRConvert/Wordify}} as the parent templates run too deep. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of this module is not to display a number only in words, as Module:ConvertNumeric does, but to simplify a number converting only the order of magnitude into a word. It also supports the long and indian scales as well as linking the words to an explanation. When bigger numbers get supported by Lua it will be possible to to extend the scales by word formation, not by listing every word. It is now a framework for easily adding this functionality to new languages. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
As for my misunderstanding about the usage of Module:ConvertNumeric or it needing to be implemented in Lua for technical reasons, you have a point there, but you're still approaching this from completely the wrong direction. This module, at the time I write this comment, is 1411 lines of code doing something that I was able to rewrite in about 70 lines of code at Module:Sandbox/pppery/wordifyRewrite. It's kind of ironic that you are saying this module serves to simplify something, when it's that complicated. And yes, I am aware that my module doesn't support non-English languages, or numbers greater than 1 nonillion, or the long scale, as I see no use case for any of that functionality, an argument that you do not appear to have addressed at all.
I would, in principle, be OK with something like Module:Sandbox/pppery/wordifyRewrite existing at the title "Module:Wordify" if a need were demonstrated, however the module is currently unused outside of sandboxes, testcases, and it's own documentation page so there is no demonsrated need. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It is not still in production in {{FXConvert}} because that template is waiting for the Module:Formatnum sandbox to be promoted. The module is intended to be the same for all wikis, English wikipedia is its home because the program is in English in correspondence with the Lua keywords, as well as English wikipedia being the most popular source for translations. The point is to avoid the need for every wiki to implement its own algorithm. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of the English Wikipedia module namespace is to provide code for pages on the English Wikipedia, not to serve as a template repository. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I only write on English wikipedia because it is more likely that what I do will get translated. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Provides functionality that's absent in other templates, has potential, is in an area that's apparently being actively worked on. – Uanfala (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Lht

[edit]

Unused; seems to be a version of {{Pagelinks}} exclusively for help pages? No reason for this to exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: There is a whole suite of similar templates at Template:Ln/doc. Either all of them should be deleted/merged, or none of them should be. -- King of ♥ 06:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @King of Hearts: I guess this could get messy if we have to subst+delete ones with existing uses... but I really think these should not exist separately. It saves like five characters while making the source less comprehensible (everyone knows what Help:page is, not everyone knows that Lht means the page is in the help namespace). Elli (talk | contribs) 06:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually it seems to be a version of {{Pagelinks}} exclusively for help talk pages, as opposed to Lh. All of them call {{Lx}}. Nigej (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I would have thought that a better solution would be to add a couple of options to {{Pagelinks}} eg "help,talk" and get that template to do the work. Having 30+ template doing this is likely to be high maintenance. Nigej (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
      • They're meant to be very short and easy to remember/type in discussions. —Locke Coletc 17:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Locke Coletc 17:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, not needed. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to be clear for the Delete !voters, this is one of a group of nearly identical templates, deleting this one would make a logical hole where every other namespace has a similar naming designed to be easier for editors to remember:
Namespace Link to subject page Link to talk page
General {{pagelinks|FULL PAGE NAME}}
Same as for subject page
{{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} {{lnt|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}}
Article {{la|ARTICLE}} {{lat|ARTICLE}}
Draft {{ld|DRAFT}} {{ldt|DRAFT}}
Template {{lt|TEMPLATE}} {{ltt|TEMPLATE}}
Wikipedia {{lw|PAGE}} {{lwt|PAGE}}
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ {{lafd|PAGE}}
User {{lu|PAGE}} {{lut|PAGE}}[1]
Category {{lc|PAGE}} {{lct|PAGE}}
File {{lf|FILE}} {{lft|FILE}}
Portal {{lp|PORTAL}} {{lpt|PORTAL}}
MediaWiki {{lm|MESSAGE}} {{lmt|MESSAGE}}
Help {{lh|PAGE}} {{lht|PAGE}}
Book {{lb|BOOK}} {{lbt|BOOK}}
TimedText {{lttxt|TIMEDTEXT}} {{lttxtt|TIMEDTEXT}}
Module {{lmd|MODULE}} {{lmdt|MODULE}}
  • I obviously can't stop you from shooting yourselves in the foot, but it's not something I'd feel good about not raising again (despite it being raised by the author at the top). It's also worth noting that this would only be deleting the {{lht}} template, leaving the main Help namespace template {{lh}} intact. —Locke Coletc 16:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ For a similar template for user accounts, see Template:user
  • Keep Not a fan of unused templates, but I'm even less a fan of broken sets. The name is systematic so it makes complete sense that someone who uses the rest of this system would try to use {{Lht}} if they ever were in a situation where it would be useful. --Trialpears (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

February 26

Template:ACArt break

[edit] It has been pointed out to me that this fork of {{Authority control}} is not only an attempt to circumvent the failed (as "speedy keep") attempt to delete the original, but it is also an underhand attempt to subvert the failed RfC which sought to remove the MusicBrainz ID from the original template; use of the new fork removes - without discussion - that identifier from biographies of artists who have designed, or whose work has been used as, album sleeves, of which the are thousands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Case in point: Stef Kamil Carlens, "a singer-songwriter, musician, composer, and record producer", where Fram has replaced {{Authority control}} with his forked template, removing the MusicBrainz ID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
When someone makes a mistake in a few isolated instances, the right to do is correcting the mistake, and if necessary raise it at a talk page. Deletion of a template because it has been applied suboptimally here or there is not the right answer though. Carlens was a mistake, normally I skip musicians. Fram (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. The template is clearly controversial. Fram should stop replacing {{Authority control}} with {{ACArt}} until there is consensus. Going forward, I suggest that
  1. The 12,000 changes from {{Authority control}} to {{ACArt}} should be reverted
  2. Replacing {{Authority control}} with another template should only be done after consensus has been reached on the article talk page.
I would also be interested in views on the new templates {{ACArt+}} (same as {{ACArt}} but does not suppress any identifiers), {{ACArt-}} (does not show any identifiers) and {{ACNotArt}} (Only suppresses art-related identifies). Aymatth2 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Funny. Fram (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
12K?!? It was only ~8K when I opened this TfD! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
12,300. There are enough "Delete" votes above to show that {{ACArt}} should not be used to replace {{Authority control}} without discussion on the article's talk page, so the main contributors to the article can object if they want to. If this template is deleted, anyone who really wants to suppress the MusicBrainz link can always code:
{{Authority control |MBA= }}
They should indicate why they are suppressing the link in the edit summary if not on the talk page.
I hope this template is not the first of a flood of link suppression templates, e.g. {{ACSoccer}} for soccer players, or {{ACFrance}} for French people, suppressing links to index entries for other aspects of their biography. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
As you may be aware, consensus is determined by strength of arguments rather than by counting numbers (and at a skim, even counting numbers the outcome doesn't appear to be as clear as you describe). A neutral, uninvolved closer will come along and determine what exactly the community sentiment on this template is. The closer may also note that the community has generally preferred the usage of templates to be tailored to being appropriate for a given article, and has codified this in PAGs (for example, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:NAVBOX) or in TfD precedent and essays (such as WP:NENAN), and generally tends not to be in favour of templates that indiscriminately chuck everything at the reader without regard to relevance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the votes so far are:
The discussion started with a flurry of short "keeps" then progressed to more "deletes" and longer rationales, with some vote changes.
  • Arguments for {{ACArt}} include that it reduces unreadable clutter at the back of an article and avoids excessive external links per Wikipedia:External links.
  • Arguments against {{ACArt}} include that it is a redundant fork of {{authority control}}; selection of relevant authority control links should be decided at Wikidata; the links are out of the way at the foot of the article; the complete set of links shows the influence of the artist and is extremely useful to workers in the cultural sector; and {{ACArt}} drops relevant links for people who are more than just artists.
This is another version of the minimalist / maximalist debate. Should we reduce Wikipedia to the essentials or include all available information? We are not going to reach consensus on that. If we decide to keep this template, conversion of articles from {{authority control}} to {{ACArt}} should be subject to agreement on the talk page of each article. A bulk conversion from {{authority control}} to {{ACArt}} has not been and will not be agreed, so Fram's 12,300 edits should be reverted. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by WP:BEBOLD. Requiring talk page consensus to change the template would be infeasible. In the same way, did 1.75 million transclusions of AC appear by consensus and talk page discussion, or by AWB spam? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I always include {{authority control}} in new articles and assume many other editors do the same, hence the many transclusions of {{authority control}}. Assuming {{ACArt}} is kept, editors may start articles with {{ACArt}}, and converting these to use {{authority control}} should also be subject to talk page consensus. Converting from one style to the other would be sensitive, like changing citation style, and should be agreed first as in WP:CITEVAR. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The "redundant fork" argument is worthless, as it clearly produces a different result than the authority control template. The "selection should happen at Wikidata" is probable even worse: Wikidata has nothing to say about what we show or don't show in our articles (and vice versa; we have nothing to say about what Wikidata includes). "The links are out of the way at the foot of the article" is not an argument to decide for or against ACArt, all WP:EL are out of the way at the foot of the article, but not everything gets accepted or is allowed there. This leaves "the complete set of links shows the influence of the artist and is extremely useful to workers in the cultural sector": I very much doubt this though (both elements). The influence of the artist should be clear from the article, not from the number of hits they get in the authority control template (if this truly would be a good measure, one could add a "45 IDs available at Wikidata" instead of enumerating them all of course). And no one has explained how having e.g. the Swedish National Library link at Tintoretto[4] would be "extremely useful" for anyone in the cultural sector: it may be useful for a few software developers, but then they would be much smarter and working more efficient if they used Wikidata for these kind of (re)searches. Fram (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Aymatth2 Uh, I'm not neutral, I voted to Delete Smirkybec (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Oops! Fixed it. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:ACArt

[edit]

Recent and redundant fork of {{Authority control}}, to which any missing art-related identifiers should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, not a redundant fork. We are not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of all possible identifiers. The template has been discussed at ANI, no objections were forthcoming.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at ANI (link?) is irrelevant. ANI is not TfD, and deals with matters requiring administrator intervention (which template forks generally are not) only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. "Recent" is hardly relevant. I agree that all missing art-related identifiers should be added to Authority Control, as no identifiers are added to ACArt at all. All ACArt does is hide a number of less relevant identifiers for most art-related articles, and only show the ones that are most useful, using Authority Control. For example, at Pablo Picasso, this reduced the 43 identifiers (rough count to 17: so still plenty of identifiers, but just keeping these with most relevance for art and/or enwiki. As no real, accurate argument has been formulated why this would need deletion, and the deletion reason shows a misunderstanding of what happens with the template, I think this can be speedy kept. Fram (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Even more reason to delete it, then, since it seems this is just an attemt to run around your failed attempt to delete {{Authority control}}. There is no need to hide identifiers; and those hidden by this template are not "less relevant" - or do we have no articles on, (for example) Spanish, Catalan, or Australian artists? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
As others have already pointed out, this argument seems erroneous: The template is not a fork and clearly it is not "redundant" in that it presents different content to the reader, which seems to be the core point of contention. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge Unnecessary fork of {{Authority control}}. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Delete On looking closer, it isn't a fork (as the 1st edit summary implied), but a wrapper to chose specific identifiers to show/suppress. In that case, it should just be deleted, or it should be argued on the authority control template talk about whether it's worth defining subsets of authority controls for specific topics (e.g., 'authoritycontrol|select=art'), although I generally think that would be a bad idea anyway. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Serves no useful purpose.14GTR (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Why on earth are we thrusting this machine-readable metadata gibberish in the faces of readers? Ideally keep it on wikidata where it belongs, or bury it in an infobox if you must, or the talk page, where it can safely be ignored.

    Case in point: Vincent van Gogh is "BNF: cb11927591g (data)BPN: 32545490, 31473481GND: 118540416KulturNav: 2192c545-cc43-43b4-8abd-1cd22af701dcLCCN: n79022935NLA: 35130087RKD: 32439SNAC: w60g3k35SUDOC: 027176207ULAN: 500115588VIAF: 9854560WorldCat Identities: lccn-n79022935"

    What? Theramin (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    • @Theramin:; the template ACArt is an attempt to reduce the amount of gibberish: while it keeps the poor formatting (another aspect I want to improve one day), it tries to make sure that you get less of it, and that you no longer get the ones that are not useful for the subject of the article on enwiki (they are useful on Wikidata, and on some other language-wiki, but not here). Fram (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The reduction is not sufficient. What is a reader meant to do with the dozen or two random alphanumeric strings we append to these articles? For whose benefit are we doing this?
      • But in any event, this conversation seems to be proceeding on the mistaken assumption that the template is limited to biographical articles about artists. And in some cases that might make some sense, if we need to distinguish John Smith from John Smith from John Smith (although each has a different middle name and different dates of birth and death). But we don't need to indiscriminately spam each article with a dozen or more different and inconsistent ways to distinguish between them:
        John Smith (engraver): AAG: 10244AGSA: 5538BNF: cb14976542g (data)GND: 118797697ISNI: 0000 0001 1798 0891LCCN: no2004097781NLP: A2703768XNSK: 000625969NTA: 318564599PLWABN: 9810574858305606SNAC: w68r01t2ULAN: 500006468VcBA: 495/153815VIAF: 89128657WorldCat Identities: lccn-no2004097781
        John Raphael Smith: AAG: 2238AGSA: 3811, 10212BNE: XX1477259BNF: cb14958759t (data), cb135364416 (data)GND: 121151611ISNI: 0000 0001 1678 3773LCCN: n83013596NGV: 5386NKC: jo2004214942NLA: 36339895NLI: 000451836NTA: 137665938PLWABN: 9810621842105606RKD: 73455SNAC: w6699rkxSUDOC: 050664549TePapa: 14254Trove: ***:1248450ULAN: 500116497VIAF: 79202309WorldCat Identities: lccn-n83013596
        John Warwick Smith: BNE: XX1763808GND: 13335380XISNI: 0000 0000 6633 1823LCCN: nr91033082PLWABN: 9810546202705606RKD: 73458SNAC: w6jq1bxnTePapa: 2116Trove: 1257227ULAN: 500009954VcBA: 495/39708VIAF: 313041903WorldCat Identities: lccn-nr91033082
      • I am not at all convinced that we need to distinguish Vincent van Gogh or Pablo Picasso from all the other artists called Vincent van Gogh or Pablo Picasso, or indiscriminately supplement the long lists of references and external links that those articles already contain with yet more links to bibliographic identifications for them.
      • In any event, this template and its older sibling are not just appearing on biographical articles: they are also popping up all over the shop, including for example articles about paintings where the template displays nothing at all save an error message [5] (before I removed it) or adds just one external link which adds nothing helpful at all (ditto, again). There are examples of the templates on hisorical periods and musical instruments and concepts such as Curiosity and Eloquence. With all due respect to our colleagues in Germany, we don't need the Gemeinsame Normdatei and Deut­sche National­bibliothek to tell us what these mean, or distinguish them from other things.
      • Look, perhaps we could assign a unique identifier to each article - I don't know, perhaps unique number - and maintain a database somewhere that collects all the incompatible bits of "authority" information assigned by the dozens of different external institutions together in one place for ease of reference. Maybe also collect other relational information and metadata, such as references and dates and so on. But there is no need for all of that undigested information to appear on the face of the encyclopedia, and certainly not without some thoughtful selection of what should appear in each case.
      • Oh, I give up. Why am I wasting my time on this nonsense. Theramin (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • If you wish to reduce the number of identifiers we use, raise an RfC. Template forking as fait accompli is not the way to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that we had some policy that decreed that all IDs available in Authority Control have to be shown on all pages. IDs are added all the time on the basis of a discussion between very few people at the template talk page (fine), but creating a wrapper which makes the template more focused for specific groups of articles is not allowed? No identifiers are being removed from authority control (never mind from Wikidata), but that doesn't mean that all of them have to be shown (when available) on all pages. Fram (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
        • We have them displayed by consensus. If you wish to change that consensus, start an RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Starting a TfD while misunderstanding what this template does, then changing your reason to something completely different (and also wrong), and at the same time demanding an RfC? No thanks. I have introduced this template at ANI, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, and at Wikipedia talk:Authority control. It has been added to very high profile pages by multiple editors (though most by me, as I do it systematically). Others thanked me for these edits. Apart from a concern about the name of the template, no issues were raised, until out of the blue this misguided TfD appeared. If the people who actually edit these art pages have no issues with it and many seem to welcome it, then I see no reason to start an RfC based on your "consensus" based on a few editors and a lack of alternatives, or while your TfD is ongoing. Fram (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
            • I understand very well what this template does; it removes linked authority control IDs from biographies, without consensus to do so and as a work around to your failed - indeed, WP:SNOW-closed - attempt at deleting {{Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
              • I think you are claiming a consensus or consensus requirement that does not exist. I looked at the deletion discussion you refer to, and while it clearly rejected to delete the template entirely, it also does not support the notion that it must be used in absolutely every applicable article with precisely the same set of links. To quote the very first "keep" !vote from there: "A good argument to have it trimmed, or redesigned, but not deleted"; and the trimming seems to be precisely what some folks here seem to be rejecting without good arguments. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep' Per Fram; much less crufty than the full one. I see no editors who actually add content in this area want to delete. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • People are arguing for deletion (or merging, no idea how that would be done) because on the one hand it is a "redundant" or "unnecessary" fork, and on the other hand because it is an end run around the failed deletion of the main template. Obviously, it can be one or none of these, but it can hardly be both at the same time. Since ACArt is fully dependent on authority control, it is hardly an end run: deletion of authority control would make ACArt worthless, and ACArt shows AC identifiers, only not as many. So not an attempt to delete the template through the backdoor (like I said, something like Auguste Rodin now shows about 17 IDs, roughly half of what it showed before. Which also shows that it isn't a redundant fork, it has clearly different results, a different output. It is now used on some 8000+ pages, including many high-profile ones, and the editors of these pages seem either not to care or to approve. The template obviously still can be improved (which I plan to do this week), but deletion seems unawarranted. Fram (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Note; the template has been somewhat improved to now allow the addition of specific IDs for one country (e.g. the National Library of Japan can be shown for Japanese artists, but hidden for others). More improvements of the template are welcome! Fram (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speaking as an art historian and someone who works in the cultural sector: it is extremely useful for people like me to have a comprehensive selection of links to external datasets about an artist on Wikipedia. A comprehensive selection helps to demonstrate an artist's worldwide influence (or lack thereof). The links to authority control databases are a jumping board to other resources, usually via national libraries. Its comprehensiveness enhances Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy and useful resource for art history and in the cultural sector in general, especially as no other resources around the world provide this comprehensive interlinking. Reversely, if Wikipedians start making subjective selections of identifiers that are deemed OK and others that are deemed not, that's not doing Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral resource any good. Spinster (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Spinster:, "especially as no other resources around the world provide this comprehensive interlinking." is not true. The comprehensive interlinking is done at Wikidata: Wikipedia displays only a selection of these anyway (in the template authority control). Relying on Wikipedia for this functionality is not correct, this is something where you should rely on Wikidata (all the links are stored on Wikidata anyway, nothing displayed in either Authority Control or in ACArt is stored on enwiki). Fram (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Spinster, which other resources or information can you for example find through the two RERO links for Mark Twain? 12? How many enwiki readers will have any use, ever, from these links? And on the other hand, for the few people like you for which this is useful information, then why stop at the 40 or so links we already have in the authority control template of that article, and not add the countless others listed in the Wikidata item? Why is the selection made by authority control acceptable and your go-to place (instead of Wikidata directly), but the selection made by ACArt unacceptable? Fram (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral Keep, but rename to {{Authority control (arts)}} per Template talk:Authority control#Template:ACArt name. Not a fork, but a wrapper. Some users have expressed a desire to truncate/only show a subset of IDs, usually as it relates to a/their particular subject area. I see no harm in this.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Tom.Reding: Woulld it be practical to add a parameter to Template:Authority control to handle this? There are way too many templates at Wikipedia as it is. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Robert.Allen: that depends on what you mean by practical. Can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? Probably not. It's better to build discrete systems on top of each other than to put them all together. See Template talk:Authority control#Template:ACArt name for some examples.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Changing my vote from Keep -> Neutral and striking my last sentence, due to policing concerns. As pointed out by Aymatth2 below, well-intentioned editors may inappropriately place {{ACArt}} on art-straddling/art-adjacent subjects. There's currently no tracking mechanism in {{ACArt}} to find such cases. Hidden tracking cats should be placed when {{ACArt}} suppresses more than, say, 4 IDs, and broken down by # of suppressions (similar to the Category:AC with 25 elements series).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per Spinster, Gamaliel and 14GTR. Smirkybec (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The guideline WP:EL states that "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." The previous TfD for the authority control template establishes that some or many of the links it provides are useful (and should not be deleted without replacement), but the assertion that the identifiers in that template must be linked in their entirety, rather than a select subset, is in plain violation of that guideline and lacks consensus. Obviously it would be impractical to specify exactly which identifiers to link for each individual biographical article, but creating wrappers like these for broad biographical categories (like artists) seem like a useful intermediate step to help bring our articles into compliance with WP:EL. I understand the appeal of "comprehensiveness" as an abstract quality, but Theramin's comments show very clearly how useless it makes this template for most readers. Choess (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. As an editor who works almost entirely on "artists", it seems like an unnecessary distinction. Also, I like having authority control information at the bottom of the article and do not consider it cruft. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi @WomenArtistUpdates:, two questions. First, can you please give some examples of articles where the ACArt template is used (some 10,000 pages now) where some authority control has disappeared that you found useful? I tried to eliminate only those of no use in an enwiki article, but it may be that there are some I need to reconsider. You can see the full list here. Second, if I may; I can't help but notice that apart from Mike Peel and PigsontheWing, who are both heavily into Wikidata and templates and thus logical appearances here, all delete votes are from people who are either members of Women in Red or seem to be closely associated with it. It seems unlikely that only this group would arrive here to vote "delete" as a pure coincidence (it is not as if the template is directly connected to WiR in any way), so do you (or anyone else) know where and how this discussion was advertised? Thanks! Fram (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Fram It actually is a coincidence. I know there was a discussion because the articles I have created are on my watchlist and it has been lit up with changes to the authority control template.I will not engage further with you. I hesitated to even vote on this as your reputation precedes you. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Fram There is no grand conspiracy, like WomenArtistUpdates, I saw you editing many articles I have created and/or have in my watch list and decided independently that it was not an improvement. Smirkybec (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Thank you! Fram (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I just noticed this (I was mentioned, but not pinged). I think it's important to note that Andy posted to the GlamWiki facebook group about this template several days after starting this TfD. I'm saying this for transparency's sake, although I'm concerned that Fram will instantly pounce on it and try to yell conspiracy where none was intended, and I note that there seem to be past on-wiki discussions about this topic that don't seem to have been linked here (there was a deletion debate, something on ANI, and maybe other discussions - somewhere?). From my side, I was already aware of the template before then, and was going to look into it: the facebook post prompted me to look again a bit sooner, and led to me posting my !vote above, but didn't influence my comment - it just meant that I posted it a bit earlier than I would have otherwise. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Fram (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I agree with Mike Peel that that Facebook discussion is not a "conspiracy"; still, as it quite clearly contributed to a conspicuous wave of "delete" !votes, it is worth mentioning here (and Mike deserves thanks for doing so). Furthermore:
        •  Comment: to closing admin: Considering that this Facebook discussion was initiated by the deletion nominator with an obviously non-neutral summary of (part of) the controversy he was involved in (and later participants directly linked this TfD discussion with a call to "chime in"), this is a clear case of WP:CANVAS. In addition, while some of the canvassed !voters added value to the discussion, several others left "delete" votes that did not provide actual arguments. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Just to note that brevity is not a sin. I know I left quite a short !vote, but others have commented on the negatives of this template much better than I could. Also, the aggressiveness and length of Fram's replies will have put people off commenting (either commenting significantly, thus ensuring an aggressive response, or commenting at all). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral I would need some examples of what kind of identifiers are excluded by ACArt. Generally I work on fairly obscure artists and the more identifiers the better, but as long as useful information isn't being lost, I'd be in favour of keeping an an artist-specfic template. Curiocurio (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Curiocurio:: these are the ones excluded by default; ACM-DL, autores.uy, BIBSYS, BNC, BNE, Botanist, CANTIC, CINII, CWGC, DAAO, DBLP, HDS, IAAF, ICCU, ISNI, LIR, LNB, MBA, MBAREA, MBI, MBL, MBP, MBRG, MBS, MBW, NBL, NCL, NDL, NKC, NLG, NLI, NLK, NLP, NLR, NSK, NTA, ORCID, PLWABN, RERO, RID, RSL, SELIBR, S2AuthorId, TA98, TDVIA, TE, TH, TLS, Trove, UKPARL, USCongress, VcBA. In many cases, one or two can be re-included by adding a country-specific parameter, e.g. "country=ES" will also display BNE and CANTIC. (See Template:ACArt/doc for more on this). New IDs which are added to authority control are by default included in ACArt: they need to be explicitly excluded in the template code to be hidden. Fram (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Fram:: Thanks for providing the list. I went through it as best I could. There are many obviously unsuitable databases excluded, especially those concerning science and technology. I am somewhat troubled by the exclusion of many national libraries, although as you say many of them can be reincorporated by using a country-specific code. This requires a a level of sophistication on the part of the editor however. Curiocurio (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • The intention is indeed that the relevant national libraries will be shown by using the parameter. I plan to soon start on Spanish artists, and those I will by default give the "country=Es" parameter. As an example, I looked at article 1001 of the ones now using the template; Jean Raoux. It had 11 entries in the old version, and 8 in the new one, removing isni, a Polish database[6], and the Vatican library[7]. I don't think any of these three added anything of value to the article. Note that this person has 40 identifiers at Wikidata! Fram (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I sympathize with the above comment that many artists, especially Eastern and niche ones, are not in too many databases, so limiting the amount is unhelpful for them. Additionally, 99% of readers don't even know the authority control links exist. Why limit links for the 1% that do? Users are making it seem like these links are causing readers seem internal pain or confusion on "There's too many links which do I click??"—but once again, most readers don't care (making this a useless distinction) and most artists are not Van Gogh (making limiting the supposably "overkill amount" of links unproductive). Aza24 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Aza24: can you give some examples of artist articles where ACArt has (or would) remove identifiers you find useful? In most or all cases, the most likely, logical, prevalent links aren't removed (e.g. worldcat and VIAF are left alone, as are the Library of Congress and all art-related IDs), and for countries where an ID exists for e.g. their national library, an easy parameteris available to add that one (e.g. "country=CZ" for Czechia will add the NKC). So a few examples would help me to understand in what cases the template is actually unhelpful. Fram (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Fram, I made the mistake of doing little research before my comment and now find that some minor artists that came to mind are little effected by such a template (and have rescinded my comments above accordingly). However, I still question any positive impact the template gives the reader, and furthermore, it seems improper to create such a template as the result on an ANI discussion, which seemingly overturns a long term status quo on the use of authority control. What I would like to see, is a larger conversation on the subject, potentially exploring a realm of possibilities with creating equivalent templates for composers, writers, politicians etc. Before such a conversation, I don't know if I can support a specially curated template for artists and no others. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you for re-evaluating. I created one for arts/artists, because this is by far the largest group of topic-specific authority IDs we now have. Other professions often only have one or no specific ID in authority control (e.g. for sports, we only have the IAAF, and nothing for other sports if I recall correctly). My plan was to build country-specific ones next, which only show the IDs from either English-language sources (e.g. Library of Congress), and from sources with a country- or language-connection to the topic (so for Belgium, I would show IDs from English language sources plus Belgium, France, the Netherlands, perhaps Germany, but not from elsewhere). But when this TfD is closed, I'll probably try to write an RfC to get wider input on this, as opinions are quite divided among this small sample of people. We'll never be able to please everyone (show nothing vs. show everything is hard to combine), so it would be good to know if the current situation pleases most people, or whether something different would get the most support. It will require a good explanation of the whole setup though, as I have noticed in many discussions that most people have no idea what happens and what is possible. Fram (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a bad idea to distinguish people, especially if their main notability is not based on being an artist. Now references to libraries are deleted. It would also set a precedent for even more subdivisions. KittenKlub (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I have trouble understanding what you mean here. This template should normally be applied to articles about people whose main notability is being an artist. We distinguish people and articles in general all the time, no idea why this is a problem. We have e.g. specialized infoboxes for people based on their main claim to notability, and these show or suppress fields which other infoboxes may or may not have, based on what is most relevant for the person and their occupation. And no references are deleted, authority control are not references anyway: they are external links, taken from Wikidata (where they all remain). Do you have examples of articles where this template made things worse, examples of libraries which provided a valuable external link to that article for enwiki readers and which are now gone? Fram (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Ru Paré is known as WW2 resistance hero who happened to be an artist as well, and you changed her to Art, because she has an artists category, and thus deleted the references to the libraries. Besides that it is extremely unclear for most people who simply put Authority Control underneath a biography. There's no need whatsoever to have x versions whose purpose is to remove content. KittenKlub (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you. I have added the "country=NL" parameter, the Dutch National Library is back in the authority control template now. People are still free to put authority control in their articles, nothing has changed at that template. But people now have a choice: opinions are clearly seriously divided over whether we should display as many authority IDs as possible (and note that there are many, many more than are being shown through the main authority control template anyway: e.g. for Ru Paré there are already 5 additional identifiers in Wikidata which aren't included anyway), or a select, more tailored subset. The division would be "full" at Wikidata (as it is now), and "precise" at enwiki (which it isn't now, it is now a rather random selection of IDs with a one-size-fits-all approach). And yes, "precise" would require either specific templates (like ACArt) or parameters at authority control (say, "authority control|art" or something similar). If the latter would get introduced, ACArt could very easily be changed to call that specific parameter. Fram (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I remain with my delete vote. Before you know it, you have one for musicians, authors and who knows how many more. Besides that those acronyms are totally obscure for most people anyhow, so one or two more entries is no big deal. KittenKlub (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
            • I hope to change the acronym/ID combination in the template to a descriptive namelink, but I can't do it all at once. A template that said (with the names as links to the ID page) "Biografisch Portaal * Library of Congress * Royal Library of the Netherlands * Netherlands Institute for Art History * Virtual International Authority File * Worldcat" would be a lot clearer. If this improvement would be created at the authority control template, it would automatically also appear in the ACArt template. Fram (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template appears to be unnecessary and possibly deleterious, since it may omit useful links. If pruning is needed, it should be done at Wikidata. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    • How would you omit links which Wikidata wants but we don't? We have no say over what Wikidata includes or not. The pruning is done at Template:Authority control (for all of enwiki), and then further here (for a specific, though large, group of articles) because we have no say over what Wikidata includes (and there is no reason that we should, they cater for more than just enwiki). If you want to include everything that Wikidata has, then perhaps it would be better to add that to the sidebar, similar to the way that interwiki links are shown, that way, no one here needs to maintain code, request addition (or removal) of IDs at template talk:authority control, ... Anyway, every attempt is made to not exclude useful links but only the (for these articles, and on enwiki) useless ones. For example, for Jacques Callot, ACArt keeps 14 identifiers, but omits 11 others, e.g. this, or this, or this. We can hardly ask Wikidata to remove these, as they are correct and necessary links for jawiki, sewiki, ... And we can hardly include all Wikidata IDs, they have more than 100 different IDs for Jacques Callot (and new ones are added all the time).
    • TLDR: We can't do this at Wikidata, we already (in the standard template) omit many links, and the ones further omitted here are carefully chosen and are really of very little value for enwiki readers. Fram (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you can explain why, for Jacques Callot, and for every other biography using this template, you think ISNI, Trove and Vatican library IDs, for example, are "useless"? Perhaps the Catholic church never employed artists? As for "How would you omit links which Wikidata wants but we don't?", that is already possible (albeit rarely desirable) in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
        • The comment I answered was "If pruning is needed, it should be done at Wikidata": you reply about how it is done here, which doesn't answer the question, and is thus hardly relevant as a reply to me. Now, ignoring the snark in the questions, to Jacques Callot, and the suppressed entries: have you looked at them? The Vatican Library entry doesn't really tell us anything, not even whether he was ever employed by the Vatican or the Catholic Church in general. Take for example Rubens, obviously employed by the Catholic Church: his entry is not very informative or useful, is it? Even for artists who did work for the Vatican, the authority file doesn't give any additional information[8]. So yes, for nearly every reader of enwiki, for artist articles, this is a useless ID (I haven't checked if it is any better for e.g. writers). ISNI doesn't seem to have any information not already in an easier to read format in other entries of the authority files. Trove, I suppose I could add that one as it is in English and useful for Australian readers. Fram (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
          • The question you asked, and to which I responded (and indeed, quoted in my response) was "How would you omit links which Wikidata wants but we don't?". So much for snark. Furthermore, I didn't ask you about the pages linked to; I asked you why you thought the identifiers are not useful. Not only have you ignored that question, but you are aware of the difference between the two, or should be, as it was the crux of opposition to your failed attempt to delete {{Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
            • Do you really think many people would support the AC template if it was just IDs as such and not links? I didn't realise that your question about the IDs was so literal and extreme. So no, I don't think the raw IDs (any of them) are useful in enwiki articles: we have Wikidata for that kind of stuff. The IDs as links are useful if the linked page has additional information, preferably in a manner understandable to most readers here. So e.g. the Vatican page is not useful as an ID nor as a link. Unless your answers are in a neutral, impersonal fashion, I'll not reply to further replies by you. Fram (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
              • Right. So now we can see without doubt that you do not support the purpose of {{Authority control}}; and we already know that your attempt to have that template deleted failed as a snow close, because consensus to use as designed is massively agaist you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
                • The purpose? "Direct benefits to readers are direct access to these linked works where available (e.g. finding a library holding a particular book on a topic)." The links that have been removed do not have that benefit for our readers. The consensus here, even with your canvassed audience, doesn't seem to be that massively against me either. Fram (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I have readded Trove, it will again show up at all articles that use ACArt and where a Trove ID exists. Fram (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Suppression examples: for anyone wishing to see/find pages with suppressed IDs (i.e. the ID must exist on WD & be suppressed via this template), Category:Wikipedia articles with suppressed authority control identifiers (8,646) currently contains 7,578 pages, and 7,530 of them (99.4%) transclude {{ACArt}}. There are another ~3,200 {{ACArt}} transclusions that aren't currently suppressing IDs b/c they don't exist in WD yet, so looking at the transclusion list would not be efficient.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fram. I'm sympathetic to the arguments that the normal AC is too bulky to the point of being useless. An attempt to improve relevance on a given article seems, to me, a good thing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and enforce replacement of templates with this template. Some articles are carrying authority control boxes which are out of control in size. Keep those identifiers to the point and selected. If the obscure number is needed in one case, it can be accessed through WikiData, and, alternatively, through the full template on the talkpage of the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, or eliminate suppression of links that are not "art related". Artists are often known for more than their art. For example, Winston Churchill, an accomplished artist, was better known for his books. The purpose of {{Authority control}} is to link to index entries for the subject of the article. There is no good reason to suppress index entries because they are not specific to "artists" or, worse, because they are not specific to "British artists". If the BnF has an entry for Churchill, I want to see it. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • This shouldn't be used on entries where the topic is also (or in the case of Churchill much better) known for other occupations. So unrelated to this actual template, but more in general; what's the point, in the enwiki article (not in Wikidata), of having the following links or ids: [9][10][11][12][13][14]... And if all 33 are necessary, then why not go all the way and all 200 IDs for Winston Churchill that are currently listed at Wikidata (with new ones added every month)? Never mind that we aren't an indiscriminate link collection, that the informational value for our readers becomes near-zero, and that it gets harder and harder to find the interesting ones among the overload of repetetive ones. Fram (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • "This shouldn't be used on entries where the topic is also (or in the case of Churchill much better) known for other occupations" And yet you've been adding it to articles on topics as diverse as a fashion designer and a veteran of the French Resistance movement of WWII. And academics. And architectural firms. And artistic movements. And a museum. And individual paintings. And a French Academy. Not to mention a series of comic books.
        "why not go all the way and all 200 IDs for Winston Churchill that are currently listed at Wikidata" A combination of a slippery slope fallacy and a classic straw man argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Fashion designers, comic books, art museums, artistic movements ... are all art-related entries for which ACArt is meant to be used (the resistance fighter is discussed above, and the ACArt template makes no difference there). I don't know what kind of 'gotcha' you meant with this reply. As for Churchill: how is it a slippery slope? New IDs are being added constantly to authority control (and to Wikidata), the template gets more and more bloated. Never is a requested entry in the template rejected because "oh no, not more of the same". Please tell me which of the 200 IDs at Wikidata would not be added to the template if people asked for them. Perhaps a dozen or so which would be deemed too unreliable, perhaps, if we're lucky? So not a slippery slope, and not a strawman, as it goes directly to the heart of this issue; there are many, many IDs (both already present here, as already present at Wikidata, as potential to be added there and here), and we have basically two opinions: the more the merrier, or let's pick and choose the best ones. Pointing out that the first option may lead to hundreds of IDs is not a strawman, it is fact: just like pointing out that the second option is harder and may lead to other controversy. Neither ACArt nor my uses of it are infallible (though a lot better than what you claim it to be), but that's hardly a reason to delete it instead of trying to improve it (e.g. by the re-addition of Trove). Fram (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
        • For example, one artistic movement which has gotten the ACArt template is Cubism. This kept some IDs, but removed this one. Not much of a loss it seems. Having such a template which can be used on a wide range of articles is a positive element, not something negative as you portray it. The aim is not to have thousands of micro-managed subtemplates, but relatively few, easy to use templates which can be used on thousands upon thousands of articles, but not (like authority control) on millions of even more diverse subjects. Fram (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I wasn't referring to Ru Paré, and I was not referring to a "resistance fighter". Many - the majority - of the 200 IDs to which you keep mischievously referring to would not be added to the template; as you well know, several have already been requested and declined.Furthermore, a large number of those 200 IDs only apply to a tiny minority of people or topics (and in those cases, may be the only available identifier for that subject: for example UK MPs). Your argument is, as noted, a slippery slope fallacy and a straw man: blatantly so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
            • "Mischievously"? Tom.Reding below indicates that adding all 200 would be acceptable, yet you claim that the majority would not be added. Looking at requests to add IDs to the template though, when I scroll through April 2017 to now I see acceptance and addition of WorldCat Identities ID, National Library of Greece ID, UK Parliament identifier, Vatican Library VcBA ID, CWGC person ID, PLWABN ID, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine ID, Publons author ID, Dictionary of Irish Biography, Microsoft Academic ID, Information Center for Israeli Art artist ID, Stuttgart Database of Scientific Illustrators 1450–1950, Semantic Scholar author ID, Semantic Scholar paper ID, World Athletics athlete ID, DBLP author ID, Autores.uy, Photographers' Identities Catalog. I see, in the same nearly four period, no requests for additions which have been denied. No idea why you then think is is acceptable to make comments like "as you well know, several have already been requested and declined." Please try to keep the discussion focused on the content, and stop making it personalized and antagonistic. Fram (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
              • Per the talk page archives, Google Scholar author ID (P1960), Scopus author ID (P1153), OCLC control number (P243) were proposed & rejected. This is not a comprehensive list.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  09:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
                • Thanks. It looks like Google Scholar ID was in 2015 proposed, then discussed, but never actually accepted or rejected (Wikipedia_talk:Authority_control/Archive_2#Google_Scholar_author_ID?); scopus was included, then removed because not a single article used it, and then in 2014 again proposed but not answered[15]. I can't find any clear discussion about OCLC. So this seems all to be very old, and not clear why I should have been aware of this or why this would indicate that proposed IDs are routinely rejected (going as far as the claim that the majority of links at e.g. Churchill would not be accepted for inclusion). Fram (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
      • "why not go all the way and all 200 IDs for Winston Churchill that are currently listed at Wikidata" - ironically, this would be acceptable, especially for any extremely famous person, as long as (if/when) each ID was agreed to by the WP community. And this is why {{Authority control}} is the bottom-most template.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Oh yes, having a "bottom" template which has them all (well, excluding things like Quora or Findagrave preferably) is fine, as long as then you can have "top" templates which pick-and-choose from this one to get only the best "fit" per article. But I don't think most readers want to have a 200-id template in articles, where many are useless as source of information for enwiki readers (and not needed to uniquely identify the subject either if you already have some other IDs). Fram (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:ACArt break[edit]

It has been pointed out to me that this fork of {{Authority control}} is not only an attempt to circumvent the failed (as "speedy keep") attempt to delete the original, but it is also an underhand attempt to subvert the failed RfC which sought to remove the MusicBrainz ID from the original template; use of the new fork removes - without discussion - that identifier from biographies of artists who have designed, or whose work has been used as, album sleeves, of which the are thousands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Case in point: Stef Kamil Carlens, "a singer-songwriter, musician, composer, and record producer", where Fram has replaced {{Authority control}} with his forked template, removing the MusicBrainz ID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
When someone makes a mistake in a few isolated instances, the right to do is correcting the mistake, and if necessary raise it at a talk page. Deletion of a template because it has been applied suboptimally here or there is not the right answer though. Carlens was a mistake, normally I skip musicians. Fram (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. The template is clearly controversial. Fram should stop replacing {{Authority control}} with {{ACArt}} until there is consensus. Going forward, I suggest that
  1. The 12,000 changes from {{Authority control}} to {{ACArt}} should be reverted
  2. Replacing {{Authority control}} with another template should only be done after consensus has been reached on the article talk page.
I would also be interested in views on the new templates {{ACArt+}} (same as {{ACArt}} but does not suppress any identifiers), {{ACArt-}} (does not show any identifiers) and {{ACNotArt}} (Only suppresses art-related identifies). Aymatth2 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Funny. Fram (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
12K?!? It was only ~8K when I opened this TfD! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
12,300. There are enough "Delete" votes above to show that {{ACArt}} should not be used to replace {{Authority control}} without discussion on the article's talk page, so the main contributors to the article can object if they want to. If this template is deleted, anyone who really wants to suppress the MusicBrainz link can always code:
{{Authority control |MBA= }}
They should indicate why they are suppressing the link in the edit summary if not on the talk page.
I hope this template is not the first of a flood of link suppression templates, e.g. {{ACSoccer}} for soccer players, or {{ACFrance}} for French people, suppressing links to index entries for other aspects of their biography. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
As you may be aware, consensus is determined by strength of arguments rather than by counting numbers (and at a skim, even counting numbers the outcome doesn't appear to be as clear as you describe). A neutral, uninvolved closer will come along and determine what exactly the community sentiment on this template is. The closer may also note that the community has generally preferred the usage of templates to be tailored to being appropriate for a given article, and has codified this in PAGs (for example, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:NAVBOX) or in TfD precedent and essays (such as WP:NENAN), and generally tends not to be in favour of templates that indiscriminately chuck everything at the reader without regard to relevance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the votes so far are:
The discussion started with a flurry of short "keeps" then progressed to more "deletes" and longer rationales, with some vote changes.
  • Arguments for {{ACArt}} include that it reduces unreadable clutter at the back of an article and avoids excessive external links per Wikipedia:External links.
  • Arguments against {{ACArt}} include that it is a redundant fork of {{authority control}}; selection of relevant authority control links should be decided at Wikidata; the links are out of the way at the foot of the article; the complete set of links shows the influence of the artist and is extremely useful to workers in the cultural sector; and {{ACArt}} drops relevant links for people who are more than just artists.
This is another version of the minimalist / maximalist debate. Should we reduce Wikipedia to the essentials or include all available information? We are not going to reach consensus on that. If we decide to keep this template, conversion of articles from {{authority control}} to {{ACArt}} should be subject to agreement on the talk page of each article. A bulk conversion from {{authority control}} to {{ACArt}} has not been and will not be agreed, so Fram's 12,300 edits should be reverted. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by WP:BEBOLD. Requiring talk page consensus to change the template would be infeasible. In the same way, did 1.75 million transclusions of AC appear by consensus and talk page discussion, or by AWB spam? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I always include {{authority control}} in new articles and assume many other editors do the same, hence the many transclusions of {{authority control}}. Assuming {{ACArt}} is kept, editors may start articles with {{ACArt}}, and converting these to use {{authority control}} should also be subject to talk page consensus. Converting from one style to the other would be sensitive, like changing citation style, and should be agreed first as in WP:CITEVAR. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The "redundant fork" argument is worthless, as it clearly produces a different result than the authority control template. The "selection should happen at Wikidata" is probable even worse: Wikidata has nothing to say about what we show or don't show in our articles (and vice versa; we have nothing to say about what Wikidata includes). "The links are out of the way at the foot of the article" is not an argument to decide for or against ACArt, all WP:EL are out of the way at the foot of the article, but not everything gets accepted or is allowed there. This leaves "the complete set of links shows the influence of the artist and is extremely useful to workers in the cultural sector": I very much doubt this though (both elements). The influence of the artist should be clear from the article, not from the number of hits they get in the authority control template (if this truly would be a good measure, one could add a "45 IDs available at Wikidata" instead of enumerating them all of course). And no one has explained how having e.g. the Swedish National Library link at Tintoretto[16] would be "extremely useful" for anyone in the cultural sector: it may be useful for a few software developers, but then they would be much smarter and working more efficient if they used Wikidata for these kind of (re)searches. Fram (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Aymatth2 Uh, I'm not neutral, I voted to Delete Smirkybec (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Oops! Fixed it. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Completed discussions[edit]

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

Tools[edit]

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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes[edit]

Param mapping
    mapping = {
        # Header / misc
        'boxtype' => nil, # only support boxtype = 'locomotive'
        'Farbe1' => nil, # color
        'Farbe2' => nil, # color
        'Baureihe' => 'name',
        'Abbildung' => 'image',
        'Name' => 'caption',

        # General
        'Nummerierung' => '', # "Number(s) allocated to the vehicle(s)"
        'Hersteller' => 'builder',
        'Baujahre' => 'builddate',
        'Indienststellung' => 'firstrundate',
        'Ausmusterung' => 'retiredate',
        'Anzahl' => 'totalproduction',
        'Wheel arrangement' => 'whytetype | aarwheels', # ambiguous? which one is it?
        'Achsformel' => '', # same as above
        'Gattung' => '', # some form of class (eg "S 37.19")
        'Spurweite' => 'gauge',
        'Höchstgeschwindigkeit' => 'maxspeed',

        # Wheels (should wheelbase sub-params be used in [[Template:Infobox locomotive]]?)
        'Laufraddurchmesser vorn' => 'leadingdiameter',
        'Laufraddurchmesser hinten' => 'trailingdiameter',
        'Laufraddurchmesser außen' => '', # Outer carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives
        'Laufraddurchmesser innen' => '', # Inner carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives
        'Laufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'Treibraddurchmesser' => 'driverdiameter',

        # Weight, dimensions and Axles
        'Leermasse' => 'locoweight', # "Total weight of vehicle when empty"
        'Dienstmasse' => 'tenderweight',
        'Reibungsmasse' => 'weightondrivers',
        'Radsatzfahrmasse' => 'axleload',
        'Höhe' => 'height',
        'Breite' => 'width',

        # Steam traction / cylinders
        'Zylinderanzahl' => 'cylindercount',
        'Zylinderdurchmesser' => 'cylindersize',
        'Kolbenhub' => '', # "[[Piston stroke]] - I think current template requires this to be <br>'d onto cyclindercount, if so, that should probably be changed in template"
        'Heizrohrlänge' => '', # Heating tube length. totalsurface/tubearea is provided, but this is an area, not a length?
        'Rostfläche' => '', # "Grate area"
        'Strahlungsheizfläche' => '', # "Radiative heating area, Firebox + combustion chamber"
        'Überhitzerfläche' => '', # Superheater area
        'Verdampfungsheizfläche' => '', # Evaporative heating area, Firebox heating area + combustion chamber + heating tubes + smoke tubes (total heating area)

        # Misc
        'Steuerungsart' => 'valvegear',
        'Tenderbauart' => '', # Tender
        'Wasser' => 'watercap',
        'Brennstoff' => 'fueltype + fuelcap', # in practice, may solely be 'fuelcap'
        'Lokbremse' => 'locobrakes',
        'Bremsen' => 'trainbrakes',

        # Undocumented
        'VorneLaufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'HintenLaufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'LängeÜberPuffer' => 'length/over bufferbeams', # ?
        'Kesseldruck' => 'boilerpressure',
        'AnzahlHeizrohre' => '',
        'AnzahlRauchrohre' => '',
        'IndizierteLeistung' => '',
        'HDZylinderdurchmesser' => '',
        'NDZylinderdurchmesser' => ''
    }
Parameter comparison
Infobox reality talent
competition parameter
Infobox reality competition
season parameter
Result from the merge
name
series
season_name
(Infobox television season parameter)
Delete (unnecessary)
logo image Rename to image
logo_size image_size Rename to image_size
image_alt
logo_alt
image_alt Keep (change any uses of logo_alt to image_alt)
caption caption Keep
season season_number
season_number
(Infobox television season parameter)
Delete (unnecessary)
British
british
Australian
australian
N/A Delete
aired released
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename to released
first_aired first_aired
(Infobox television season parameter)
Keep
last_aired last_aired
(Infobox television season parameter)
Keep
judges
judge
judges Keep (change any use of "judge" to "judges")
coaches N/A New parameter, merge over
presenter
presenters
presenter Keep (change any use of "presenters" to "presenter")
host host Keep
copresenter N/A Delete, merge content to "presenter"
cohost N/A Delete, merge content to "host"
broadcaster network
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename to network
competitors num_contestants Rename to num_contestants
finalsvenue
venue
N/A New parameter, merge over
country country
(Infobox television season parameter)
Keep
num_tasks num_tasks Keep
runtime N/A Delete, unnecessary
num_episodes num_episodes
(Infobox television season parameter)
Keep
website website
(Infobox television season parameter)
Keep
winner-name winner Rename to winner
image N/A Delete (this one is for the winner image)
winner-origin N/A Delete, unnecessary
winner-song N/A Delete, unnecessary
winner-genre N/A Delete, unnecessary
winner-mentor
winner-coach
N/A Keep, rename to winner_mentor, winner_coach
runner-name runner_up Rename to runner_up
last prev_season
prev_series
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename (but may not be required)
next next_season
next_series
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename (but may not be required)
year
main
N/A Delete, unnecessary
Template updated with the new parameters, just need to convert old uses now. --Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Soon as my other bot run finishes I'll get on it. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thank you! Let myself or Gonnym know if you have any questions. I hope my table above will be useful in figuring out what needs to be kept, replaced, or outright deleted. And as Gonnym said, the new parameters are all ready to go once the merge has been made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll have to re-think the usage of the bot, though... {{Infobox reality talent competition}} is an infobox proper, while {{Infobox reality competition season}} is designed as a child/subbox. Some might be easy enough to convert into an {{infobox television}} usage, such as at Singapore Idol, but in places like World Idol it will need merging into the main IB. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Correct. Whatever had {{Infobox reality talent competition}} will ultimately now need to have {{Infobox television season}} as the infobox proper, and the {{Infobox reality competition season}} as a child/subbox through |module1=. If I can help define or clarify anything for you to help you with the bot, let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Doing... TheTVExpert (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've written some regex for AWB but my problem is that I don't know how (or even if it's possible) to set a whole row as a conditional check. Currently this fails if the template isn't written in this exact order. Any ideas? @Primefac: have any ideas?

Find: \{\{Infobox reality talent competition\n.*\|.*name.*=.*\n.*\|.*logo.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*logo_alt.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*first_aired.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*last_aired.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*judges.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*coaches.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*host.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*cohost.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*broadcaster.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*competitors.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*finalsvenue.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*num_tasks.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*image.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*caption.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-name .*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-origin.*=\s?(.*)\n\|winner-genre.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-song.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*runner-name.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*runner-image.*=\s?(.*)\n\}\}

Replace: {{Infobox television season\n| image = $1\n| image_alt = $2\n| module1 = {{Infobox reality competition season \n | host = $7\n | judges = $5\n | num_contestants = $10\n | winner = $15\n | runner_up = $19\n}}\n| network = $9\n| first_aired = $3\n| last_aired = $4\n}} --Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oof, that's a bit nuts. I'll try to dig into that regex soon, but I'm starting to think that using an AWB module to save, store, and modify those parameters to convert the template use might be the best way forward. The other thing we should probably do is find out where the template is used alongside {{infobox television}}, since we shouldn't convert it to "season" if that's there (instead, just folding it in). Primefac (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym and Primefac: maybe an oversimplification, but since {{Infobox reality talent competition}} is now converted into a full wrapper, can't we just subst it? (after cleaning it up for subst, ofc)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Template substitution isn't my strong side so if you know how to do it, then I'm all for it. --Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I know how to turn it into a subst-able wrapper, however I don't know how if it achieves the acceptable results here. Primefac has looked at specific cases above it seems, so he may be better placed than me to answer that part. But if it works, that makes achieving the merge easier than regex-hell. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
In a word, yes; I think cleaning up post-merge will be easier than all of the complex silliness above. I'll put it on my list of things to do. Right after I make my list of things to do... Primefac (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym and Favre1fan93: I've made a substable wrapper in the sandbox based on your wrapper. Go to any transclusion, plug a /sandbox on the end (or change to {{Infobox reality talent competition/sandbox}} if it's using a redirect) and preview. This should be how it looked pre-wrapper. Then chuck a subst: in front and preview, and this is how it'd look being substed. By my eye, testing on a couple of pages, this all looks correct, however the winner's national origin isn't being mapped in the wrapper (Gonnym?). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: is there consensus to remove the various parameters removed in the current wrapper? See eg pages in Category:Pages using infobox reality talent competition with unknown parameters, for example The X Factor (British series 11) when previewed with the sandbox version (which will show the old template v before your wrapper convert). It seems like many labels missing? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Navigation templates[edit]

Link templates[edit]

  • None currently

Other[edit]

2020 February 1Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • At this point this is ready for large scale replacement. I said a while ago that I could do it but due to me being quite busy IRL this seems unlikely to get done in a timely manner. If you feel like doing a large scale replacement job feel free to take this one. --Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Trialpears, what large-scale replacement? I (foolishly?) jumped into this rabbit hole, and have been in it for over a day now. This is a very complex merge; I've got the documentation diff to show fewer differences, but there's still more to be done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

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

To substitute[edit]

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

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

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

  • None currently

Ready for deletion[edit]

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

  • None currently

Archive and Indices[edit]