Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 15#Template:Serbian presidential election, 1992

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Turkish general election, 2002}}
• {{Tfd links|Turkish general election, 2007}}
• {{Tfd links|Turkish general election, 2011}}
• {{Tfd links|Turkish general election 2011 by province}}
• {{Tfd links|Turkish general election, June 2015}}
• {{Tfd links|Turkish general election, November 2015}}
• {{Tfd links|Turkish parliamentary election, 2018}}
• {{Tfd links|Turkish presidential election, 2018}}
• {{Tfd links|2017 Turkish constitutional referendum overseas results}}
• {{Tfd links|2017 Turkish constitutional referendum provincial results}}
• {{Tfd links|2017 Turkish constitutional referendum results}}

All single-use templates that won't require constant updates and should be substituted where it is used per the standard on other Turkish general, presidential, parliamentary, and referendum election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Subst and delete Unnecessary templates. The 2018s one should be subst'd on the relevant election article and transcluded elsewhere using #section. Number 57 22:01, 17 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Austrian legislative election, 1949}}
• {{Tfd links|Austrian legislative election, 1945}}
• {{Tfd links|Austrian legislative election, 1953}}
• {{Tfd links|Austrian legislative election, 2006}}
• {{Tfd links|Austrian legislative election, 2008}}
• {{Tfd links|Austrian presidential election, 1986}}
• {{Tfd links|Austrian presidential election, 1992}}
• {{Tfd links|Austrian presidential election, 2016}}

All single-use that should be substituted onto the respective articles per the standard on Austrian legislative election articles. The 2016 presidential election template is redundant as the 2016 article uses a different table. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)4

• Delete/subst and delete as appropriate. Unnecessary single use/unused templates. Number 57 22:01, 17 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Serbian presidential election, 1992}}
• {{Tfd links|Serbian presidential election, December 2002}}
• {{Tfd links|Serbian presidential election, 2003}}
• {{Tfd links|Serbian presidential election, 2004}}
• {{Tfd links|Serbian presidential election, 2008}}
• {{Tfd links|Serbian presidential election, 2012}}

Single-use templates that should be substituted per the standard on Serbian presidential election articles.

• Subst and delete. Unnecessary single use templates. Number 57 22:01, 17 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Serbian parliamentary election, 1990}}
• {{Tfd links|Serbian parliamentary election, 1992}}
• {{Tfd links|Serbian parliamentary election, 2008}}
• {{Tfd links|Serbian parliamentary election, 2012}}

Single-use templates that should be substituted per the standard on Serbian parliamentary election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Subst and delete. Unnecessary single use templates. Number 57 22:01, 17 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Belgrade local election, 2008}}
• {{Tfd links|Belgrade local election, 2012}}
• {{Tfd links|Vojvodina parliamentary election, 2004}}

Single-use templates should be substituted onto the articles they are used on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete/subst and delete as appropriate. Unnecessary single use/unused templates. Number 57 22:01, 17 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Swiss National Council election, 2007}}
• {{Tfd links|Grand Council of Vaud election, 2007}}
• {{Tfd links|Swiss Council of States election, 2007}}
• {{Tfd links|Swiss National Council election, 2011}}
• {{Tfd links|Grand Council of Geneva election, 2009}}
• {{Tfd links|Swiss Council of States election, 2011}}
• {{Tfd links|Swiss Council of States election, 2011 by canton}}
• {{Tfd links|Grand Council of Geneva election, 2013}}
• {{Tfd links|Grand Council of Geneva election, 2018}}

The 2007, 2009, 2011 templates should be substituted onto the articles where they are used. The 2013 and 2018 templates are unused as there exists no mainspace for them to be used. But can be recreated if an article were to be created and substituted when the time comes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete/subst and delete as appropriate (and call using #section function when used on a second article). Number 57 22:01, 17 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Slovenian parliamentary election, 2004}}
• {{Tfd links|Slovenian parliamentary election, 2008}}
• {{Tfd links|Slovenian parliamentary election, 2011}}
• {{Tfd links|Slovenian parliamentary election, 2014}}
• {{Tfd links|Slovenian presidential election, 2007}}
• {{Tfd links|European Parliament election, 2004 (Slovenia)}}
• {{Tfd links|European Parliament election, 2009 (Slovenia)}}
• {{Tfd links|European Parliament election, 2014 (Slovenia)}}
• {{Tfd links|European Parliament election, 2019 (Slovenia)}}

All unused as the respective article use different tables for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Unused and unnecessary. Number 57 22:01, 17 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Swedish general election, 2006}}
• {{Tfd links|Swedish general election, 2010}}
• {{Tfd links|Swedish general election, 2002}}
• {{Tfd links|Swedish municipal election, 1991}}

All single-use and should be substituted onto the articles they are used on per the standard for Swedish general election and local election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete/subst and delete as appropriate (and call using #section function when used on a second article). Number 57 22:01, 17 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Amata Friendship Cup}}

This was a navbox created on the basis that the 2018 event would become one of a series. However, it is currently a one-off and there doesn't seem much prospect of another event in the near future, making it completely useless. It can readily be recreated should there be a number of future editions. Nigej (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete A one-off event with a one-off template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:24, 15 July 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).

: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 merge to Template:Infobox Indian state legislative assembly constituency. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Infobox Assam Vidhan Sabha constituency|module=|type=merge}}
• {{Tfd links|Infobox Kerala Niyamasabha Constituency|module=|type=merge}}
• {{Tfd links|Infobox Vidhan Sabha constituency|module=|type=merge}}
• {{Tfd links|Infobox state assembly constituency|module=|type=merge}}
• {{Tfd links|Infobox Indian state legislative assembly constituency|module=|type=merge}}

Propose merging Template:Infobox Assam Vidhan Sabha constituency, Template:Infobox Kerala Niyamasabha Constituency, Template:Infobox Vidhan Sabha constituency and Template:Infobox state assembly constituency with Template:Infobox Indian state legislative assembly constituency.

What are the differences between them? Can they be merged? 122.167.185.249 (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• SupportYes, they can be merged as single source for all the state's assembly constituencies Nahtrav (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support Merge all into Infobox state assembly constituency. No need for every individual constituency to be on its own template. Help eliminates the clutter issue at hand. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Some research:
• Infobox Vidhan Sabha constituency is used for most of the states' constituencies except the ones below.
• Infobox state assembly constituency seems to be used only for TN constituencies and doesn't have more parameters than the first one
• The Kerala one has 'self governed segments' and 'constituency no' extra parameters
• The Assam one has division, region and politicalAlliance extra parameters
• Indian state legislative assembly constituency is now just a redirect to Infobox state assembly constituency -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support merge. We can discuss what parameters to leave in, a bit later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support merge. Better to retain all parameters from all existing Templates. Also two parameters should be added. When a seat is splitted or reformed, we do not have basic parameters to navigate to it's predecessor and successor. For Example, Chepauk (state assembly constituency) and Triplicane (state assembly constituency) were merged and reformed as Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni (State Assembly Constituency). Some reference should be there in Page Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni (State Assembly Constituency) where preceding Constituency name should be named as Chepauk (state assembly constituency) and Triplicane (state assembly constituency). In both Chepauk (state assembly constituency) and Triplicane (state assembly constituency) Pages, succeeding Page should be navigated to Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni (State Assembly Constituency). {{Re|MPGuy2824}}, {{Re|Nahtrav}}, {{Re|Lesenwriter}}, {{Re|Goswami21}}, please comment on this suggestion. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

:: @Vijethnbharadwaj, Can that be given in a seperate paragraph?, Becoz already the Infobox is so long that it may lead to skip, and some constituencies are merged with 3 or 4 other constituencies, and if they are added in Infobox, would that be Crisp and neat? Nahtrav (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support merge. We can discuss what parameters to leave in, a bit later. -Lesenwriter (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion

:Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_state_assembly_constituency/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template%3ADocumentation%2Fpreload-sandbox create] | [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_state_assembly_constituency/sandbox&preload=Template%3ADocumentation%2Fmirror&action=edit&summary=Create+sandbox+version+of+%5B%5BTemplate%3AInfobox+state+assembly+constituency%5D%5D mirror]) and testcases ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_state_assembly_constituency/testcases&action=edit&preload=Template%3ADocumentation%2Fpreload-testcases create]) pages. Add categories to the /doc subpage. Subpages of this template. 122.171.50.219 (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

::Editors are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles/Archive 1#Legislative Assembly constituency names. 122.171.50.219 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support merge - no reason for that many specific templates when a well crafted generic template is all that's needed. Ravensfire (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support merge into one single template. -- DaxServer (talk) 08:42, 18 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|FoP-Bangladesh}}

This template is actually redundant to c:Template:FoP-Bangladesh. Bangladesh has full FOP that is accepted at Commons, thus it is highly unlikely to upload local version of images of Bengali buildings, sculptures etc. here on enwiki (this is impractical in real life). Note that it was originally a redirect to commons template, but was created on 01:32, 11 March 2013 (Manila time or time zone of this TfD nominator) by a user who is now blocked as a sockpuppet.

There are no files on enwiki using this template, so it is safe to delete this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:52, 15 July 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).

: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 keep, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Latest stable software release/xMule}}

This template is no longer used. It was used on xMule, which was deleted as non-notable. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

: Well, xMule was deleted, so obviously this template should be deleted too. But I didn't receive any notification of the AfD of xMule, which has 7 other languages versions. The reason of that deletion included "[...] There is no reliable third-party coverage at all [...]" I would probably argue that there was a [https://yro.slashdot.org/story/03/08/21/1333258/riaampaa-vs-xmule-author-earthstation-5 known case, RIAA/MPAA vs. xMule Author, with third-party coverage] back then. But OK, maybe it could have a place in eDonkey software or somewhere and have a redirect link. (Anton also removed everthing xMule-related in eDonkey software and eDonkey network#Client software, which I don't understand, I'll discuss in the relevant talk pages.) --Tomchen1989 (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

::Hi {{u|Tomchen1989}}, if you believe xMule should be restored, you can request undeletion. You didn't get an AfD notification because xMule was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=119343195 deleted via PROD]. To make sure you get PROD notification on a page, you should "star" it (add it to your watch list) and then you will be notified of any change to the page, including PROD nomination. I think the info about RIAA/MPAA vs. xMule case can be included somewhere else, for example on one of eDonkey articles, one of *Mule articles, or Timeline of file sharing. However, the link you provided does not appear to be reliable source. Anton.bersh (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

:::WP:Reliable sources for software articles#Online media and blogs: "[...]including the uncontroversial Slashdot posts[...]" --Tomchen1989 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure I'll file an undeletion request though. I just want these deleted articles to at least have their redirect pages to sections/anchors in eDonkey software, which clearly do not require as much notability as an article requires. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

:::I've found several other books that mention xMule: [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hackez_votre_Eee_PC/0MId3jwoKukC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=xMule&pg=PA18&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/D%C3%A9buter_sous_Linux_avec_Mandriva/0xx1gDjizTsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=xMule&pg=PA200&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advances_in_Network_Analysis_and_its_App/8o1jAnekV1gC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=xMule&pg=PA365&printsec=frontcover], and even a book [https://www.amazon.fr/xMule-Peer-Peer-BitTorrent-Protocol/dp/6131053669 xMule: File Sharing, Peer-to-Peer, eDonkey Network, BitTorrent (Protocol)]. That's definitely a keep for xMule then. Actually if you are familiar with this subject, you know back then xMule made eDonkey truly cross-plateform, and aMule (probably the second most popular eDonkey software) is based on xMule, so xMule should have a place in P2P/eDonkey software history. I'll file an undeletion request for xMule. However for Template:Latest stable software release/xMule, I don't really care, such templates are usually created for frequently updated software, so even if xMule is undeleted, it may not need this template. So go ahead, delete the template. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

:::I filed WP:Requests for undeletion#xMule. Meanwhile I suddenly realised that: actually, after the undeletion, both xMule and Comparison of eDonkey software#Versions will probably need this template so editors do not need to write the version number and the source twice. So maybe hold on and wait for the result of that undeletion. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Redundant as the article it was used for no longer exists. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: xMule has been undeleted (all reasons it should be kept) and the template is now used in xMule and Comparison of eDonkey software#Versions. The reason for the deletion of the template is gone. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Now used again at xMule. MarioGom (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: I retract the deletion nomination because the original reasoning no longer applies. (I nominated template for deletion because it was not used, but now it is used again.) Anton.bersh (talk) 21:49, 16 July 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).

: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 keep. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|External links}}

Yet another of these maintenance templates that users put like "I'm a boss telling you what to do, and you should do it for me", and then it happily hangs there for a five years or even more. IMHO the users who want to make a cleanup should just do it, not relying on somebody. — Mike Novikoff 01:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Ignoring the issues will not make them go away. Are you planning to nominate the other templates in {{cl|Cleanup templates}} as well? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• It depends on the feedback. Frankly, I really think that such templates do more harm than good. It's always the same: someone puts a template in an article and feels he's done. And as the one who frequently does the actual cleanup I'd say that I'd rather ignore a marked section and think that "there might be some bigger boys to deal with it". Yes, I feel that, too. The problem is that there are no "bigger boys". No Somebody "Notme" Else at all. — Mike Novikoff 04:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• That's called "collaborative editing" and there is nothing wrong with it. Don't assume all editors have a lot of time to edit. Sometimes I come back and do the work, sometimes I don't have time. Regardless, it doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the article! Skyerise (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• So you don't admit that the stale maintenance templates make a problem themselves? And it's an *additional* problem, additionally to the one that may (or may not!) exist there already. — Mike Novikoff 22:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Ideally, someone will always respond to any maintenance template, and will do it promptly, and in the best way possible. But we are not living in a perfect world, and 20 years of the existence of Wikipedia should be enough to realize this. — Mike Novikoff 22:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• :Exactly. We don't live in a perfect world, so while ideally {{tq|users who want to make a cleanup should just do it}}, there isn't always time, or there are an overwhelming number of links, or someone needs a reminder to do it later themselves. And yes, sometimes templates are misused. The same could be said for literally any feature of Wikipedia. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I've seen the pages where this is used. This template does not make sense at all. The external links used are in fact relevant to the article subject. And frankly, if some articles' external links are not specific to the article matter, then it can be changed easily. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I often come across articles that have one of two things wrong: 1) excessive links in the 'External links' section, in which case I delete them as long as it's obvious what should go vs. stay, but it isn't always, so I tag the article instead; 2) external links in the body text, sometimes literally dozens of them, and I can't always be bothered to start weeding them out, in which case IMO it's better to tag than to just turn a blind eye — if nothing else, it at least makes the point that there is actually a policy governing the use of external links, and they can't be added willy-nilly. (I might also mention that in the vast majority of cases, the excess links are quite promotional in nature; not a coincidence, I don't think.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. While I understand where the nominator is coming from, getting rid of this template does little to solve the actual problem. Yes, "not me" frequently ends up being the case, and I do think users who tag it should take more action, but it does still alert other editors to fix a problem. I'll second DoubleGrazing's points as well. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 03:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep but maybe make some change to the template. The template is useful because the problem of excessive external links exists. But I understand Mike's concern. Many articles have this template in their "External links" section, but few of them have related discussion in the talk page or further, detailed instruction as to which links should be removed. And it's not very obvious how to cleanup the external links in most cases. Is there an inline template that looks like "^{[inappropriate external link]}"? I did a quick search but didn't find any. This inline template could even be designed as hiding the potential inappropriate link after 15 days if uncontested. Editors using {{tl|External links}} should be encouraged to add such inline template to the links they consider inappropriate, and/or discuss in the talk page, and {{tl|External links}} should explicitly add a sentence, something like "it is recommended whoever uses {{tl|External links}} also add that inline template or discuss in the talk page". --Tomchen1989 (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The nomination seems to be against cleanup templates generally; while I'm sympathetic to that view, there are editors who use these templates to locate particular types of cleanup tasks to undertake, so the templates do serve a purpose in that regard. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As others have said, removing this template won't fix the problem, and I feel it does more benefit than harm. One example is placing it on the article of a fairly new editor, which prompts them to in turn learn more about the policy. If the placing editor just fixed the links themselves, the newer editor would be likely to do it again. (Of course there is the argument of placing something on the newer editors talk page instead, but in practice more than just one editor can potentially learn from it when it's on the article itself.) I would potentially support better wording on the template though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep An editor may be able to spot a problem but not know how best to fix it if they only have a limited knowledge of the subject. This template adds the article to the clean up list for related wikiprojects where it can be seen by others who may be more familiar with the topic and therefore better at assessing which links to keep or remove. EdwardUK (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps they are not sure whether to use [Ctrl+Y] or [Shift+arrow, Del]? Or maybe their choice is between [Del-Del-Del-Del-Del] and [BackSpace-BackSpace-BackSpace-BackSpace-BackSpace]? ;-) An editor is either certain to delete a link, or he isn't, and in the latter case he shouldn't pollute the mainspace even further. He can start a discussion instead, for instance. And if you care about the cleanup categories (I personally don't, most of the time), they can well reside in the talk or some other space, not in the main. — Mike Novikoff 22:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• When there is a long list of external links it is not a case of remove everything or delete all, but of which and how many, and whether other links could be converted to inline citations. If the issue was only pointed out on the talk page very few people would be aware it, especially less experienced editors who would most benefit from seeing templates that raise awareness of policies and guidelines. The misuse of external links is the pollution, the template is there not just for clean-up, but also to stop people stepping in it and spreading it around. EdwardUK (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - necessary template to keep forests of external links under control. Skyerise (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - The logic of the nomination seems to suggest all maintenance templates should be deleted and whoever spots the problem should fix it. There are editors who are are well versed in certain aspects of articles and these templates help them track down articles that need attention in their area of expertise. New Page Patrol is a triage function to ensure new pages meet the minimum standards. If patrollers were expected to resolve all issues on all new articles rather than tagging, then the process would grind to a halt. The template is in a way confusing as it can be used for excessive or inappropriate links in the External links section, and also embedded links within the body instead of references (WP:CS:EMBED). Perhaps the template needs to be split to provide a clearer template for both external links problems. --John B123 (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons enumerated above. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Like any other cleanup template, it's useful for pointing up tasks that need to be addressed.

:I don't buy the argument "IMHO the users who want to make a cleanup should just do it, not relying on somebody." Wikipedia is a cooperative effort and there's nothing wrong with asking for help. I recently made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leigh_Blackmore&type=revision&diff=1033641296&oldid=1032371464 dozen or so edits] fixing inappropriate EL use on this article before exhaustion set in. The tag helped me see and partially address the problem. I did not get them all, and left the tag so others can help, and I see nothing wrong with that. TJRC (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Snow keep. The nomination basically says, "I don't like how this template is used", which says nothing about whether the template exists for valid reasons or not. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:25, 20 July 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).