Login
Login

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 21

< May 20

May 22 >

=[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 21|May 21]]=

== [[Template:Mdy category]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Mdy category}}

Unused maintenance templates. Seems Template:Monthly clean-up category/Messages/Type/Use mdy dates is the one used. Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Whatever happens to this one should be paralleled in Template:Dmy category I presume. I don't really get why that one is still used but this one no longer is, but I'm not going to dive into the module rabbithole to see when, how, and why this was changed. I don't believe that Template:Monthly clean-up category/Messages/Type/Use mdy dates has anything to do with this though, that is just a text message, not the complete template with a counter and so on included. Fram (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Ah, I see: someone updated all the mdy categories earlier this year[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AUse_mdy_dates_from_June_2014&diff=1267947918&oldid=969774913], but not the dmy categories. So, I guess that these should be made parallel again, either by reverting the mdy cats or by changing the dmy cats. The fate of this template depends on what gets chosen. Fram (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Seems User:AnomieBOT creates new categories with {{tl|Monthly clean-up category}} (see :Category:Use dmy dates from July 2017), so the rest of the categories should be switched as well. Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Which way do we want to standardize this? In favor of {{tl|Monthly clean-up category}} (even though these aren't really cleanup categories in the standard sense), or in favor of separate templares?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 14:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:To answer Pppery's question, I personally don't mind either way, however if the monthly template isn't used, then AnomieBOT needs to be updated to create new ones with this template (not sure complexity or even if they want to edit their bot code). If this does get deleted, then I'll nominate the Dmy version so both will be handled the same. Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Courtesy ping {{u|Anomie}} since changes to their bot are being discussed. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::: I don't see any reason for this to be used over {{tl|Monthly clean-up category}}. It seems this, Template:Dmy category, and Template:English variant category only exist because someone at one point decided that these weren't "clean up" categories and started swapping the templates, but then gave up changing them behind AnomieBOT after a few years. Anomie⚔ 01:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

== NFL Team Years ==

  • {{Tfd links|Cardinals NFL season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Ravens season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Bills season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Panthers season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Bears season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Bengals season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Browns season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Cowboys season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Broncos season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Lions season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Packers season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Texans season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Colts season}}
  • {{Tfd links|BColts season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Chiefs season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Chargers season}}
  • {{Tfd links|San Diego season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Rams season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Dolphins season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Vikings season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Patriots season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Saints season}}
  • {{Tfd links|FGiants season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Jets season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Raiders season}}
  • {{Tfd links|LAraiders season}}
  • {{Tfd links|LVraiders season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Eagles season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Steelers season}}
  • {{Tfd links|49ers season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Seahakws season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Buccaneers season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Titans season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Toilers season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Washington Football Team season}}
  • {{Tfd links|Redskins season}}

The reasoning for the previous TFD was flawed and is not applicable. That said, these templates actually do not serve a useful purpose, which is reflected in their almost non-existent utilization. Of all the templates listed, only {{tl|Steelers season}} is widely used (216 articles). Seven other templates have 3 or less uses in article space (Seahawks, 49ers, Vikings, San Diego, Colts, Lions, and Cardinals). Second, the templates are ostensibly used to shorten a string of text, but in reality it barely does this. As an example, the string {{PackersSeason|2025}} creates the code GB, but this is only a different between 22 characters and 36 characters! Thus, we have to decide whether 14 characters is worth additional template calls on a page. And let's say this template is used for its intended purpose, as an example, in Brett Favre, we are talking maybe about 300 extra characters, but 20+ template calls. Lastly, I will note that some of these templates don't act in the same manner. As an example, our Steelers example, produces the specific year for the team's season, similar to what {{tl|nfly}} does, whereas the other templates create a season link but show the team's abbreviation instead of year (i.e. per the documentation, to be used in stat tables). So we have barely used, confusing, and minimally helpful templates here. As such, I recommend deleting and replacing with the relevant text string. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Deleted all. Most if not all of the above are unused and have been unused for years. I've been hesitant to nominate them for obvious reasons but have kept on eye on them. Additionally, a general template does already exist (and has been for 7 years): {{Tl|NFL team season}}, so nothing is lost. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Delete all per non. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 05:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:2025 in American soccer]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|2025 in American soccer}}

A recent discussion reached a consensus that U.S. and Canada soccer club seasons should be kept in seperate navboxes according to their leagues. What then are we to make of the "Club seasons" section of this navbox and its predecessors? Not only does it clutter the navbox, there already exists {{tl|2025 MLS season by team}}, {{tl|2025 MLS Next Pro season by team}}, {{tl|2025 USL Championship season}}, and {{tl|2025 NWSL season by team}}. I feel we should either split the "Club seasons" section of this navbox and merge it into these individual navboxes, or merge the individual navboxes into the section here.

Pinging {{Reply to|p=|prefix=|Brindille1|GiantSnowman|PeeJay|Vestrian24Bio}} as participants in the aforementioned discussion, and {{Reply to|p=|prefix=|2pou|Blaixx|EvansHallBear|GrouchoPython|Hey man im josh|Rylesbourne|Tomrtn}} as major contributors to some of the five navboxes involved. WikiProject Football, its United States and Canada task force, and WikiProject Sports have been notified of this discussion, and has been listed in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. — AFC Vixen 🦊 18:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Support merging - There's no need for {{tl|2025 MLS season by team}}, {{tl|2025 MLS Next Pro season by team}}, {{tl|2025 USL Championship season}} or {{tl|2025 NWSL season by team}} to exist when we have this template. – PeeJay 20:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :I feel you may have missed the point of this discussion. Do you have a reason why you prefer to resolve the redundancy by merging instead of splitting? — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::Have I though? Fine, we don't have {{tl|YYYY competition season by team}} navboxes for any other competition, so why for the North American leagues? If need be, we can create separate navboxes for men's and women's football, but splitting by competition is quite unusual. – PeeJay 08:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :::It's common outside of North American soccer, actually. Examples include {{tl|2025 NFL season by team}}, {{tl|2025 CFL season by team}}, {{tl|2025 MLB season by team}}, {{tl|2024–25 NHL season by team}}, {{tl|2024–25 NBA season by team}}, {{tl|2025 WNBA season by team}}, and {{tl|2025 NLL season by team}}. I find these useful in preventing the overgrowth of navboxes such as {{tl|2025 in American soccer}} to a state that's more difficult for readers to navigate than necessary. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Split - the current template is far too large and unwieldy, to the point of being impossible to use. GiantSnowman 20:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Split - Would allow us to keep MLS team seasons together without having Canadian teams show up in a American soccer template. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support merging per PeeJay. Rylesbourne (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: {{ping|AFC Vixen}} the previous discussion about US and Canada soccer club seasons ended has a no consensus, it did not reach any consensus. Vestrian24Bio 13:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Split. The 'league by year' navboxes have links that aren't in the "20XX in American soccer" template. If we merged instead of split, we would have to add even more links to that one which is already too large as-is. BLAIXX 22:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Split - Given the length of the template, it is more ideal to split. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:Campaignbox Danish colonial conflicts]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Campaignbox Danish colonial conflicts}}

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

: NLeeuw (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep Template:Campaign/doc elaborates with, "(or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars)." This, along with other colonial campaign boxes, fit that bill, as well as providing "convenient navigation among articles." I've made great use of these colonial campaignboxes in the past; not just this Danish one, but the Japanese and Dutch ones in particular. UncleBourbon (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :Concur above CR055H41RZ (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DonBeroni (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 13:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Template:Campaignbox/doc: {{tq|The campaignbox template [is] intended to provide context and convenient navigation among articles on the battles in a campaign, front, theater or war (or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars).}} RobertJohnson35 – talk 15:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep but i think we should make changes, deleting early crusades in the campaignbox, as these were not "colonial" Tinkaer1991 (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :How do we determine whether a conflict is "colonial" or not? We're risking WP:OR. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep E4t5s.new (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Baal Nautes (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:Campaignbox Portuguese battles in the Indian Ocean]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Campaignbox Portuguese battles in the Indian Ocean}}

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

: NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 13:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I would have said keep but this campaignbox is too specific. RobertJohnson35 – talk 15:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Javext (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:Campaignbox Russian colonial campaigns]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Campaignbox Russian colonial campaigns}}

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

: NLeeuw (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 13:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Template:Campaignbox/doc: {{tq|The campaignbox template [is] intended to provide context and convenient navigation among articles on the battles in a campaign, front, theater or war (or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars).}} RobertJohnson35 – talk 15:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Baal Nautes (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:Campaignbox Japanese colonial campaigns]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Campaignbox Japanese colonial campaigns}}

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

: NLeeuw (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Keep, these all should not be being deleted as there is not an effective alternative for navigation CR055H41RZ (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep per reasoning outlined in Danish colonial campaigns campaignbox entry. UncleBourbon (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename useful for navigation and stuff. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 13:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Template:Campaignbox/doc: {{tq|The campaignbox template [is] intended to provide context and convenient navigation among articles on the battles in a campaign, front, theater or war (or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars).}} RobertJohnson35 – talk 15:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per RobertJohnson35. And to be quite honest, the same for every other duplicate proposal for deletion on the same grounds. I don't know why everyone's trying to make Wikipedia harder to navigate when WP:USEFUL clearly provides grounds for navigation tools and pages like these campaignboxes under "usefulness is the basis of their inclusion", when they support Wikipedia's basic goal of facilitating access to summaries of relevant knowledge on a topic. "Conflicts a nation fought to create its colonial empire" are all relevant information to each other, by nature. Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per the same reasons. Baal Nautes (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:Campaignbox Dutch colonial campaigns]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Campaignbox Dutch colonial campaigns}}

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

: NLeeuw (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep per reasoning outlined in Danish colonial campaigns campaignbox entry. UncleBourbon (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Template:Campaignbox/doc: {{tq|The campaignbox template [is] intended to provide context and convenient navigation among articles on the battles in a campaign, front, theater or war (or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars).}} RobertJohnson35 – talk 15:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per the same reasons. Baal Nautes (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:Campaignbox Portuguese colonial campaigns]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Campaignbox Portuguese colonial campaigns}}

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

: NLeeuw (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:Campaignbox Spanish colonial campaigns]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Campaignbox Spanish colonial campaigns}}

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

: NLeeuw (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Template:Campaignbox/doc: {{tq|The campaignbox template [is] intended to provide context and convenient navigation among articles on the battles in a campaign, front, theater or war (or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars).}} This campaignbox is a little messed up but we could restore this version {{dif|1279243780}}. RobertJohnson35 – talk 15:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Keep per @RobertJohnson35's view Genabab (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Keep Baal Nautes (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::@RobertJohnson35 Fair points. MOS:CAMPAIGN appears to have been sufficient to get the previous campaignboxes deleted, so in this new series of nominations for deletion, I did not expect as many Keep votes. (Although everyone appears to agree Template:Campaignbox Portuguese battles in the Indian Ocean should be deleted). Are there any "authoritative" rules or conventions for campaignboxes specifically, such as inclusion criteria and length? All I can find so far are some general conventions and recommendations on navigation templates and navboxes in general.

::* Benjitheijneb invoked one sentence from WP:USEFUL: {{tq|There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument.}} But WP:USEFUL adds: {{tq|Usefulness is subjective, and a cogent argument must be more specific: who is the content useful for, and why?}} Benjitheijneb commented: {{xt|when they support Wikipedia's basic goal of facilitating access to summaries of relevant knowledge on a topic. "Conflicts a nation fought to create its colonial empire" are all relevant information to each other, by nature.}} But I'm not sure that is enough to fulfill the requirement, or whether a template is the best way to organise this information.

::* WP:CLNT helpfully remarks: {{tq|Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others.}}. WP:NAVBOX outlines those very well, and for this and most of the other templates I nominated on 21 May, I find myself in agreement with Disadvantages no. #4, #5, #7, #8, #9, and #11. (In my opinion, #7-9 do not apply to Template:Campaignbox Japanese colonial campaigns and Template:Campaignbox Russian colonial campaigns, because they are relatively small, but their grouping is still arbitrary and subject to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH).

::* WP:NAV-RELATED states: {{tq|If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them.}} This is especially the case with wars/conflicts between country A and country B, which are very vulnerable to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. This is why Template:Campaignbox Russo–German conflicts was deleted, and I nominated Template:Campaignbox Russo-French Wars, Template:Campaignbox Spanish-Ottoman wars and Template:Campaignbox Franco-Spanish wars as a direct follow-up. You agree with this, at least partially: {{xt|We can remove all the conflicts from before the formation of Spain and those for which there are no sources that say they are Franco-Spanish wars.}} The problem with the template space is that it can't really cite sources. (The same goes for the category space). This is why I think listifying some or all of these campaignbox templates might be a better solution than either keeping or deleting them, because...

::*... WP:TG states: {{tq|Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or "See also" section list can perform the same function.}} I think neither categories nor See also sections would be a better alternative than a campaignbox in (most of) these cases, but a list article would be better than a campaignbox.

::What do you think? I'm open to your perspective, as you've given me good reasons to rethink why and how I nominated these campaignboxes for deletion. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:Campaignbox Franco-Spanish wars]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Campaignbox Franco-Spanish wars}}

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. There is also a lot of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH going on, such as framing Albigensian Crusade as a "Franco-Spanish war" even though "Spain" didn't exist yet. Follow-up to:

== [[Template:Campaignbox Spanish-Ottoman wars]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Campaignbox Spanish-Ottoman wars}}

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

: NLeeuw (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Spanish–Ottoman wars is a template created by spliting Ottoman–Habsburg wars one in it's Mediterranean theater. Nor to mention that legally the Spanish-Ottoman war declared by Charles I at the start of XVI century never ended until a formal peace treaty was done in 1782 at the time of Charles IV of Spain. So all those conflicts are completely related as campaigns and theaters of a 3 century war Sr L (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Obviously. The House of Habsburg and the Ottoman Empire were constantly, uninterruptedly, ongoing, continuously, unendingly, without break or pause, at war with each other 24/7 for 300 years. Peace treaty? What is that?{{jokes}}

:::Kidding aside, this campaignbox simply does not conform to MOS:CAMPAIGN. NLeeuw (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I find the split necessary. The conflict between Spain and the Ottomans stopped being part of the Ottoman-Habsburg wars when Spain ceased being ruled by the Habsburgs after the War of the Spanish Succession in 1714. Baal Nautes (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Wrong. per Template:Infobox_military_conflict it states the Campaignboxes may be used more rarely among plural campaigns or wars CR055H41RZ (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There were only truces since the start of war durinng Empire of Charles V era, but never a formal peace treaty until Treaty of Karlowitz for Austrian Habsburg and Treaty of Constantinople [es] for Hispanic Monarchy (under Bourbons at that time). And even then, there were a bit of successive conflicts until Napoleonic era. Sr L (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Even if you were wrong, the template documentation admits multiple wars or campaigns in a single campaignbox, so there's no reason to delete it anyway. RobertJohnson35 – talk 12:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Template:Campaignbox/doc: {{tq|The campaignbox template [is] intended to provide context and convenient navigation among articles on the battles in a campaign, front, theater or war (or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars).}} RobertJohnson35 – talk 15:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons given by RobertJohnson35. Baal Nautes (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:Campaignbox Russo-French Wars]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Campaignbox Russo-French Wars}}

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

: NLeeuw (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::The Franco-Russian Wars fullfy the same conditions like other templates concerning geopolitical rivalries between 2 militar powers (which constitutes a particular conflict), like Anglo-Spanish War or Anglo-French Wars Sr L (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:SYNTH. NLeeuw (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Oppose as per @Sr L(talk). Leutha (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:Zal Batmanglij]] ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  • {{Tfd links|Zal Batmanglij}}

Links to two films; does not meet guidelines at MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 14:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've added the TV series he created, but still borderline WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 14:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

== [[Template:Lok Sabha composition]] ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by {{admin|The Anome}} AnomieBOT⚡ 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  • {{Tfd links|Lok Sabha composition}}

Template is not used in any articles. TarnishedPathtalk 11:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

== [[Template:Supermarket chains in Turkey]] ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  • {{Tfd links|Supermarket chains in Turkey}}

Very incomplete template, full of external links and questionable links. Not of any value at the moment. The Banner talk 11:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

== [[Template:Cretaceous stratigraphy of the central Colombian Eastern Ranges]] ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  • {{Tfd links|Cretaceous stratigraphy of the central Colombian Eastern Ranges}}

This table is not going to be accessible to anyone with its chaotic arrangement of cells. It's also composed of more red links than not. I couldn't even begin to suggest what an appropriate replacement might look like, so I'm suggesting full deletion. Izno (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

== [[Template:Infobox road/shield/SAD]] ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  • {{Tfd links|Infobox road/shield/SAD}}

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

== [[Template:Wikicite]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Wikicite|module= |type=merge}}
  • {{Tfd links|SfnRef inline|module= |type=merge}}

Propose merging Template:Wikicite with Template:SfnRef inline.

{{tl|SfnRef inline}} and {{tl|wikicite}} both allow the shortened footnotes created by Module:Footnotes to link to a full citation that is either handwritten or transcluding a template that does not yet create an anchor for short citations.

Wikicite can:

  1. Be placed after the full citation.
  2. Wrap around the full citation which creates popup tooltips on mouseover and highlights the full citation when clicked, similar to standard references.

SfnRef inline can:

  1. Be placed after the full citation.

I am proposing a merge rather than a redirect because SfnRef inline also:

  • Has the more clear name and should likely be the post-merge title. Wikicite's partner template {{tl|wikiref}}, was deleted 15 years ago because it was never widely used.
  • Accepts the same numerical parameters as Module:Footnotes does in more common templates like {{tl|sfn}}, {{tl|harv}}, {{tl|sfnp}}, and so on.
  • Has more clear documentation.

Both templates have the same code in their sandbox and testcases. If you have a "harv" errors script installed, you should be able to quickly see the differences in anchor creation on the testcases below. If you don't have any error script for shortened footnotes, you'll need to click the links in the "Short citations for testing examples below" to see the difference.

Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  • I don't think that placing either of these after the full citation can be correct. For accessibility reasons, if nothing else, the emitted anchor should really be before the citation; and that is what happens when {{tlx|wikicite}} uses its {{para|reference}} parameter to enclose the full citation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :@Redrose64, that's a good point, and one of many things to address in the documentation. It wouldn't affect how the transcluded template is written, though, would it? Rjjiii (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Regarding {{tq|2. Wrap around the full citation which creates popup tooltips on mouseover and highlights the full citation when clicked, similar to standard references.}}, will this be lost with this merge? I'm rather a fan of this feature, so I wouldn't be thrilled to see it go. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :@Michael Aurel, it will not be lost; the feature would be added to {{tl|SfnRef inline}}. Check out the sandbox examples at Template:Wikicite/testcases. The merge would result in both of the below options to wrap the full citation:
  • :*{{wikicite |ref={{sfnref|Buchanan|2023}} |reference=Buchanan, Abigail. (14 November 2023). "We are making bagpipes sexy again: Inside the late Queen's beloved Scottish music school". The Daily Telegraph) }}
  • :*{{wikicite|Buchanan|2023 |reference=Buchanan, Abigail. (14 November 2023). "We are making bagpipes sexy again: Inside the late Queen's beloved Scottish music school". The Daily Telegraph) }}
  • :Rjjiii (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::Great, thanks for the clarification. No issues in my book, then. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support merger, in every respect discussed above. This is a +5 Plan of Goodness.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: I suggest to merge the other way: {{tnl|SfnRef inline}} -> {{tnl|Wikicite}} because a) the former has less than a dozen transclusions, the latter >2200; b) the name part "inline" doesn't describe how Wikicite is used, which is in the "Sources" section of articles, along with standard specific citation template, like {{tnl|Cite book}}, {{tnl|Cite journal}}. Checking 2 articles that use {{tnl|SfnRef inline}}, it's used there also in that section, not inline. The suggested new functionality of separating the citation anchor from the citation itself is a step backwards. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :@Michael Bednarek, thanks for the response. To better understand your positions, are you saying:
  • :# That the merged template should be titled {{tl|wikicite}} or something similar to {{tl|Cite book}}? For transparency, there was another rarely used template called Template:Cite plain.
  • :# That the merged template should continue to support wrapping the full citation, or that it should only support wrapping the full citation and existing transclusions of {{tl|SfnRef inline}} should be converted to the {{wikicite|ref=}} format?
  • :Rjjiii (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::1.: Yes, it should be named {{tnl|wikicite}} because that's the overwhelmingly used name now.
  • ::2.: Of course the merged template must continue to support wrapping the full citation. I'm indifferent (though disapproving) to the current possibility of {{tnl|SfnRef inline}} to stand alone. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

To summarize in hopes of getting more input:

Editors agree there should be one template.

Editors raise two points that need to be addressed in the documentation of the merged template but do not affect merging the templates themselves:

  1. Should a non-wrapping anchor always come before (not after) the citation for better accessibility?
  2. Should non-wrapping anchors be discouraged?

For context: The live {{tl|wikicite}} template can make non-wrapping anchors (follow the link Template:Wikicite/testcases#CITEREFBuchanan2023c to test), but the documentation does not mention it. {{tl|SfnRef inline}} only creates non-wrapping anchors.

And Michael Bednarek raises one point to resolve in the template itself. Should the merged template be at

  1. {{tl|SfnRef inline}} or

  2. {{tl|wikicite}}

Thanks all for participating,

Rjjiii (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Template:Politics of ancient Rome]] ==

  • {{Tfd links|Politics of ancient Rome}}

There is no reason to deprecate a sidebar template. It either is useful and the deprecation template should be removed, or it should be replaced and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment: this template has been in use for twenty years, has been regularly maintained, and is, if I understand the statistics correctly, used in about ninety different articles. The "deprecation" message says that it should be replaced by one of two other templates—only one of which currently seems to exist. At the very least, this move seems premature. P Aculeius (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: It appears that this notice was placed after a discussion on the template's talk page, but the rest of the process was not carried out. Pinging {{Ping|Ifly6|Biz|T8612}}, the participants in that discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Is there some other way to say "don't use this template, use these other templates"? The deprecation convention I am used to is persist-indefinitely. The number of pages on which that sidebar was semi-mindlessly dumped is very long. There was general agreement that the combined approach had gradually accumulated into a cruft of barely organised links. As to the replacement templates, I created the republican one; I am not an expert on the imperial period and deferred to others for creation of that sidebar. Ifly6 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, send it here. {{em|Never}} place a deprecation template randomly as it does nothing to solve the problem that you wanted to solve. Gonnym (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:: If this is a deletion discussion, as indicated on the template page itself, I would think a deletion would have to wait for the imperial era template to be created and rolled out. Ifly6 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I did make a start on an empire template, but realised we need a decision on what year we cut it off, and apologies have not continued on it. The previous template used the fall of the 5th-century Western Empire, which is an inappropriate reflection of current scholarship. That said, more important is that the Republic and Empire are differentiated, so I will request that, at minimum, Ifly6's work on those pages remain until more work is done for an empire template. I can work on the template if people here can help with a decision on the end date (it's either the 5th, 8th or 15th centuries). Biz (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Withdrawn Deletion and Keep - Upon further thought it has some useful information. It is best kept. Reader of Information (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note: If this template is kept, I'll be removing the deprecation tag. It can't be both ways. Gonnym (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::I recommend we keep the existing template for pages that use it (ie, Empire content) and the new Republic template can gradually replace pages that relate to that period. In effect, we will now have three templates and over time, the new empire template will come into being, replacing the Ancient Rome template. Biz (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)