templates For Discussion

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed.

XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 0 0 12 12
TfD 0 0 0 11 11
MfD 0 0 1 1 2
FfD 0 0 0 2 2
RfD 0 0 0 51 51
AfD 0 0 0 1 1

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

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:

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Listing a template

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. 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 ... 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://www.duhoctrungquoc.vn/wiki/en/Wiki:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_March_28#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.

Add this text to the top of the list:

  • 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 in the |text= field of 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

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.

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 {{Tfd notice}} for this.

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

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

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

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

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

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. 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

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

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

March 28

March 27

Template:Wolfgang Urchs

Navbox with three links. Subject does not have an English Wikipedia article. DB1729talk 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subsidiaries and branches of RDFZ United

Navbox with only two blue links in the body. DB1729talk 22:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jacksonville Jaguars owner navbox

Just two links, WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 15:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spook's

All but two of these redirect to the same article. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 13:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mirror, Mirror

Three links, no main article. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 11:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ghoulies

Only two links (including main article!) WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 10:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

Template:REC US

Template is under-used, transcluded on only 35 33 pages. NeutralhomerTalk • 16:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's underused because, in my estimation, adding it as a standard transclusion to infoboxes (as suggested) is not needed. However, that's not a reason to delete it; there are pages where it could be useful. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 03:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Underused is not a reason to delete unless it's been outdated and can be replaced by another template. This is not the case. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep per Sammi. Their knowledge of the various radio and station templates has been proven in the past. Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite GREC

Propose merging Template:Cite GREC with Template:GEC.
They cover the identical source, the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana. GEC has 14 mainspace inlinks and is more recent (but no doc); GREC has 17 (and iffy doc). My preference is that the merged name be 'Cite GEC' (and that all such wrappers should start with 'Cite'; they are so much easier to find when they do). Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I created Cite GREC and I have no objections because they cover the same source. That said, calling other volunteers' well-intentioned work "iffy" is not nice, even if it really is iffy.
    Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I beg your pardon. I'm aware of different priorities for getting a valuable template available for others to use, where a volunteer editor may not have the time to also document it, and I value your contribution. Possibly my alter ego as a template-documentation gnome makes me more critical on documentations issues than I ought to be. I apologize; no offense intended. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Concordia Cardinals football coach navbox

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rockford Regents football coach navbox

Navbox only contains three blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MIT Engineers football coach navbox

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:George Fox Bruins football coach navbox

Navbox only contains two blue links (and one duplicate link), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ferrum Panthers football coach navbox

Navbox only contains three blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Castleton Spartans football coach navbox

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Averett Cougars football coach navbox

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alfred State Pioneers football coach navbox

Navbox only contains three blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wingate Bulldogs football coach navbox

Navbox only contains three blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lake Erie Storm football coach navbox

Navbox only contains three blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Allen Yellow Jackets football coach navbox

Navbox only contains three blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anna Maria Amcats football coach navbox

Navbox only contains three blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UT Martin Skyhawks quarterback navbox

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ohio Dominican Panthers football coach navbox

Navbox only contains three blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adams State Grizzlies football navbox

Only three blue links to individual articles, the rest are redirects or links to sections of articles. Template does not provide enough navigation to warrant existence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colorado Mines Orediggers quarterback navbox

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Towson Tigers quarterback navbox

Navbox only contains three blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UMass Boston Beacons football coach navbox

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Massachusetts Maritime Buccaneers football coach navbox

Navbox only contains three blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Texas–Permian Basin Falcons football coach navbox

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eastern Eagles football navbox

No blue links to individual articles, only to redirects or sections of articles. Template does not provide enough navigation to warrant existence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plymouth State Panthers football navbox

Only two blue links to individual articles, the rest are redirects or links to sections of articles. Template does not provide enough navigation to warrant existence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fitchburg State Falcons football navbox

Only one blue link to an individual article, the rest are redirects or link to sections of articles. Template does not provide enough navigation to warrant existence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Westfield State Owls football navbox

No blue links to individual articles, only to redirects or sections of articles. Template does not provide enough navigation to warrant existence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Worcester State Lancers football navbox

Only one blue link to an individual article, the rest are redirects or sections of articles. Template does not provide enough navigation to warrant existence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Massachusetts Maritime Buccaneers football navbox

No blue links to individual articles, only to redirects or sections of articles. Template does not provide enough navigation to warrant existence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western Connecticut Wolves football navbox

No blue links to individual articles, only to sections within articles. This template does not provide adequate navigation to warrant existence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Framingham State Rams football navbox

There are only two blue links that lead to individual articles, the rest link to article sections or are redirects because they were deemed non-notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bridgewater State Bears football navbox

The only blue links are to sections of articles because the topics were not notable on their own. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alabama State Hornets quarterback navbox

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abilene Christian Wildcats quarterback navbox

Navbox only contains three blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keystone Giants football coach navbox

Navbox only contains one blue link, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hilbert Hawks football coach navbox

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USLargestMetros

This is not a good subject for a navbox, this is list content masquerading as a navbox. --woodensuperman 16:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Still useful for navigating between metropolitan area articles, but the navbox does need work; I suggest adding populations and slimming it down to the top 50. SounderBruce 23:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Navboxes are for navigation, not information. Adding populations would make it even more like an article! --woodensuperman 02:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAR-instructions/small navbox

Unused template. Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Lua set

Unused module. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Lang-hbs

Unused module. Still unused 4 years after last nomination. Can't be useful if no one uses it. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:WDloc

Unused module other than in tests and one talk page. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Table graph

Unused module other than in one old talk page. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Ruby-zh

Unused module other than in one sandbox. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:PresRow

Unused module. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Physical constants

    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 speedy delete per WP:G7 (you could have just asked). Primefac (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused module. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

Module:LaTeX2UTF8

Unused module other than in one old user module sandbox. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:F1 2021 Results

Unused module other than in one sandbox. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the user who created this module. That plan sounds good to me, as I am not actively developing it anymore. If I ever decide to work on it again it will be preserved in my sandbox. Cin316 (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:BibTeX2Cite

Unused module other than in one old user module sandbox. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:AusAward

Unused module other than in one example in talk page. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:AfC submission

Unused module. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/...) if the creator wants to keep it. Gonnym (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved and G7'd since I don't have page-mover. Someday I'll finish it. SWinxy (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

Template:Portsmouth Radio/doc

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tijuana Radio/doc

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infodump

Unused. DB1729talk 15:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sydney County Council elections

No links at all in the navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Perth City Council elections

Contains only one link repeated twice to one article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - I'm planning to draft up some of those missing pages, premature deletion Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not premature. You need to have a minimum of five for basic navigation. This was created before there were enough articles. This can be moved into userspace until there is enough. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ds/reviewnav

Unused template for the former discretionary sanctions system. No alternative template in the Template:Contentious topics system that could be redirected to. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vertical flag

Experimental. Its only use is as an example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Flags as headers where it received pretty much universal disapproval. DB1729talk 00:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the original creator, yeah. I do think there is a use to be found for it, but right not there's just none — IмSтevan talk 04:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Social democracy in Greece

The template has no articles related to social democracy in Greece. Historical events have nothing to do with social democracy. Only parties can be described as both social democratic and some of the people. The template lacks documentation. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

Template:Kialo arguments tree

Template for linking to a user-generated site, so never going to be usable as its content is inherently non-RS Bon courage (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Linkspam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a spamming tool for a user generated site including arguments from a relatively small number of participants not following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not a "spamming tool"; it's for an overview of arguments structured into a relational diagram format is very useful to these articles and more useful than most of the other external links in that section. It provides an overview of arguments in their relational structure of the public debate about the subject. The deletion rationale is refuted by WP:ELMAYBE Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources which clearly shows sites that are not reliable sources can still be useful/due in the EL. These are the largest structured argument maps on that subject and just name-calling things is not an reason for deletion. A template allows managing how these links show up from one place. In regards to the deletion rationale from Objective3000, that sites linked there "follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines" is not required anywhere and nearly no external link there do so. These argument maps can often be useful resources.
    Prototyperspective (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Prototypeperspective, I see you are a participant in Kialo discussions (your name came up on the first link I followed). Beyond that, do you have any connection with Kialo? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        No, not at all. I'm a user of the site which I already have stated earlier. I don't even like many aspects of the site and would have hoped a live open source alternative to it would exist. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How does presenting arguments structured into a relational diagram format make the arguments any more valid? It clearly doesn't. Not unless participants can be shown to have subject-matter expertise. This is nothing more than linkspam for an oddly-structured forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You have an authority-based view of information communication which is fine. I was never saying it makes them more valid (a strawman claim). It makes them more useful by seeing them in a structured way where one can see which things a claim addresses and which arguments address it. Rather than people saying all sorts of absurd or clearly false things without scrutiny, it allows people to put things under scrutiny in a long-duration overseeable comprehensive interactive diagram. Again, these argument maps are often useful resources and having a template for them seems reasonable. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Actually, it is Wikipedia that has the 'authority-based view of information communication'. As core policy. Which is why we don't link random debates on random forums, regardless of how they are structured. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            I'm not having an issue with it and already made that clear. It's indeed an important principle to Wiki English. It does refer to article contents however and these are just useful resources in the external links. It's not random debates, these particular ones are of high-quality and very relevant to the article subject. They're mostly just putting arguments extracted from reliable sources onto one map rather than having them dispersed all across very many unoverseeable unstructured unscrutinizable isolated lengthy linear texts. I maintain that such are often very useful resources and the external links already existing in articles kind of confirm this. Like with other links, editors are free to remove links to argument maps that have issues; the ones I added are useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Frankly, given the crap you have attempted to POV-fork into Wikipedia in the past [1], I don't think that you are in much of a position to tell anyone what is or isn't 'useful'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Sounds more like it is a way to structure uncorroborated arguments in an attempt to provide them with the imprimatur of authority-based information. Not trying to negate the claim as an interesting idea of structuring arguments. It just doesn’t fit the encyclopedic view of presenting information. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            That's why these are for the external links sections only and perfectly fits the encyclopedic view of presenting information.
            Quote from the site founder that seems relevant in regards to encyclopedic The public debates are basically supposed to become a site where people can go and inform themselves. If a debate has over 2,000 unique arguments, it's going to be hard to find an argument that's not in there already. You can go there, similar to Wikipedia, and read. I'm not saying it's encyclopedic despite that one could also view it as a kind of repository/lexicon of associated arguments in society. It may be / seems to be misunderstood what these external links are supposed to be for so if one could make it clearer with the text next to it, one could just edit the template and contextualize it better. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              The 'site founder' thinks his own commercial project is a good idea? How utterly astonishing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Public debate sites are also effective at MISinforming people. Something we try to avoid. I looked at the Covid-19 lab leak theory article you placed a link on. It is mostly trivial arguments rarely with any citation. A couple were cited to the Wikipedia article on which you put the link, making this Citogenesis. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                The Covid-19 lab leak theory link is also blatant self-promotion: take a look at the 'activity' column on the right of the page: chock-full of Prototyperspective's own posts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                Ignore the quote which was a minor note next to it. The most common source of the claims there is this article as well as the MEDRS reviews; sometimes the source is not directly on the claim but in claims beneath it. I don't think there is any source citing the Wikipedia article there and if there is a link to it, then only as an informative addition, not as a source. And I'm not hiding the fact that I extracted lots of arguments from sources to for once integrate them all on one page which afaik is the only and largest public argument map for this subject. As stated earlier, only high-quality argument maps should be linked and these should not miss major or common arguments. Each of these is scrutinizable and editable so if you spot an issue solve it directly since this is an open collaborative project like Wikipedia is (which is not considered a reliable source there). Also this discussion is about the template, not about the lab-leak theory. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  As of now, I'm beginning to wonder whether your attempt to hide linkspam behind a template might not be better discussed at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've never heard of Kialo, and I do not find its recent addition to COVID-19 lab leak theory to add value to our readers. In fact, it provides a list of pro arguments and a list of con arguments in approximately equal numbers, creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I am concerned that it may be doing something similar to other articles it is added to. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the above concerns about it being user-generated content and providing WP:FALSEBALANCE. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How is this even a question? It's a pointer into something completely unusable (although it's being used) on Wiki English. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just briefly since you seem to be asking something: this is an external link, the policies cited before are about Wikipedia contents, not about contents of external links. Having a page there that does follow a fundamentally different approach to Wikipedia seems particularly useful as in being complementary to it (similar to how SEP often is); and it's not there for users to get informed about the subject but is/was there merely as a useful resource to find out what arguments people have on a controversial subject and with this template was contextualized like so.
      False balance is a big problem – when talking about the policy, that refers to WP contents though and concerning the general problem, I don't think one can say something has false balance by counting the "number of arguments": instead one would have to look at the impact rating of these arguments and the overall debate question veracity rating for example (in mere texts it for example isn't always clear what the main arguments are and which are just minor notes alongside like the quote I put above which wasn't my actual argument).
      At an article about "Adam and Eve", linking an argument map about whether that story is real obviously would have many arguments for it to be real underneath where relevant people can find arguments addressing these specific arguments they may hold without them ever getting scrutinized/addressed and it would be useful precisely because of the many included arguments not because the number of arguments from any side is limited according to some editor's view of what appropriate balance would be (which btw apparently sometimes doesn't even match the reporting of reliable sources like The New York Times). People (sociologists or whoever) may wonder why anybody would ever believe something absurd like that and they can find according arguments there, all of which should be scrutinized and rated appropriately – low-quality argument trees certainly need to get removed from the EL. It's not "being used" though, just linked to with I think proper context in the EL section there. I didn't mean to "hide linkspam" with this template, just to make it more manageable by enabling changing how these links are contextualized and displayed from one template and so on. EL afaik are not exclusively for things usable on WP, but also e.g. relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
      This doesn't mean I'm saying that the points made are not relevant and aren't reasonable arguments pro deletion even though I disagree. No problem if you consider it problematic and this is (most likely) my last comment here. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unblock-spamun

Propose merging Template:Unblock-spamun with Template:Unblock-un.
For whatever reason, this template looks and feels the exact same as the latter. kleshkreikne. T 07:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Bad idea. PepperBeast (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PacerRef

This template is no longer used. (Converted its last transclusion to use Template:Cite Pacer instead.) GoingBatty (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The template is unused and no longer maintained. Its function can be achieved with {{Cite Pacer}}. Rjjiii (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 23

Template:American Samoa radio/doc

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WGI Independent World Drum Lines

A gross sea of redlinks. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete (for now): Only Music City Mystique and Rhythm X currently have actual pages. The rest are simply redirects to their parent organizations (either a drum corps or university). Two is not enough for a template. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RWB Internet lists

Content in the template space. Should be substed and deleted, with a potential preferred location - I would recommend Reporters Without Borders - and then linked to a la WP:SUMMARY style from the other places it is currently transcluded instead of being transcluded there. Izno (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

Template:NBA Arena Statues

This template seems to be for statues installed outside NBA arenas, regardless of whether or not the statues depict NBA players. I do not understand the criteria for inclusion, as there are probably hundreds of statues installed outside NBA arenas. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Another Believer, after fairly extensive research, I believe this is the entire list of statues outside of NBA arenas. It includes every single statue, including non-NBA players. The criteria was all-inclusive, in other words any type of statue. It can be organized by category (Boxers, Announcers, etcetera) but not necessary given the size of the list. There are only 30 NBA arenas. Perhaps the list will grow over time but who knows if any new statues will be constructed. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep (creator of template) as it's a concise and valuable navbox. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per BeFriendlyGoodSir's attention and research on the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then what do we do with Template:Statues of NBA figures? Both created by the same user and encompasses the nominated templates listing, but the only articles are of status of NBA figures at NBA arenas while the rest of the navbox is text with the only links to NBA players, but not articles of said statues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Template:Statues of NBA figures should be kept and Template:NBA Arena Statues should be kept. Template:Statues of NBA figures might become oversized 500 years from now just like many other navboxes on Wiki English. Template:NBA Arena Statues will never be oversized since it is capped at 30 arenas. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep NBA Arena Statues and move Statues of NBA figures to userspace. The latter template for the most part is duplicating the nominated template with the links that already exist in the nominated template. The overlap is one thing, but the rest of the template is text and is just waiting for articles to be created. It isn't ready to be used in article space and has no distinct navigational purpose outside of NBA arena statues. Ultimately we are gonna need one template that encompasses links to articles of NBA statutes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: per what BeFriendly said - Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hate that hedgehog!) 23:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominators concern was about numbers, in case hundreds of statues were notable enough for an article. That seems to be answered well by BeFriendly. It would be interesting to expand the template into a multi-tiered connected templates with NHL hockey areana statues, MLB baseball park statues, etc., added as full but connected templates. Would take a bit of work and coding but not out of the question to create such an interesting multi-tiered template. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, but leaning to delete both. No corresponding article, and a substantial duplication of {{Statues of NBA figures}} which also has its problems, so to my mind probably more suited to a category. --woodensuperman 12:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:French schools in Central and Eastern Europe

Very vertical navbox, only tangentially related to one another. No article on the subject. Would have thought better left for category navigation. --woodensuperman 11:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep: They are all related to each other in that they are schools for French national children outside of France. The criteria for being listed is being are accredited by/affiliated with the Agency for French Education Abroad (AEFE affiliation = it is a school for French national children outside of France). These templates are divided by region because there are too many such schools for a single template. As for the article about the subject, it is "Agency for French Education Abroad". WhisperToMe (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: No commenting yet on the nomination, but the template can be reduced in size instead of a line per country, where most countries have only one link, to just do [[article link|city or country]] and leave Germany and maybe Switzerland on their own line. Gonnym (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep: There's nothing wrong with it. Roovinn (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fail WP:UKR

Is this really the kind of thing we want at the top of an article? It looks strange in a style of a hatnote. It seems something like a tracking category would be more appropriate? DB1729talk 19:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hindu term

Template for making a bunch of translations. WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was initially leaning delete, but templates like {{Infobox Buddhist term}} and {{Infobox Chinese}} exist and I have personally found such templates useful in the past. WP:NOTDICTIONARY doesn't seem to apply here, since there is a long-standing tradition that articles on topics from non-English speaking cultures contain the name of the topic in the original language(s) + a romanization somewhere in the lead, e.g. how the first sentence in the article for Athens contains Greek: Αθήνα, romanizedAthína. Now, WP:NOINDICSCRIPT was created as a major exception to this, but that explicitly says it is excluded from... articles about Hinduism. All of that said, I don't love this template, but I'm also not sure straight deletion makes sense; however, I am open to discussion, especially if anyone has alternate proposals for how to handle this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2020 Romanian local elections

Contains only two links outside the main article. Everything else is red. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Philippines government

The deletion requests were already discussed at both Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 16#Template:Non-free Philippines government and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 21#Template:Non-free Philippines government. But the discussions were focused on the disputed nature of the Philippine government works in the Philippine copyright law. Regardless of which is true (PD or copyrighted), it should not matter on English Wikipedia because the wiki does not need to respect the copyright law of the Philippines in the first place. It only needs to respect the copyright law of the United States per lex loci protectionis, and under the U.S. law all Philippine government photographs are public domain, even if they are copyrighted in the Philippines. All Philippine government images should be tagged with {{PD-USGov}} or something similar that reflects to their PD status in the U.S., not in the Philippines. English Wikipedia has a local consensus to not follow the national copyright laws, and only U.S. copyright law matters. This is reflected in the wiki's acceptance of unfree public buildings of the Philippines and other 100+ no-FoP countries courtesy of U.S. copyright law (Template talk:Freedom of panorama (US only)#RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works?). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • commentNot seeing how Philippines government stuff would be PD under US law. Particularly anything after 1990. Anything after that US law would just regard Philippines government stuff as more stuff that is automatically under copyright without needing either a notice or registration. The stuff is certianly not PD-USGov because the Philippines are not part of the US federal government.©Geni (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

Template:Burlington 2009 election

Unused. DB1729talk 20:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Will try and link it when not on mobile. Right now the table itself is used in multiple places (as an "example election"), but not by linking to the template. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Providence Radio/doc

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Matt Champion

There are really only two articles to link to here, and that's Matt Champion's album and a single from that album, which both link to each other on their articles anyway. He doesn't need a template yet. WP:NENAN. Ss112 13:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MRT locator map

Unused map item that was replaced with Module:Location map/data/Singapore Rail. Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries imagemap

Unused and unlinked from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Readded. The template was off the page for about a month.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now in use, so withdraw my nomination. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The map links to a bunch of non-existent articles or redirect. This is still not useful at all. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        And if readded to the main article, it will then be single-use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2002 NFC standings

Unused. A different table style is used at 2002 NFL season#Final regular season standings. Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep this the template is for the entire NFC conference. The templates that already exist for the divisions.
    Mta910 (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now in use, so withdraw my nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MBTA platform diagrams

    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 03:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates on their respective articles (Back Bay station and Park Street station). Tabular track layout diagrams of these types were deprecated in 2020: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC. Park Street has an RDT-style diagram anyway; Back Bay isn't a complex station. Mackensen (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per WP:TMPG ("Templates that violate the guidelines on this page, have poorly defined function, are redundant, become orphaned or used on only one page, or violate any Wikipedia policies may be nominated for deletion"). Normally, I would subst these, but they are also fairly redundant. I should note, though, that only platform layout tables are discouraged, not {{Routemap}}-style track layouts. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete both per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

Old discussions

March 20

Template:WikimediaNoLicensing

[edit]

This template is legally void. Text on Wikipedia is licensed under Creative Commons (CC) licenses that allow relicensing under later versions of the licenses, as well as some other specific compatible ones (Free Art, GPLv3). No template can change this fact; contributors agree to the license from the Terms of Use. Best, Frostly (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The whole point of editing here is shown under the edit box: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL." There should not be a confused "I'm special" template. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – quoting myself from WP:VPW: "Even if legally void, why encourage that [attitude] with a template, even if it's just a pointless sign of an ornery user strutting some attitude on their user page"? It leads to questions about WP:HERE; or as Johnuniq phrased it, that they are somehow "special". Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete. Pointless template, at least currently, as far as article text is concerned:
      • GFDL 1.3 did not say editors could opt out of WMF's relicensing of their contributions in 2009.
      • CC-BY-SA 3.0 (used from 2009 to 2023) has a provision that makes it compatible with newer versions, though does not allow relicensing of existing contributions.
      • CC-BY-SA 4.0 does allow relicensing under newer versions (and compatible licenses from the Creative Commons list) for derivative works. Again, there is no opt-out provision.
      • Unlike many companies that operate Internet platforms (e.g. Meta, in section 3.3 of their terms), or some that run open source projects, the Wiki Foundation does not include in their Terms of Use a broad license for them to use submitted content, limited only by a vague purpose of use. Rather, editors grant WMF the same permissions that they grant every other member of the public, which do not include the right to sublicense their work.
      • The WMF generally does not write or edit articles or select which ones appear on the site, so likely won't have rights that way.
      So at best, this template has no legal effect: aside from the relicensing that already happened in 2009, WMF has no special permission to relicense article text. At worst, editors who place this template on their user pages may be breaching not only the Terms of Use, but also CC-BY-SA 4.0, by refusing to grant the WMF the same license as every other member of the general public. Subst the template rather than remove it entirely so that it's still possible to find who those editors are. PleaseStand (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        PleaseStand, Can you clarify your goal? If the goal is only to see which editors had it, then you could replace it with just a hidden comment, like or whatever. If your goal is to leave the rendered user page unchanged but trackable, then your proposal is needed, but I wasn't clear which you were going for. I think I might be swayed to support your !vote, maybe even either way, but I think I prefer the hidden code method. Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          By subst and delete, I meant: preserve the existing text on each user page the template is already used on. I don't think that it is outside the realm of possibility that, in the future, a dispute could arise about whether the 2009 relicensing of GFDL contributions was legally valid in such cases. Such information should be retained and not altered; replacing the original text with a differing comment visible only in the wikitext source code is not OK. PleaseStand (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming here from the VPWMF discussion. Are there any grandfathering issues we need to take into account? Beyond that, while I certainly have no support for using this template, I have concerns about the rush to delete that cause me to lean oppose. Given that its usage is mostly historical at this point, it has historical value as an example of how early editors thought about copyright, and to the extent any users are still using it, it could have value aiding collaboration by indicating their views (much like political userboxes). We grant wide leeway for users to edit their user page as they see fit, so the bar to overcome that and remove something that an editor chose to add should be high.
    That said, the content of this template, like all others, is under community control. If we're concerned about it giving a misleading impression, we could just edit it to add an addendum that it's legally meaningless. Sdkbtalk 18:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As I state in my reply to Mathglot above, we shouldn't significantly alter users' statements of their views, including contemporaneous ones regarding what others are allowed to do with their contributions under copyright law. This is why I said to subst and delete—to preserve the statement in its original form for users who already added it (and still have it on their user pages), and to avoid future use that may arise should the template continue to exist and show up in various lists.
      That said, if there still are users who would like to use this template, here's a different idea that might be worth considering. First, add an argument, such as |version=1, at all existing transclusion sites. Then, conditionally add some phrase like "except as consistent with CC BY-SA or other free licenses that apply". The old version of the text would still appear where it did before (the |version=1 case), while the new version would show for new uses that leave out the version argument.
      I can see some significant drawbacks though. Old user page revisions would be misleading, as those transclusions cannot be fixed. Users might discover and misuse the version parameter, because they find that it makes the text shorter or simpler. It may be possible to avoid the first issue by checking the revision timestamp from within the template, and the second issue by showing an error message if the page title is not on a list that could be created at the time the text is changed. Subst and move without redirect would be simpler, with the only disadvantages being that the text will not show up for old revisions and that new uses would have to be under a different name. PleaseStand (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure how the phrase except as consistent with CC BY-SA or other free licenses that apply would change the usefulness of the template. Both CC and GFDL licenses contain relicensing provisions; all content can't be relicensed outside of these provisions. I don't see how the line of text adds anything legally meaningful.[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Add something like except as consistent with CC BY-SA or other free licenses that apply to the template. Currently, the template is misleading; that is an actual problem that needs to be fixed. But people are free to put meaningless templates on their userpage. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actively misleading template. The only argument for keeping it is that it's so obscure that it doesn't matter. But since it has already landed in Tfd we might as well get it over with. Tercer (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFI templates

[edit]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Recently recreated navboxes were deleted unanimously per this discussion. Recent deletion of similar navboxes here shows that appetite has not changed. --woodensuperman 08:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep. Recent deletion of similar navboxes (...) shows that appetite has not changed. does not sound like an actual reason to delete these templates. SD was declined (see page history). I cannot see the problem with those navboxes.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, these navboxes are of large interest to readers and cover reputable and non-controversial major film polls. Other deletion attempts of similar material are either being kept or are being considered for deletion review, and the linked deletion is from 2012 Nothing wrong here except "I don't like it". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussions, little value in navigation. Indagate (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great value in navigation. If seen at someone's favorite film a reader may want to follow the pattern of films chosen by AFI as representing the best of the profession. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        How is that represented in this navbox? Stick to the articles, content of these navboxes is way too tangential. --woodensuperman 16:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The articles on a film or actor listed in the navbox may mention the honor, but would not give readers an overview of the thinking of the critics of their profession about the totality of films and individuals so-honored. The navboxe does this instantly. Navboxes are very wonderful things, and may be one of the most undervalued of Wikipedia features. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely Keep: Concur with @Randy Kryn, in that the navbox functions in the exact same way as a Best Picture Oscar box would. With BP, those are sometimes dubious decisions that receive mixed retroflection. AFI Top lists are more valued and esteemed, regarded as the best of the best, and therefore, it does in fact guide a user to other high caliber titles or list items. There is nothing objectionable about this navbox; it is very well-maintained, clean, functional, informative, and useful. I also concur w/ @Mushy Yank that the reason isn't sound either. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounding the alarm? Let's also ping get all the editors who edited these and any other film poll/award navboxes. I don't understand why, upon reading that some editors have good keep reasons, editors don't just let navboxes-under-discussion stay. If a healthy percentage of experienced editors find value in them then a percentage of readers would too. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        None of the reasons are good "keep" reasons. All I'm seeing is WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSINTERESTING. If this is encyclopedic, it belongs in an article, not a navbox. This and {{Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films}} are completely unsuitale topics for a WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 11:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          They are completely suitable topics for a navbox, and concisely present the best films and film stars as reputably polled by the American Film Institute (with much press sourced coverage I may add). What "is interesting" is that only 50 stars were named in the "100 stars" poll. As for the Cahiers du Cinema's top ten films, they are accepted as a major poll, and the navbox highlights the top ten of all time in an easily understood format. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            This is an article from 2008. Should we have navboxes every time a magazine or website or film society list their favourite films? What about a navbox for TimeOut's Best Martial Arts Movies of All Time while we're at it? Or The BBC's 100 Greatest Comedies of All Time? All of these lists fail the purpose of a navbox. These films do not form a clearly defined set, they're just opinion polls. --woodensuperman 11:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              The honoring of these films and actors is the clearly defined set. The 2008 poll is definitely accepted as one of the major all-time polls, with the main poll being Sight and Sound's esteemed tenannual poll. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                That's not a definitive set by any stretch. "Best of" is always subjective. It's just opinion. --woodensuperman 11:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  ? The Academy Awards are just opinion. The Nobel Peace Prize is just opinion. The Golden Globes are just opinion. Will also ping Butlerblog who has shown past interest in voting in film poll deletion requests. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                    I'm no fan of any "awards" navboxes, but that is a list of winners for any given year, not nominations. At least an award is something tangible, appearing in an opinion poll is not. Also Randy, I should warn you about pinging an individual editor just because you think they will agree with you in an attempt to game the system. Did you ping all of the editors in the discussions that this user expressed an opinion in? --woodensuperman 12:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                      No, you pinged them. But left out Butlerblog. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                        No I did not, they did not participate in either of the linked AFI discussions here or here. I'm trying very hard to WP:AGF, but... --woodensuperman 12:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                          Oh, you just pinged the AFI discussion, I included the Sight and Sound deletion request participants (there were three, two of them must have also commented at AFI). I'm acting in good faith in wanting readers to have these good navboxes available to them, if that's what you're concerned about. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                            Well, this is about the previous discussions for the AFI templates, not the separate Sight and Sound one. Your comment that you are "wanting readers to have these good navboxes available to them" seems like an admission of bad faith on your part. And stop claiming these are "good" navboxes, as previous consensus shows they are not. --woodensuperman 12:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                              So wanting readers to have these navboxes available to them is "an admission of bad faith"? Uh, okay (insert gif of Homer Simpson backing into the bushes here). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                                You've admitted that you WP:CANVASSED this user because you want the navbox kept. --woodensuperman 13:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                                  I canvassed one person because you were canvassing the participants in these poll deletions and left one out. I thought you included the Sight and Sound deletion because it's been discussed in this discussion, but you didn't (the two others who commented were in your ping list). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                                  I think Randy Kryn has supported that it's WP:APPNOTE, not canvassing. And as noted, had I known about the other AFI discussions ahead of time, I most certainly would have provided input. I can only watch so much at any given time, and it's frustrating to find out about these after the fact. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Randy Kryn, I tend to agree that AFI isn't the same as a top 10 from Joe's Cool Film Site. It's not a random magazine - it's a primary source in the industry. Also per Mushy Yank - a twelve year-old discussion is not as relevant as something recent, and that shouldn't flippantly discounted. I appreciate Randy Kryn's ping because I don't see where this was cross posted to WP:FILM, which it affects. I've seen a tendency in the past for that to happen (or actually, not happen) - and a template that a larger discussion may have kept is deleted because of a 3-person discussion. (Had I been aware of the other related discussions mentioned that I was not involved in, I would have participated if they were FILM, WP:WESTERNS, or WP:TV.) ButlerBlog (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for identical reasons as my comment here. It is not likely that a reader would view the work's AFI listing as its defining feature and seek to navigate around these articles directly. It is more likely that an interested reader would learn about the AFI list, or start from the AFI list, which should be mentioned and linked in each article and provides the central point of navigation. — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would a reader have to view the AFI listing as a film's defining feature? Not understanding that point. And if a navbox on the page lists the AFI films then a reader is being given the option of reading the navbox and possibly would be interested in reading about, say, the first three films on the list. I don't understand the point of your last sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as navbox creep. a list article is enough. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a reason to delete, the guidelines reiterate that lists, navboxes, and categories are all equal ways to navigate pages on Wikipedia and should not be argued as an either=or choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        They are different ways to navigate, not equal ways. It doesn't mean that all are suitable in each case. --woodensuperman 12:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still meets the merits of deletion as it did last time. AFI is a list honor, not an award. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question and discussion, per WP:IAR we should be keeping this in order to maintain Wiki English. All the edits we make should be for one purpose: to inform the readers. How is removing these navboxes either "improving" or "maintaining" Wikipedia per IAR? Seems they should be an easy keep taking those criteria into consideration, and in consideration of keeping readers fully informed and able to come across links doing so in a timely fashion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We only WP:IAR if it benefits Wiki English. Trivial navbox clutter does not benefit Wiki English. It seems sometimes that you forget that there are such things as articles where people can be informed and stumble upon things whilst reading. --woodensuperman 15:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just adds to template clutter since most of these films would have received other accolades as well displayed via other navboxes (some that should probably be nominated for deletion as well). The connection amongst the films themselves is tenuous. This is a perfect example where having the list is sufficient for those interested in the topic. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The connection is obvious: AFI's selection. As for a list as opposed to the template, see WP:CLN where the summary reads: "This page in a nutshell: 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.", and in the text: "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Randy Kryn (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Although the previous deletion discussion is interesting, I believe it is no longer relevant and in light of its actual usage it should be kept. The nomination points at a very old Tfd which in turn points at another where the primary reasoning was lack of content and duplication. This seems to no longer be true (and the declined SD seems to reinforce that). —Uzume (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As noted by Bilorv, inclusion in AFI's list is not a defining feature of the article subjects, so it is highly improbable that readers would want to navigate from one article to another through this navbox. Anyone interested in the AFI lists would naturally go to the article for that list, and if desired navigate further from there, in contrast to navboxes for series and directors, where an interested reader is likely to visit an individual film's article first. Reviewing the "keep" arguments, they all seem to merely support the retention of navboxes in general and articles for AFI's lists (both things which no one in this discussion has argued against so far as I can see), or debate whether the 2012 consensus is still valid. If there is an argument for why a navbox specifically for AFI's lists is sensible, I'm not seeing it here.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

Template:Growth of solar PV

[edit]

Unused graph template. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep This is unused because the Graph module is still disabled. If we start deleting all charts using the graph extension, there will be no reason to reactivate it and we will miss an essential tool for data visualization Ita140188 (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's unused because it was already removed from everywhere it might have been used. Disabled templates are still transcluded and show up as used. Also, the graph isn't coming back. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it was removed because the graphs are disabled. Graph isn't coming back is not the official position of the WMF, until then I would avoid deleting charts which would be lost forever Ita140188 (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          They've basically said they can't fix and don't have resources for it in a recent post. Gonnym (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add {{transclusionless}} to the documentation. It is difficult to know whether mw:Extension:Graph/Plans will go anywhere, but this template has a clear use once there is some way to generate graphs again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I very much oppose falsely identifying a template as transclusionless when it isn't. {{Growth of solar PV}} may have been used at some point but the someone or a group of editors have decided they don't want it anymore. Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm pretty sure that they decided they don't want a "graphs aren't working" notice in the articles that were using this template, so it has been removed temporarily until graphs are fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Other graph templates haven't been removed and keep the ugly notice. As it stands this template was removed and the graph isn't coming back in any foreseeable future according to the ticket comments. Gonnym (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

Template:Officially used writing systems in India

[edit]

I researched this thoroughly. Of the scripts include in this info box, only three have any official standing. The rest are just used by convention. PepperBeast (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, it is not the use of the scripts that is officially/legally enshrined, but rather the languages written with them. Nevertheless, for every language that has official status at the national or state level in India, there is an associated script (in a very few cases two scripts). The use of this script is a simple matter of fact for most of these languages, just like English is written in Latin script. I don't think there is an explicit regulation about the latter fact in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada etc., but I'm sure English writing in Cyrillic won't bring you far in an official context (or any other context). So when for instance the lawmakers who passed the Telangana Act No. 9 of 1966 ("Telangana Official Languages Act") wrote: "The Telugu Language shall be the Official Language; and the Urdu Language shall be the Second Official Language", they wouldn't have dared to imagine that their "negligence" to mention the associated scripts could be construed as not having given official standing to the respective scripts. –Austronesier (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see how X being associated with every language that has official status at the national or state level in India means X should have an infobox template. Lots of things are associated with lots of other things; you need to show this specific grouping is more natural, useful, or current in the scholarly discussion than other possible groupings.

      they wouldn't have dared to imagine that their "negligence" to mention the associated scripts could be construed as not having given official standing to the respective scripts

      But the fact they chose not to mention it is clearly evidence that this is not a grouping or categorization system of interest to them! Our ontologies need to reflect those in the real world; otherwise we veer into WP:OR territory, at best, if not outright irrelevance. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Please show us the definition of "official" used in Wikipedia that you are applying here. Please do not create a definition on the fly. Chaipau (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          There is a whole article on what an official language is! The wonders of Wiki English. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Huh? We are discussing scripts here, not languages. They are different. Chaipau (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              And? As I've commented elsewhere, I think it's official if it's named in legislation, as a few scripts are. What's the definition you think applies? PepperBeast (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                When a single script has been in use with a language for hundreds of years, then that script is not legislated as official separately. It follows that when that language is legislated as official, the associated script too is deemed official. This is the case with most of the Indian languages, and that is why you see all the official languages in their official scripts depicted in the Indian rupee note/bill on the reverse side. Most of these scripts, used officially here, have no legislation to back it up.

                Only when there is a conflict and a political interest to support one script over others is the script legislated into law. This is the case for Gurmukhi (a Brahmi script) in India and Shahmukhi (an Arabic script) in Pakistan, both used for the Punjabi language. Legislation was needed for the Boro language too, because of competing use of the Latin script and Bengali-Assamese script, and finally Devnagari script was legislated as official. Similarly there was a conflict between the Meitei script and Bengali-Assamese script for Manipuri language in Manipur and that led to legislation.

                Your claim that all official scripts have to be legislated is your personal opinion. In real life this is not how it operates.
                Chaipau (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  Sorry, but the article Official script disagrees with you:

                  An official script is a writing system that is specifically designated to be official in the constitutions or other applicable laws of countries, states, and other jurisdictions.

                  The rest of your comment is merely explaining why official scripts are official in the first place. This has no bearing whatsoever on whether a script is official to begin with.
                  Contrary to your claims, it is actually your personal opinion that scripts are official even when not declared so. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              @Chaipau My bad, I meant to link to official script. Again, a whole article flatly contradicting you here; if you think the way scholars use the term is wrong, fine, but that's not for us to decide— see WP:RGW. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                The lead of Official script has no citation. Not a reliable source.
                On the other hand, I have shown you a number of instances how the Government of India supports these scripts officially. Active participation in the Unicode Consortium, and the use of these scripts in the currency notes. Chaipau (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  Sigh. As if you've attempted to give any citations at all for your claim that "official script" is used the way you wish it were used? Probably because you realize scholars don't actually use the term this way, and that this is just your own WP:OR. I did a quick search through Google Books on how terms like "official writing system" and "official script" are used, and I could painstakingly copy these over for you, but are you really going to make do that? Why don't you try providing a single source that claims something as ludicrous as "a government working with the Unicode Consortium to design a script standard elevates the script to official status"? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                    Let me state the two positions explicitly.
                    Official when legislated:
                    For a script to be official it should be legislated - an act passes a vote in a legislative body and establishes a script as official.
                    • Official script. Unfortunately, there is not a single citation in the text of the article let alone one that defines an "official" script and it fails reliability on WP:WINRS.
                    Official when used and supported officially
                    The alternative definition (stated by @Austronesier above) is that when languages are legislated as official, the associated scripts too are deemed official by default, unless there are more than one scripts associated with a language when particular scripts are explicitly legislated as official. Here we depend on the dictionary definition of official, specifically 3a, which states that something is official when something is prescribed or recognized as authorized. Here the authoritative body is the Government of India, and these scripts are therefore recognized as official by the following actions of the Government of India:
                    • The Indian government officially actively supports these scripts in the Unicode Consortium. There are other Indian scripts which are supported not by the Indian Government but by non-state parties and are deemed non-official (e.g. Tirhuta (Unicode block) supported primarily by Anshuman Pandey, and Ahom script supported by linguist Stephen Morey), which are not official.
                    • The Indian 1-rupee note (issued by the Indian government - all others are issued by the Reserve Bank of India), lists the official scripts of India. This is a recognition of these scripts by an authoritative body, which is the Government of India.
                    Chaipau (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                      The one-rupee note features the official languages of India. The scripts used are conventional. PepperBeast (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                        @Pepperbeast, the GoI, an authoritative body, using the "conventional" scripts make them "official". They are being used for official purposes. Chaipau (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                          So, something like this would make Cyrillic, Hanggul, and Arabic "official scripts of New Zealand"? PepperBeast (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                            You seem to not understand what "official" is. Handing out information in a language/script does not make that language official, unless that language/script is used in the working of the authoritative body. The languages you see in the Indian 1-rupee note are the ones mentioned in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India (1950). These languages and scripts are working languages/scripts, in the sense that records the working of Indian governments (union/state/local) are kept in these languages.
                            When the Imperial Japanese govt dropped English pamphlets during WW2, that did not make English an official language of Japan. Chaipau (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                              Are you suggesting that the Government of New Zealand isn't an authoritative body, or that elections aren't part of its workings? PepperBeast (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                                I am trying very hard to assuming GF here, @Pepperbeast. No, New Zealand is not using Arabic in this example to run the government. Chaipau (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

                              You seem to not understand what "official" is. Handing out information in a language/script does not make that language official,

                              But working with the Unicode Consortium does? You are literally just making stuff up as you go, and you have yet to present a single example of any reliable source using "official script" in the way you are using it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                      If I cared how the dictionary defined a word, I can check for myself, thank you very much; you combining the definitions of "official" and "script" is just your WP:SYNTH, and that's without even going into the other holes in your synthetic argument.
                      You have yet to provide even a single example of a reliable source that uses "official script" the way you do. I'll wait. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                        Please show me your WP:RS for your claim. Chaipau (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                          I can, as annoying and painstaking as it is, and in spite of the fact that you've made zero effort to show any RS'es yourself, but can I first ask if you did the bare minimum of due diligence in checking yourself? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                          Here is a JSTOR search for "official script". Once you disregard the obvious mismatches (e.g. those references Clerical script, sometimes called official script, a style of Chinese calligraphy), what do you notice? Literally all of them refer to polities (from ancient ones like the Qin dynasty to modern states like the Kyrgyz Republic) legislating a specific script as official, not any other more nebulous sort of association such as those which you would like us to believe define official status. Notice that such official status is always conferred by explicit legal decree. Do you need me to go one by one and transcribe the specific quotes from each and explain the historical and sociopolitical context of each quote too, or are you capable of doing a minimum of your own due diligence? And again are you able to provide a single source using "official script" (or "writing system") as nebulously as you do? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Please refer to WP:SOURCEDEF. A search result, which is what you have provided, is not even a source. Further you have to quote from the source properly where you get the definition of an "official script". So we are still at zero WP:RS from you or Pepperbeast.
                            • We are discussing Officially used in the name of the template {{Officially used writing systems in India}}. I have given you a link to the Constitution of India (here) which contradicts your definition because the Latin script has been used to write the constitution, which according to you is not an officially used script. Reductio ad absurdum. Or in other words, WP:DUCK.
                            Chaipau (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) (edited) 10:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

                              So we are still at zero WP:RS from you or Pepperbeast.

                              So the same as you? Except I have actually made an effort to hand hold you a bit, whereas you have made zero effort to do any due diligence whatsoever? Are you really incapable of clicking on the search results and checking for yourself? You really need me to copy paste quotes manually, or are you just demanding this out of complete bad faith?
                              Seriously, how can this be interpreted as anything other than laziness on your part? Can I once again point out that you have made zero attempt to even insinuate that a single scholar agrees with your definition? I am just not going link by link and copy pasting quotes from the search results to try and convince someone who, it is increasingly clear, is not open to being convinced at all. Anyone with brains who isn't an obviously bad faith actor can click on the JSTOR search results for themselves without demanding someone else do a bunch of tedious work for them. If you can't do the absolute bare minimum amount of due diligence, or even make an attempt at providing a reliable source in favor of the definition you pulled out of your ass, I'm done handholding you.

                              We are discussing Officially used in the name of the template

                              We are actually debating multiple things, in part because the issue is more nuanced than you are letting on and in part because you are forcing the rest of us to entertain your goalpost shifting. I'm going to put aside the semantics of "official use" for now because it is entirely clear you are unikely to be convinced on this point. I would instead like to focus on the issues you haven't even attempted to address.
                              The chief problem here is the fact that "officially used is extremely slippery, imprecise language, and this debate itself is evidence of that. First, it is not clear why India is so special it deserves its own template like this. Second, it is not clear what criteria should be used for inclusion of a script in this wording of the template, nor what criteria should be used for determining if the template should be included on a given scripts page. According to you, for example, India working with the Unicode Consortium on a given language is enough to include it on this template, but the Government of India, as well as the governments of several Indian states, are voting members of the Unicode Consortium— should every script encoded by Unicode have this template, then? Do you see just how imprecise this header is, even when working within your own set of definitions?
                              Further, consider that the creator of this template never even attempted to include it on the page for Latin script, despite Latin appearing on the template itself. I wonder why? In fact, I am entirely certain that even you, who have repeatedly tried to claim that Latin is "official"/"officially used" because the Constitution is written in Latin script, would not try to include this template on the page for Latin. Any guesses as to why? Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                                I have already said why your reply is deficient: [2]. It seems we are still in the same status I stated two days ago: [3]. If you are unwilling to provide a WP:RS to support your claim, we may stop here. Chaipau (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

                                  If you are unwilling to provide a WP:RS to support your claim, we may stop here.

                                  The feeling is mutual. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also not true that there is no "official" recognition of the "scripts". The Government of India has actively participated (sometimes in a confusing way) with the Unicode Consortium to create standards for these scripts to be used digitally. Here is an example: Unicode Standard for Indic Scripts UTC #94. This is a letter from a government officer [4]. Caveat—please do not use the Unicode standard to define the Indic scripts. Chaipau (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but the Government of India working with the Unicode Consortium has absolutely nothing to do with official status. This argument is patent nonsense. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's just not relevant. There might be some case for content regarding South Asian scripts in Unicode, but that tangential to this. PepperBeast (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Brusquedandelion, why is it patent nonsense? @Pepperbeast, why it is not relevant? I think you are just pushing your case.
      @Pepperbeast, you have been hacking away without any good reason. [5] is an example, where you have removed perfectly academic sources and something that has been extensively discussed and debated. I am not certain you know exactly what the issues here are. Chaipau (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, that edit was just a plain clumsy manoeuvre on my part, and we're discussing the issue at hand, not me PepperBeast (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        It's patent nonsense because that's not actually how anyone uses the term "official script/writing system" except you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or potentially move/refine as {{South Asian writing systems}} or {{Brahmic scripts}}, as discussed Template talk:Officially used writing systems in India § Convert to navbox? and User talk:Pepperbeast § Proposal: Writing systems of South Asia (EDIT: thought about it, Brahmic scripts is the grouping that makes the most sense; see my comments below). Clearly ill-conceived and poorly thought out template, much like the corresponding article Official scripts of the Republic of India; while the AfD for the latter regrettably did not receive much attention and closed without consensus, it has since been established thanks to @Pepperbeast's diligent investigation that there's only really three scripts that have any sort of legal status anywhere in India, and not even necessarily by the federal government. This is a poor and paltry basis for any template. @Austronesier argues above that even if the scripts do not have official status in and of themselves, languages do have legal status (Scheduled languages of India) and these in turn are associated with one or perhaps two scripts. That's all fine, but languages are associated with many things. Should we make templates for the Official phonemes of India or the Official clusivity distinctions of India too? No, this is obviously patent nonsense. These things just aren't obviously natural categories that are so important and so worth stressing, as a group, and to the exclusion of other possible groups— and IMO the same is true for this template as it stands.
    Now, as mentioned, I do think one could make a much better case for a much more natural grouping being scripts which are used in India, regardless of official status; or, arguably even better, {{Brahmic scripts}}, which is a way of grouping scripts that scholars actually use and not something some Wikipedia editor came up with one day because they felt like making a template. Again, these alternatives have been raised by at the two talk pages linked at the beginning of this message, as well as at the AfD for the corresponding article, but the creator of this template/article has made no attempt to engage with this suggestion, quite possibly because they realize their proposed categorization is clearly and self-evidently less natural and defensible. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This. Also, there can be some pretty substantial difference between the intentional and the assumed. The selection of Devanagari by the Union or Meitei mayek script in Manipur, are absolutely intentional, political choices, not just underlining of conventions. And I absolutely agree that this is just not a useful grouping the way that (say) 'Writing Systems of India' might be. PepperBeast (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Please note that the scripts used in India are not all "Indian". There is Tibetan script, which is not an Indian script, but which descends from Brahmi script, which is definitely Indian; and there is Nastaliq, which is an Arabic script but used in many Indian languages. Both non-Indian and Indian scripts have support in India, as the PDF I have posted above shows. South Asian is also not right, because the Tibetan script is not even South Asian.
        We look forward to a glimpse of your thorough research on this subject.
        Chaipau (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Perhaps you could also explain to me how water is wet. PepperBeast (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          The more I think about this, the more I think it makes the most sense to have the template group {{Brahmic scripts}} and leave it at that. As you correctly point out, not all scripts used in India are necessarily "Indian", and while it is true that a title likr "Scripts of India" or "Scripts of South Asia" does not make any claims about the Indian-ness or South Asian-ness of any script other than asserting the simple fact that script is used in India, it raises thorny questions like "Should Nastaliq have two templates, one for India and one for Pakistan? What about Tibetan?" IMO all of this is avoided by having the infobox target a "genealogical" (perhaps not the right term; but you know what I mean) grouping rather than a geographical or political one. And this way you could use the same template on scripts no longer in use e.g. Sharada or Brahmi itself. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Look below why "Brahmi script" is not appropriate.
            What would you call a group that is a collection of writing systems used by federal/provincial/local governments for official purposes? May I suggest "Official writing systems of India".? Chaipau (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Again, there are only three officially used writing systems anywhere in India. All three of them happen to be Brahmic. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                What do you mean? English is widely used and it is not Brahmic. Chaipau (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  English is a script, not a language. I am beginning to think this disagreement boils down to you not understanding the difference between these terms. This is a common error in societies that stress the primacy of literacy, such as our own, and linguists commonly have to disambiguate these terms for a lay audience. Most languages to have ever existed have never been written, and of those languages which are/have been written, they can and often are written in a multitude of scripts. I suggest you review the two articles I linked above, as well as this excellent article by the Linguistic Society of America (the LSA just overhauled their website today, so it appears that link is having technical issues presently; here is an archived copy). Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        To clarify my position, since you seem to not be getting it:
      1. In the first place, I really don't see what's so fundamentally wrong about {{Infobox writing system}} that we need to be having this discussion. It already has slots for "official script"—nuff said—but also for the more nebulous "status"— which can be used, theoretically, to indicate not just official status, but also de facto use. Isn't that satisfying enough for you, since your basic argument (the most charitable version of it I can construct, at least) consists of obfuscating the difference between de jure and de facto?
      2. If we must have a new template, it should be {{Brahmic scripts}}, to be included on pages like Devanagari and Khmer script, but not to be included on pages like Urdu script. I just don't see any reason why we need a template for the "most commonly used writing systems of the scheduled languages of the Republic of India", which is essentially what your vision for this template boils down to. Why is that such an important grouping? Is there any other nation that gets such a template for its nation's language's scripts? Put any nationalist feeling aside for a second; how special do you think India is that it deserves a template like this? The only one I can think of is that India happens to have perhaps more scripts in common usage than any other country (someone fact check me on this if I am wrong). But so what? Many languages have numerous languages that have different numbers of scripts; maybe not as many as India, but still quite a few. Notable for this discussion is Singapore and Malaysia, where Mandarin Chinese, Tamil, and Malay all enjoy official recognition (I don't know about "official scripts" per se but I am extending your facile argument to these countries as well). Should the page for the Tamil script have three infoboxes? Should Latin script have an infobox for India, but not any other country? Or should it have dozens, one for each such country? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of the language/script debate, this remains unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This cannot be a good reason because it is the proposer himself, Pepperbeast, who has removed the infobox from all pages. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], ... and so on. Look at it yourself: Special:Contributions/Pepperbeast, edits from March 16, 2024. Chaipau (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        So? @Pepperbeast did this with a completely reasonable rationale: there is no evidence that more than three scripts are official anywhere in the Replubic of India. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Huh? The constitution is written in English. Look here for a photographic reproduction. And the Latin script is not official according to your definition. Chaipau (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Correct, it is not official. Yours is a facile argument; the Constitution of the USA is also in English, but, famously, the USA has not even an official language, much less an official script (it would certainly be a surprise to the various nativist and right wing demagogues who have campaigned for English to be the sole official language of the USA to learn that they are, in fact, fighting for nothing). It isn't my definition; it's the definition used in reliable sources, unlike your own. This is easy to verify with three seconds of time spent on Google Books or with a real life book on the subject of language policies. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but rename to Writing systems of India. "Officially used" can be a parameter in assigning WP:WEIGHT for inclusion/exclusion decisions, but I don't see why official use is of any importance in general. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Kautilya3: Do you mind explaining why this is preferable to e.g. {{Brahmic scripts}}? Keep in mind that a number of writing systems used in India are also used outside of it— do we include {{Writing systems of India}} on a page like Tibetan script or no? This raises thorny questions that IMO are better addressed by having the infobox target a "genealogical" (perhaps not the right term; but you know what I mean) grouping rather than a geographical or political one. And this way you could use the same template on scripts no longer in use e.g. Sharada or Brahmi itself. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        "Brahmi scripts" is not appropriate simply because not all the scripts used officially in India are Brahmi. Chaipau (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I agree that not all the scripts used officially are Brahmic. That is literally my point! I am saying the template should target a different grouping altogether, because the grouping you want it to target makes very little sense compared to other possible groupings. Remember, it is generally not a good idea to have multiple infoboxes, so you should pick the grouping that makes sense.
          Frankly, the more I think about it, the less I see the need for any template other than {{Infobox writing system}}, but if you must have one, the natural grouping is Brahmic scripts. And yes, that means pages like Nastaliq would not have such a template, but, fortunately, Nastaliq isn't an official script anywhere in India anyways (same with Tibetan), at least not by the definition of an "official script" used in the real world. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Sigh... I find this to be one of the pointless discussions belabouring non-issues. The template is a sidebar navigation template, meant to guide the reader to other related pages. So, please worry about that issue, and the purposes of Wikipedia, rather than what is "official" and what is not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Words have meanings, we can't just sidestep that. But yes, I agree that sidebars are navigational aids, and I fail to see how the existing {{Infobox writing system}} fails to accomplish this purpose; and if we must pick a replacement, I think something like {{Brahmic scripts}} makes for a much more systematic categorization system, and thus a better navigational aid. Again, how do you propose a page like Tibetan script should be handled? I don't see any good solution for it if we advocate the use of a geographical or geopolitical grouping like this, because it will inevitably open the door to complains from the standpoint of other countries where those scripts are used. How many infoboxes can a page bear? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              @Kautilya3, I agree. We could have a {{Scripts used in India}} and denote the officially used scripts as a subset.
              But what is concerning in this process is a unilateral removal of this template from all pages (that happened on March 16) with non-collaborating attitude (look here for instance) and then opening up the discussion. I am surprised to see that there is no WP:RS on the definition that is being foisted on us. This has been disruptive, to say the least. Chaipau (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                I'm sorry you feel that this is disruptive, but so far, we have no WP:RS on any definition of "official script" and no WP:RS on anything like "official scripts of India". Removing material that doesn't pass WP:VERIFICATION from articles is a pretty normal thing to do. So far, the plain-English reading of "official" as defined by law is as good a a definition as we have, here, and that covers very little of what the template claims. You have provided nothing like RS for your preferred definition, nor for the idea that any of the named scripts is "official" beyond the ones that I've pointed out. And, as I have already commented in this dreary discussion, we are discussing the template. We are not discussing me. If you really want to do that, you're welcome to take it to WP:ANI. PepperBeast (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                You have made literally zero attempt to provide a reliable source in support of your definition. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Summary or TLDR: This discussion is no longer moving forward, and the following could be taken as a summary of the current status -
      Others could provide alternate summaries below.
      Chaipau (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Your laughably biased summary completely omits any arguments you personally chose not to reply to (what an incredible illustration of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT):
        1. Why is India so special that it should get its own template? Should a page like Tamil script have three templates, one for each of India, Singapore, Malaysia?
        2. How come no one for a keep vote is in favor of including this template on, say, the Latin script article? Perhaps because they are aware that their template would be swiftly deleted with prejudice the second it got enough attention from editors who aren't from the segment of Wikipedia editors who zealously guard any and all coverage of the the Motherland, and continuously demand us to treat it differently from every other nation? Or perhaps they realize how ludicrous that would be, but are incapable of extending the same logic to any of the other roughly two dozen pages they want this template to appear on? Either way, it is incredibly telling that no voters for keep have even pretended to try and address this or the prior point. This is especially relevant when you keep trying to claim the Latin script is official because it is used to write the Constitution of India—and yet, even you would not try and include this template on Latin script.
        3. The argument scripts are named in legislative documents only when there are more than one scripts associated with a given language explains why some scripts are made official. It does not deny that some scripts are official and others are not, and is this, in fact, an argument for deletion.
        4. The Government of India is a voting member of the Unicode Consortium, and if this is somehow relevant (you seem to believe it is), every script encoded by Unicode must be considered (of) official (use) in India (by your argument; not mine—I think this is inane, but I am simply showing you the logical results of your own argument).
        Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

Template:Infobox Sanamahist term

[edit]

Purely exists to present a list of translations/transliterations. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the nomination's arguments are pretty weak. OSE is relevant sometimes, but with a half-dozen infoboxes coming before this one, you're going to need a better argument on that point. Claiming these fail NOTDICT is similarly weak, since having transliterations and being the exclusive focus of a definition are pretty far apart. I'm pretty undecided personally. Izno (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Latin Bible

[edit]

This recently created infobox template was used on pages where infobox book was previously used (compare: Infobox Latin Bible vs Infobox book). Other than adding latin verses to the infobox for some unclear reason, there isn't that big a difference and this creates yet another template that needs maintenance. Revert the replacments and delete this template. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep This template was created because the current Infobox Bible translation couldn't be used on Latin Bible articles due to the lack of parameters "Preceded by" and "Followed by". Latin verses are included not due to an "unclear reason" but because this is a replacement for the Infobox Bible translation. Another template, the Infobox Latin Bible without verses, has been created for articles where it's nearly impossible to find the text of the Bible to include specific verses.
    EXANXC (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If the problem was missing "Preceded by" and "Followed by" that is an awful reason to create a fork of an infobox. Propose those parameters at that template's talk page and see if you have consensus to add them. Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Template:Bible translation infobox, per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Also, I have no idea why the user EXANXC has decided that all Latin Bibles should have the next and previous Latin bible article WP mentioned in its infobox. The user adds those "Preceded by" and "Followed by" bibles without those bibles being related one to the other. Veverve (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Those preceded by and followed by parameters existed in those articles for a long time (previous revision), I did not add those. The "Preceded by" and "Followed by" are determined using the time those translations were published by the Catholic Church. Vulgate (4th century) was followed by Leuven Vulgate (1547), Leuven Vulgate was followed by Sixtine Vulgate (1590), Sixtine Vulgate was followed by Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (1592), it was followed by Nova Vulgata (1979). EXANXC (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The "Preceded by" and "Followed by" parameters were used because those bibles were officially endorsed and published by the Catholic Church.
        The 4th-century Vulgate and the Leuven Vulgate are not officially published and endorsed bibles by the Catholic Church. Veverve (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

Best DVD award navboxes

[edit]

Unsuitable to have awards navboxes for DVD re-issues, the subject of the links is the film, not the media release. Would only be acceptable if we had articles on the physical media releases themselves. How many more film award navboxes do we need?!? --woodensuperman 12:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. Your nomination is not based in any guideline and is in fact WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As long as the main article exists and the pages linked in the navbox are related, then there is no difference between this and any other award. If you have an issue with award templates in general then start a discussion and get consensus for change. Gonnym (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not at all. There is a major difference between this and other award templates. The awards shown here are for the DVDs, i.e. the physical media releases, not for the films themselves. If we were linking between articles about the DVD then it would be a different situation, but that is not the case. The films did not win these awards, the producer of the DVD reissue did. --woodensuperman 09:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also to consider is the North American WP:BIAS, as the DVD releases that won the awards are all North American releases. These releases are irrelevant to a worldwide audience so to have these navboxes plastered on the film articles is clearly WP:UNDUE. --woodensuperman 11:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        No bias here. It's a NA award for NA film on a NA article. Completely fine. I'm sure I said this before (even though I created some award navboxes myself), I believe that in general these are really a bad idea (even for Oscars) and would support deleting them all, but won't support removing some by personal taste. Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gonnym. Another "I don't like it" nomination attempting to delete awards navboxes. These little seen nominations, if done enough times about different awards, will eventually catch a few. But hopefully not these, which should stay as functional and guideline-compliant topic maps. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not remotely an I don't like it nomination. See my reasoning above. The films did not win these awards. The DVD reissues did. --woodensuperman 18:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These awards are not for the films themselves. It's for the media format. The list articles have each film that was given the award for the media format and several of these awards are not only retired and inactive but are not defining for a navbox that connects articles. The films should be the focus of these film award navboxes not the media format. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Oops - looks like I missed one: {{Saturn Award for Best Television DVD Release}}. Too late to add to nomination now? --woodensuperman 12:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly, per nom's comments. Izno (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not an award for the film, but an award for the dvd/blu-ray release, and the dvd/blu-ray release does not have its own article. Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delele. Navboxes like these just add to template clutter and encourages further creation of navboxes with even more trivial intersections amongst the listed films. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

Template:IZombie

[edit]

Only four links to any articles not including the creators linked above. Both characters' links are to the same article but to the respective section on both the comic series and TV series. And the link to the comic series is featured twice.

Removing the non article links in the first section and the one link to the article section, you would have only three links within the navbox. No navigation is met with this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I've cleaned it up and there are four links after the subject plus the two comic book creators. This is borderline WP:NENAN for me, but I've seen far worse. --woodensuperman 10:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Narrowly a delete for me. All of this should be easily connected already. Izno (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, connects 7 articles. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The articles on the creators don't count. It's below that that matters. And it's not enough and all articles are already connected to each other anyway through article space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The articles on the creators don't count = say what? the articles of the creators are important, which is why they are in the navbox, and why the navbox is in the articles of the creators. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            But all links are able to found through the main article and through the rest in the navbox. No navigation is being added with those creator links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              which should be true for all links in navboxes, since navboxes are not visible on mobile, but yet we are not eliminating all navboxes. the point of a navbox is when you are navigating from an article other than the main article. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                And yet all links are connected through their respective articles. The navbox doesn't have a distinct form of navigation that can be met outside of going through the article pages to get there. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence

[edit]

Substantial duplication, all signatories and other related links already included in the "Declaration of Independence" section of {{Historical American Documents}} so no additional navigational benefit. Alternative would be to split {{Historical American Documents}} into its component parts. --woodensuperman 13:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose, another alternate would be to leave this alone as an important United States founding navbox. The set of Founders signing this important document deserves both its own navbox and links in the overall event navbox, especially since we are now in the 250th anniversary period for the founding events and will have to watch and protect pages from IP vandals let alone the time sink of regular users attempting to delete them. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you not see the redundancy present here? All links are on both navboxes. There is literally a section for signatories of the Declaration of Independence in the other navbox. --woodensuperman 13:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        In this case you are taking redundancy to mean something other than it should. The documents navbox lists the same names, yes, for full coverage of the event. But that navbox is not included on all of the signers pages, which is where the signers navbox does that job. There is no redundancy, just information about the document that belongs on both navboxes in order to fully cover the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL they should be. Why are they linked in the navbox if the navbox isn't transcluded on those pages? --woodensuperman 13:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            They are linked so readers can click on the links and read one or more of the articles. It is another way of readers finding articles of interest. Taking the policy Ignoring all rules into account (a policy, not a guideline, which would require that removing the links improves Wikipedia) would cover these commonsense links to articles for readers of the topic who would find them this way and not another. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              An identical set of links does not need be listed in two navboxes, especially if only one navbox is performing any navigational function. --woodensuperman 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                They both perform as navboxes, and if the link to, say, Benjamin Franklin is removed from the historical documents navbox it is lost to articles on which that navbox is added. May I ask, what does it really hurt to include links to the names? Does it improve Wikipedia or harm it to remove them? WP:IAR is not an abstract concept to be avoided (I recall one user mentioning being proud that they hadn't invoked IAR in their 17 years of editing, as if it were an abstract essay) it's a policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  It's not perfoming as a navbox if it is not providing the required navigational function. You know that it's not an infobox right? And yes, overproliferation and abuse of navboxes does harm as it hinders a reader even finding the relevant links. You can't see the wood for the trees half the time here. This is why we do not need repitition of exactly the same set of links on two navboxes. --woodensuperman 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                    And in my point of view you, in good faith of course, don't even know that a lush forest exists since you spend all of your time looking at one tree. What harm? (seriously, what harm). I explained why the concise navbox is used on the signers pages and not the full documents navbox, and that the links serve a purpose of navigation to the signers of the document for readers who would find it that way. We are all about the readers, and should make finding any article of interest as easy as possible for them in order that they may both learn about the topic or, if interested, edit the page for further benefit to Wiki English. Removing links to a name which is used anyway on the navbox removes those options and potential improvements. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per nom because I agree, its redundant since the {{Historical American Documents}} covers it and does so in more detail. But I'm against splitting {{Historical American Documents}}; not really necessary. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      These two are not redundant, the signatories navbox is in alphabetical order and is placed on each page. What you suggest is place the Historical documents navbox on each of the signatories pages - why not both. One an easy alphabetical listing and the other a fuller look at the document and its creators. This is the founding document of the United States, a little leeway in allowing both navboxes to function would be appropriate due to the weight of the topic, especially since they are both long-term navboxes and that nobody (no one, not a reader or editor) has complained before this discussion which shows the acceptance level of such detail and Wikipedia mapping information. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The reason you don't need both is because of WP:NAVBOXCREEP. It is redundant for two navboxes to present the same set or subset of articles. Navboxes aren't for a "fuller look" at a topic, that's what articles are for. Naboxes are for navigation. --woodensuperman 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Navboxes are maps of the topic on Wiki English. And it is fine to have two navboxes link to the same pages, especially in light of the historical importance we're discussing here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Template:Historical American Documents seems like it could be easily split into four navboxes already, and the signers of United States Declaration of Independence seems to be a large enough subtopic to warrant a split. The others either are not large enough to split out the signers or do not have an article on the topic. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So are you advocating a split, utilising this one as the base template? --woodensuperman 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        In any case, this is an extremely small amount of editors commenting on such an important navbox - the Declaration of Independence isn't Granny's Apple Pie wins but the foundation of the creation of a leading national direction and policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, I want Template:Historical American Documents to be broken into its component parts with the signer's being split into its own template as well. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          They are both valuable as maps to the topic (the Historical American Documents navbox is actually the best map to the founding documents on the entire web and not just Wikipedia). But a split isn't being decided here, just being used as an example. The signers navbox under question is an easily understood concise alphabetical listing while the wonderful Historical American Documents navbox lists the signers by state. Seems the concern is that two related but topic-dissimilar navboxes include links to articles about individuals who signed one of the important documents, but that only one of them should include the useful links (which I do not understand as being a problem, and nobody else has either - editor or reader - until this nomination). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one. The HAD template is the one that actually should be at TFD. Izno (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am absolutely okay with that, splitting the HAD one into its component parts is on reflection probably the better option. --woodensuperman 08:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split {{Historical American Documents}} potentially getting rid of it due to its oversize (as per Izno). If anything it should be a {{navboxes}} template and not a {{navbox}} one. —Uzume (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      HAD is an example in this discussion but not nominated for anything. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

Weather infoboxes

[edit]

It had been decided in a discussion at WPWX that the infoboxes for tropical cyclones, storms, and floods would be replaced by Template:Infobox weather event since there are a variety of new features as well as ease of editing with the new infobox. I had been told in the past that a TfD was required to formally deprecate templates and that a RfC was not sufficient enough. I would like to point out that around 90% of infobox tropical cyclone's transclusions have been replaced by this point as have a majority of infobox storm's. Noah, AATalk 16:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete after replacing tranclusions with {{Infobox weather event}}. The RfC closed with consensus to replace the infoboxes with the new template which should be implemented. Gonnym (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at this stage.change to depreciate, see below 1999 Sydney hailstorm is a featured article which uses this soon-to-be-'depreciated' infobox, but the new infobox is garish and not suited to the article. The 1999 Sydney hailstorm article will be on the main page as Today's Featured Article in roughly four weeks time. I strongly oppose the new infobox for its garish aesthetics and therefore oppose its depreciation. Note that my opposition wasn't provided at the local consensus WPWX discussion, as no notification was provided to me that the discussion was occurring. Further, there is no 'duration' field in the new infobox that I can see (please correct me if I'm wrong), which is relevant to hailstorms. From what I can also see, 'fatalities' & 'damage' can't be captured in this either - again, directly relevant to hailstorms. Areas affected? What about the caption for the image? Per the spirit of WP:FAOWN, the "depreciation" of infobox storm needs to occur in the context of it being used on existing featured article(s) - if the new template cannot provide the same functionality as the old one, in my opinion it shouldn't be depreciated. Daniel (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Daniel: It is a modular infobox so different sub-templates have to be used. The main template has parameters for the image and its caption. Template:Infobox weather event/History contains a parameter for duration. Template:Infobox weather event/Effects has the parameters relating to areas affected and impact. There are some examples on the main template page documentation. A recent article, January 8–10, 2024 North American storm complex, also shows the usage of various aspects of the new infobox. The real reason why storms needed to be replaced is the infobox is a mess of coding that is hard to modify without screwing something up (TCs infobox has the exact same problem). This means that additional scales (namely additional tornado-related ones) or really anything else couldn't be feasibly added to it without messing up the current infobox. The sub-templates separate out various components which allows for as many scales or other items to be added as needed since they are in different templates. We copied over all the functionally of the various infoboxes and added some additional items (egs. economic losses, Torro scale, IF scale) which wouldn't have been possible otherwise. Another important change was links were moved out of the colored bars for scales to fix accessibility issues with having a link on certain colors. Noah, AATalk 20:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        So my question is, can every single current item in the current infobox be replicated in the new infobox, with the precise same descriptor? I can't see many of them on the various documentation pages, and couldn't when I checked prior to my original comment. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Everything worked except for active and location but those were easily added to the duration and areas parameters to allow those to be used. If there are any missing descriptors from other areas and it is discovered, it can be resolved quite easily as I did with the two I found. Every item from the infoboxes can be replicated but it is entirely possible that some descriptors might not work if they were missed. Please see [12] which I performed on the featured article you mentioned as a test. I reverted my edit once it was performed. Noah, AATalk 22:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Thanks for doing that. The only two remaining objections from me are: 1) "duration" should either be between "formed" and "dissipated", or at worst after "dissipated". Chronoligcally it makes little sense for it to be prior to "formed"; and 2) I find "Overall effects" header to be both clunky and also a little insensitive given that within that section is fatalities and damage. Can this be coded to allow a custom header (for this article I would go with 'Storm impact' or something similar). If these two changes can be made, I am happy to support depreciation considering the template's colour scheme is gray (the bright colours are morbid in my opinion, but given this doesn't impact the article I am considering as part of my objection, I don't feel the need to focus on that). Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              @Daniel: I put duration after dissipated to avoid issues with other options such as remnant-low, extratropical, etc. I also added in the ability to change the header for the overall effects. It can be changed by adding the following to the effects portion: |custom = name you want to use . You can see this in action here. Outside of any scale (tornado, tropical cyclone, or winter), all section labels default to gray. The colors for those scales were decided in another set of discussions and aren't exclusive to the infoboxes. Basically, regardless of which infobox is currently in an article, the same colors show up for those scale types I mentioned with the only major difference being the old infoboxes have the colored bars as a type of infobox header rather than a section header. Noah, AATalk 14:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                Thanks again for those changes. I formally support depreciation on the basis of these changes. Note that I do not support deletion, as it will break the history/oldid's of articles that used the infobox. But definitely 100% support deprecitation now. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{infobox flood}}. The linked RfC primarily discussed the cyclones template - I'm not sure it's an improvement for that one either but it's pretty much a fait accompli at this point. But because the template and the discussion have both been targeted to cyclones, the template is not well-suited to other use-cases and no strong rationales for the change have been put forward for them. The new template is much more challenging for end-users - as demonstrated by the errors seen in the pre-TfD implementation attempt. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I just wanted to say that the template wasnt targeted towards cyclones but was intended to replace all three of these infoboxes and was developed towards the goal of doing just that. The vast majority of transclusions just happen to be for tropical cyclone and tornado articles since those are the most numerous. In terms of parameters, the new template has more features than infobox flood does which was expressed in the opening comment during the RfC even if it wasnt explicitly mentioned in that part of the comment that it included infobox flood. Specifically, there are effects items such as currency conversion, year, economic losses, missing, evacuated, etc and the ability to mention the maximum rainfall that occurred during the event. All existing items were incorporated into the infobox. There are flood articles such as 2013 Colorado floods which use the infobox already and havent had any issues with it not being suited for usage. Noah, AATalk 19:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at that article as an example, the conversion certainly doesn't seem to have improved the situation - we've increased the complexity for both the reader and the editor. I don't think "havent had any issues with it not being suited for usage" is the right bar when we could easily say the same about the previous template. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Infobox flood per expressed opposition since there isn't either a policy-based or strong enough rationale otherwise to warrant replacing that infobox. Noah, AATalk 16:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

Template:Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films

[edit]

Subjective list, should be deleted for all the same reasons the AFI and Sight and Sound ones were. See discussions here and here --woodensuperman 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huge Oppose (Keep), and let's get the Sight and Sound navbox back which was closed way too soon with very little editor participation. The Cahiers du Cinema's list is one of the two most-accepted lists of all-time best films, along with Sight and Sound. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But, as the previous discussions point out, they are subjective. They're not even awards. And, the list isn't even shown at the article. Appetite to recreate the Sight and Sound one was not expressed with this more recent discussion. --woodensuperman 06:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Both this and the Sight and Sound polls are considered determinative as rankings of best films. The rankings change in S&S every ten years, which is what makes the concise navbox very navigational and informative (i.e. being able to quickly view the swing of the ranking of a film, such as Citizen Kane, throughout the years). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Where is the data for the "all time" poll even coming from, it's not even mentioned at the article. The article shows the result of an annual poll, which changes over time, that is clearly not definitive. And information belongs on an article, not a navbox. There are enough bona fide awards templates cluttering up articles as it is, we don't need navboxes for results of polls too. --woodensuperman 12:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            You see clutter where others see valued information. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Valued information belongs in articles. Navboxes are for navigating between defined sets. --woodensuperman 12:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Okay, think I've found the source here. An article from 2008. I can't see any world where the films that were decided by a single publication as the "best ever" in 2008 can be seen as definitive today. Also, there seem to be eleven films in the navbox. We cannot use magazine polls as good material for navboxes. Hundreds of publications publish polls all the time, we cannot discriminate between this and any other magazine poll, like Empire's, etc, etc, etc... --woodensuperman 12:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Thanks, I've added 'per 2008' in the navbox section head which should clear this up. The best of the polls, the Sight and Sound tenannual poll, is the main one that should be brought back and a move review on that one should be next in line (but will wait until the decision on this one, which should not be judged in the nom on the Sight and Sound removal which will be contested). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              You've already tried and failed to get the Sight & Sound one overturned Randy. WP:DROPTHESTICK. --woodensuperman 14:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                Not true, that was a discussion at a Wikiproject talk page, not an overall Deletion review. Look at the actual deletion nomination (another one of yours), this was in no way a good close - should have been relisted at a minimum - or a full discussion for such an important topic. That's why so much gets deleted here, it's an out-of-the-way Wikipedia backroom niche where major deletions such as this one is tucked away. Many more alerts are needed for controversial topics such as this (and no, an rarely noticed small line at the bottom of an article page is not an "alert" except in the broadest sense, it's more of a tiny footnote that will likely not be noticed, take the low attendence at the Sight and Sound deletion as an example of "major topic but small attendence". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  Read the actual discussion Randy, multiple editors pointed out to you it was a good close and also refuted your claims that it was an "out-of-the-way Wikipedia backroom niche" (to which you even agreed that it was a "good point"), and there was more support for the deletion for good measure. WP:DROPTHESTICK. --woodensuperman 14:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (Keep). I agree with Randy Kryn. This is not "subjective". Are Oscars subjective? What is not subjective in the field of culture? This is not an award but it's a recognition by one of the most prominent film magazines in the history of film. Makes sense, gives information about the degree of notability of certain works and puts them into perspective, and is not a big navbox anyway in terms of size. I can't see any actual reason for deletion. (I've read both discussions the nominator is referring their rationale to, and the least I can say is that I am not convinced).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course it's subjective, "best of" lists always are, and this is a single list from 2008. It's not definitive --woodensuperman 14:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        And whilst I'm no advocate for awards navboxes, at least winning an award is something tangible, being included in an opinion poll is not. --woodensuperman 11:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Yes, that's the point. You just don't like it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd lean toward delete as this is just a magazine listing/ranking which in itself isn't a major award. However, the conversation has spiraled from being about the navbox into something else. But this navbox list should be added to the main article or the Cahiers du Cinéma's Annual Top 10 Lists article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's one of the most prestigious of movie lists since the 1950s. Espngeek (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine for a list article, but not a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Lists, navboxes. and categories are all, by guideline, complementary and should not be excluded because another of these three forms are utilized. All three are allowable and each is used and preferred by different readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          That doesn't mean that all are appropriate for each case. --woodensuperman 10:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, I am not seeing the "all time per 2008" in Cahiers du Cinéma's Annual Top 10 Lists or Cahiers du Cinéma? Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The poll was taken in 2008. Is this fact being on the navbox your reason for deletion? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • so, the fact that the poll is out-of-date is why it's not either article, but good enough for a navbox? Frietjes (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          You misunderstand, my fault. The Top Ten of All-Time was the 2008 poll, of interest to "all time" film fans, but they also do a yearly poll of the Top Ten of the Year as well, which is linked. Not everyone knows this, and the navbox alerts readers of the all-time films to it. This poll is important, but not as interesting as the Sight and Sound poll of all time films taken and looked forward to every ten years, and has two parts: critics and directors (interesting comparing the two). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            every ten years seems like a strange reason to have a poll that is 15-16 years old, and also strange that the most interesting poll is not in the article. also, not sure why we are talking about Sight and Sound when this discussion is about Cahiers du Cinéma. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              The every ten-year poll is the famous Sight and Sound poll. It is really a touchstone of film importance and the acceptance by critics and directors of relative importance. These two polls are related and important due to their quality and historical importance. I don't know which article you are pointing to which doesn't include either of the polls. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others and previous deletions. Random top 10 list from 15 years ago is not sufficient reason to use a navbox. Izno (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a magazine listing/ranking which in itself isn't a major award. There's still no reason why this list can't be its own article or be added to a relevant article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".

For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.

Tags:

templates For Discussion How to use this pagetemplates For Discussion Discussiontemplates For Discussion Closing discussiontemplates For Discussion Current discussionstemplates For Discussion Old discussionstemplates For Discussion Completed discussionstemplates For DiscussionHelp:TemplateWikipedia:Lua

🔥 Trending searches on Wiki English:

Shikhar DhawanCaliforniaJulia RobertsBilly MagnussenUEFA Euro 2024 qualifying play-offsDerek DraperFirst Daughter (2004 film)Sex positionKeanu ReevesWorld Wide WebMarylandCanvaThe Acolyte (TV series)Bradley CooperEkaterina AlexandrovaGolden Gate BridgeSnapchatWindows 10 version historyKristen StewartChinaRebel WilsonDebbie ReynoldsMandi Lok Sabha constituencyIrelandUEFA Euro 2024 qualifyingJimmy CarterRyan ReynoldsBernard ArnaultPriscilla PresleyUEFA Euro 2020The Apothecary DiariesChristian BaleAlia BhattDanny Ward (Welsh footballer)WeCrashedDwayne JohnsonGujarat TitansDiana RossAmerican Civil WarFrank HerbertWinona RyderThe Three-Body Problem (novel)Liam NeesonCillian MurphyJessica Williams (actress)Max VerstappenThe White LotusAudi CrooksMegan FoxThe First OmenAlyson HanniganSexual intercourseThom HayeLinkedInStruggle sessionBad Boys Ride or DieDan + Shay2003 Angola Boeing 727 disappearanceSolar eclipse of April 8, 2024Three-BodySylvester StalloneCordarrelle PattersonJulius CaesarNaughty AmericaLiu CixinEminemMonkey Man (film)Jann MardenboroughShaquille O'NealList of most-streamed artists on SpotifyJeff HealeyAndrew TateSlađana MiloševićFelix of BurgundyAustin ButlerAlexander the GreatBenson BooneAaron Hernandez🡆 More