Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 5 13 18
TfD 0 0 0 6 6
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 0 1 1
RfD 0 0 0 30 30
AfD 0 0 0 0 0
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

Shortcut

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

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

Reasons to delete a template

Shortcut
  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

Shortcuts

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 <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_April_19#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.

Notifying related WikiProjects

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

April 19

Template:Olean–Bradford Radio/doc

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 ( talk) 16:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Litfiba

This navigation template has only one wiklinked topic under the title, so it doesn't need to exist. Binksternet ( talk) 15:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:2008–09 WHL trades

Single use template. Subst to article and delete template. Gonnym ( talk) 05:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:2008 NHL Entry Draft (WHL draftees)

Single use template which is just a group of tables. Subst to article. Gonnym ( talk) 05:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Linkbox

Used only in one editor's user page. Created in 2015. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 18

Template:Hot Cross

The articles for the albums for this band have been redirected or deleted, leaving only links to the band members. A navbox is no longer warranted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Sydney Hornsby suburbs

This template started as being one for suburbs for Hornsby Shire but somehow expanded to include "Suburbs within Hornsby Shire, North Shore, Northern Suburbs, Hills District, Sydney". This is a rather random combination. It also omits North Shore suburbs like Chatswood, Killara. Suggest deletion of template or scoping back to Hornsby Shire suburbs only. LibStar ( talk) 03:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I'd say scale back to the Hornsby Shire. Remove all unrelated links. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Charyapada

The template is not used, nor directly or by template substitution, and has no likelihood of being used. Most of the links seem unrelated to the topic. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 00:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I am adding the template in the articles, don't be hurry. Charyapada is most important ancient document in Bengali and assamese literature. Bengali editor ( talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The articles you added the template to seem unrelated to the topic. For example, you added it to Aryadeva, where the only mention of the word "Charyapada" is in the template and categories, which you addded. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You did the same at Miranda E. Shaw. User:CanonNi, do we have to look at all of them? Drmies ( talk) 00:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It might be too long to put here, but sure. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Aryadeva was "surely" an important figure in Charyapada, but in case of Miranda M. Shaw, you can remove the template. Bengali editor ( talk) 00:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If you know the template is unrelated to the topic, why put it there in the first place? '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 00:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I did, and I did the same in a bunch of others, and you really need to stop because it looks like you're gaming the system. Drmies ( talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Miranda M Shaw and Bangiya Shahitya Parishad is mentioned in Charyapada article "As songs of realization, the Caryāpada were intended to be sung. These songs of realisation were spontaneously composed verses that expressed a practitioner's experience of the enlightened state. Miranda Shaw describes how songs of realization were an element of the ritual gathering of practitioners in a ganachakra:" and "The original palm-leaf manuscript of the Charyapada, or Caryācaryāviniścaya, spanning 47 padas (verses) along with a Sanskrit commentary, was edited by Shastri and published from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad as a part of his Hajar Bacharer Purano Bangala Bhasay Bauddhagan O Doha (Buddhist Songs and Couplets) in 1916 under the name of Charyacharyavinishchayah. This manuscript is presently preserved at the National Archives of Nepal.". They are not unrilated, bangiaya sahitya parishad first published the biblical version of research on Charyapada and Miranda M. Shaw is a notable western resercher on ancient twilight language researcher including the document of Charyapada, please check the Charyapada article. Bengali editor ( talk) 00:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If they are related, why is the word "Charyapada" not mentioned in the articles at all? '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 00:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Bengali editor, that should have been part of the article content--properly written, with secondary sources. Drmies ( talk) 00:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
See the relation of Bangiya Sahitya Parisad and Charyapad here in a lot of secondary established sources written in both bengali and english in google book search. For bengali, use google translate, https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-oppo-rvo3&sca_esv=38e6d9cfed2f671c&sca_upv=1&q=bangiya+sahitya+parishad+charyapada&tbm=bks&source=lnms&prmd=ivsnmbz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx3MbFt7aFAxUIR2cHHWO0DAcQ0pQJegQITRAB&biw=360&bih=668&dpr=2 [1] "Charyapada is credited to the early 20th- century scholar Haraprasad Shastri who bumped upon the palm-leaf manuscript at the Nepal Royal Court Library in 1907 and published in the form of a book in 1916 from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad "

Bengali editor ( talk) 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Again, if the topics are related, why isn't Charyapada mentioned in Bangiya Sahitya Parishat? In addition, the Google Books key terms in the book you linked has no mention of Charyapada when I Google Translated it. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 01:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The article is poorly written above it's importance and the google translate "surely" mentions the world "Charyapad" (চর্যাপদ) with Bangiya Shahitya Parisad (বঙ্গীয় সাহিত্য পরিষদ) in lots of books. Check again please. And the book i mentioned is in english, not bengali, you don't need to translate. Check again. Bengali editor ( talk) 01:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
2 mentions of the word Charyapada appeared when I searched in the book:
  1. Charyapada are believed to be written by some ascetics in the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism. It is believed by many scholars that these poems were first composed, then sung, and later written (between the 6th and 12th centuries). The ...
  2. Akash Dutta. AN. INTRODUCTION. TO. THE. HISTORY. OF. BENGALI. POETRY. Although the Charyapada (composed, sung, and compiled between the 6th and 12th centuries CE when Beowulf, the earliest example of Old English literature, was also being ...
No mention of Bangiya Sahitya Parishat. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 01:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "The mystical poems of the Charyapada are believed to be written by some ascetics in the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism. It is believed by many scholars that these poems were first composed, then sung, and later written (between the 6th and 12th centuries). The language was a kind of Abahatta that was the precursor of many Eastern Indo-Aryan languages including the Assamese, Bengali, Odia, Magahi, and Maithili. Hence the unending debate whether each of these languages had originated from the same source or not.

The discovery of the Charyapada is credited to the early 20th-century scholar Haraprasad Shastri who bumped upon the palm-leaf manuscript at the Nepal Royal Court Library in 1907 and published in the form of a book in 1916 from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad as a part of his Hajar Bacharer Purano Bangala Bhasay Bauddhagan O Doha (Buddhist Songs and Couplets) under the name of Charyacharyavinishchayah. It is assumed that some scholars of Bengal and Mithila fled to Nepal and also to Tibet when the Turkic soldiers invaded Bengal in the 12th century A.D. The major poets or Siddhacharyas of Charyapada were Luipada, Chatillapada, Bhusukupada, and Kanhapada. All of them wrote in highly allegorical language while using riddling and often confusing terms infusing numerous religious symbologies and mysticism. Since the language of these hymns can only be moderately understood, it is called Sandhya Bhasha or the twilight language. The Charyapada hymns have been critically appreciated for their linguistic and literary values. [2] Bengali editor ( talk)

Sarkar, Pabitra (12 February 2024). "Vangiya Sahitya Parishat, the first Bengal Academy of Literature". The Daily Star. Retrieved 10 April 2024. The Parishat also boasts a proud list of great publications, particularly those concerning old and middle Bengali literature. The Charyapadas, which carry the first samples of the earliest Bengali, is one such publication (1916). It was edited as Hajar Bachharer Puratan Bangala Bashay Bouddhagan O Doha by Haraprasad Shastri, who had discovered it in 1907 at the library of Nepal's Prime Minister. Another example is Shrikrishnakirtan, collected (1909) and edited (1916) by Basanta Ranjan Bidvatballabh. Bengali editor ( talk) 01:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Dutta, Akash (15 August 2021). The Light of the Hidden Flowers. Global Collective Publishers. p. 18. ISBN  978-1-954021-37-2. Retrieved 10 April 2024.
  2. ^ Mukhopadhyay, Nirmalya (15 August 2021). The Vision of the Solitary Man. Global Collective Publishers. p. XXIV. ISBN  978-1-954021-35-8. Retrieved 10 April 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting mainly because the !votes are currently "per nom", but the nomination is that it is unused (which is no longer true).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 12:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 17

Template:Kerala State Television Awards

Current template mirrors Template:Kerala State Television Award for Best Actor and if these was a listing of State Awards, there would be only two articles. One for film and television. This is unused and the best actor is. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm so sorry without knowing I had created this template.

Template:Campaignbox Polish-Cossack-Tatar War (1666-1671)

Similar to the template below. This just has two links. Not enough to navigate with. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 15:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Halifax family tree

Unused family tree chart. The Halifax family as the name would suggest never existed and instead the Earl of Halifax is just a peerage title of different members of political families. Each with a different last name. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 15:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Polish-Cossack-Tatar War (1666-1671)

Unused and only one link. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 15:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:UK territories image map

Unused map. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 15:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Skytrain MIA

This template has entirely redundant information copied from Template:Miami International Airport, which provides better context for this people mover within the airport as a whole. The Miami International Airport template is also the route diagram template (RDT) used in the articles for the airport's other two people mover systems. Jackdude101  talk  cont 14:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Animal actors

This navbox is not necessary IMO, as it essentially serves the purpose of a category. We already have a category and a page for animal actors, so we don't also need a navbox. Di (they-them) ( talk) 00:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

EDIT, I would like to withdraw this nomination. As Randy Kryn pointed out, WP:CLN renders my concern moot. In addition, the navbox has been edited and is in much better shape than it was previously. Di (they-them) ( talk) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You don't need to withdraw it, Randy is misinterpreting the guideline. -- wooden superman 08:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
And I think you are misinterpreting the guideline, please read it, and please don't ignore the nominator's comment about the navbox being in much better shape. As for categories, lists, and navboxes, of course all three are not needed in every case. But when all three do exist they, according to the guideline and commonsense, compliment each other and are not in conflict with each other. This animal actor navbox is a good guide to the subject and provides the topic with an easily viewed and easily understood Wikipedia map. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there is nothing wrong with this navbox. As for having both a category and a navbox, please read WP:CLN which states: "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...Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." (boldface in original). Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    You keep spouting the same spiel about WP:CLN but it seems like you haven't actually read it. Sometimes categories are appropriate where navboxes are not, and vice versa. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods. -- wooden superman 08:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • weak delete, seems strange that there are 10 entries in Category:Chimpanzee actors but currently only 7 "Non-human primates" in the navbox. seems like a maintenance headache to try to keep the category, list article, and navbox in sync. Frietjes ( talk) 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Frietjes, thanks for pointing that out. The primate entries have been added (in one case removed, was Michael Jackson's chimpanzee Bubbles an actor?), so have addressed much of your concern. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    still a maintenance headache since there are still more missing. correcting this would require checking every entry in the category and in the list article and syncing with the template. Frietjes ( talk) 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
     Done, at least as far as the list (have just synced the list with the navbox). Not really much of a headache at all, and similar to any other navbox which includes multiple entries (as all navboxes should). Will work on the category entries. The navbox could be further sectioned for accuracy and navigational ease (bears, etc.). Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    and  Done for the categories and expanded the sections. Thanks Frietjes, your concern, now remedied, has helped to better this navbox. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Definitely better suited to category navigation. The articles do not refer to each other, the only association is tangential. We don't have a navbox for {{ Human actors}}, no reason for the same logic not to apply here. -- wooden superman 08:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Human actors are a totally different topic. Dogs, bears, a crocodile and assorted other animals do not personally choose and endeavor to excel in a career in acting. These pets are made to act by their owners for personal profit. In any case, this is not a very large navbox, and if the Wikipedia collection of human actors included only 85 articles the topic would reasonably have a navbox, no? Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, I don't think so. They are not a defined set, inclusion here is tangential, they do not relate to one another. -- wooden superman 12:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
They are not a defined set and do not relate to one another? They are animal actors. What else do you need? Perplexed in Portsmouth, Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
And categorising animal actors as such is fine for categories, but it does not make a good navbox. Keiko (orca) and Trigger (horse) have nothing in common other than this tangential intersection. -- wooden superman 12:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm actually not understanding how your reasoning works on this. The topic is "Animal actors", which include both Keiko and Trigger. What do they have in common? Being animals, and being actors. And again, and I'm sure I don't need to remind you, WP:CLN specifically says not to pit categories and navboxes against each other, but correctly tel us that they compliment each other and work in tandem. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, they are are animals and actors. But that's not a reason to have a navbox for this, when a category is more appropriate. Why should we have different rules for human actors and animal actors? You are cherry-picking WP:CLN again, which clearly states: The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods. There are advantages for a category or a list here, but it is not appropriate for a navbox. No-one needs to navigate between Keiko and Trigger in this manner. -- wooden superman 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Izno ( talk) 17:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There is long-standing precedent that seemingly duplicative lists, categories, and templates all serve distinct niches in our navigation framework and all serve to present content to interested readers in different formats. I would also argue that people concerned about animal rights and the potential exploitation of working animals would find a great deal of correspondence in the working conditions of cetaceans, non-human primates, elephants, etc., and may very well appreciate having all out animal actor articles available to them in one topic box. jengod ( talk) 04:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 11:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Please note... that the nominator withdrew this nomination soon after it opened. Primefac, wouldn't this withdrawal make a difference in relisting? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Nope. Primefac ( talk) 11:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Okay, but would like to also point out for editors that one of the reasons for the nominator's withdrawing was "the navbox has been edited and is in much better shape than it was previously", which hopefully counts as reasoning for the next close. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    It still has exactly the same issues, it's just been split into more groups. My !vote was placed after the amendments had been made. -- wooden superman 12:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, it doesn't have the same issues as the nomination (that's why it was withdrawn). The addition of more groupings improved the navbox to the extent that the nom was voided. That you still objected is tangential to that action. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    As well as misinterpreting WP:CLN you seem to be misinterpreting the WP:Deletion process too. The nom is not in any way void. How is my !vote tangential? -- wooden superman 12:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    What is tangential is saying that the navbox "has exactly the same issues". No, it doesn't, it was nominated on a set of concerns which were remedied. Your concerns are of a different nature than the nomination, that's what I meant. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    It was nominated because it is better suited to a category. These concerns have not been remedied as it is still better suited to a category. -- wooden superman 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please read WP:CLN, where it's clear that categories, navboxes, and lists should be considered as complimentary to each other and work together. It is your opinion that this topic should stay limited to a category, but myself and a few other editors see the quality of the topic in the navbox. If a good percentage of commenting editors notice that value then shouldn't the readers be allowed to experience the same value? Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    For the third (!) time: The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods. -- wooden superman 18:20, 17 April 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 11:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Hum Award Best Music Band

One entry, WP:NENAN -- wooden superman 11:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Hum Award Best Soap Series

Only one entry with an article, nothing to navigate -- wooden superman 11:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Hum Award Best Drama Series

One entry, nothing to navigate. -- wooden superman 11:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Prize for the best interpretation at the Marrakech International Film Festival Awards

2 entries, WP:NENAN -- wooden superman 11:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Uw-wnr4im

Already covered entirely by {{ Uw-hoax}}; there is no reason for there to be a specific UW template for intentionally fake and made-up hoax versions of Windows (WNR seems to mean Windows Never Released). Very likely to never be used. See {{ Uw-wnr1}}. WhoAteMyButter ( 🌷talk│ 🌻contribs) 04:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment This template refers to "WNR/NROS" but doesn't define what this term refers to, like is it a policy page? The template would be pretty meaningless without an explanation provided. This term is used with all of the other similar templates nominated now for discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Note that this comment was made prior to the below merge, and is referring specifically to {{ Uw-wnr4im}}. Primefac ( talk) 11:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • information Administrator note I am being slightly BOLD and combining these five nominations, as they are one template family and have been nominated with identical rationales. Original nominations can be seen in Special:Permalink/1219376816#Template:Uw-wnr4im. Primefac ( talk) 11:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, no reason for an over-specific version of {{ Uw-hoax}}. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 13:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User:User2802.172 has removed the TfD notices from all 5 templates. I will revert after writing this but I would like to know what the reason is. Nickps ( talk) 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:HK-MTR route title

Redundant to MTR line articles. Using the infobox is ok. 阿南之人 ( talk) 10:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 16

Template:Major Leagues

Propose merging Template:Major Leagues with Template:Top-level sport leagues in the United States.
Redundant and could be easily incorporated. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete {{ Top-level sport leagues in the United States}} instead. There is no corresponding article, and as WikiOriginal-9 points out, it seems a bit random. -- wooden superman 11:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge The major leagues are the top level leagues and the top-level navbox should be for the top sports like baseball, football, basketball, soccer, hockey. Fencing, swimming, eating, and gaming are not really sports in terms of major league sports. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 15:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Best Screenplay Award at the Marrakech International Film Festival Awards

2 articles. WP:NENAN -- wooden superman 15:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Jury Prize for Best Director at the Marrakech International Film Festival Awards

Nothing to navigate -- wooden superman 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Disney Adventure World

Presumably Template:Walt Disney Studios Park will be moved to this space once the park is officially renamed in 2025. This is 100% jumping the gun. GSK ( talk • edits) 00:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 15

Template:Family Guy (season 1)

These templates have been merged into {{ Family Guy episodes}}, which uses a switch to display the episodes for a specific season. Clever. The individual navboxes are unused now. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm leaning oppose and restore these templates and delete {{ Family Guy episodes}} which is clearly being misused to create navboxes full of non-links and redirects. Gonnym ( talk) 10:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Look at the pointless usage at Family Guy season 22#External links. Gonnym ( talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. AFAICT, the links in the centralized template are the same as those in the individual templates. Having one template create a variety of navboxes is better than having 10+ templates. The listings for season 22 should be removed from {{ Family Guy episodes}} until articles exist, but using the centralized template at Family Guy season 4#External links is better than using {{ Family Guy (season 4)}}. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The baby is a lie. There is a reason only those seasons had a template and that is because the other seasons don't have enough links to support one. So what did those "clever" editors do? Merge them all so finding and removing these is that much harder. Gonnym ( talk) 06:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For any season that has the navbox for a season with no articles, the choice is to remove it and replace it with the main Family Guy navbox with a link to that season. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I realllllllllly do not like navboxes that are conditional. These are some of our most-simple templates and the conditionality steps up the complexity significantly. Izno ( talk) 17:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ( Let's talk together!) 22:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No need for the individual season episodes. I've always thought that {{ Doctor Who episodes}}, which is ths same principle, works rather efficiently (although I have no idea why there is an "episode count" at that other template). -- wooden superman 13:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Peter Cook

Unused and in archaic format, many articles fall foul of WP:FILMNAV, etc, etc. Don't really see the need for a dedicated navbox, but no prejudice if someone wants to WP:TNT and start again in line with existing guidelines. -- wooden superman 10:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Going through Cook's category and the subcats there is enough to have a navbox for. This needs to be reformatted to reflect that. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fair enough, have tidied up and there is more there than I first thought. Happy to WITHDRAW my nomination. -- wooden superman 13:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Header test

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. Speedy delete as author requested ( WP:G7) Whpq ( talk) 18:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This appears to be a test from September 2023, discussed at VPT, that didn't appear to result in anything (or did result in something but is no longer needed). – Jonesey95 ( talk) 03:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I created it. It can be deleted. Along with its associated CSS file:
Template:Header test/styles.css
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:17, 15 April 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.


April 14

Module:Map of English football clubs by league

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:BR-SP-Diadema

Flag icon and link to city. No transclusions. A proper "Country data" template should be created if this flag icon is needed. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Ludzie nauki

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. No English-language text. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Hicaron

No transclusions, documentation, template parameters, or incoming links from discussions to explain what it is or why it exists. Created in 2006. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 13

Template:German pies

There is no concept of "pie" in Germany other than as something imported from Britain or the US, compare de:Pie. Calling these particular German Kuchen "pies" is WP:SYNTH original research. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Zwetschgenkuchen. — Kusma ( talk) 13:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There is a corresponding category nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_13#Category:German_pies. — Kusma ( talk) 13:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; I agree with Kusma that the concept of pie (as separate from the overall categorization of such foods as cakes) seems to have no meaning in German. All entries in this template are German cakes, not German pies. Valereee ( talk) 14:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agreed, there is no such thing as pies in German cuisine, and all three of the entries listed here are cakes, not pies. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 20:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 12

Template:Roanoke–Lynchburg Radio/doc

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 ( talk) 20:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:AIV Notice

Appears to be a recreation of Template:Reported to AIV, which was also deleted with consensus. I'll quote myself: Is there really a purpose to notifying vandals that they're on WP:AIV? The whole purpose of AIV is for blatantly-obvious vandals that we want to revert, block, ignore, not introduce them to AIV. The reason why you need to notify users when they're reported to WP:ANI is because ANI is not for obvious vandalism, but for situations that require discussion. Vandalism does not require discussion to resolve: blatant vandalism is reverted, and the users blocked when they continue. What's the purpose of this template, aside from potentially feeding the trolls by giving them attention that they desire? (I have similar issues with users using 4im warnings after reporting vandals to AIV; this is unnecessary: just report the user to AIV and then move on) — k6ka 🍁 ( Talk · Contributions) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Real vandals won't care about AIV. AIV doesn't matter to non-vandals. Therefore, the template serves no practical purpose. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no obvious use and contrary to WP:DENY, per nom and per other discussion Staraction ( talk | contribs) 15:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (as one of the most active AIV admins). I actually came to the template intending to nominate it. AIV is not a place for discussion or dispute resolution and notifying vandals that they've been reported serves no purpose other than to potentially invite more disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Really no point in keeping it, WP:DENY and seems counter productive. Possible G4? User3749 ( talk) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Agree as unnecessary ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Asian Saga

Propose merging Template:Asian Saga with Template:James Clavell.
Other than the characters and the video game, all articles are already at the target, so could easily merge. -- wooden superman 14:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:84Mahasiddhas

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 withdrawn. ✗ plicit 14:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Most of the linked articles do not mention "Mahasiddha" in their body text. No navigational purpose. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 06:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

as you have withdrawn, then withdraw the propose also. Bengali editor ( talk) 08:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I've removed the TfD template from the template page. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 08:10, 12 April 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

April 11

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. -- wooden superman 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
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify/userify. This template has two blue links and no red links in its body now, but represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. More linked articles will likely be created in the future. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BeanieFan11's comments. Or Delete per Jweiss11's comment and has a counterpart in userspace already. Thetreesarespeakingtome ( talk) 16:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 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. -- wooden superman 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
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome ( talk) 16:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 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. -- wooden superman 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
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome ( talk) 16:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 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. -- wooden superman 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
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome ( talk) 16:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 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. -- wooden superman 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
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

April 3

Template:Historical American Documents

[

During the course of this TFD there was a majority opinion that this template is potentially too large and should be split (not only for size reasons but to avoid duplication with templates such as {{ Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}}). This is a procedural nomination to see if there is a formal consensus to do so. Primefac ( talk) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Split per discussion you mention above where there was significant support for this. {{ Constitution of the United States}} and {{ Signers of the Continental Association}} also already exist, so there is already substantial duplication, not only between these navboxes, but also within this nominated navbox. For example Samuel Adams is present 3-4 times, so if navigating, which occurrence are you even navigating from? -- wooden superman 12:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Please note that this navbox is not placed on the pages of the individual signers, which is taken care of by the alphabetical signers navboxes. The names are linked for the convenience of the readers, and unlinking them would be the "solution" and that seems kind of an unneeded and almost over-the-top technical nuance (so let's leave the links per commonsense). Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is all the more reason to split and make sure that navbox transclusion is correctly implemented without redundancy. -- wooden superman 14:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There is no redundancy, the individuals listed on each section of the navbox are part of the history of the specific document. All that would change would be unlinking the names, which seems kind of an unwarrented round-about exercise in denying readers access. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Then the navbox should be transcluded. You seem to be advocating a two tier system of navboxes, split into component parts and transcluded, and merged but not transcluded. This is not how navboxes are supposed to work. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. -- wooden superman 14:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
These are names of the individual signers of the documents. Are you saying that the navbox, or the four navboxes if split, should be added to each of the individual signers when there are already an adequate navbox for the signers of each document? You are simply advocating removing the links to the names, which seems like a head-scratcher of needless adherence to a guideline. For this one, to keep the names linked on the HADocuments navbox, the policy WP:IAR would adequately apply. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Not once have I suggested we remove any links. -- wooden superman 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Then what are you suggesting? That the single navbox or the four split navboxes all be added to the pages of each of the signers? That's fine with me but seems undue since the alphabetical navboxes for the signers of each document exist. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm suggesting the navbox is split so that there isn't the duplication, redundancy and seemingly two-tier system we have now. -- wooden superman 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural Keep as to the discussion listed, please note that there was no alert given at the navbox for deleting this navbox, no alert given at the topics in would affect, and no alert given, well, anywhere. Such an established and respected navbox should not, of course, be deleted as an aside at a totally different discussion. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep as to this nomination. This is the best map of the American founding documents of the United States on the internet, and is a full map to Wikipedia's collection on the founding documents. There is no duplication as to individual signers, the navboxes listing the signers are in alphabetical order which this full template lists the signers by states. It doesn't have to link the names, but it would be kind of foolish not to, and many topics have various navboxes which link to the pages and many others have sections which are combined as a full topic, as this one does. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree with Randy. Any duplication that may occur exists withing the context of its own section. Many reference manuals make the same general statement, but in different context. e.g. Did you know that in most reference manuals about the American Revolution they mention several times that George Washington was the first president?  Indeed.. but always in a different context. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
and let's notify major editors of this template, Drdpw and Paine Ellsworth. This is not a standard just-another-day beanbag navbox, this is the major template outlining, as a specific group, the four founding documents of America just as we are in the midst of the nation's 250th birthday celebrations. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support split of unnecessarily long template as consensus on the merits at the individual discussions. I do agree discussion of such a highly visible template should get appropriate notice, but necessary housekeeping does not invalidate the need for such discussion. The creation of this discussion to confirm the apparent outcome of earlier discussions demonstrates OP's efforts in this regard. The individual discussions linked demonstrate a general consensus to split these (not delete them) so they make more compact forms. IMHO, there's nothing policy-based in User:Randy Kryn's very bolded "strong keep". Nobody is advocating deletion of any kind. BusterD ( talk) 14:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The four together form a notable topic, and probably hundreds if not thousands of templates are presented in navigatable individual sections. This seems a good navbox for such a typical combination, and has been since its creation (with no objections by anyone until now) in 2010. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Randy Kryn, your opinions have been made clear. You are bludgeoning these discussions but not gaining support for your positions. It won't be necessary for you to comment on each disagreeing assertion in this discussion. On the merits, notable topics have their own individual articles and templates. In my opinion, this template is unnecessarily massive. BusterD ( talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
No bludgeoning is taking place, simply comments and replies to aspects of this unusual nomination to clarify. As for not gaining support, this discussion has just been put up, so any support would come later and not during the initial clarifying discussions which often occur at such noms. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, your replies are in response to the multiple statements made by another editor. The only "bludgeoning" I see around here is coming from an editor making accusations, which only compounds and frustrates the debate. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Support of Split the template is unnecessarily long and can easily be split into multiple templates. This just seems like common sense. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 15:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • split, as mentioned above {{ Constitution of the United States}} and {{ Signers of the Continental Association}} exist, splitting would help with this duplication in navigation. Frietjes ( talk) 15:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep —There's lot's of talk about splitting, but not much about what will be moved. The template is well organized and laid out in separate sections -- easy to navigate. It would seem we need more than the opinion that it's "too long". It's like complaining that a dictionary or a a reference manual is too big. That could be the case if the dictionary wasn't alphabetized, or the manual didn't have a Table of Contents, and/or an index.i.e. Organized. Our template is well organized, and all on one easy to navigate, sectioned, chart. Any "duplication" only occurs in the context of a different section on the chart. i.e. Consistency.  Splitting will involve further debate, for who knows how long, not to mention the potential for disruption among those editors who actually use this template to help their writing and referencing. Unless we have more than an opinion that the template is "too long", there seems to be no pressing reason to try and fix what isn't broke in the first place. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Split per previous discussion. Izno ( talk) 16:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Split. While, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, I'm voting to "split" since it would avoid duplications. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Split: I do not understand why there is such an argument. We can have our cake and eat it too in this situation. Why not just split {{ Historical American Documents}} into a bunch of sub/child navboxes (where {{ Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} could potentially represent the Continental Association section although I might be alright with a different navbox with duplication here if it was adequately called for). Each of the subnavboxes just needs a their border parameters controlled with something like: |border={{{border}}} and then {{ Historical American Documents}} can just call them each with |border=subgroup in much the same way it already calls each section {{ #invoke:navbox|navbox|child|...}}} but convert each to {{NavboxTemplateName|border=subgroup}}. The only real difference would be more V • T • E navbar links (unless |navbar=plain is used) and smaller lists of things to maintain on each subnavbox. — Uzume ( talk) 22:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    There's no meaningful reason to perform a split like that. It's literally not a win over either the status quo or the suggested (full) split of the template. Izno ( talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    We need to split this to discrete navboxes for each topic, not overcomplicate or overthink this. -- wooden superman 08:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, if we're going to split, let's keep it simple. For example...
  • The Constitution section', with its subsections, should remain as is.
  • The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the Continental Association sections should go together in a two-section nav-box, as these documents were like the prototypes of, and were the precursor to, the Constitution..
  • The Declaration of Independence section should get its own nav-box, as it ties into almost everything else.
Each of these nav-boxes of course should have bold links to the others, perhaps at the top of a given nav-box for easy access. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 00:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, three or four discrete navboxes as you suggest. However, we should not be linking away to template space from navboxes. Links in navboxes should only really link to article space. -- wooden superman 08:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Split to reduce duplication as suggested above. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The nav-box in question, when collapsed, reduces down to a hidden stack of sub-navboxes, very neat and orderly. This is the way it occurs in all the articles that include this navbox at the bottom. IOW, our navbox is already split into sub navboxes. This so called "duplication" only exists among separate navboxes. It's as if we're making an issue over the idea that a given fact occurs more than once, in a different context, in a particular article, which is common place here at WP, and in most historical texts. While there has been generic mention of "duplication", no one has bothered to explain how this poses some kind of problem. Bear in mind that if we split as suggested above, the navboxes in question will simply be stacked one above the other, in the same way they already occur in our navbox here, and the way all the navboxes are listed here and here, and in many other articles. Splitting will mean the stack of navboxes in these articles will only get taller. As indicated, I can go along with splitting, as this is the overwhelming consensus, but I fail to see what we will accomplish other than to make the stack of navboxes in the given articles taller. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: cutting across the grain here, but a split wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for insistence on retaining these space-intensive (and duplicative) links to each and every signer, no matter how minor the historical figure. As an alternative to splitting, I could propose we replace each of these list of biographies with a link to "list of signers of Foo" pagespace. BusterD ( talk) 15:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As I voted, I'm not for a split...but linking to a list? ...I dunno. The whole purpose of a navbox is for guick reference and easy navigation. Again, the duplication is under different headings, or contexts. e.g.Roger Sherman occurs under the Constitution and Continental Association and Articles of Confederation ... and Declaration of Independence subsections.  John Hancock occurs under the Articles of Confederation ... and Declaration of Independence subsections. If a reader wants to find out which person signed what document this can be quickly and easily accomplished in one navbox. If a reader has to jump to a list to ascertain these things in every instance it sort of defeats the whole purpose of a navbox. Moreover, if one has to jump to separate navboxes to accomplish this it again undermines the whole purpose of a navbox. All the sections of this navbox are collapsed into one heading bar, so article space isn't an issue. IOW, are we all here to fix what isn't broke, and in the process making it more difficult for an editor to go about what should be a simple task? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Please be aware of several things,
1) This navbox is not expanded but collapsed, so it amounts to one line at every article it is presented at, so Wikipedia space is not an issue.
2) There is no need to add the navboxes to each signers page, this is accomplished by the concise and alphabetical signer's navboxes. The links to the signers is for readers ease when reading the navbox.
3) Some of the confusions here for splitting editors is that the navbox covers too much when, if fact, it condenses and joins the Founding documents of the United States, a valid topic.
4) Wikipedia has hundreds if not thousands of sectioned navboxes. Splits like this are not uncommon, are useful for topic recognition and in this case very useful for full mapping of the topic 'Founding documents of the United States'. If split then many articles will have to have two, three, or even four navboxes in its place, which will do the opposite of the concerns here.
Thanks, Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • We should also be aware of WP:DETCON  :  "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."  Thus far, all we have to back the idea of a split is "duplication", with no qualifying statements that follow, and which ignores the fact that this duplication exists in different sections under different contexts. There is no WP policy that says that a statement of fact, or a title or name, can't be repeated if it's presented under a different section in a different context.   It was suggested that if there is a split, the four resultant navboxes can be tucked away under {{ navboxes}}, but the existing navbox already contains the different sections under one title bar. So again, we're trying to resolve a problem that doesn't really exist. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 18:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • and please note that the visible name of the navbox is Founding documents of the United States, a much more definitive and non-inclusive name than 'Historical American documents'. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:20, 14 April 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.

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1212425185"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 5 13 18
TfD 0 0 0 6 6
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 0 1 1
RfD 0 0 0 30 30
AfD 0 0 0 0 0
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

Shortcut

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

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

Reasons to delete a template

Shortcut
  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

Shortcuts

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 <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_April_19#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.

Notifying related WikiProjects

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

April 19

Template:Olean–Bradford Radio/doc

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 ( talk) 16:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Litfiba

This navigation template has only one wiklinked topic under the title, so it doesn't need to exist. Binksternet ( talk) 15:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:2008–09 WHL trades

Single use template. Subst to article and delete template. Gonnym ( talk) 05:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:2008 NHL Entry Draft (WHL draftees)

Single use template which is just a group of tables. Subst to article. Gonnym ( talk) 05:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Linkbox

Used only in one editor's user page. Created in 2015. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 18

Template:Hot Cross

The articles for the albums for this band have been redirected or deleted, leaving only links to the band members. A navbox is no longer warranted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Sydney Hornsby suburbs

This template started as being one for suburbs for Hornsby Shire but somehow expanded to include "Suburbs within Hornsby Shire, North Shore, Northern Suburbs, Hills District, Sydney". This is a rather random combination. It also omits North Shore suburbs like Chatswood, Killara. Suggest deletion of template or scoping back to Hornsby Shire suburbs only. LibStar ( talk) 03:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I'd say scale back to the Hornsby Shire. Remove all unrelated links. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Charyapada

The template is not used, nor directly or by template substitution, and has no likelihood of being used. Most of the links seem unrelated to the topic. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 00:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I am adding the template in the articles, don't be hurry. Charyapada is most important ancient document in Bengali and assamese literature. Bengali editor ( talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The articles you added the template to seem unrelated to the topic. For example, you added it to Aryadeva, where the only mention of the word "Charyapada" is in the template and categories, which you addded. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You did the same at Miranda E. Shaw. User:CanonNi, do we have to look at all of them? Drmies ( talk) 00:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It might be too long to put here, but sure. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Aryadeva was "surely" an important figure in Charyapada, but in case of Miranda M. Shaw, you can remove the template. Bengali editor ( talk) 00:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If you know the template is unrelated to the topic, why put it there in the first place? '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 00:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I did, and I did the same in a bunch of others, and you really need to stop because it looks like you're gaming the system. Drmies ( talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Miranda M Shaw and Bangiya Shahitya Parishad is mentioned in Charyapada article "As songs of realization, the Caryāpada were intended to be sung. These songs of realisation were spontaneously composed verses that expressed a practitioner's experience of the enlightened state. Miranda Shaw describes how songs of realization were an element of the ritual gathering of practitioners in a ganachakra:" and "The original palm-leaf manuscript of the Charyapada, or Caryācaryāviniścaya, spanning 47 padas (verses) along with a Sanskrit commentary, was edited by Shastri and published from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad as a part of his Hajar Bacharer Purano Bangala Bhasay Bauddhagan O Doha (Buddhist Songs and Couplets) in 1916 under the name of Charyacharyavinishchayah. This manuscript is presently preserved at the National Archives of Nepal.". They are not unrilated, bangiaya sahitya parishad first published the biblical version of research on Charyapada and Miranda M. Shaw is a notable western resercher on ancient twilight language researcher including the document of Charyapada, please check the Charyapada article. Bengali editor ( talk) 00:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If they are related, why is the word "Charyapada" not mentioned in the articles at all? '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 00:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Bengali editor, that should have been part of the article content--properly written, with secondary sources. Drmies ( talk) 00:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
See the relation of Bangiya Sahitya Parisad and Charyapad here in a lot of secondary established sources written in both bengali and english in google book search. For bengali, use google translate, https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-oppo-rvo3&sca_esv=38e6d9cfed2f671c&sca_upv=1&q=bangiya+sahitya+parishad+charyapada&tbm=bks&source=lnms&prmd=ivsnmbz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx3MbFt7aFAxUIR2cHHWO0DAcQ0pQJegQITRAB&biw=360&bih=668&dpr=2 [1] "Charyapada is credited to the early 20th- century scholar Haraprasad Shastri who bumped upon the palm-leaf manuscript at the Nepal Royal Court Library in 1907 and published in the form of a book in 1916 from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad "

Bengali editor ( talk) 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Again, if the topics are related, why isn't Charyapada mentioned in Bangiya Sahitya Parishat? In addition, the Google Books key terms in the book you linked has no mention of Charyapada when I Google Translated it. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 01:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The article is poorly written above it's importance and the google translate "surely" mentions the world "Charyapad" (চর্যাপদ) with Bangiya Shahitya Parisad (বঙ্গীয় সাহিত্য পরিষদ) in lots of books. Check again please. And the book i mentioned is in english, not bengali, you don't need to translate. Check again. Bengali editor ( talk) 01:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
2 mentions of the word Charyapada appeared when I searched in the book:
  1. Charyapada are believed to be written by some ascetics in the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism. It is believed by many scholars that these poems were first composed, then sung, and later written (between the 6th and 12th centuries). The ...
  2. Akash Dutta. AN. INTRODUCTION. TO. THE. HISTORY. OF. BENGALI. POETRY. Although the Charyapada (composed, sung, and compiled between the 6th and 12th centuries CE when Beowulf, the earliest example of Old English literature, was also being ...
No mention of Bangiya Sahitya Parishat. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 01:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "The mystical poems of the Charyapada are believed to be written by some ascetics in the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism. It is believed by many scholars that these poems were first composed, then sung, and later written (between the 6th and 12th centuries). The language was a kind of Abahatta that was the precursor of many Eastern Indo-Aryan languages including the Assamese, Bengali, Odia, Magahi, and Maithili. Hence the unending debate whether each of these languages had originated from the same source or not.

The discovery of the Charyapada is credited to the early 20th-century scholar Haraprasad Shastri who bumped upon the palm-leaf manuscript at the Nepal Royal Court Library in 1907 and published in the form of a book in 1916 from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad as a part of his Hajar Bacharer Purano Bangala Bhasay Bauddhagan O Doha (Buddhist Songs and Couplets) under the name of Charyacharyavinishchayah. It is assumed that some scholars of Bengal and Mithila fled to Nepal and also to Tibet when the Turkic soldiers invaded Bengal in the 12th century A.D. The major poets or Siddhacharyas of Charyapada were Luipada, Chatillapada, Bhusukupada, and Kanhapada. All of them wrote in highly allegorical language while using riddling and often confusing terms infusing numerous religious symbologies and mysticism. Since the language of these hymns can only be moderately understood, it is called Sandhya Bhasha or the twilight language. The Charyapada hymns have been critically appreciated for their linguistic and literary values. [2] Bengali editor ( talk)

Sarkar, Pabitra (12 February 2024). "Vangiya Sahitya Parishat, the first Bengal Academy of Literature". The Daily Star. Retrieved 10 April 2024. The Parishat also boasts a proud list of great publications, particularly those concerning old and middle Bengali literature. The Charyapadas, which carry the first samples of the earliest Bengali, is one such publication (1916). It was edited as Hajar Bachharer Puratan Bangala Bashay Bouddhagan O Doha by Haraprasad Shastri, who had discovered it in 1907 at the library of Nepal's Prime Minister. Another example is Shrikrishnakirtan, collected (1909) and edited (1916) by Basanta Ranjan Bidvatballabh. Bengali editor ( talk) 01:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Dutta, Akash (15 August 2021). The Light of the Hidden Flowers. Global Collective Publishers. p. 18. ISBN  978-1-954021-37-2. Retrieved 10 April 2024.
  2. ^ Mukhopadhyay, Nirmalya (15 August 2021). The Vision of the Solitary Man. Global Collective Publishers. p. XXIV. ISBN  978-1-954021-35-8. Retrieved 10 April 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting mainly because the !votes are currently "per nom", but the nomination is that it is unused (which is no longer true).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 12:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 17

Template:Kerala State Television Awards

Current template mirrors Template:Kerala State Television Award for Best Actor and if these was a listing of State Awards, there would be only two articles. One for film and television. This is unused and the best actor is. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm so sorry without knowing I had created this template.

Template:Campaignbox Polish-Cossack-Tatar War (1666-1671)

Similar to the template below. This just has two links. Not enough to navigate with. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 15:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Halifax family tree

Unused family tree chart. The Halifax family as the name would suggest never existed and instead the Earl of Halifax is just a peerage title of different members of political families. Each with a different last name. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 15:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Polish-Cossack-Tatar War (1666-1671)

Unused and only one link. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 15:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:UK territories image map

Unused map. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 15:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Skytrain MIA

This template has entirely redundant information copied from Template:Miami International Airport, which provides better context for this people mover within the airport as a whole. The Miami International Airport template is also the route diagram template (RDT) used in the articles for the airport's other two people mover systems. Jackdude101  talk  cont 14:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Animal actors

This navbox is not necessary IMO, as it essentially serves the purpose of a category. We already have a category and a page for animal actors, so we don't also need a navbox. Di (they-them) ( talk) 00:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

EDIT, I would like to withdraw this nomination. As Randy Kryn pointed out, WP:CLN renders my concern moot. In addition, the navbox has been edited and is in much better shape than it was previously. Di (they-them) ( talk) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You don't need to withdraw it, Randy is misinterpreting the guideline. -- wooden superman 08:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
And I think you are misinterpreting the guideline, please read it, and please don't ignore the nominator's comment about the navbox being in much better shape. As for categories, lists, and navboxes, of course all three are not needed in every case. But when all three do exist they, according to the guideline and commonsense, compliment each other and are not in conflict with each other. This animal actor navbox is a good guide to the subject and provides the topic with an easily viewed and easily understood Wikipedia map. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there is nothing wrong with this navbox. As for having both a category and a navbox, please read WP:CLN which states: "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...Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." (boldface in original). Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    You keep spouting the same spiel about WP:CLN but it seems like you haven't actually read it. Sometimes categories are appropriate where navboxes are not, and vice versa. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods. -- wooden superman 08:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • weak delete, seems strange that there are 10 entries in Category:Chimpanzee actors but currently only 7 "Non-human primates" in the navbox. seems like a maintenance headache to try to keep the category, list article, and navbox in sync. Frietjes ( talk) 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Frietjes, thanks for pointing that out. The primate entries have been added (in one case removed, was Michael Jackson's chimpanzee Bubbles an actor?), so have addressed much of your concern. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    still a maintenance headache since there are still more missing. correcting this would require checking every entry in the category and in the list article and syncing with the template. Frietjes ( talk) 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
     Done, at least as far as the list (have just synced the list with the navbox). Not really much of a headache at all, and similar to any other navbox which includes multiple entries (as all navboxes should). Will work on the category entries. The navbox could be further sectioned for accuracy and navigational ease (bears, etc.). Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    and  Done for the categories and expanded the sections. Thanks Frietjes, your concern, now remedied, has helped to better this navbox. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Definitely better suited to category navigation. The articles do not refer to each other, the only association is tangential. We don't have a navbox for {{ Human actors}}, no reason for the same logic not to apply here. -- wooden superman 08:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Human actors are a totally different topic. Dogs, bears, a crocodile and assorted other animals do not personally choose and endeavor to excel in a career in acting. These pets are made to act by their owners for personal profit. In any case, this is not a very large navbox, and if the Wikipedia collection of human actors included only 85 articles the topic would reasonably have a navbox, no? Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, I don't think so. They are not a defined set, inclusion here is tangential, they do not relate to one another. -- wooden superman 12:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
They are not a defined set and do not relate to one another? They are animal actors. What else do you need? Perplexed in Portsmouth, Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
And categorising animal actors as such is fine for categories, but it does not make a good navbox. Keiko (orca) and Trigger (horse) have nothing in common other than this tangential intersection. -- wooden superman 12:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm actually not understanding how your reasoning works on this. The topic is "Animal actors", which include both Keiko and Trigger. What do they have in common? Being animals, and being actors. And again, and I'm sure I don't need to remind you, WP:CLN specifically says not to pit categories and navboxes against each other, but correctly tel us that they compliment each other and work in tandem. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, they are are animals and actors. But that's not a reason to have a navbox for this, when a category is more appropriate. Why should we have different rules for human actors and animal actors? You are cherry-picking WP:CLN again, which clearly states: The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods. There are advantages for a category or a list here, but it is not appropriate for a navbox. No-one needs to navigate between Keiko and Trigger in this manner. -- wooden superman 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Izno ( talk) 17:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There is long-standing precedent that seemingly duplicative lists, categories, and templates all serve distinct niches in our navigation framework and all serve to present content to interested readers in different formats. I would also argue that people concerned about animal rights and the potential exploitation of working animals would find a great deal of correspondence in the working conditions of cetaceans, non-human primates, elephants, etc., and may very well appreciate having all out animal actor articles available to them in one topic box. jengod ( talk) 04:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 11:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Please note... that the nominator withdrew this nomination soon after it opened. Primefac, wouldn't this withdrawal make a difference in relisting? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Nope. Primefac ( talk) 11:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Okay, but would like to also point out for editors that one of the reasons for the nominator's withdrawing was "the navbox has been edited and is in much better shape than it was previously", which hopefully counts as reasoning for the next close. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    It still has exactly the same issues, it's just been split into more groups. My !vote was placed after the amendments had been made. -- wooden superman 12:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, it doesn't have the same issues as the nomination (that's why it was withdrawn). The addition of more groupings improved the navbox to the extent that the nom was voided. That you still objected is tangential to that action. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    As well as misinterpreting WP:CLN you seem to be misinterpreting the WP:Deletion process too. The nom is not in any way void. How is my !vote tangential? -- wooden superman 12:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    What is tangential is saying that the navbox "has exactly the same issues". No, it doesn't, it was nominated on a set of concerns which were remedied. Your concerns are of a different nature than the nomination, that's what I meant. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    It was nominated because it is better suited to a category. These concerns have not been remedied as it is still better suited to a category. -- wooden superman 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Please read WP:CLN, where it's clear that categories, navboxes, and lists should be considered as complimentary to each other and work together. It is your opinion that this topic should stay limited to a category, but myself and a few other editors see the quality of the topic in the navbox. If a good percentage of commenting editors notice that value then shouldn't the readers be allowed to experience the same value? Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    For the third (!) time: The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods. -- wooden superman 18:20, 17 April 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 11:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Hum Award Best Music Band

One entry, WP:NENAN -- wooden superman 11:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Hum Award Best Soap Series

Only one entry with an article, nothing to navigate -- wooden superman 11:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Hum Award Best Drama Series

One entry, nothing to navigate. -- wooden superman 11:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Prize for the best interpretation at the Marrakech International Film Festival Awards

2 entries, WP:NENAN -- wooden superman 11:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Uw-wnr4im

Already covered entirely by {{ Uw-hoax}}; there is no reason for there to be a specific UW template for intentionally fake and made-up hoax versions of Windows (WNR seems to mean Windows Never Released). Very likely to never be used. See {{ Uw-wnr1}}. WhoAteMyButter ( 🌷talk│ 🌻contribs) 04:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment This template refers to "WNR/NROS" but doesn't define what this term refers to, like is it a policy page? The template would be pretty meaningless without an explanation provided. This term is used with all of the other similar templates nominated now for discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Note that this comment was made prior to the below merge, and is referring specifically to {{ Uw-wnr4im}}. Primefac ( talk) 11:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • information Administrator note I am being slightly BOLD and combining these five nominations, as they are one template family and have been nominated with identical rationales. Original nominations can be seen in Special:Permalink/1219376816#Template:Uw-wnr4im. Primefac ( talk) 11:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, no reason for an over-specific version of {{ Uw-hoax}}. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 13:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User:User2802.172 has removed the TfD notices from all 5 templates. I will revert after writing this but I would like to know what the reason is. Nickps ( talk) 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:HK-MTR route title

Redundant to MTR line articles. Using the infobox is ok. 阿南之人 ( talk) 10:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 16

Template:Major Leagues

Propose merging Template:Major Leagues with Template:Top-level sport leagues in the United States.
Redundant and could be easily incorporated. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete {{ Top-level sport leagues in the United States}} instead. There is no corresponding article, and as WikiOriginal-9 points out, it seems a bit random. -- wooden superman 11:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge The major leagues are the top level leagues and the top-level navbox should be for the top sports like baseball, football, basketball, soccer, hockey. Fencing, swimming, eating, and gaming are not really sports in terms of major league sports. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 15:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Best Screenplay Award at the Marrakech International Film Festival Awards

2 articles. WP:NENAN -- wooden superman 15:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Jury Prize for Best Director at the Marrakech International Film Festival Awards

Nothing to navigate -- wooden superman 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Disney Adventure World

Presumably Template:Walt Disney Studios Park will be moved to this space once the park is officially renamed in 2025. This is 100% jumping the gun. GSK ( talk • edits) 00:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 15

Template:Family Guy (season 1)

These templates have been merged into {{ Family Guy episodes}}, which uses a switch to display the episodes for a specific season. Clever. The individual navboxes are unused now. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm leaning oppose and restore these templates and delete {{ Family Guy episodes}} which is clearly being misused to create navboxes full of non-links and redirects. Gonnym ( talk) 10:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Look at the pointless usage at Family Guy season 22#External links. Gonnym ( talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. AFAICT, the links in the centralized template are the same as those in the individual templates. Having one template create a variety of navboxes is better than having 10+ templates. The listings for season 22 should be removed from {{ Family Guy episodes}} until articles exist, but using the centralized template at Family Guy season 4#External links is better than using {{ Family Guy (season 4)}}. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The baby is a lie. There is a reason only those seasons had a template and that is because the other seasons don't have enough links to support one. So what did those "clever" editors do? Merge them all so finding and removing these is that much harder. Gonnym ( talk) 06:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For any season that has the navbox for a season with no articles, the choice is to remove it and replace it with the main Family Guy navbox with a link to that season. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I realllllllllly do not like navboxes that are conditional. These are some of our most-simple templates and the conditionality steps up the complexity significantly. Izno ( talk) 17:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ( Let's talk together!) 22:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No need for the individual season episodes. I've always thought that {{ Doctor Who episodes}}, which is ths same principle, works rather efficiently (although I have no idea why there is an "episode count" at that other template). -- wooden superman 13:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Peter Cook

Unused and in archaic format, many articles fall foul of WP:FILMNAV, etc, etc. Don't really see the need for a dedicated navbox, but no prejudice if someone wants to WP:TNT and start again in line with existing guidelines. -- wooden superman 10:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Going through Cook's category and the subcats there is enough to have a navbox for. This needs to be reformatted to reflect that. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fair enough, have tidied up and there is more there than I first thought. Happy to WITHDRAW my nomination. -- wooden superman 13:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Header test

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. Speedy delete as author requested ( WP:G7) Whpq ( talk) 18:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This appears to be a test from September 2023, discussed at VPT, that didn't appear to result in anything (or did result in something but is no longer needed). – Jonesey95 ( talk) 03:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I created it. It can be deleted. Along with its associated CSS file:
Template:Header test/styles.css
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:17, 15 April 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.


April 14

Module:Map of English football clubs by league

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:BR-SP-Diadema

Flag icon and link to city. No transclusions. A proper "Country data" template should be created if this flag icon is needed. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Ludzie nauki

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. No English-language text. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Hicaron

No transclusions, documentation, template parameters, or incoming links from discussions to explain what it is or why it exists. Created in 2006. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 13

Template:German pies

There is no concept of "pie" in Germany other than as something imported from Britain or the US, compare de:Pie. Calling these particular German Kuchen "pies" is WP:SYNTH original research. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Zwetschgenkuchen. — Kusma ( talk) 13:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There is a corresponding category nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_13#Category:German_pies. — Kusma ( talk) 13:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; I agree with Kusma that the concept of pie (as separate from the overall categorization of such foods as cakes) seems to have no meaning in German. All entries in this template are German cakes, not German pies. Valereee ( talk) 14:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agreed, there is no such thing as pies in German cuisine, and all three of the entries listed here are cakes, not pies. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 20:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 12

Template:Roanoke–Lynchburg Radio/doc

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 ( talk) 20:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:AIV Notice

Appears to be a recreation of Template:Reported to AIV, which was also deleted with consensus. I'll quote myself: Is there really a purpose to notifying vandals that they're on WP:AIV? The whole purpose of AIV is for blatantly-obvious vandals that we want to revert, block, ignore, not introduce them to AIV. The reason why you need to notify users when they're reported to WP:ANI is because ANI is not for obvious vandalism, but for situations that require discussion. Vandalism does not require discussion to resolve: blatant vandalism is reverted, and the users blocked when they continue. What's the purpose of this template, aside from potentially feeding the trolls by giving them attention that they desire? (I have similar issues with users using 4im warnings after reporting vandals to AIV; this is unnecessary: just report the user to AIV and then move on) — k6ka 🍁 ( Talk · Contributions) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Real vandals won't care about AIV. AIV doesn't matter to non-vandals. Therefore, the template serves no practical purpose. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no obvious use and contrary to WP:DENY, per nom and per other discussion Staraction ( talk | contribs) 15:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (as one of the most active AIV admins). I actually came to the template intending to nominate it. AIV is not a place for discussion or dispute resolution and notifying vandals that they've been reported serves no purpose other than to potentially invite more disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Really no point in keeping it, WP:DENY and seems counter productive. Possible G4? User3749 ( talk) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Agree as unnecessary ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Asian Saga

Propose merging Template:Asian Saga with Template:James Clavell.
Other than the characters and the video game, all articles are already at the target, so could easily merge. -- wooden superman 14:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:84Mahasiddhas

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 withdrawn. ✗ plicit 14:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Most of the linked articles do not mention "Mahasiddha" in their body text. No navigational purpose. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 06:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

as you have withdrawn, then withdraw the propose also. Bengali editor ( talk) 08:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I've removed the TfD template from the template page. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 08:10, 12 April 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

April 11

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. -- wooden superman 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
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify/userify. This template has two blue links and no red links in its body now, but represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. More linked articles will likely be created in the future. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BeanieFan11's comments. Or Delete per Jweiss11's comment and has a counterpart in userspace already. Thetreesarespeakingtome ( talk) 16:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 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. -- wooden superman 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
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome ( talk) 16:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 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. -- wooden superman 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
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome ( talk) 16:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 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. -- wooden superman 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
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome ( talk) 16:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 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. -- wooden superman 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
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

April 3

Template:Historical American Documents

[

During the course of this TFD there was a majority opinion that this template is potentially too large and should be split (not only for size reasons but to avoid duplication with templates such as {{ Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}}). This is a procedural nomination to see if there is a formal consensus to do so. Primefac ( talk) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Split per discussion you mention above where there was significant support for this. {{ Constitution of the United States}} and {{ Signers of the Continental Association}} also already exist, so there is already substantial duplication, not only between these navboxes, but also within this nominated navbox. For example Samuel Adams is present 3-4 times, so if navigating, which occurrence are you even navigating from? -- wooden superman 12:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Please note that this navbox is not placed on the pages of the individual signers, which is taken care of by the alphabetical signers navboxes. The names are linked for the convenience of the readers, and unlinking them would be the "solution" and that seems kind of an unneeded and almost over-the-top technical nuance (so let's leave the links per commonsense). Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is all the more reason to split and make sure that navbox transclusion is correctly implemented without redundancy. -- wooden superman 14:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There is no redundancy, the individuals listed on each section of the navbox are part of the history of the specific document. All that would change would be unlinking the names, which seems kind of an unwarrented round-about exercise in denying readers access. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Then the navbox should be transcluded. You seem to be advocating a two tier system of navboxes, split into component parts and transcluded, and merged but not transcluded. This is not how navboxes are supposed to work. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. -- wooden superman 14:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
These are names of the individual signers of the documents. Are you saying that the navbox, or the four navboxes if split, should be added to each of the individual signers when there are already an adequate navbox for the signers of each document? You are simply advocating removing the links to the names, which seems like a head-scratcher of needless adherence to a guideline. For this one, to keep the names linked on the HADocuments navbox, the policy WP:IAR would adequately apply. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Not once have I suggested we remove any links. -- wooden superman 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Then what are you suggesting? That the single navbox or the four split navboxes all be added to the pages of each of the signers? That's fine with me but seems undue since the alphabetical navboxes for the signers of each document exist. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm suggesting the navbox is split so that there isn't the duplication, redundancy and seemingly two-tier system we have now. -- wooden superman 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural Keep as to the discussion listed, please note that there was no alert given at the navbox for deleting this navbox, no alert given at the topics in would affect, and no alert given, well, anywhere. Such an established and respected navbox should not, of course, be deleted as an aside at a totally different discussion. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep as to this nomination. This is the best map of the American founding documents of the United States on the internet, and is a full map to Wikipedia's collection on the founding documents. There is no duplication as to individual signers, the navboxes listing the signers are in alphabetical order which this full template lists the signers by states. It doesn't have to link the names, but it would be kind of foolish not to, and many topics have various navboxes which link to the pages and many others have sections which are combined as a full topic, as this one does. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree with Randy. Any duplication that may occur exists withing the context of its own section. Many reference manuals make the same general statement, but in different context. e.g. Did you know that in most reference manuals about the American Revolution they mention several times that George Washington was the first president?  Indeed.. but always in a different context. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
and let's notify major editors of this template, Drdpw and Paine Ellsworth. This is not a standard just-another-day beanbag navbox, this is the major template outlining, as a specific group, the four founding documents of America just as we are in the midst of the nation's 250th birthday celebrations. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support split of unnecessarily long template as consensus on the merits at the individual discussions. I do agree discussion of such a highly visible template should get appropriate notice, but necessary housekeeping does not invalidate the need for such discussion. The creation of this discussion to confirm the apparent outcome of earlier discussions demonstrates OP's efforts in this regard. The individual discussions linked demonstrate a general consensus to split these (not delete them) so they make more compact forms. IMHO, there's nothing policy-based in User:Randy Kryn's very bolded "strong keep". Nobody is advocating deletion of any kind. BusterD ( talk) 14:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The four together form a notable topic, and probably hundreds if not thousands of templates are presented in navigatable individual sections. This seems a good navbox for such a typical combination, and has been since its creation (with no objections by anyone until now) in 2010. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Randy Kryn, your opinions have been made clear. You are bludgeoning these discussions but not gaining support for your positions. It won't be necessary for you to comment on each disagreeing assertion in this discussion. On the merits, notable topics have their own individual articles and templates. In my opinion, this template is unnecessarily massive. BusterD ( talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
No bludgeoning is taking place, simply comments and replies to aspects of this unusual nomination to clarify. As for not gaining support, this discussion has just been put up, so any support would come later and not during the initial clarifying discussions which often occur at such noms. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, your replies are in response to the multiple statements made by another editor. The only "bludgeoning" I see around here is coming from an editor making accusations, which only compounds and frustrates the debate. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Support of Split the template is unnecessarily long and can easily be split into multiple templates. This just seems like common sense. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 15:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • split, as mentioned above {{ Constitution of the United States}} and {{ Signers of the Continental Association}} exist, splitting would help with this duplication in navigation. Frietjes ( talk) 15:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep —There's lot's of talk about splitting, but not much about what will be moved. The template is well organized and laid out in separate sections -- easy to navigate. It would seem we need more than the opinion that it's "too long". It's like complaining that a dictionary or a a reference manual is too big. That could be the case if the dictionary wasn't alphabetized, or the manual didn't have a Table of Contents, and/or an index.i.e. Organized. Our template is well organized, and all on one easy to navigate, sectioned, chart. Any "duplication" only occurs in the context of a different section on the chart. i.e. Consistency.  Splitting will involve further debate, for who knows how long, not to mention the potential for disruption among those editors who actually use this template to help their writing and referencing. Unless we have more than an opinion that the template is "too long", there seems to be no pressing reason to try and fix what isn't broke in the first place. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Split per previous discussion. Izno ( talk) 16:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Split. While, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, I'm voting to "split" since it would avoid duplications. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Split: I do not understand why there is such an argument. We can have our cake and eat it too in this situation. Why not just split {{ Historical American Documents}} into a bunch of sub/child navboxes (where {{ Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} could potentially represent the Continental Association section although I might be alright with a different navbox with duplication here if it was adequately called for). Each of the subnavboxes just needs a their border parameters controlled with something like: |border={{{border}}} and then {{ Historical American Documents}} can just call them each with |border=subgroup in much the same way it already calls each section {{ #invoke:navbox|navbox|child|...}}} but convert each to {{NavboxTemplateName|border=subgroup}}. The only real difference would be more V • T • E navbar links (unless |navbar=plain is used) and smaller lists of things to maintain on each subnavbox. — Uzume ( talk) 22:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    There's no meaningful reason to perform a split like that. It's literally not a win over either the status quo or the suggested (full) split of the template. Izno ( talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    We need to split this to discrete navboxes for each topic, not overcomplicate or overthink this. -- wooden superman 08:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, if we're going to split, let's keep it simple. For example...
  • The Constitution section', with its subsections, should remain as is.
  • The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the Continental Association sections should go together in a two-section nav-box, as these documents were like the prototypes of, and were the precursor to, the Constitution..
  • The Declaration of Independence section should get its own nav-box, as it ties into almost everything else.
Each of these nav-boxes of course should have bold links to the others, perhaps at the top of a given nav-box for easy access. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 00:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, three or four discrete navboxes as you suggest. However, we should not be linking away to template space from navboxes. Links in navboxes should only really link to article space. -- wooden superman 08:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Split to reduce duplication as suggested above. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The nav-box in question, when collapsed, reduces down to a hidden stack of sub-navboxes, very neat and orderly. This is the way it occurs in all the articles that include this navbox at the bottom. IOW, our navbox is already split into sub navboxes. This so called "duplication" only exists among separate navboxes. It's as if we're making an issue over the idea that a given fact occurs more than once, in a different context, in a particular article, which is common place here at WP, and in most historical texts. While there has been generic mention of "duplication", no one has bothered to explain how this poses some kind of problem. Bear in mind that if we split as suggested above, the navboxes in question will simply be stacked one above the other, in the same way they already occur in our navbox here, and the way all the navboxes are listed here and here, and in many other articles. Splitting will mean the stack of navboxes in these articles will only get taller. As indicated, I can go along with splitting, as this is the overwhelming consensus, but I fail to see what we will accomplish other than to make the stack of navboxes in the given articles taller. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: cutting across the grain here, but a split wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for insistence on retaining these space-intensive (and duplicative) links to each and every signer, no matter how minor the historical figure. As an alternative to splitting, I could propose we replace each of these list of biographies with a link to "list of signers of Foo" pagespace. BusterD ( talk) 15:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As I voted, I'm not for a split...but linking to a list? ...I dunno. The whole purpose of a navbox is for guick reference and easy navigation. Again, the duplication is under different headings, or contexts. e.g.Roger Sherman occurs under the Constitution and Continental Association and Articles of Confederation ... and Declaration of Independence subsections.  John Hancock occurs under the Articles of Confederation ... and Declaration of Independence subsections. If a reader wants to find out which person signed what document this can be quickly and easily accomplished in one navbox. If a reader has to jump to a list to ascertain these things in every instance it sort of defeats the whole purpose of a navbox. Moreover, if one has to jump to separate navboxes to accomplish this it again undermines the whole purpose of a navbox. All the sections of this navbox are collapsed into one heading bar, so article space isn't an issue. IOW, are we all here to fix what isn't broke, and in the process making it more difficult for an editor to go about what should be a simple task? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Please be aware of several things,
1) This navbox is not expanded but collapsed, so it amounts to one line at every article it is presented at, so Wikipedia space is not an issue.
2) There is no need to add the navboxes to each signers page, this is accomplished by the concise and alphabetical signer's navboxes. The links to the signers is for readers ease when reading the navbox.
3) Some of the confusions here for splitting editors is that the navbox covers too much when, if fact, it condenses and joins the Founding documents of the United States, a valid topic.
4) Wikipedia has hundreds if not thousands of sectioned navboxes. Splits like this are not uncommon, are useful for topic recognition and in this case very useful for full mapping of the topic 'Founding documents of the United States'. If split then many articles will have to have two, three, or even four navboxes in its place, which will do the opposite of the concerns here.
Thanks, Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • We should also be aware of WP:DETCON  :  "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."  Thus far, all we have to back the idea of a split is "duplication", with no qualifying statements that follow, and which ignores the fact that this duplication exists in different sections under different contexts. There is no WP policy that says that a statement of fact, or a title or name, can't be repeated if it's presented under a different section in a different context.   It was suggested that if there is a split, the four resultant navboxes can be tucked away under {{ navboxes}}, but the existing navbox already contains the different sections under one title bar. So again, we're trying to resolve a problem that doesn't really exist. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 18:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • and please note that the visible name of the navbox is Founding documents of the United States, a much more definitive and non-inclusive name than 'Historical American documents'. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:20, 14 April 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.

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1212425185"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE