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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Liguilla Pre Libertadores ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, clubs are now covered by different navboxes (e.g., Template:Uruguayan Primera División) Frietjes ( talk) 18:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Liga de Fútbol Profesional Boliviano Managers ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, atypical to have a navbox connecting managers in the same football league Frietjes ( talk) 18:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Leinster League Division Two ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Leinster League Division Three ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, duplicates Template:Leinster League (rugby union) Frietjes ( talk) 18:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Leoncavallo operas ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, duplicates navigation found in Template:Ruggero Leoncavallo Frietjes ( talk) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Largest Combined Statistical Areas of the United States ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, duplicates table in the main article. Frietjes ( talk) 18:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Kuwait Squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and all redlinks, squad membership is saved in the squads article. Frietjes ( talk) 18:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Kolkata city officials ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and out-of-date, this sort of thing usually goes in the infobox Frietjes ( talk) 18:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per author request (G7). Hut 8.5 22:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:My American Heart ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a navbox that contains only one link and shows no significant likelihood of expansion. It is about a relatively obscure band that released only two albums, on a relatively obscure defunct label, and whose last release was about a decade ago. There is no evidence that any of the items listed without links in the navbox are sufficiently notable for articles to be created about them. Some items previously had articles (see this old version, which had five populated links); however, all but one of them eventually became redirects to the article about the band due to lack of evidence of notability. — BarrelProof ( talk) 17:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete, connects two articles, not enough for a navbox. Frietjes ( talk) 18:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• comment: the template's principal author has concurred, by tagging the template for speedy deletion ( WP:G7). — BarrelProof ( talk) 20:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Weekday after Julianday ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominated by an IP on talk page with rationale "This was a subroutine of an earlier implementation of Template:Weekday after date and of Template:Weekday before date but is not now used by any article or template." –  Train2104 ( t •  c) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Elections in Moldova since 1917 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. should be merged with Elections in Moldova or deleted. Frietjes ( talk) 16:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Edgar Lungu Cabinet 2015 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, should be merged with Edgar Lungu (or a related article) or deleted. Frietjes ( talk) 16:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 November 23. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:The_Simple_Life ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. WP:SNOWCLOSE-ing, as there's clearly not gonna be any consensus to delete here. OwenBlacker ( talk) 20:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

(second close/update) I have re-closed this discussion per the above reasons and the discussion at OwenBlacker's page, and request that if the nominator feels they have not presented a proper argument they should re-submit their proposal once this one has aged a bit rather than attempt to significantly re-write it after others have voted. Primefac ( talk) 02:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Authority control ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is typically something for which Wikidata exists. Connecting databases is a good thing, but this collection of links which are for the most part useless and meaningless for readers of enwiki doesn't belong on enwiki as it stands. Deletion of this template would reduce the visual clutter (and drastically reduce the number of hidden categories, which is getting unwieldy for people doing maintenance). As an example, let's look at Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

• Worldcat: okay
• Viaf, okay, but doesn't add much
• Library of Congress more of the same
• ISNI: useless
• DNB good for a German person, mainly useless for others (on enwiki that is)
• Selibr useless
• IDref useless as we have better similar sites
• BNF probably good for French authors, but on enwiki for (like here) German authors it's more logical to have DNB and not this
• Bibsys useless
• ULAN not much use either
• Switzerland: information in French on where Goethe stayed when he visited Schweiz? Seems a tad overspecialized. Probably a good source for Swiss people only.
• Musicbrainz a wiki which gets its textual information from Wikipedia, and where the remainder is often dubious and incomplete.
• Australia more of the same, seems useless
• NDL (Japan): utterly useless for enwiki
• NKP (Czech) useless
• Leonore overspecialized, perhaps more useful for French subjects?
• OPAc (Italy) useless for a German subject on enwiki
• RSL (Russia) totally useless
• IPNI ?
• BNE (Espana): you guessed it
• RKD indispensable for Dutch and Flemish artists, not so much otherwise
• SNAC ?

These are all the ones present on this article, but other articles yield yet further "authorities", and new ones get added regularly. These were useful to have (well, some of them at least) when we didn't have Wikidata, but now they are superfluous information for the most part, in this generic form. Specific links from it are often good to have, but these should be added individually, instead of dumping (like here) 22 ugly links and letting the reader find the few good ones among them.

Basically, authority control is not user-friendly or reader-oriented, it is database information which has been introduced here because we didn't have a database people (and other databases) could access easily. Now that we have that (for five years already), we should get rid of the template here, and add specific links to the external links section, where needed, by bot (e.g. DNB links to all German subjects, BNF links to all French subjects) or manually. Fram ( talk) 14:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep A good argument to have it trimmed, or redesigned, but not deleted. No one is required to read it, or use it, anymore than they are required to click on a particular category or read a particular reference. It is really designed to be machine readable so a search engine can correlate the identifier here and at an external source. -- RAN ( talk) 15:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "It is really designed to be machine readable" I know, but that role has been taken over by Wikidata (just like Persondata has been removed because we have Wikidata). Fram ( talk) 15:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per proposer's arguments. I always wondered what use it was; now I know! yoyo ( talk) 15:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep – deleting it is absurd, overstated, and premature. Having fun! Cheers! {{u| Checkingfax}} { Talk} 15:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Can you explain your arguments please? Why is it e.g. premature? Fram ( talk) 15:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The Goethe article is 23 screens long on my laptop. The authority control band is one-inch. Geeze, Louise. Most articles only have a half dozen or less catalogs in their AC band. That is why it is overstated and premature. Why are you not complaining about the lack of bi-directional navboxes in the article, and the abundance of non-bi-directional navboxes? Having fun! Cheers! {{u| Checkingfax}} { Talk} 15:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Being a large or a small box has little or nothing to do with being premature. Help:Authority control gives the example of Alexander Graham Bell and the five ACs in the box. However, the actual current article has 13 Acs, not 5. The template is used on more than 500,000 articles, and is some 7 years old. Wikidata is 5 years old. "Premature" would be if I didn't gave the template time to be developed and to show its potential. How much more time is needed before this would be mature in your view? I have no idea why you consider the deletion proposal "absurd" or "overstated", the growth of this template and the continuous inclusion of further Acs, usually not providing any useful info for enwiki readers, is happening. At the same time, the original use case for the template has been made invalid by the arrival of Wikidata. The article may have other issues, so what? If you so strongly want to keep this template, you should be able to make a good case of why it is needed, why it helps our readers, why we are better off with than without it. Fram ( talk) 16:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep ChristianKl ( talk) 15:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Because...?
• Keep. Not willing to cede authority tagging to Wikidata at this time, especially since there are some questions currently being raised about how Wikidata should be pulled into EN. I'd hate to delete this template and then find out the mechanism that would have been used to replace it is not available. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep until the various issues and questions with the use of Wikidata on en.wiki are settled, we shouldn't be deleting this (and I am neutral on any and all Wikidata questions, I just think it doesn't make sense to delete this until such a time as we know what the policies and guideline will be for the use of Wikidata on en.wiki) TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment I am in favour of autogenerating the info in the templates based on Wikidata information instead of having to add it explicitelly to the wikicode. I suggest a soution similar to interwikis. If a Wikidata item exists with info suitable for Authority Control we should use Wikidata directly. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, Magioladitis. On enwiki anyway, a bare {{ authority control}} template is automagically populated from Wikidata. Any data that is not on Wikidata can be added to Wikidata, or if there is no Wikidata property, the information may be added to the template via wikicode, and the rest of the data will still automagically populate from Wikidata. I take it that Greek Wikipedia does not have that enabled? I notice that on Commons, or maybe this is a dated observation, that the template has to be populated manually. Having fun! Cheers! {{u| Checkingfax}} { Talk} 23:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete just like person data. Replacement is not necessary. Now that we have wikidata, wikipedia will become less relevant in providing meta information on topics. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep WP:POINT nomination. Part of the anti-Wikidata crusade. Multichill ( talk) 16:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - time for a snow close? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Andy Mabbett: I don’t follow the metaphor in this context? — LLarson ( said &  done) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • WP:SNOW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Authority Control began being added to articles in 2009. Removing it from half a million articles is not a matter for a template discussion in a venue few people watch. Raise the issue with an RFC at the Village Pump. The uses of authority control can be discussed there. If the decision is that the encyclopedia no longer have these links then the template can be removed. StarryGrandma ( talk) 17:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the argument presented is an argument for improving/trimming down the template, not for deleting it. Issues with a particular database and its usefulness should be discussed one-by-one. Would support deleting tracking categories, though. Don't see the need for them. Renata ( talk) 17:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. Authority control provides a whole range of information which goes far beyond Wikidata. For example, via VIAF it provides variations on the name of the person in question, via WorldCat works created and held in libaries, and various links to international library authority files. Most of us who create biographies find it extremely useful and I'm sure our readers can access a wealth of pertinent information they would not be able to find in Wikidata.-- Ipigott ( talk) 17:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep because it collates pointers information about a single subject that disparately saved across multiple websites which are not subject to Wikipedia’s scope; they are thus indispensable for quick and easy research as well as for the the categorization of metadata. The fact that many databases now rely on Wikipedia (sometimes instead of Wikidata) to reflect the Wikimedia family’s authority control matrices, means that removing the template has the potential to harm data retention. Finally, the fact that there’s a template that appears at the bottom of the screen with links that are at worst redundant, but as even the nominator Fram states, are also “okay”, “good”, and even “indispensable”, doesn’t mean we shut it down. — LLarson ( said &  done) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• None of these links have ever felt strictly necessary to have in an encyclopedia article, and Wikidata clearly obviates their need from an authority control perspective, regardless of whether English Wikipedia continues to use Wikidata in any way [besides interwiki links]. I find it bizarre that I'm writing this, but per Fram, I am inclined to delete this template. Arguments of "it's used a lot" don't get a lot of traction here. -- Izno ( talk) 17:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Have it trimmed or redesigned, but not deleted. WorldCat at least needs to be retained in a similar form to now. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 16:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The Goethe entry is not representative: for most entries it only throws up two or three links. Goethe was and is exceptional on so many levels! No one is forced to click on the links it throws up if they are in too much of a hurry, but that's no reason to make life more difficult for the few who have time to want all the help they can get. Charles01 ( talk) 16:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep - Mostly per @ Andy and Ian. Readers who click the VIAF and Worldcat links in Authority Control, for example, will get a lot of information, which may not be contained in the article itself. Forcing readers to go to Wikidata isn't the answer. Storing the Authority control information on Wikidata, and displaying it in Wikipedia articles is, IMO, the best choice. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - but possibly explain better what it does, since in my experience it's not well understood by most people (me included until recently). It's very important–and invaluable for serious research–to have a clearly discoverable and easy-to-understand link from a Wikipedia article to lists somebody's works on library catalogues and journals. For example, say I'm in an academic library-using the authcon link I can quickly go from a Wikipedia article to knowing what books by this person are in stock and finding their shelfmark. If people don't understand what it does, that's a sign that we should try to make it better-known, not giving up on it. It's clearly a lot more discoverable than "Wikidata item" off to the side.
  I do think there is a case for inserting authcon data automatically rather than requiring the page creator to specify that it should be included (e.g. just having the skin look up if there's authcon data for an article and just automatically displaying it, kind of like how we're moving to an automatic display of references in columns-how often if there's a VIAF record for someone would you specifically not want to see that?), and perhaps adding some kind of mouseover explanation of what it does. If the number of authorities seems to be expanding rapidly I'd be OK with considering making the box collapse past the first two or three lines, but I don't think we're generally at that point yet. Blythwood ( talk) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• I'm not going to reply to all keeps here, although I may address some ones later on. But many people argue that Goethe is a bad example, and that most pages only have a few links in the template. In my experience, this isn't true. Pieter van der Aa, not really a very famous or important figure, has 16 links. Bob Adelman has 14. Johannes Aagaard has 8. Laurentius Abstemius has 9... 8 or 9 links is the standard for unfamiliar names, more is fairly common as well. For household names, 15 seems to be a minimum. Non-biographies have less links, but the usefulness of the two links at e.g. Cretaceous is highly debatable. Why do we need this?

In general, the "one-size fits all" approach of this template is simply wrong. Add a separate worldcat template, sure, like we do for many types of external links where appropriate. I'm not arguing to not have links to Worldcat and the like. But not this way. Fram ( talk) 17:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I didn't like the part about hidden categories being a problem. There must be a more important reason for deletion. Thierry Caro ( talk) 17:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep critical data for scholarly work giving information not specifically required in an article. As only one example, knowing where references might exist and name variants is critical for scholarly research and is therefore a benefit to readers of WP articles. Wikidata at this time is difficult to edit and does not contain the information found in Authority Control in many cases. It also forces readers, who may not be editors, to utilize another platform rather than facilitating ease of access in one place. SusunW ( talk) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is very compact, though I can see people asking who is this authority in control. Nessie ( talk) 18:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Obvious trolling is obvious. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep as a librarian, I can attest to the crucial need for authority control. While it may not be useful to you, it is useful to those of us who work professionally. Wikidata is not a replacement for authority control. People who are experts in their fields create authority records. This is not easy to do and there's a reason for that. Any of us can create a Wikidata entry. Wikidata is not authoritative. For scholars, librarians and curators, throwing out authority control means losing an authoritative link to crucial information about a person or entity. Wikidata is amazing, but again, I'm going to stress that it is not authoritative. This is important in scholarly fields and many scholars do use Wikipedia as a starting point for research, especially when they are looking for gaps in knowledge. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  Like hit the nail on its head. Thank you! SusunW ( talk) 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  I don't think the suggestion is exactly to use Wikidata in place of authority control, it's to store the authority control records in Wikidata instead of the article. I'm not sure I'm saying this right. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep per User:Multichill and User:Pigsonthewing . -- Bodhisattwa ( talk) 18:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, huh. If you need some more words, per Multichil or Thierry Caro. — regards, Revi 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Why do we have all this authority codes at wikidata? To maintain them hidden?-- Ferran Mir ( talk) 19:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per most of the keep rationales, but esp. those of SusunW and MLG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Remove all Wikidata and make this purely an en.Wikipedia template, listing only authority numbers provided explicitly as parameters to the template. Given Wikidata's rejection of bringing their policies in line with BLP, any import of Wikidata into BLPs, even one as seemingly innocuous as magic numbers linking to other databases, is problematic. But deleting the template itself goes too far. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Not causing harm. Wikidata is not ready yet with respect to quality control to be the only repository. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep Having these types of content centric postings is a method of targeted advertising to current Wikipedia readers and allowing an avenue for them to become Wikipedia editors.-- Vwanweb ( talk) 19:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary break

(I have asked the closer to reopen this, as I was preparing this response while they closed it) It seems that many people here are !voting without really knowing the ins and outs, which is probably due to a bad presentation on my part. So here goes:

1. Everything in this template comes from Wikidata, the template is simply {{Authority control}} without any of the values that get shown. All !votes which claim "this isn't in Wikidata yet", "Wikidata is not reliable", ... (or voting per someone who made this claim) should perhaps revisit their opinion in this light
2. 'The proposal is not to remove all these links permanently from enwiki. The proposal is to replace the indiscriminate list of links, many of them totally irrelevant for enwiki (even for editors looking for further information), with individual, targeted templates (filled either by Wikidata or locally, that's a separate discussion). Worldcat (and perhaps VIAF) are useful for most articles they are on now; almost all of the others should only be on specific articles, where they actually provide extra info. NDL [1] may be useful for Japan-related topics, but is not useful on enwiki for any other articles. GND is good for German topics, but do we really need and want the GND identifier of 24 (TV series) [2]? The problems is not having authority records, is having a template that shows them all, indiscriminately, creating an overdose of links no one here can and will use (is a BibSYS link [3] ever useful on enwiki?). Fram ( talk) 20:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

What you proposing is a clean up of the template and how it is used - many will agree that Authority control is bloated with useless stuff and can be streamlined. But deletion discussion is not the proper venue. Suggest opening RfC for that. Renata ( talk) 20:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I call bullshit on Fram. You don't want to improve the template, if you wanted that you know damn well that this is not the right venue. You would have posted something on Template talk:Authority control or maybe an RFC if you really wanted to improve the template.

Here is what happened: You have being sabotaging anything Wikidata related and harassing Wikidata editors who are active here too. This is just another step in the pattern. You proposed the template for deletion, noticed the landslide oppose and now you're trying to save your skin by coming up with some lame excuse. Multichill ( talk) 22:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

No, I don't want to improve the template, where did I say that? I want to delete it, as it is fundamentally flawed (bringing in everything indiscriminately). I want to keep the best bits in the enwiki articles, but these best bits are different for each article. Please read what I wrote instead of making up stuff as an excuse to launch personal attacks. I want to replace with individual, targeted templates (just like we have a template for "official website", one for "IMDb", and so on); this is not cleanup, not some minor fix, this is deletion of this template and creation (or use if they already exist) of other templates to be used where appropriate, not everywhere indiscriminately. Fram ( talk) 22:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I would suggest that it probably needs an RfC of a better way forward, identifying the required data, the optional data, and the junk data. The template has bloated over the years. Alternatively there might also be a means to discuss a better way to display the data at the template's talk page, be it in another format, or as one line that can be expanded. It is quite provocative to ask for the deletion of an entrenched template as the first call without proposing a realistic solution. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Billinghurst: something like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control? Been there, done that, participation there was minimal. Fram ( talk) 05:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Fram: when you don't get traction from the community, then at some point you need to recognise that you are in the minority. As a fellow admin, we have to accept consensus, even when it is contrary to our own opinion. I do believe that authority controls have value, though happy to discuss how much and which, that said I don't like template bloat and can see that we should constrain display as required. Where would you like to continue the conversation if you are looking constraint, instead of removal. If removal alone is your goal, I believe that argument is lost. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I have no problem to accept consensus when a fair discussion hsa been had. Here however this was impossible because of a bad explanation (if so many people misinterpret aspects of the issue and proposal, then the explanation was insufficient or confusing), bad blood (some of the votes were purely based on anti-Fram sentiments obviously), and then some genuine discussion (including opposition and support) which got lost in the melee. I don't really know how best to proceed, I see no reason why the same people wouldn't disrupt and distort an RfC in the same way. Anyway, I'm not looking for constraint (although that would be the second best solution), I'm also not looking for removal in itself, I was looking for replacement, but I clearly failed to communicate this. Every group of articles needs a different set of authority control links, not the full set which makes sense at Wikidata but not here. We would not accept [4] as an external link at American Physical Society, but when it appears in authority control, it is no problem? Applying WP:ELNO to this would be a good start. Fram ( talk) 09:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Lexx ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. -- wooden superman 13:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete, navigates between only three articles. Frietjes ( talk) 16:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete It has been stripped down from this version, in accordance with various guidelines. There isn't much point to it any more. Betty Logan ( talk) 05:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:PD-USGov-Award ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, replaceable by {{ PD-USGov}} FASTILY 06:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 November 23. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Best_works ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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