Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9: Difference between revisions

• Template:African Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Life in the African Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:African Union with Template:Life in the African Union.
The contents in Life in African Union can to fit in African Union Template and more to it.Manabimasu (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• merge, the navbox has a better layout. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Netherlands squad 2019 UEFA Nations League Finals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Netherlnds squad 2019 UEFA Nations League Finals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Long established consensus on WP:FOOTY and past TfD discussions (example here, here and here) to only have international squad navigational boxes for the men and women's: World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and each continent's top level competition. The UEFA Nations League is not a top level competition, and there was agreement in a discussion from last month that there should not be squad navboxes for this competition. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 08:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to the full list of nominated templates

The explanation of this nomination has become very long, so I have collapsed the main nomination content. These templates have survived two previous nominations (2010, 2013) so I would like to present a more comprehensive analysis and that addresses concerns from the previous discussions.

I request those participating minimally peruse the questions in the FAQ section below before !voting; preferably read the whole nomination.

For convenience, I have included a brief summary below that lays out what this nomination is proposing (but mostly not why it is being proposed, hence why reading at least part of the whole nomination is requested).

Background: {{Link language}} is a template that is placed near an external link to note its language. There are currently several options for using it, each involving an ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2, or IETF language tag, which I will denote here as langcode (basically a shortened form of the language name, examples being "en" for English, "fr" for French, "de" for German, and "ja" for Japanese). There are currently several options for using this template, depending on the language: {{Link language|langcode}}, {{langcode icon}} (and often 2-3 redirects: {{langcode}}, {{langcode-icon}}, and rarely {{Ref-langcode}})

Proposal: I am proposing template transclusions of the form {{langcode icon}} (and their corresponding redirects {{langcode}}, {{langcode-icon}}, and rarely {{Ref-langcode}}) be replaced by something like {{LL|langcode}}.

In practice, this would mean a bot would replace, for example, all occurrences of {{fr icon}} and {{fr}} with a templated form like {{LL|fr}}. {{fr icon}} and {{fr}} would no longer be usable by editors going forward.

As a weaker proposal, I have also suggested only eliminating the {{langcode icon}} form, while retaining the shortened form {{langcode}}, but this seems less ideal because {{langcode}} isn't consistently implemented for every langcode (and probably shouldn't be, as certain names like Template:yo are commonly used for other purposes). Retro (talk | contribs) 22:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Because this is an extensive nomination, it will take me a bit of time to use AWB to tag all the affected templates with TfD notices. I'll make a note here when I'm done. Retro (talk | contribs) 22:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Except for the template protected pages (which I've requested be edited here). Retro (talk | contribs) 23:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: All templates on the list are now tagged. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: So this is replacing a zero parameter template with a single parameter template, where the parameter is directly derived from the old instance? Thus little/no chance of errors during replacement? Hence a bot _could_ be trusted?

When replacing {{langcode icon}}, would you ask the bot to replace with {{Link language|langcode}} or with {{LL|langcode}} ? I could argue both ways. Obviously {{Link language}} is less overhead, more direct, and demonstrates "best usage". However, advertising the new shortcut usage {{LL}} quickly in several thousands of places might better gain future editor adherence. (cat herding 'taint nothing to the butterfly herding done rightchere)

When peeking at {{Link language}} it nervously chitters 230,000+ usages! (288610 at the moment) When I do a scientific poll of your list of templates (sampling 'transclusions' for the last 10 entries) I see some have 0 usages, some have <~10 usages, three have hundreds, and one has 9,000+ usages. Do you have any idea how many of the 280,000+ usages are represented by the combination of your set?

I think it is worth noting that the proliferation of these continues. Just randomly probing I came across Template:Azb icon created in April. Shenme (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) @Shenme and Tom (LT): Yes, I believe substitution could make bot replacement rather straightforward; we just put what we want into the template and then the bot will substitutes it verbatim. As for whether to use {{LL|langcode}} or {{Link language|langcode}}, I would lean towards "LL", as I assume it's the standard people will want to conform to. It's obviously not as clear as {{Link language}}. There are other compromises though; we could create new redirects like {{In lang|langcode}} or {{Link lang|langcode}} if we wanted to balanced typing ergonomics with clarity.

  By your question, I assume you mean how many of the transclusions use the wrapper templates as opposed to the {{Link language}} directly? I assume only a negligible amount use {{Link language}} directly, but I can back to you with harder data in a moment if you want. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (edited 03:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

It wasn't entirely an idle question, since quantity sometimes overwhelms the system. But I _was_ worried someone would object based on numbers. Yet if a tuned bot does this, overload doesn't happen? I was thinking of just using wget or curl and processing the text responses down into counts (though I wonder if I'd get blocked for, um, overloading the toolserver?). If you have a better way, though, it'd save me from a block? :-) Shenme (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, CirrusSearch seems like a much better way that work within the system: 3101 results. That won't count redirects (and weird transclusion that use too many explicit numbered parameters), but it should be a fairly accurate ballpark. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Overall, I think this is a good idea conceptually. These are a huge set of templates and a single template is easier to maintain, easier to add new languages to, decreases overhead, helps standardise the appearance of things and any changes, and I think is also in the direction where other language templates are heading. In terms of the implementation, we would have to be careful that no errors are induced as Shenme points above. Also, I do not like the title 'LL' as I feel a plain language title that may be easier for new editors to understand, however would respect the majority opinion on this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Is substituting the templates not an option? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @MJL: I'm not sure if I completely understand your question; apologies for my lack of understanding.

  Substituting the templates is one potential method of eliminating these template transclusions, and probably the ideal method of elimination if this discussion is in favor of deleting the wrapper templates. We will probably want to do a few tweaks before substituting, though, but it should be fairly straightforward. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Retro: Looks like you did understand my question lol. It was in reference to Shenme's comment above. Thank you for the answer! (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  On a different note, {{Zh-classical icon}} seems to be broken; which is unfortunate. How possible is it to use {{#invoke:Language/data/wp languages|function}} in {{LL}}? I thought it was already supported..? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That is unfortunate. Still investigating, but {{Link language}} directly invokes {{invoke:lang|name_from_code}}, so there's some level of indirection there causing a bug. Retro (talk | contribs) 04:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  But actually {{zh-classical icon}} is unused, and the phrase "zh classical" is used less than 10 times in mainspace. Retro (talk | contribs) 05:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @MJL: (ping) Retro (talk | contribs) 05:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Retro: I see... So should the template be deleted? It's currently a part of your proposal. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @MJL: Yeah, it'll be fine if it's deleted in this nomination; it won't cause any problems. Even if it does survive this nomination, it should probably be nominated separately because it's a non-standard and discouraged code. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The error at {{Zh-classical icon}} arises because zh-classical is not a valid IETF language tag. I presume that it refers to Classical Chinese which article says that the language is synonymous with Literary Chinese which has the ISO 639-3 code lzh.

  Module:Language/data/wp languages is used by Module:Lang which is used by {{Link language}}. Direct use of Module:Language/data/wp languages is discouraged because the provenance of the data there is almost wholly unknown; some of the codes there are wholly non-standard.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, huh. That's what I thought, but I wasn't aware that Module:Language/data/wp languages has discouraged use. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: When this is done, would you please include the options for upper and lower case versions? "in [language]" [sic] is irksome to me when the template is placed at the beginning of/in front of a link, etc. I'd like to be able to have "In [language]" as an option, and possibly the default option. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @DocWatson42: That could certainly be added as a parameter, perhaps |cap=yes. However, it is my understanding from something I read elsewhere while constructing this nomination (I'll link when/if I find it) that the existing MOS consensus is to only use template after the link. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Reading some discussions, I'm getting the sense that I may be mistaken. But I'll get back to this. Retro (talk | contribs) 04:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Retro: I request the option because so often I find the template placed at the beginning of a link, etc., or just after the bullet. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I read the rationale and I understand there are maintenance issues with the current system and also vandalism concerns, but the proposed change would be another step in making Wikipedia hard to edit because of having to remember template syntax. There is already too much of this and I do not see the concerns raised as justifying yet another step in the direction of making editing difficult for anyone but the technologically highly educated. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yngvadottir: As I mentioned above, I'm open to other names besides {{LL|langcode}}. I don't know if you consider {{langcode icon}} easy to remember, but I personally consider it an unintuitive naming scheme. If we standardize one one naming format, I see these templates as being easier to use, because they're more consistent. Retro (talk | contribs) 04:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I do consider "icon" easier to remember than "LL|" because it's a word. I don't think there's a way around the fact your proposal will add yet another code string that editors have to remember. It could be argued that only highly motivated and savvy editors use these anyway, as opposed to not noting the language, just typing the language name or 2-letter code, or leaving a bare link for someone to run a script over, but this hits precisely the editors with relatively shaky English who want to cite websites in their native language. Words are easier to remember (and teach) than code. (There are days I flub "ill" or the "As of" template, and "sfn" is still too much for me.) It's a cumulative memory load, and the essence of the project is that those with knowledge and willingness can help build the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yngvadottir: Would you be more amicable to replacing with {{in lang|langcode}}, since that's also a word (and hopefully relatively clear to the template's purpose, thus probably being likely to become memorable)?

  I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that my proposal has to create increased complexity for the average editor. I think this can even be an opportunity to increase usability.

  Honestly, I don't find the current limitations of {{Link language}} particularly helpful myself. For instance, it would be nice if I could do {{Link language|French}}, but that is not currently supported. But this TfD can't really fix that problem; that will require some dedicated tweaks to {{Link language}}. Retro (talk | contribs) 04:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be easier to remember, yes. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yngvadottir: Does that mean your oppose is only conditional on whether the replacement is {{LL|langcode}}? Or would you prefer status quo regardless? Retro (talk | contribs) 12:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, as per my previous edit summary here, I'm still opposed because I am not persuaded the change is justified. Any change will contribute to the barriers to editing, and tempt long-standing editors to not try—not noting the language, or just slapping in a bare URL, are things borne of frustration that we already see. But if it is decided that a change is desirable, I appreciate your suggestion as being less of a deterrent. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Literal argument display doesn’t seem difficult to implement here, and I could see it done one of 2 ways: 1) add a fourth set of data linking fully spelled out names; 2) display literal argument as a final fallback when no language is found. But, honestly, in either case, the decrease in consistency could be good reason for people to oppose. While being able to spell out a name is definitely nice, there’s a lot of value in the system established now. My biggest concern for either option would be a clash between a 2/3 letter code and a language with a short common name. A good solution regardless of changes to the template would be an autogenerated table that displays every possible output with a list of accepted inputs in a highly visible location. There are several sources for varying standards linked in the template documentation, but something built specifically for this template would be much better. I don’t have a stance either way, but from a technical glance, such a change seems rather trivial. 1F6😎E 08:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @U 0x1F60E: I appreciate your comment. I am certainly not proposing that new argument functionality be added as a result of this discussion; it was only an example, and can be discussed further at a later time. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This will be much easier. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oppose— I would prefer {{langcode icon}} or the shortened form {{langcode}}, but not {{LL|langcode}}. Shorter language code, will be easier for new editors and reduce in pagesize when linking many non-English literature or weblink to an article. Fiipchip (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fiipchip: My proposal is to replace {{langcode icon}} and {{langcode}} with {{LL|langcode}}, so your vote should probably be an oppose.

  But if even though you're not okay with replacing with {{LL}} (a common concern; the inclarity of the name seems to be a bit of a sticking point in the previous discussion), would you be okay if they were instead replaced with {{In lang|langcode}}? Retro (talk | contribs) 12:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Retro:thank you, I have updated to oppose. I would still prefer the shorten version of langcode. Let's face it, reducing the wordings can reduce the pagesize and at the same time minimise errors. If there is a maintenance issue due to shortening of the codes, I would vote for {{LL|langcode}}. Fiipchip (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fiichip: I have updated the summary, so hopefully it's a bit more clear (if you have any other questions, feel free to ask them!)

  Based on your previous comments, it seems like you might generally be in favor of my proposal to remove the {{langcode icon}} while keeping {{langcode}} as an option (the "weaker proposal" noted above in the summary). Retro (talk | contribs) 14:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fiipchip: And I misspelled your name, so it didn't ping correctly :-P. This ping should work. Retro (talk | contribs) 14:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A few comments. I firmly oppose the end result being a template name with the word "icon" in it. "Icon" has a meaning, and from checking some of the templates, none of them have any icon in it (as was pointed by nom). Yngvadottir has expressed concern that editors will have to remember another piece of code string, I'm assuming they meant the country code, but how is that different from remembering what XX icon template to use? Those are the same parameters. --Gonnym (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gonnym: So basically, you support getting rid of the {{langcode icon}} wrappers, but you're neutral towards the {{langcode}} template redirects?

  Regarding Yngvadottir's concerns, I think you've misunderstood: Yngvadottir is concerned about another codeword like the shortened form "LL" in my suggested redirect replacement {{LL|langcode}}. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Leaning support, which is why I didn't vote. Waiting to see more comments first. If that is Yngvadottir's concern that is basically a non-issue, as that is like opposing RM for that reason. --Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I am already used to using {{ja icon}} {{de icon}} etc., and if the change is seamless, i. e., if I use the legacy name and it just gets redirected to the new template name that takes parameter, that's fine. But proposing to get rid of it so I would wind up getting warning message would be imposing and annoying.

 Comment: As for "icon". This template {{Link language}} used to appear in a shade of gray and slightly smaller size: "(in Japanese)". Visually not all that different from the icon used by {{translator}}. I would have preferred to have this css style "icon" but certain users mobilized to get rid of it. --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per given reasons (long-term maintenance, current template names are deceptive). —howcheng {chat} 16:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Keep the {{xx icon}} method alive. A change for what appears only the sake of it, and a deletion of this present template, will only cause disruption, no matter how insignificant it appears to be for fellow editors. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for the change because it will decrease maintanence load. Slight support for keeping current syntax when it is already heavily used for a specific language. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose and keep the existing method alive. It's not broken. Also, can we please do something so that <see Tfd> doesn't appear against every single instance of the templates used. That's doing more damage to the encyclopedia than this change would whether implemented or not. Gricehead (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gricehead: I don't mean to be a bother, but I was wondering what kind of damage having the notice does? I don't feel it compromises the purpose of the template; it's a bit more visual clutter, but it might encourage editors who would not otherwise participate in this TfD to come, and it will only be there temporarily.

  I take full responsibility for adding those notices; it was done intentionally so that it would display in the manner you note. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Retro: In my opinion it's visual clutter that adds no value to the encyclopedia for our readers. I agree it might well bring editors to this discussion (like it did me), but I suspect many many more people read than edit (I have no stats to back this up). Gricehead (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is not consensus to noinclude templates for reasons other than them being substituted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I appreciate the archived discussion, though I'm not sure why you immediately reverted your mention of it. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A belief that my initial commentare came across as unnecessarily hostile. I've restored that post. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Yet another non-problem not needing fixing. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This tfd prompted me to dust off User:Monkbot/Task 6: CS1 language support. That task was developed to add |script-title=, where appropriate, based upon either the content of |language= in the cs1|2 template or upon an appropriate {{<xx> icon}} template directly adjacent to the cs1|2 template. To get the most complete coverage, it made sense to normalize the {{xx icon}} templates and their redirects to a consistent form before making the decision to add (or not) |script-title=. Further, even when not appropriate to add |script-title=, in the cases where there is an adjacent {{<xx> icon}} template, it makes sense to add |language=<xx> and remove the {{<xx> icon}} template. If this tfd is successful, there will be work for me to remove the normalization code and add support for the new template (this is an observation, not a complaint). So, having dusted off task 6, I am running the bot to cleanup uses of {{<xx> icon}} templates adjacent to cs1|2 templates.
  
  When initially writing task 6, I wrote some test code that became the basis for the {{<xx> icon}} normalization used by task 6. I've dusted that off too, updated to the list of templates for this tfd, tossed out most of the original code in favor of code based on my most recent bots, and voilà, most of a bot done. It does need to be checked for data accuracy, and it does need a new-template name, but should suffice as a starting point if this tfd is approved. Code is here.
  
  When deciding on a name for the new template, beware {{llink}}, yet another language template, this one strictly for ISO 639 codes. Some advantage may be gained by using the {{LL|langcode}} form (regardless of whatever it is named, if it is named). A single template like this can produce a nice rendering of a list of languages; much nicer than the lists of languages at Moravia § External links, for example (ignore the tfd messages and look at the list).
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Trappist the monk: The multiple languages is actually potentially a huge benefit in terms of widening options, and definitely not scaleable to wrapper templates (imagine: {{en fr icon}}, {{en de icon}}, {{fr de icon}}, plus another 1.67 * 10^96 such templates). I don't expect people would really create such templates, but it is simply an analogy to show the limiting mindset of defaulting to a set of wrapper templates.

  I wish I had focused more on things like that in my rationale (I also wish I had pared down its extreme verbosity). This sort of thing is really the reason why I think it's better to utilize the primary template, because it opens room for editors to have more options within the better structured framework, rather than to be deceived by a pseudo-consistency of wrapper templates that narrows ones' potential options. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have tweaked Module:Lang/sandbox and {{link language/sandbox}} so instead of this:

  Template:Cs icon Template:En icon Template:De icon Template:Fr icon Template:Es icon Template:It icon Template:Pl icon Template:Ru icon Template:Ja icon Template:Zh icon

  this:

  Template:Link language/sandbox

  Categorization (mainspace only) and error messaging works. Probably not completely proper to keep this in Module:lang because it is too tied to a specific template (in this case primarily because of categorization) so some (all?) of the new code should probably be moved into Module:Lang/utilities. I may go ahead and do that because this seems a handy thing to have around.

  As I was writing this message I mis-typed the template name and wrote {{language link/sandbox}}. That experience suggests to me that the base name of the template is too confusing (yeah, we have a redirect for the live template and could create one for the ~/sandbox ...). But I begin to agree with those who have have suggested {{in lang}} as the template name simply because {{in lang}} matches the function of the template.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I definitely agree that the template name is confusing, hence my (quickly withdrawn) RM. Having thought about it more, {{In lang}} is nice as a shortcut, but perhaps the best full name for the template is {{Language of link}}, which is specific to its purpose. But template names don't necessarily need to be perfectly specific, just usable and not actively misleading. I don't think there would a problem if the shortcut was {{In lang}} while the primary template was renamed to {{Language of link}}. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Editors don't always provide links to go with {{<xx> icon}}; see Amazons § Further reading which uses {{de icon}}, {{fr icon}}, and {{pt icon}} with plain-text citations. Because editors do this, it seems to me that {{Language of link}} suffers from the same weakness as {{language link}} or {{link language}} because there may not always be a 'link'. Maybe the formal name might be {{language of source}}

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It was a bad idea in the first place to have individual templates for each language code, on top of associated redirects. I understand change can be hard for many, but the new syntax will not be that difficult to learn and is still succinct, if even more so. This change is necessary to standardize these templates and easily allow changing them consistently in the future, instead of in many places (if, for example, we want to display a notice for languages with rare font support, this can be done in a central location). As another user mentioned, the name is also deceiving, and we should say what we mean: there is no icon. This isn't just change for change's sake as many non-technical users will see from their perspective, but important semantically and structurally. Opencooper (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose out-right deletion. unfortunately, the two-letter templates are used on commons and many other non-English WPs, so this would create endless problems with broken transclusions of deleted templates. however, I would support making them auto-substituted by bot. this would be a more graceful way to deprecate them. for an example of the complexity, see Template:en which is namespace dependent to behave like the commons template in file space. Files are frequently temporarily copied over to facilitate protection. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Frietjes: Your note about Template:en actually seems to slighly support my proposal. {{en}} is not one of the template I propose to delete in my proposal because it is actually an exception case; a {{lancode}} template that does not redirect to the corresponding {{en icon}} wrapper template. This demonstrates the naming here is ultimately an inconsistent patchwork (and fundamentally so: wrapper templates reserve extra pages by their nature). Under the current model, it seems conceivably easy that one could accidentally use {{en}} when they really intended to get the output "Template:Link language". Retro (talk | contribs) 15:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Because I was curious, I've added a list of two-character redirects to {{<xx> icon}} templates to the template list. Also added links to see what redirects are available for each of the nominated templates.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that a bot should be allowed to replace all the usage of {{foo icon}} because these templates do not render icons, nor should they AFAICT. There's certainly some of us editors who happen to know the existing syntax, but there is no actual big loss if we're forced to convert to having to know some other piece of syntax that is less counter-intuitive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all A clear, in my mind, instance of hundreds of templates doing a task that could be (and is, to some degree) done by one template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Australian tropical cyclone intensity small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BOM Scale small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:FMS Scale small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates with the same accessibility problems as {{Saffir-Simpson small}} (see below). Some of these scales are not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to think about the so called accessibility problems as its not my area of expertise, but would comment that the 3 scales are the same (abr the weaker intensities) and are mentioned on Wikipedia.Jason Rees (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Are the scales the same across regions? --Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator Noah^Talk 16:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Saffir-Simpson small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inaccessible and similar in function to {{Saffir-Simpson scale}}. See also archived discussions (especially the last comment), below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with {{Saffir-Simpson scale}} where used. Tooltips / Hover text are indeed not supported by the MOS (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text). --Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This template was mainly intended as a color legend for maps and tables (such as in 2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Season_effects) where a key for the meanings of the colors is desired, but not so much the information about the scale itself. The tooltips inside the template were "nice to have" but not the template's main purpose; if the template is kept, the tooltips and accessibility issues can be addressed separately.

For context, at the time the template was made, the use of colors to convey category and strength information was widespread in WikiProject Tropical cyclones, and screen space was scarce: a 800x600 CRT monitor was a plausible use case. With that in mind, {{Saffir-Simpson scale}} may not be a drop-in replacement. Some refactoring could create a solution, such as in the aforementioned table, which has a column that explicitly lists the categorization for each storm, obviating the legend.

WPTC might still have need of a miniature legend like this, though - for example, I would have expected some transclusions to provide a key for track maps (Wikimedia:Category:Atlantic hurricane tracks). The discussions on tooltips and addition of "nomobile" seems to have muddled the applicability and usage of the template - moving the template (after replacing to zero transclusions) could be an option to allow the project to repair it, or modify it to work better with modern UI. —AySz88\^-^ 08:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with no replacement I would suggest simply deleting this template and not replacing it. None of the other season articles have their scales at the top of the effects table, so it isn't needed here. The TC scales page is already linked. One could also view the timeline on the page to see the scale. Noah^Talk 14:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the consistency argument works - one might as well say that the other basins *should be using* their templates more (plus, there are other contexts where this template is used than the effects tables). And Tropical Cyclone Scales, in the word "category" in the column headers, is a mix of all the basins' scales, not the specific one being used. More broadly, almost by definition this is a brief on-hand alternative to the main place for this information. Usability-wise, removing the ability to have a legend at all seems to be a step backwards and prone to confuse (unless there's a decision to remove color entirely instead). —AySz88\^-^ 05:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - after some more research, I'm getting more convinced that the issues being identified are more shortcomings and lack of maintenance than reasons to delete. The transclusions of this template are indeed at places where the articles have want of a labelling of the colors. I'd suggest that the need here is to address the issues - perhaps a redesign based on or merged with the other instances where a color legend is used, such as in the timelines and track maps, or a merge with some smaller option of {{Saffir-Simpson scale}}, in a design without the wind speed columns. (I can't guarantee how quickly the project would address this comprehensively, but seems improper to go to deletion for lack of this work.) —AySz88\^-^ 05:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ISO 3166 adj (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete since it is unused. TerraCyprus (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:This user talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

rarely used. Viztor (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since it is used/transcluded. Unless a target to redirect or merge this is found, there's no reason to delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steel. Userspace templates don't really need the maintenance and watching that mainspace templates do; there's no harm in having this template with a few transclusions if nothing else does the same job. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cs1 function (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In Citation Style 1 templates, the parameters subscription= and registration= are deprecated. Since the nominated template is only used on documentation for templates that transclude {{Subscription required}} or {{Registration required}}, this purpose of template is deprecated and following the directions in this template are now inaccurate since using the subscription= or registration= parameters in Citation Style 1 templates now returns a red warning message stating that the aforementioned parameters are now deprecated. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Deletion history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Old XfD multi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Deletion history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Old XfD multi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Multidel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added at 17:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC))

Propose merging Template:Deletion history with Template:Old XfD multi
Propose merging Module:Deletion history with Module:Old XfD multi.
A clear instance of two templates serving the exact same purpose, of listing past nominations for deletion. Note: I have noincluded the TfD tag on Template:Old XfD multi given that the template being merged into it has only one transclusion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Would also support {{Multidel}} being merged into this. --Gonnym (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as well as support merging {{Multidel}} as long as existing transclusions of {{Multidel}} are converted to use {{Old XfD multi}} parameters and appearance. Steel1943 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• {{Multidel}} tagged and added to nomination (I also support merging it, but simply didn't come across it when making the original nomination). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all It'll make life a lot simpler to only have one of these templates. They all do substantially the same thing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Pppery, Gonnym, Steel1943, and MJL, what do you think of {{Oldprodfull}}? Either it ought to be included here, or it would help if someone would explain why it doesn't belong here. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nyttend: It doesn't belong here because the templates I listed are for past deletion discussions and it is for past proposed deletions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nyttend: That's a good question! I see prod as similar to {{Old moves}} in that it isn't a traditional XfD. However, and more importantly, I feel like if we were to include it within this merge that it'd confuse newbies. Prod is a very... different process to get used to. It'd just make it sound as if the article went through a more rigorous review than it actually did by surviving prod. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thank you both for your helpful responses. I wasn't sure whether the focus should be on the deletion process (more broadly) or the discussion (more specifically). Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (all): We don't need three different templates for noting previous XfDs; consolidating templates like these increase the consistency of display (and probably ease of using in the long term). Retro (talk | contribs) 15:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2019 Liga 2 tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018 Liga 2 tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017 Liga 2 tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018 Liga 3 tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019 Indonesia PFL tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DART color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DART lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DART stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DART style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DCTA color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DCTA lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DCTA stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TRE color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TRE lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TRE stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TRE style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{S-line}} templates for Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Denton County Transportation Authority, and the Trinity Railway Express, respectively. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Module:Adjacent stations/Denton County Transportation Authority, and Module:Adjacent stations/Trinity Railway Express. All transclusions replaced. There are also 14 dependent s-line modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Political protests in the 21st century (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Navbox's scope is way too wide. I suggest that, before we delete it, we break it down into smaller, more reasonable topics. For example, we can turn each subgroup (i.e Colour revolutions, Arab Spring, Anti-war, etc...) into an independent Navbox (if such Navbox doesn't already exist).

This Navbox isn't helpful at all. Despite its name, it is actually about every protest in the entire 21st century. What will it look like a decade from now, for instance? --Bageense^(disc.) 12:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better covered by a list article or categories. Frietjes (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Frietjes. Navboxes need to focus on a topic with a limited number of articles, or they need to focus on the premier items in a broad topic. I can't envision how to narrow down this topic to a few premier items (especially since 80% of the century hasn't happened yet), and as Bageense notes, the template is simply too large already. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to a list a fascinating, encyclopedic and potentially useful resource for modern history inclined readers. Should not be a template, but I wonder if a list (eg Protests in the 2000s, protests in the 2010s) would be a more appropriate format in addition to categories. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to list per Tom. Very surprising there isn't a list already. --Gonnym (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to list—completely unwieldy as a navigation template at this point and only going to get worse as nom says, but could be useful as list of protests in the 21st century (or split further) —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with nom that some of the categories could be hived off into separate navboxes (colour revolutions and international protests seem like obvious candidates, less convinced of the utility of some of the other sections for this) —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT), Gonnym, and Nizolan:  Done! List of protests in the 21st century. Still working on it though. --Bageense^(disc.) 16:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]