Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 12 September 14 >

September 13

[edit]

Template:South Sudan political divisions

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 merge to Template:South Sudan political divisions. Izno (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:South Sudan political divisions with Template:Former States of South Sudan.
The "former states" template actually reflects current states, as of February 2020. The "South Sudan political divisions" title seems more appropriate for this template because of the 13 South Sudanese political geographic entities, 10 are states and 3 are not. "Political divisions" is used in other similar templates, for example that of the United States' political divisions. Lhimec (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2021 (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).

Template:Uw-notenglish-contrib

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 uw-notenglish-contrib. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Uw-notenglish-contrib with Template:Uw-notenglishedit.
An old, single-level user notice created by 7 (talk · contribs) that is rarely used as Twinkle does not use it. This template has been used just six times since it was created back 11 years ago (compared to hundreds of uses for {{Uw-notenglishedit}}, which was created in 2014). As such, {{Uw-notenglish-contrib}}, with similar message text, is redundant to {{Uw-notenglishedit}}. Eyesnore 22:37, 13 September 2021 (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).

Template:Sub judice

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 merge to Template:Sub judice. There is no consensus on whether to delete the primary template, but many participants on both sides expressed an interest in merging the individual jurisdictions to the primary template. As a minor note, I have been in contact with WMF Legal and they have nothing to add on the matter (i.e. it's our choice to make). There is no prejudice against a future nomination of {{sub judice}} in the future after it is merged, though I believe it would be best if some time has passed to see how effectively the merged template is performing. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close note: I was asked to re-evaluate this close. I do not see enough to overrule my earlier decision, but would like to offer commentary on some of the points raised at my user talk and here.
  • First, and potentially the most obvious, is that improper use of this template should be removed, as we would do for any incorrect template call.
  • If the documentation of this template needs updating, or the wording changed (i.e. to make it "less scary" and/or more indicative that this is a helpful note and not a threat, etc), there is no prejudice against this as long as the usual consensus policies are followed; this includes a decision to make it an edit-notice-only template or keeping it as a talk page template.
  • As far as WMF Legal goes, it is our (Wikipedian) collective decision what notices to provide for users, which is why they (Legal) do not necessarily have an opinion; it is not strictly legal advice and therefore not in their purview.
Primefac (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quite scary template (created Dec. 2018) that seems to be advising (in a very non-specific manner) to defer to the government and not publish anything on the page the courts might not want. That sort of deference is totally misaligned with Wikipedia's values, where we write an encyclopedia based on verifiable reliable sources, regardless of what anyone in power wants. In practice, this template probably discourages negative information, even when it's well-sourced, which is not desirable. We have WP:NOLEGALTHREATS protecting editors against legal action, and any edit so slanderous as to not be covered by that is surely in violation of BLP or other notices on the page, making this redundant. I'm also nominating some forked templates in the same family, where the same concerns apply. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I hope editors remember that we have an awful banner blindness problem on talk pages; the question is not "could any editor possibly find this at all helpful", but rather "is this essential to have on every page related to legal proceedings when most will presumably already have lots of other banners"? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have dug up the circumstances behind my re-creation of this template, and it appears to have been related to a high-profile ongoing criminal prosecution which had an extremely strict suppression order in place in the relevant jurisdiction. Several large media organisations had just been hauled into court over breaches and many local Wikipedia editors may have breached the order unknowingly, placing themselves at risk. The intent of the template, rather than to intimidate anyone, was simply to alert local editors to an unusual and temporary risk within their jurisdiction. It is in the interest of the proper administration of the encyclopedia that our editors not get sued into oblivion.
Having said this, I can understand that subtlety may not be realised by all editors who add the template to a talk page, and that the template may remain in place for a period exceeding that which is necessary. In this respect it has a time-sensitive and limited scope in the same way as {{Current}}. For these reasons I am comfortable to support Delete or redesign if that is what people would prefer. Cheers. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that context—the impetus for creating this in the context of the George Pell case makes sense. I remember that that case ignited a firestorm of criticism from free press advocates, so hopefully nothing like it will come up again, and if it does, we'll likely want to have a conversation about whether we should abide by the orders or not.
To give my own context, I came across this at Talk:Marilyn Manson, which might give an indication of how it's currently being used. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the Marilyn Manson situation. Is it possible an editor might write something about it that could make them liable to prosecution in the jurisdiction they are under? (BTW, WP:NOLEGALTHREATS doesn't apply, because that's about one editor threatening another, not about breaching orders of a court.) Nurg (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nurg, sorry I missed this comment before. I know of nothing a reasonable editor might write on the Manson page that would make them liable to prosecution: there is no suppression order or anything like it that I know of, and U.S. free speech laws are much more lenient than most other Western countries due to the 1st amendment tradition, so any such order in the U.S. would prompt an outcry far louder even than the one over the Pell order. Part of why I'm seeking deletion here is that this template is incredibly prone to overuse: its wording refers to all situations in which a subject is facing prosecution, but it really applies only when there's a suppression order or similar. I want to assume good faith on the part of the editor who added the tag at the Manson talk page, so I'll keep the example hypothetical, but adding this to a page for a subject facing controversy but where one does not want that controversy covered is extremely tempting. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity: the final sentence here is a complete mischaracterization of the situation. Neither me or any other editor has sought "not [to] want that controversy covered". Broader issues at play here include a misuse of the WP:MANDY essay – in lieu of actual policies – to exclude any denial of hitherto unproven allegations. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not have something like this. Contrary to the views and policy of this site. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I'm content to leave legal matters to the Foundation. If they have concerns, they're sure to let us know; if they don't, there's likely no need for such a template, particularly given its intimidating appearance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think it's intimidating, it's a legitimate warning to editors that they ought to be particularly careful. PatGallacher (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging AKeton (WMF), who seems to be the contact person for WMF Legal—would you have any perspective on this? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful template to warn editors where they may need to take extra care when editing. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no different to the notice whenever you edit a living person's biography, telling you to avoid libel. "In practice, this template probably discourages negative information, even when it's well-sourced" - as news sources have to follow the same rules, there is actually a scarcity of local sources around the time of criminal trials in the UK, apart from verbatim reports of what is heard in court. I do not see this template as deference because in one case which I won't name, I have seen it written that a famous man has been arrested despite the UK press being banned from naming him - nobody on Wikipedia has wanted to remove the foreign source naming him. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very different from the BLP notice, since WP:BLP is a Wikipedia policy, whereas "abide by suppression orders from all governments, even when reliable sources covering a topic are available" is absolutely not. Are we going to put a notice on every controversial China topic, for instance, advising "hey, if you're a Chinese editor, maybe don't add details on Tiananmen Square?" See also the WP:NODISCLAIMERS guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weird template. Seems like a scare tactic. Surely, no one's ever going to be held in "contempt of court" for adding information of public record to Wikipedia. ili (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These 5 templates can (currently) be separated into 3 categories: the main template (which has numerous transclusions), the New Zealand one (with one transclusion), and the other three (no transclusions). The one New Zealand transclusion is an entirely appropriate use for a case of permanent name suppression. It was also used not long ago for a case of temporary name suppression and then, as appropriate, removed when the name suppression was removed by the court. One person was convicted for breaching the suppression by posting that subject's identity on a website (not Wikipedia) – so it is possible that an editor under New Zealand jurisdiction would be prosecuted for breaching the suppression on Wikipedia. That said, it does not necessarily follow that use of the template is essential. And its wording may not be entirely appropriate, as it is mainly used in name suppression cases, not merely because something is "sub judice". I am not familiar with the legal situation in the three jurisdictions that the templates with no transclusions apply to. With respect to the main template with numerous transclusions, it sounds like it may be a question of whether it is sometimes or always being used inappropriately, i.e. where suppression is not legally required. If always inappropriate, deletion may be warranted. If only sometimes inappropriate, modifying the wording (including perhaps the template name) may help to limit use to where it is appropriate. Nurg (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a matter for local jurisdictions to handle in conjunction with WMF legal in those cases where censoring is "necessary" for those jurisdictions. In the general, we have evidence that it's not necessary; of the tens or hundreds of requests WMF receives only some 1-2% are acted on at most with deferral here, where we have strong basis against censoring for those jurisdiction (NOTCENSORED, etc. etc.). --Izno (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Izno. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see this template as referring to suppression orders or US 1st amendment privileges as the nominator suggests. As per other keep votes, this is merely a reminder that the subject of an article is "subject to current legal proceedings", and that editors should take greater care when deciding what to add, particularly tabloid-ish or poorly sourced additions. I note that even in the Marilyn Manson case, well-established editors (1,000+ edits) have added content sourced from Daily Mail and Page Six (The New York Post's celebrity gossip column). Plus, not all English-language users on Wikipedia are provided US 1st amendment protection, note the sub-templates from territories like New Zealand, Ireland, Gibraltar and Bermuda. Obviously there is a need for this is certain circumstances. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's referring to suppression orders, since that's what sub judice involves and that's the context that led to this template's creation (see the delete or redesign !vote of the template creator above). Regarding the "merely a reminder", every BLP page has the big red {{BLP editintro}} editnotice, which is plenty sufficient warning to abide by the BLP policy. Some editors will of course always ignore warnings, no matter hold aggressive, but the solution to that isn't to spam banners at them, since the more banners a page has, the more likely editors are to get overwhelmed and read none of them. Lastly, I think it's important to note for the closer the context that you are the top editor at Manson's page, where you have argued against including information about the sexual abuse allegations against him, added the sub judice template to that page, and accused me of tendentious editing on a level I've never seen before for making this TfD nomination. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The template mentions not "suppression orders". I don't really see how "banner blindness" comes in to the equation here, since that article refers to ad space on external websites; I don't see one mention of Wikipedia talk page banners in that entire article, so why it's being raised here as an issue is beyond me. Me being a primary editor at Marilyn Manson's page was implied by my vote text above, so there's no nefarious connotation there as you suggest. As far as your tendentious editing goes, your listed point above – re this TfD – was merely one of the reasons. Your lack of NPOV, your edit warring, as well as your potential gaming of the system by adding an inaccurate "nutshell" to the WP:MANDY essay which you then cited during the current RfC in favor of genuine policies such as WP:BLP, were my other reasons. But these all serve to distract from this TfD. If you wish to continue this discussion, take it to my talk page, where I'll be happy to continue discussing this. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the parent template (and merge' the rest into it). To portray these as in any way being advice to "defer to the government and not publish anything on the page the courts might not want" is to grossly misrepresent their purpose, and the nature of sub judice cases. They are in no way anathematical to Wikipedia's mission. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not think this template discourage adding infomation, only reminds them of Sub judice for those who are unaware. Also arguments made by Unknown Temptation and Homeostasis07 are convincing.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The salient point re Contempt of Court is "to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired". We should not be publishing things that have the potential to adversly affect the course of justice, which may involve forcing abandonment of trials or miscarriages of justice, no matter what the jurisdiction is. Fundamentally this is a BLP issue.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would prefer to have an RFC and a clearly stated Wikipedia rule about not being allowed to do whatever this is forbidding against, before we start putting banners like this on talk pages. Seems to violate the spirit of WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. Yet another banner to contribute to banner blindness. I spot checked a couple of the "what links here" articles, and this banner is sometimes used on articles about Americans. According to the article sub judice, this legal concept may not even apply in the U.S. except for attorneys speaking about their clients. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace the New Zealand template with the main one. Delete the three unused templates from minor jurisdictions. They are unnecessary duplicates. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge). There's some discussion about merging at the previous TfD. There's at least one other prior TfD here. In reply to some of the comments above, this is not about what we can publish, or what we're allowed to do, it's not about reliable sourcing, and it's not about deferring to courts. It's also not about viewing things from a US legal point of view, or from the WMF's point of view. It's about making people aware that, as I put it in the previous TfD, some editors may face a higher than normal non-obvious risk of breaking the law. I think that's a reasonable and appropriate explanation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging this template won't be enough to solve the issues with it. If it is to be kept, it will at minimum need much stronger documentation specifying that it should be used only for articles where sub judice concerns actually apply, which they do not for all but a tiny handful of the cases where this template family has been used. Per above, I'm skeptical that even that would be enough to prevent misuse. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: which articles have been tagged with the templates under discussion that you feel should not be tagged? Which do you agree with? Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Novem Linguae discussed spot checks above. Every use of this template for an American is invalid, to start, as sub judice isn't a part of American law in any way that affect a Wikipedian. And most of the uses for non-Americans aren't pertinent, either. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are only few uses of the template. As I see it, the siiuations are:-
Bob Dylan, American citizen, American criminal case ongoing.
Prince Andrew, Duke of York, British citizen, American civil case ongoing.
Wiley (musician), British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
South Thanet (UK Parliament constituency) - not a person, no ongoing legal case.
Claudia Webbe - British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Sixfields Stadium - not a person, no ongoing legal case.
Gylfi Sigurðsson - Icelandic citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Norman Bettison - British citizen, no ongoing legal case.
Peter Tobin - British citizen, no ongoing legal case.
Stanford Financial Group - not a person, no longer in existence, no ongoing legal case.
Katie Jarvis - British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Craig Mackinlay - British citizen, no ongoing legal case.
Charlie Elphicke - British citizen, no ongoing legal case.
Ryan Giggs - British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Ghislaine Maxwell - British citizen, American criminal case ongoing.
Benjamin Mendy - French citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Natalie McGarry - British citizen, no ongoing legal case.
Margaret Ferrier - British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Jared O'Mara - British citizen, British criminal case ongoing.
Jack Letts - Canadian citizen, no trial underway at this point in time.
2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis - not a person, no ongoing legal case.
2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings - not a person, Sri Lankan criminal case ongoing.
Virginia Giuffre - American/Australian dual national, litigant in several ongoing American civil cases.
Gabriel Matzneff - French citizen, French criminal case ongoing.
Sasha Johnson - British citizen, victim of a shooting which is an ongoing British criminal case.
Those entries in bold are where I feel that is is appropriate to use the template. In the case of Sasha Johnson, it is probably better to use it than not to. Where civil cases are involved, I'm not sure that sub judice applies, even in the UK. However, this is probably best clarified at WT:LAW. Where a template is being used inappropriately, then it should be removed. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bold entries represent cases where the template is only possibly appropriate. This template was written specifically with suppression orders in mind, and it's not appropriate to just slap on any BLP who is subject to a criminal case. Googling a selection of the bold entries (from the U.S.), I'm not seeing any indication of suppression orders or similar factors that would raise sub judice concerns. I conclude from that that nearly all of the current uses of the template are inappropriate. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: - see Contempt of Court#England and Wales. As a British editor, I need to be aware of our laws about the reporting of criminal and civil cases. The British Press are restricted in what they can say about such cases. For example, they are often prohibited from naming defendents/litigents. These restrictions do not apply outside the UK. So it is often the case that checking reporting elsewhere, such as in the US, these details can be found. I, as a British editor, would be in contempt if I were to add such details to a Wikipedia article. An American editor, as long as they were not in the UK at the time, would be able to add such details without being in contempt. Whether or not the edit should be made is another question, but they would not be in contempt by doing so. That is why my bolding is only on cases where the British legal system involved. I feel that I am unqualified to comment on cases outside the UK, so I won't do so. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The symbology of the stop sign (red octagon) and hand clearly implies a prohibition and and imperative instruction to stop. This is too strong a message to send in these circumstances. It cannot be presumed that most editors are subject to the order of a particular court. If kept, the symbology should be toned down. TheFeds 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrict to editnotice and merge to a single template (possibly with a jurisdiction parameter taking a country code, and a place for a citation to the order). (Deletion is also acceptable to me.) If we grant that a court might validly impose a ban on the public discussing or publishing about a judicial proceeding, then restrict the warning to those who are liable to actually put themselves in jeopardy by editing. The editnotice accomplishes this if appropriate instructions are placed in the {{sub judice}} template's documentation. The editnotice process (requesting on the talk page) will serve to build consensus that a prohibition has in fact been ordered, and that the court's order is valid (as opposed to, for example, obviously ultra vires and therefore of no effect). This curation will help address Mjroots' valid concern that the template is being applied prospectively without clear evidence of need. At worst, the request will fail, but anyone can read the talk page discussion to be notified of the circumstances and conduct themselves as they see fit. TheFeds 16:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a very good solution to me. If the information truly is essential for someone editing the page itself, then the editnotice is the appropriate. And I trust template editors to use this appropriately much moreso than I do anyone who can edit a talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the ability to create editnotices is restricted to admins. There need not be a discussion before an edit notice is created, an admin may do so off their own back, as I did at Gylfi Sigurðsson. That said, the creation of such an edit notice should be challengable via the article's or creator's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I create editnotices a bunch as a template editor. I wish more others could create them as well, but in this case, it'd work out. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be all well and good if current template usage was all we needed to go on. It should be noted that after the trial of the teenage boys convicted of the murder of Ana Kriégel, the judge in that case specifically criticised Wikipedia and Wikipedians during his closing summation for providing links capable of identifying those boys. Sure, those editors were following all current guidelines in their edits, albeit citing their edits to low-quality sources like user Facebook accounts, but that didn't make the ramifications of their edits any less significant or troublesome. Suppression orders are in effect for various reasons throughout the world, in English-language territories and elsewhere. An article on the English Wikipedia may still be subject to sub judice, regardless of where the case originates. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your example of the Bloody Sunday perpetrator is worrying. If this template is being misused to disguise/hide something that has been offered to the public domain via parliamentary privilege, please link to the page where I'll be happy to take steps to rectify that misuse. Otherwise, this template has nothing to do with information disclosed to the public, either by commercial [newspaper] or British "parliamentary privilege" means. It refers primarily to information disclosed by exceptionally poor quality sources, like Facebook account posts being linked by Wikipedia users to identify 14 year old murderers when a country like Ireland has strict laws prohibiting the publication of any personally identifying information of minors. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, it’s not just a issue with Wikipedia; paranoia over contempt of court in the internet age has effectively prevented an entire city from properly mourning a great miscarriage of justice. The worrying thing at the Bloody Sunday article is the use of revdel rather than this template, but all the same, there is a worrying chilling effect that the use of this template carries.
    Hell, in some cases, placing the template could itself be contempt where a notable but unidentified person is involved: most recently, Sigurdsson in the brief “everyone knows but nobody’s published it yet” period last month— there’s not that many 31-year-old international footballers who play for Everton—but also, there was a recent case where a former Tory minister in his fifties was arrested for [but not charged with] rape last year, and his identity was easy to deduce because only one of the men that fit that description was conspicuous in his absence from public life. Sceptre (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, looking into the context behind the template’s creation – effectively trying to scare people from editing articles regarding the ongoing saga of the Catholic Church covering up pedophile priests – I’m of the opinion the template should never have been created in the first place. Wikipedia should not be in the business of hagiographic editing of biographies where reliable sources breaking open that facade exist by the hundreds. If there really was a problem with Australian editors editing articles relating to Cardinal Pell, then WMF Legal would’ve taken action. As far as I know, they didn’t. Sceptre (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is no clear consensus, at some point this should be closed as 'No consensus', with no prejudice against any or all of the 5 templates being relisted individually, in which way it might be easier to get a consensus for some or all of them. Nurg (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These templates are really a group, so I'm not sure splitting out would do anything. In terms of alternatives to deletion, the options we have on the table are converting to an editnotice (as suggested by TheFeds above) or at the very least clarifying in the documentation that this template should only be used in cases where sub judice is a concern.
    Regarding the possibility of a no consensus outcome, we should try to avoid that. A template this aggressive and strongly worded should have clear community consensus behind it one way or the other. This discussion contains by far the most community evaluation of the template since its creation with little non-local input, so it should be possible to find some agreement. I invited WMF Legal to comment (both above and at WP:VPWMF), which might help, but unfortunately they haven't taken that up yet. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:02, 22 September 2021 (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).

Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. None of the provided arguments (for either side) are necessarily any weightier than the others, and the numerical consensus lies slightly with those in favour of deletion. The primary concerns of the keep camp are a desire to avoid duplication and to centralise updating, but with section transclusion that can still happen while also avoiding one of the concerns of the delete camp (overlinking). Discussions about the football match styles/MOS are not something that can be determined here, so when orphaning this template please make sure that all of the relevant information is kept in a central location for transclusion to the other articles; there is thus no prejudice for these representations to be removed at a later date should consensus determine it. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggest by a couple of editors at WT:Football#Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches (archived) that this template is not needed. I also feel it does break the WP:OVERLINK (MOS:DUPLINK) rule after it's been embedded in a club season page. I am not a fan of having data separate by multiple templates either, it does make it more difficult to find where to edit that information. (Template clutter?) Govvy (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Govvy (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and comments at the discussion referred to. GiantSnowman 15:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template prevents code duplication and keeps information updated. Instead of having the exact same football box template on the group stage page and each one of the 2 club season pages, you have only a single copy. Once it is edited – it updates the transclusions on the other page at the same time.
    The template also allows transcluders to set some of its parameters, such as |result, which is important to many editors. With the support of users such as SuperJew and Ortizesp, as well Spike 'em that is undecided but sees "an obvious use in updating the same information in one place rather than 3. We transclude things like league tables for a reason, this is reusing match information in a similar manner.", and the fact that the template is currently transcluded in pages that otherwise possibly won't have this information at all – I can't see why we shouldn't use match templates for all tournaments.
    Having said that, I do see Govvys point about possible clutter, and would agree for a separate template for the matches of every group – for the matches to be more easily found. yet again, the same 'problem' is true for the group stage tables templates that hold all group tables in a single template. Deancarmeli (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep templates seem to be useful (avoiding duplication) and most of the "not needed" arguments seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than based on any policy. Spike 'em (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems useful and prevents duplication.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) Firstly the proposal is worded badly, implying that there was consensus on referenced talk page section that the template is not needed, while there is no consensus either way currently. Furthermore, apart from a mention of WP:OVERLINK, none of the comments objecting have content beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Regarding WP:OVERLINK, it isn't a problem, since a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.. Regarding the advantages, use of this template (and others of the same idea), prevents duplication of information multiple times (for example: the same matches are repeated on 2019–20 UEFA Champions League group stage#Group C, 2019–20 FC Shakhtar Donetsk season#UEFA Champions League, 2019–20 GNK Dinamo Zagreb season#UEFA Champions League, 2019–20 in Croatian football#Dinamo Zagreb, 2019–20 in Ukrainian football#UEFA Champions League to name a few), with said duplication prone to part of it being out-of-date and more prone to errors and misinformation in part of the articles where it's duplicated. Having the information in one place also makes it easier to maintain and watchlist for vandalism (one page with the neccessary information instead of multiple pages which contain much more information which isn't relevant to topic). --SuperJew (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @SuperJew: OVERLINK clearly states a link may be repeated. That doesn't mean to repeat the link continuously over and over again. When you goto a club season page and look at all the results for say the Premier League. Are you going to continue to repeat the same club link of that season page over and over again. It's really isn't needed. This should be the same decision when the template is embedded. It should strip the name of the club of that season page to stop that DUPLINKing. I only posted this TfD because I was under the impression is wasn't wanted by a number of users. Govvy (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Govvy: The team name can be unlinked in the club season page with a bit more code. If that is the only issue, and more people will support this cause – it will be done. Deancarmeli (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Govvy: This isn't a popularity vote where we post TfD beacause you are under the impression something isn't wanted by a number of users. Post a TfD if you believe the template should be nominated based on your thoughts and based on policy. --SuperJew (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Stevie fae Scotland: There have also been discussions supporting the usage of the football box template. As it stands, the MOS states that the continental competitions should be completely removed from club season pages. As this is obviously preposterous, let us use this opportunity to give it a long overdue update. Every format other than the football box template will restore the problem of duplication. As the football box template is already in wide use, abd the discussed template solves the duplication problem, it seems like the obvious solution. Deancarmeli (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Deancarmeli: I'm sorry, but no. The MOS doesn't state continental competitions should be completely removed, it's an example of a season in which a club didn't qualify for a continental competition. Only circa 200 clubs in Europe qualify every season so it is a relevant example for the vast majority of teams but it obviously doesn't mean that editors should ignore a certain level of competition. I would be happy to support updating the MOS but I doubt you'll get consensus for the football box as others have tried and failed before. Collapsible football boxes which are auto collapsed don't meet WP:ACCESS and the football box has a horrible problem with WP:LINKROT because editors just randomly post a link in the |report= parameter and don't properly cite it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Stevie fae Scotland: All these problems are irrelevant to the discussed template. Don't want it collapsed? Its default mode is uncollapsible. Afraid of broken links? The template centralizes data, enabling easy upkeeping of all transcluding pages. So, there is no argument not to use it. As for the MOS: Guides should be as complete as possible. It should show international competitions, with teams no qualifying to them simply not implementing that section – not the other way around. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's on the temple is article content that belongs on the necessary/related articles. Substitution the content onto those articles. Having templates filled with article content is counterproductive and really underscores the purpose of template use and space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: What is the purpose of template use and space? Do we have a limited amount that we need to keep it for certain cases? --SuperJew (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Stevie fae Scotland. It's not necessary and it is against MoS. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply @Microwave Anarchist: "It's not necessary" is not an argument, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why is the current system better than the proposed template? As to "it is against MoS", please show us where it states how continental competitions should be displayed in club season pages. Otherwise, it's just a headline without substance. Deancarmeli (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Deancarmeli: - My argument is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because I am making no assessment of the value of the content, merely stating that transcluding from a separate template seems to be a much more difficult and confusing system, so as far as I'm concerned, my point doesn't fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your second point is moot as Stevie fae Scotland says as there is pretty clear concensus for wikitables over footballboxes, regardless of whether the MoS explicitly states to add a Continental section. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Microwave Anarchist: First of all, and it's important, there is no difference in content between the template in discussion and the match boxes at 2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group stage. They are the same match boxes, only that from the template they can be transcluded into club season pages and don't have to be copied, updated and maintained separately there, cutting down the updating work by at least 3.
          ◌ Secondly, as to "transcluding from a separate template seems to be a much more difficult" can't be more difficult, as int the team pages you only transclude the matches once and they update automatically once the source is updated. When all pages transclude, without "rouges", each editors help all other transcluding pages without even knowing it, and not just the readers of the specific page they're currently editing.
          ◌ Thirdly, even if transclusion was "a much more difficult and confusing system", this argument was moot as the group table are transcluded from Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group tables and the template subject of this duscussion is built in the same format.
          ◌ Fourthly, Stevie fae Scotland made a claim, he didn't provide any evidence for it being true. I think that this discussion further proof that there isn't a "pretty clear concensus for wikitables over footballboxes".
          ◌ Lastly, from you: Why should the current system go on, and we shouldn't switch to using the match templates? What benefits does it has? How is it better? Deancarmeli (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Deancarmeli: Consensus can be shown from discussions here and here, (and I'm sure there's plenty of others) which show that consensus exists for wikitables. There are multiple sitewide guidelines, such as WP:ACCESS, which advises against use of collapsible templates due to issues it creates with screenreaders. For me personally, tables are clearer to read as all information is available at a glance and they are also sortable. Why, in your opinion, is the football box template better? What benefits does it have over a table? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Microwave Anarchist: Actually, your first reference shows no consensus for the use of tables while strongly stating that the MoS was outdated even back then, more then two years ago. Your second referene isn't a discussion about Football boxes, and the only one in it claiming – without proof – that there is a consensus against the use of them is Stevie fae Scotland, the same user who made these false, unsourced claims in your first reference and in this discussion.
              As to MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, there is no problem with collapsible match boxes, as they are defaults to "uncollapsed" for readers without JavaScript. The sortability of the tables is irelavent, as the tables in the outdated MoS are unsortable. Changing that in the MoS is a different discussion, and definitely can't be stated in favor of its current version.
              The benefits of the template in discussion are, to state a few:
  1. Reducing labor:
    As all matchboxes are transcluded from a single template, there is a need to make only one edit per match, instead of 3 for clubs and 5 (!) for national teams (tournament page and both teams' fixtures sections and results pages).
  2. Keeping more pages updated:
    With the need to insert the transclusion only once and lack of updating it, pages otherwise unedited will still be updated. Currently, 10 club season pages still transclud this aggregated template. Some of them may not be kept updated without it, and the fact the will be with it raises the question why whould they be updated manually and separately, when it can be done automatically?
  3. Reliability:
    When the data is store in a single location, vandalism is more easily spotted. This verify that every displayed match on every page is sourced correctly, which is a current issue.
  4. Standardized appearance:
    When all pages transclude the same template, they all look the same. This help to enforce the MoS (that should be updated accordingly).
I truly believe that using this kind of aggregating templates in tournaments which matches of appear on multiple pages is the way to go. It will reduce editing labor and help keeping with WP:RELIABILITY, while keeping the main tournament pages look the same and allowing editing in a manner the is already done for the group tables. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deancarmeli: I didn't pick out the best expamles there of concensus, so I've found a few more. This, this and this are all further examples of concesus on this subject and the fact that the MoS has remained intact despite multiple proposals to change it also shows that there is concensus for the 'football box collapsible'. In response to your points, the fact that the MoS is outdated in the opinion of some users is completely irrelevant. I'm not well read on accessibility issues so I'll not comment on WP:ACCESS/MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. Sortability is a way in which the MoS is outdated IMO, as sortability provides a plethora of benefits, such as making information more easily accessible from the table (i.e. with attendance, you can just sort it to find the varitaion in attendance rather than expanding every football box and then manually comparing). Though only one edit has to be made to update it which is obviously a benefit for the editor (though if your inputting hte same information each time, you can just copy and paste), it is a more confusing system so requires and editor who understands it to be able to update it as new users/users unfamilliar with this system would not be able to update it. I fear that it could have the opposite affect in terms of vandalism as less people would be watching the results template, especially after a season has finished so vandalism is less likely to be spotted and a single act of vandalism would afftect more pages. As for your last point, the standardised appearance should obviously be wikitables as they are what the MoS says, which is backed up by consensus and if not WP:ACCESS then MOS:LIST and MOS:WHENTABLE which recommend tables for sporting results. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Microwave Anarchist: First of all, your second referene is kind of funny, as Govvy, the current nominator, comfortably claims in it that "MoS is just a guideline, not a policy directive." and is joined by Dr Salvus and SuperJew that speaks for the use of templates instead of tables. In that discussion, again Stevie fae Scotland and you have claimed the "there have been plenty of discussions over the past few years showing a consensus towards results tables" – always without proof. This is an unproven claim made again and again by the same people, not a fact.

More over, as I've written before: The MoS doesn't specify how international competitions should be displayed, so referring to it can't help building a case in favor of using a specific style.

Your third referene again shows no consensus for the tables, while pointing out the the MoS was barely updated since the creation of Template:Football box collapsible and definitly since the creation of aggregating templates like this. Even if the MoS covered international competitions, and it doesn't, it would be outdated. A Good point that was made against the use of templates in that 2017 discussion was about the reliability of match report links wich is one of the many problems that this discussed template solves.

Your first referene, from 2014, also doesn't show any consensus in favor of the tables. More over, the main criticism against Template:Football box collapsible in it is MOS:COLLAPSE, which may have been merited 7 years ago, I truly don't know, but is meritless now. The boxes defaults to "uncollapsed" for devices not supporting JavaScript so there is no WP:ACCESSIBILITY problem.

As for you saying that the template is "a more confusing system", I'll argue that it is created the exact same format of Template:2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group tables, which is a format widely used throughout Wikipedia for tables. Why is the format good for tables, with all its benefits, but not for matches?

You fear of vandalism of the template is baseless. First, it will be handles exactly like the groups tables template. Second, there is a much higher chance for unnoticed vandalism in the club season page of one of the 32 teams than there is for one in a centralized template, connected to all clubs season pages and to the tournament page itself. Much more users will be watching it then would the X season page of club Y.

It seams to me that all arguments and claims against the use of this template were answered. Deancarmeli (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Microwave Anarchist: I think there are two issues being confused here. One is how should discussed template be implemented. Meaning, should it be in the format of the footballbox as it is currently or should it be in the format of a table. This is a discussion which has been had many times, and what I have seen hasn't really reached a consensus (and you yourself say the MoS is outdated, so you can't cite it to support a consensus). Personally I've said a few times that if the table is the way per the Mos, the matchbox template should be updated to display in a table format, which would keep the ease of editing hardcoded tables don't have. Despite a few editors agreeing, this never was continued and ended in no-consensus. But anyways this is not the relevant point. The relevant issue to this discussion is the second issue - should the discussed template be implemented, regardless of the format. Think about it like this - if the template was formatted in the way you think is the "correct way", do you support it's staying on Wikipedia or do you still opt for its deletion? I personally think it should stay for reasons stated above - primarily as it allows to edit the data in one place instead of multiple places, and as Deancarmeli has expanded. --SuperJew (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deancarmeli: I'm sorry, but all the discussions cited show that there is no consensus to ignore the MoS on the format of results tables, and the fact that the MoS still recommends the use of wikitables serves as evidence to that. If you wish to see the MoS changed, feel free to start an RfC on it but no similar proposed changes have been successful previously.
The MoS doesn't specify how international competitions should be displayed, so referring to it can't help building a case in favor of using a specific style. - I don't know why you keep bringing this up; obviously, if it recommends one format for one competition, it would recommend that for other competitions. Would you suggest that it doesn't apply for German club season articles, for example, as the lead says it is for a Premier League club's season?
As for the use of templates for tables that are transcluded, I believe it was fairly recently agreed that templates should be deleted and tables transcluded directly from club articles precisely over fears/expamles (I can't remeber which) over increased vandalism. As per your assertions over the rate of vandalism, maybe my claims of increased vandalism are baseless, maybe not, but the fact is we have very little evidence to argue either way, and your arguement is based of assertions such as much more users will be watching it then would the X season page of club Y, which I seriously doubt. Perhaps it would be best if we were both to drop the WP:STICK on this as it seems increasingly unlikely that we will reach an agreement.
@SuperJew: Apologies, I have been arguing on two seperate issues here and could have been clearer. Obviously, it should be in the format of a table, as that is consensus, sitewide guidelines recommend the use of tables for this kind of thing and they appear more encyclopaedic IMO, but you would be right to say this is not the right place for that discussion. As for the crux of this issue, I explain my objections to this model above, and feel with the use of wikitables, the transcluded template would be even more difficult to maintain to the point of being completely unworkable as a system. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Microwave Anarchist: There is a stick I can't drop: There is, and it seems that never was, a consensus for using tables over templates. The fact that tables predated templates doesn't mean they were preferred over templates when the later didn't exist. We have seen many attempts to amend the MoS, never reaching a consensus either way. This, with a new (and dare I say improved) version is another attempt to make progress. As it stands now, not only that Template:Football box collapsible exists – it is used in this very WikiProject. As it used in 2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group stage. The template subject of this discussion aggregates these very templates – not one more, not one less – and enables their transclusion to other pages without loss of functionality. Please explain to me why should editors labor updating information that could be updated automatically? Why, when team A plays team B, shouldn't team A's page be updated when an editor updates the match data from team B's page? What purpose does this extra labor serves, when at best it can keep data as updated as this template provides, but mostly less?
The MoS needs updating. This style should be in the new version, IMO, as it uses a template already appearing in many to most club season pages, is labor reducing, reliability increasing and generally help keep more pages updated. I still claim that nothing here goes against the MoS since it doesn't address this kind of competiton, but even if it was to go against it – the MoS still must be updated.
As to my assertion: Yes, the match template is bound to be watched more than the page of the least watched team in that competition. I can't see why it shouldn't, after fully transcluded to all relevant pages.
As for going back to hard coding tables into articles, there is a slight difference: As I still favor the separated template, there is no loss of template functionality when incorporating Module:Sports table into an article and transcluding its table from there. There is a loss of template functionality when trying to do so with match boxes. Deancarmeli (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperJew: I have started work on a template that could be used in the way you've suggested. It's available at User:Stevie fae Scotland/Football result list and User:Stevie fae Scotland/Football result list start. I could do with a bit of help on it though as there as some things that I'd like to make optional between different tables eg colours, number/competition columns so that it can be used as broadly as possible. It uses similar parameters to the footballbox but not identical so it would help for pages that don't meet the manual of style currently but there would still be a bit of adjusting. I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Requested templates so hopefully that will move things along, any other help/ideas appreciated though.
Also, most recent discussion (as far as I am aware) which reached consensus for using tables over footballboxes is here Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevie fae Scotland: With all due respect, your suggested template does noting to improve on Reducing labor, Keeping more pages updated and Reliability – which the template in discussion does. Moreover, with respect to Argentina and its national football team results since 2020, a discussion in that kind of talk page can't be set as precedent for a general discussion like this. Deancarmeli (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I'm replying, it just gets diluted when you're going round in circles like this. The reason I highlighted that was to let Super Jew know that it hadn't been forgotten and in hope that other people with more experience creating templates may be able to help out. The point in that template is different to this one but unlike this one it does actually conform to the MoS. The Argentina discussion is also completely relevant because you are saying this should be used for lists of results on club season articles and that discussion reaffirmed consensus in favour of using tables for lists of results. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not round and round, strait to the point:
  1. The MoS Is outdated.
  2. The MoS doesn't specify how international competition should be presented.
  3. The table format never had a consensus over the match box template format.
  4. The template in this discussion aims to update an improve the MoS.
  5. The template in this discussion reduces editing labor.
  6. The template in this discussion saves code, using the same data on multiple pages instead of duplicating it on each, risking some of them to be forgot and get outdated.
  7. The template in this discussion help to increase information reliability.
  8. The template in this discussion keeps more pages updated than any other suggested system.
  9. Discussion in the a specific sub page of the Argentinian tame can't be used to establish a rule to guide all project protocols, with all due respect.
  10. The unfinished you suggest is currently not working and does nothing to solve any of the major problem the the template in this discussion was created to solve. It is currently irrelevant and only aims to distract from the reasoning provided in favor of the template in this discussion.
So, can we please stick to the point? Let's address this template, its structure, and this structures' advantages and disadvantages going forwards. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevie fae Scotland: Thanks for pointing out the new template in the making. Seems over my level of editing/coding on Wikipedia (which is why I prefer using templates and not hard-coded tables). If in the end the call is also with parameters, than in the end it is a question of aesthetics, and therefore even though personally I prefer the way the matchbox looks over the table, there is no reason to prefer one over the other. Though, I'm still not sure I understand the real issues against the matchbox which rule it out in the eyes of some editors. But, anyways as I answered Microwave above, this isn't the point of this discussion. The point is should the discussed template be implemented, regardless of the format. --SuperJew (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Updated format
    I've added "v·t·e" boxes to matches, to make editing easier. Example:
{{2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League group matches|HJK_LAS}}


Any thoughts? Deancarmeli (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
looks pretty bad, the VTE links should be automatically added by the template/module, not by hand using the "notes" parameter. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. Football articles are great, I get lots of info on WP not easily accessible elesewhere. Also, football articles are complete a mess. Namely, they are horribly hard to edit, often because of transclusions which are quite hard to follow. This template seems to have a intention I agree with, keeping each thing at a single place; but creates a huge template, with yet another cryptic mini programming language, which seems to add to the problem it is meant to solve. I don't know how to solve it (wp:wikidata, maybe?) but this does not look like the solution, though it is a good effort. - Nabla (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2021 (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).

Template:Grey line

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 18:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content is style="background: #EFEFEF" and apparently the template is used for translations of articles including fr:modèle:Ligne grise; in that case, the content should be moved to {{Ligne grise}} and that template be made subst: only; any direct transclusions should also be subst:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 13 September 2021 (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).

Template:Pakistan–Russia relations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Seeing as this was last discussed only 6 months ago, consider a longer time before re-nomination. Izno (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After this template was merged with the Pakistan–Soviet Union relations template. I decided to clean up the template by removing unrelated articles and Soviet-Pakistan relations articles as this is for Russia, not the Soviet Union. The template, unfortunately, doesn't have enough articles about the relations between Russia and Pakistan. Also, the user who created this is a confirmed sockpuppet who has used and abused multiple accounts over the years. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you for cleaning up the template/separating from Pakistan/Soviet Union. Despite being created by a sock, this template is still useful and has reasonable potential to continue being useful. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox doesn't have enough links to navigate through the topic. Especially not in the individual sections. Potential usage is not a policy nor a standard to keep. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 13 September 2021 (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).

Template:Bangladesh–Pakistan relations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After making two changes to the template in the reorganizing process, the first edit, I removed links to categories and red links. The second edit, removed unrelated articles between Bangledesh and Pakistan's relationship. Now, unfortunately, there aren't many articles outside of the Bangladesh Liberation War. There already exists a template for this conflict., thus making whatever rationale for keeping pretty weak. Outside the links to three articles that have nothing to do with the conflict itself, and if the links to the 1971 conflict were removed, then there isn't enough to justify having a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The bilateral relations are historically significant given that Bangladesh was once part of Pakistan. I don't see what's the harm of keeping this template, there's more than enough topics regarding Pakistan-Bangladesh relations, historical or otherwise, on Wikipedia. Mar4d (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d, have you taken a look at the two edits I made and what the template looks like now. More than enough topics are not found in the general relationship between the two countries. The majority come from Category:Bangladesh Liberation War. This category has its own template. And if I had removed the section about the war, then there would be four articles in the template. And it still wouldn't be enough to navigate through or with. WP:NOHARM is not a valid argument. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox doesn't have enough links to navigate through the topic. Especially not in the individual sections. Potential usage is not a policy nor a standard to keep. Also the other articles added by Mar4d still don't add much to the template. The section for the 1973 war is the only part that has a navigational purpose, but it's largely pontless as there is a template for the war and not enough exists for the other topics about these two countries' bilateral relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 13 September 2021 (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).

Template:Hurricane Ida series

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 October 3. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2021 (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).

Template:MLW World Middleweight Championship

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A template that was deleted once before for having one link. Now it has four which fails the rule of five for the necessary minimum amount needed for navigation for a navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2021 (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).

Template:San Diego Film Award for Best Feature Film

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are unused templates that only had one blue link in the first place. Also, the article for the award was deleted at AfD as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Film Consortium San Diego. -2pou (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2021 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_13&oldid=1056841604"