Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4

[edit]

Template:Mosques in Qatar

[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles related to the subject of mosques in the country. And unused. No navigational requirement is met. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2022 (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:Communauté de communes Cœur de Combrailles

[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. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and better served by Template:Puy-de-Dôme communes which features the same articles in the former. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2022 (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:Chinese Time:Number

[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 2022 April 12. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 12 April 2022 (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:COVID-19 pandemic data/Punjab, India medical cases

[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. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and hasn't been updated in over two years. No longer needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rlink2 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2022 (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:Imran Khan family

[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. ✗plicit 23:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No longer necessary after I've added the listed articles into Template:Imran Khan. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All information related to Imran Khan's family is now part his template, no need for another template just for his family. Elmisnter! (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, makes sense to keep all Imran Khan template info in one place. Aza24 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2022 (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:Sigenerator & Template:Sigenerator-ip

[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. ✗plicit 23:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly no views, not linked from anywhere, and I would say depreciated. Either the four quotes should be used if you are signing your comment, or {{Unsigned}} or {{Unsigned IP}} if someone forgot to sign it themselves. Perhaps could be useful if you forgot to sign your own comment and then later decide to go sign it? But I am sure a bot would probably get ahead of you. AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2022 (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:Term-defn

[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. ✗plicit 23:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar still with templates, but this one seems to be a test template? I believe it is empty and not used anywhere, and the documentation is empty as well. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2022 (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:Morton family

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no parent article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2022 (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:AwardsInCenturyHeader

[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. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no documentation, no incoming links. I'm guessing that this was replaced by a general-purpose template that performs the same function, but without any discussion links, it is difficult to tell. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2022 (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:Editnotices/Page/UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying play-offs

[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. ✗plicit 14:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expired editnotices, no longer needed. These events ended more than eight months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2022 (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:Welcome editnotice

[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. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unused editnotice proposed in 2011 but apparently not adopted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2022 (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:Major topic editnotice

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused editnotice created in mid-2021. No incoming links from talk pages. No apparent transclusions. It appears that this editnotice is not needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:TFD#REASONS #3 states (emphasis original) The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. The use case for this template is clear—articles that have a high risk of summary style violations—so I see no argument for why this has no likelihood of being used and therefore no cause for deletion. I went ahead and added it to two articles where it fits. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since September 2021, has this been used? Gonnym (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's currently being used on three articles: entertainment, the arts, and sport. If you're asking about past usage, I forget if I added it to any at the time it was created. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now in-use. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:05, 5 April 2022 (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:Editnotice SCW CR

[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. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice that does not appear to be used anymore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2022 (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:CVU editnotice

[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. ✗plicit 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice that appears to be unused, with no incoming links from discussions proposing its use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2022 (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:LDS Temple/Maceio Brazil Temple

[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. ✗plicit 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:LDS Temple/Maceió Brazil Temple, which is used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template:LDS Temple/Maceio Brazil Temple is a duplicate and the template not being used. Jonesey95, Thank you for noticing these templates and bringing it up. Dmm1169 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2022 (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:LDS Temple/Mexico City Benemérito Mexico

[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. ✗plicit 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:LDS Temple/Mexico City Benemérito Mexico Temple, which is used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a duplicate and not named correctly as it's missing the word "temple" in the templates name. Dmm1169 (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2022 (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:Topklasse cricket seasons

[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. ✗plicit 23:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there are only 2 season articles for this competition (2013 and 2014)- I searched Dutch cricket categories and couldn't find any more season articles. This is too few bluelinks to warrant a template Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2022 (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:Great Northern

[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. ✗plicit 23:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (except for a stale draft) and incomplete version of {{Great Northern Route RDT}}. Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2022 (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:Saint Petersburg Ring Road

[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. ✗plicit 14:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This navigation template is outdated and unmaintained, and the few blue links (one of which is proposed for deletion) are not really related to each other. Mackensen (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2022 (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:Sonic Cinematic Universe

[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; deleted by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a thing yet, too soon Indagate (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2022 (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:Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the template is incomplete, the template that was complete was deleted last year. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah! i improvised one bc the original got deleted. somebody fix this Nttdbestsong (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah! i improvised one bc the original got deleted. if anybody can make a complete one, pls do! Nttdbestsong (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the full list of winners of this template! SibTower1987 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The category has existed since 1988 (over 30 years) and because of that, it should have it's own template. When a template was created, it then got deleted (again and again), and one of the main reasons were that the category wasn't important enough to have a template. The category is the equivalent to the Grammy Award for Song of the Year (in my view) where in that template only lists the song and the songwriter(s). The category is also the equivalent to the Academy Award for Best Original Song, Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Song, Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song, Satellite Award for Best Original Song and other Best Song categories with templates, where a lot of the winners and nominees had also competed in. I recently updated the template to show all of the winners in full and it looks like the template for Grammy Award for Song of the Year. I say the template should stay in place and I also say that it's an important category. I'm sure that they're other users that believe that there should be a template for this category, but is afraid to create one to then just be deleted (again). SibTower1987 (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SibTower1987 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:06, 6 April 2022 (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:BLP sources

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP sources with Template:More citations needed.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, {{BLP sources}} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP sources}} can be redirected to {{More citations needed}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:28, 10 April 2022 (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:BLP primary sources

[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 withdrawn. The template is already merged. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP primary sources with Template:Primary sources.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:14, 4 April 2022 (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:BLP unsourced section

[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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP unsourced section with Template:Unreferenced section.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? what I see at Amanda Hesser#Bibliography is the exact same text I see at the top of Template:BLP unsourced section, except for the "find sources" keywords. Though I'm not sure what you mean by "When I edit it"; do you mean in Preview mode? Still the same for me. Mathglot (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Code in MediaWiki:Common.js (currently starting at line 144) uses JavaScript to inspect the categories of the page and modify the edit links at view time (and has nothing to do with this template). A template or module can't do that, it runs at parse time and has no simple access to the categories. Using JS to change the text of the banner at view time might cause page jumps and wouldn't take effect for people on non-JS devices. Anomie⚔ 15:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, {{BLP unsourced section}} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP unsourced section}} can be redirected to {{unsourced section}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A section may be effectively a BLP even if the whole article isn't. Plus the Living people category isn't applied 100% of the time. Turning the template into a wrapper is an option though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2022 (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:BLP unsourced

[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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP unsourced with Template:Unreferenced.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, confusing to human editors to have a template that magically displays totally different text (with different relevant policies) by changing a category. Much more elegant to have templates that just do what their name says they do. —Kusma (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, unreferenced content in a BLP is not necessarily biographical, and content in an article that is not a biography can fall under the BLP policy (which has a terrible name, as it is not just about biographies). If the template can automatically detect these false positives and negatives, I may change my opinion. —Kusma (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See comment in the above TFD about category detection. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, provided (1) that this detection is technically possible and (2) there is an override parameter that allows non-biographies with unreferenced content subject to WP:BLP to be tagged as such. It's silly to use a bot to replicate what can easily be handled by the template itself. Graham (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kusma makes some good points too. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, {{BLP unsourced}} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP unsourced}} can be redirected to {{unsourced}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, {{BLP unsourced}} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP unsourced}} can be redirected to {{unsourced}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:26, 10 April 2022 (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:BLP self-published

[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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP self-published with Template:Self-published.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for same reasons as in the related proposal above. QuietHere (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, {{BLP self-published}} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP self-published }} can be redirected to {{self-published}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kusma. XtraJovial (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2022 (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:BLP sources section

[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 separate. Asides from snowball against merging, a separate template is preferred given BLP nature and also technically cannot rely on categories. Alternative suggestions were made, but would be better as a separate discussion then. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP sources section with Template:More citations needed section.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:58, 4 April 2022 (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:BLP no footnotes

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP no footnotes with Template:No footnotes.
This template should automatically detect whether it is placed on a BLP page through Category:Living people, and change its appearance accordingly. This simplifies the tagging process, allows for easier prioritization of articles to improve for editors (e.g. BLP ones), and is a more elegant solution than a bot or regular AWB runs (see this and this BRFA). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for same reasons as in the related proposal above. QuietHere (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, {{BLP no footnotes }} is redundant given that it's possible to technically specify if we use it on a BLP page or not. Categories may be put accordingly. For convenience the {{BLP no footnotes }} can be redirected to {{no footnotes }}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nominator, but I don't see how {{BLP no footnotes}} couldn't be a wrapper, as per Ahecht. XtraJovial (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2022 (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/2022_April_4&oldid=1082387772"