Knowledge:Templates for discussion

5529:). This is because "Advert" is older and "Promotional tone" was forked from it. "Promotional tone" is the better-worded, more usefully worded, template which entirely encompasses the advert template. They hugely overlap, but the promo template is almost exactly right and general enough, while the advert template's added specificity is not useful and it gets used incorrectly on articles which are promotional while not being exactly like an ad, and the distinction does not matter and is subjective. I've often thought about how these two need to be merged. However the promo template should be changed not to refer to "promotional tone" but "promotional content", because promotion isn't just always about tone it is also often about substance (legitimate, not-inherently-promotional, statements can be promotionally framed, and inherently promotional statements, including entirely false and unverifiable aggrandizing statements, can be deceptively neutrally worded). Pinging participants for a sanity check: 19230:

good navigation templates, only included entries that already had Knowledge articles and to keep the templates shorter per WP:NAV-WITHIN and the WP:NAVBOX explicit preference for smaller navigation templates, and to have templates with objective criteria for article inclusion per WP:NAVBOX, WP:ATC, and WP:UNDUE—as including only a selection of articles related to a presidency in a biography template gave undue weight to the arbitrarily selected topics. I don't disagree with the proposal for collapsable sections, but per WP:NAV-WITHIN and WP:NAVBOX's explicit preference for smaller navigation templates, where navigation templates can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy most or all of the criteria for good navigation templates that should probably be done. --

16427:– which addresses the original nominator's comment about the simplicity of the individual templates, and the keep-voters' concerns about utility since all it requires is changing a space to a pipe. It doesn't address the 'obfuscates the wikitext' argument (in fact it arguably makes that alleged problem worse), but the prevalence of templates like flagIOC are a clear demonstration of how weak that argument is. I would encourage the WP:AFL keep-voters here to switch to support, and consider that combining these templates opens a few nice opportunities (for example, we could add a mascot=y/n parameter, a year parameter that could make {{AFL|Car|2024}} into a simple shorthand for 19418:, User:Randy Kryn has been engaged in ownership behavior (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) with respect to the navigation templates from which I attempted to split the current templates being discussed for deletion. The split was attempted to comply with the recommendations of WP:NAVBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:ATC, and WP:NAV-WITHIN due to the requirement that individual navigation templates have objective article inclusion criteria rather than an arbitrary selection of articles related to a larger topic included and that large navigation templates should be split by sub-topic rather than be hidden or have collapsable child navboxes. -- 7459:, navigation templates should be kept small in size as a large template like this one has limited navigation value and is currently hard to read. The only problem is that some of those templates would be too small if split, and that certain versions of this template would be even more confusing and lack coherence with respect to phylogeny: a bit of Oceanic here and there, western branches (which should stay together even if they don't form a phylogenetic clade) also scattered over various places, if it were to be neither too large nor have too many very small templates, like in 18661:

individuals are President, and such campaigns are not part of their presidencies, while being President-elect is an official government position under the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, one-term presidents are under no constitutional or legal obligation to seek a second term, and as such, it is not an official duty or power of the presidency and is thus unrelated to the presidency. By contrast, signing bills into law, issuing executive orders, Supreme Court decisions over the decisions and directives, are related their presidency because

18609:. CommonKnowledgeCreator, you missed the point there and here. Removing the presidency topics from these individuals overall navboxes separates access to massive portions of their lives from readers of the linked articles. As only one example of many, family is missing - and all of these individuals had family living with them in the White House. Books about their presidency, campaigns which brought them to the presidency, etc., should not be divided among two navboxes when one has been adequate for the entire existence of their navboxes. Per Jimmy Carter. 19132:. Additionally, per WP:CON, multiple editors in the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page discussion have stated an explicit preference for smaller templates (as well as WikiCleanerMan in their original post for the deletion nomination), for the biography templates as I had modified them, and for the presidency templates that I created. The Presidential Succession Acts are laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, so the talk page discussion I had with the editors there in February is not "out-of-the-way". 19459:

quoted in discussions. WP:NAV-WITHIN also has the Supplement tag applied. While WP:ATC does not, the footnote to WP:SUPPLEMENTAL also states the Supplement tag does not indicate a "higher status" within the community for an essay, only the degree of acceptance and vetting. Likewise, it does not mean that the advice of a non-explanatory essay should be arbitrarily ignored, only that it does not have the official status and binding requirements of a policy or guideline any more than an explanatory essay does.

5124:- there is nothing wrong with tagging a sentence for having excessive citations, and there is nothing wrong with bundling numerous cites either. I've seen many articles where a contentious label is used, and the numerous cites are bundled, stating - "attributed to multiple sources". I've also seen numerous cites bundled for phrases like "widely criticized" or "widely praised", again, stating - "attributed to multiple sources". And MOS:VAR doesn't forbid bundling numerous citations either. 17557: 14932:, Template:WAFLW Cla is used there manually, which means that someone took the time and instead of writing a clear link, used the template. This to me is very unhelpful as it makes reading the Wikitext harder. If these templates would have been used in automated way where code takes part of an article titles and from there uses it to find a template, then that would have been a different scenario, which this isn't it. TL/DR: less helpful than plain links with no real added value. 16083:, Template:WAFL CC is used there manually, which means that someone took the time and instead of writing a clear link, used the template. This to me is very unhelpful as it makes reading the Wikitext harder. If these templates would have been used in automated way where code takes part of an article titles and from there uses it to find a template, then that would have been a different scenario, which this isn't it. TL/DR: less helpful than plain links with no real added value. 19208:

presidency. Providing the full Knowledge map to the individual's life in one place, including the important links related to their presidency, is the strength of such navboxes. If they are separated then the readers of each of the individual's articles would lose access to over half of Knowledge pathways to other notable topics related to person's life. I think including a collapsible section for the longer navboxes is a reasonable compromise which should satisfy everyone.

16079:. (copying my comment from the nomination above this, however, if replying to me, please only reply in one of them) I've said this before, if links for teams, groups, companies, games, etc., need a template, then why aren't we doing this for every other one that doesn't use a template? While this might seem silly, this is actually a core design philosophy here, either a template should be used for simple links, or plain links and redirects should be used. Looking at 19260:

to divide any and all navboxes which are large enough to have collapsible sections, and to get rid of that common feature. Many of Knowledge's best navboxes are sectioned, that's just how they've always worked. CKC's emphasis on essays confuses the issue, and understanding the difference between essays and guidelines/policy is essential in working through the acceptance of long-term elements of navboxes, such as the popular and common collapsible section option.

18878:. Major events, deaths, etc. should only be included on navboxes if they have something to do with the navbox topic. A person's presidency covers the actions that they were involved in, not everything going on in the world. Things like that are covered by other navboxes and articles. Somebody dying during a presidential term is very tangential to that term of office unless, like the Osama bin Laden killing by Obama, they were directly involved. Make sense? 17543: 19684:

fundamental idea of improving the project. It's like trying to remove the index from a written encyclopedia. Infoboxes do not interfere with the article content, most are folded in by default, and can be extremely helpful in navigating the countless and sometimes obscure subtopics associated with massive article like those related to US presidents in a much more accessible way than categories. I genuinely think this borders on vandalism. —

18795:. Like I've noted here, in the previous deletion discussion, and at the talk page discussion, to do otherwise would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX—specifically the part of the latter policy that states: "Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others". -- 49: 18846:, if you can work your way through CKC's walls of text and extreme edit warring at the templates, these navboxes duplicate the entries already present at the president's navbox. Separating the person from the presidency also separates their other life achievements from reader access while having them in one place - which has always been done and for the same reasoning. Nothing is lost by deleting these duplicate templates. 19664:, the biography templates were split by myself to follow the WP:UNDUE policy as they only included an arbitrary selection of topics related to the presidencies. Also, there are many Knowledge articles that are uniquely-related to individual presidencies, and the WP:NAV-WITHIN explanatory essay that does have wide community acceptance recommends that large navigation templates be split by sub-topics. -- 18488:. All links here are featured on the main navbox. I can understand the navbox being larger. But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms. All of these templates must go and don't add much for navigation. 15040:

either encourages or precludes this. Therefore I say keep; as pointed out by the Pope, these shortcut templates are a ubiquitous and efficient feature of WP:AFL editing; and their functionality should be so quickly obvious to editors of any experience level that it renders "makes the wikitext harder to read" no more than a minor inconvenience, not a reason for wholesale deletion.

16341:. There is no reason to have a dozen of these templates. Merge them to a single template with a switch statement in it. It does not make sense to have a template for a single link, with a single template for each team. If you want to use a template to link to teams in a league and make it easy to change the link when a women's team article is created, something similar to 3741:, including: Is there value in having an external link that needs users to "hope for the best"? Is it dependent on the time of day, due to maintenance or overload of the Curlie website? If so, should there be warnings built into the template, like "use at own risk" or "if you get a '504 Gateway Time-out' message, just wait a few days and try again"?. Not logical, per 12379:

add. Currently, a huge time-waster in translation is dealing with templates we don't have equivalents of, and likely don't want to have, either. This template is a great example of that. (There are other situations where we have an analogous template, named differently, and having different param sets as well, where translation just results in a fubar result.) Yes,

14947:

should be able to tell me how I should be editing. Shortcuts are good, especially on mobile. But I wouldn't be surprised if people like you now go and hunt out and try to delete all of the other shortcut templates because of very serious editor reasons. I would very much doubt that many people are reading wikitext without understanding how templates work.

14928:. I've said this before, if links for teams, groups, companies, games, etc., need a template, then why aren't we doing this for every other one that doesn't use a template? While this might seem silly, this is actually a core design philosophy here, either a template should be used for simple links, or plain links and redirects should be used. Looking at 19395:), and are thus redundant to the navbox collection. A similar Jimmy Carter navbox was already deleted in an TfD. This is about deleting the duplicate navboxes and likely including a collapsed section for the presidency articles in a few of the larger cases, not about deleting access to articles and the content map. Please take another look, thanks. 16879:, and making it hinder rather than help a reader's attempts at navigating Knowledge. There is already a category for American Family Radio stations, that provides easier navigation, as the redirects are italicized. The radio stations whose call signs redirect to the network's article are not independently notable and should not become articles. 18827:

Criterion 1 ("All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject") and entries can easily be changed to satisfy Criterion 2 ("The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article"), which means at least 3 of the 5 criteria that WP:NAVBOX recommends for good navigation templates would be satisfied for them. --

16919:, that helped identify a couple of pages that should also be redirects and two stations that were included that apparently were not affiliates, but what we are now left with are four stations of the network's 180 that are notable enough to have articles and three affiliates. Either way, this did not really make it useful as a navbox.-- 18992:...and if too large for easy viewing they can be, as I've mentioned, put into an enlargable section which would be collapsed when viewing the navbox. This solution is the obvious solution to the larger navboxes, and has been used on hundreds if not thousands of navboxes. ...Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 11971:. They're perfectly usable (unless something they relied upon has since broken) and could easily be implemented, but I never managed to achieve a practical solution to making them do as much as I wanted and make them more useful. Move them to my userspace without leaving a redirect and maybe I'll keep working on them. 13653:– is this really necessary? Just creates a whole lot of work, especially if applied project-wide to other similar templates as well, and I don't understand how one template would necessarily be "easier to maintain" when the existing templates are just as easy to edit. A final decision/consensus hasn't been reached at 5879:) and they should then only include elections that have an influence on the composition (so national parliament elections and regional where it makes sense). Even then it is better to link to the national/regional government pages instead of the elections. The only case where I could see them added is articles like 19432:

Again with the insults and the essays. Essays are somebody's opinion and have nothing to do with policy or guidelinge. The problem here is it wasn't made very clear that the deletion request concerns you removing items from existing navboxes without discussion and then thinking they require their own

19229:

has engaged in ownership behavior with respect to the biography templates and has repeatedly mischaracterized my comments and editing. The entries were split into separate templates for presidencies that already had Knowledge articles separate from the biography articles per WP:NAVBOX Criterion 3 for

19050:

in these discussions do not appear to agree with what you are proposing for these templates and would appear prefer the splits. I am trying to keep the templates consistent with the explicit letter and rationale behind the content policies and the expressed preferences of most of the other editors I

18669:

seem to have a problem with it. WikiCleanerMan's comments are about duplication, which there would not be if you would stop reverting my edits. You also clearly have little or no understanding of how the U.S. system of government works or about the Presidency of the United States, and as such, should

16177:

is there a policy against using shortcut templates in the manner in which these templates are being used? So far, the arguments in favour of delete all seem like individuals' editing preferences and 'an alternative exists', and I can't find any policy or guideline which either encourages or precludes

14946:

In response to your first comment, there are templates like this for most Australian football teams. Maybe we are just lazy, and you think it's a worthwhile endeavour to punish us lazy people and force us to write out ] instead of {{WAFLW Cla}} or {{subst:WAFLW Cla}} everytime. I just don't think you

14409:

explicitly allows, and the template itself should have a readable name. That step can be done later. A project-wide discussion is fine with me; there are many templates in the project that have unreadable, editor-unfriendly names, and they would benefit from a comprehensive, consistent naming scheme.

8450:

shows the timetabled journey. For some reason someone came and edited the Ballarat V/Line rail service template to attempt to cover Maryborough services, however it was edited full of inaccuracies (for example, claiming Cobblebank station was only served by Maryborough services - completely false), I

19683:

why does a single editors disproportionate dislike for the concept of infoboxes combined with extreme persistence require this much constant discussion to preserve important aspects of this wiki that aren't generally in question? Its not supported by any guidelines or consensus, and goes against the

19316:

that you describe. As explained by WP:NAV-WITHIN, the best practice is to split navigation templates by sub-topic when they begin to get longer than they should reasonably be. If the smaller templates still satisfy the existing criteria for good navigation templates, there is little reason that such

19277:

Self-congratulatory assessments of one's own behavior is not respectful behavior but a form of condescension. Collapsable child navboxes and hiding templates is not a solution to the issue of oversized templates and are only quick-fix, sweep-under-the-rug work-arounds. WP:NAV and WP:ATC both discuss

18957:

navbox, and if too large for easy viewing they can be, as I've mentioned, put into an enlargable section which would be collapsed when viewing the navbox. This solution is the obvious solution to the larger navboxes, and has been used on hundreds if not thousands of navboxes. Thanks for staying with

18769:

Why would you get rid of them? The presidencies of these presidents are an extremely important tool for documenting the history of the country and the world. Not just for the policies, but also the many events under their watch and decisions they made. We need to add even more to them. Significantly

18660:

Unless something like a family wedding happens at the White House during the presidency as an official ceremony, it is unrelated. Books about their presidency are not typically written by administration officials, and as such are not directly related to their presidency. Some campaigns happen before

17673:

I plan to use it, but will not as long as it's nominated. Don't want to waste time if the template is removed after all and because the message "The template below (Beachhandballbox) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus" is added to the template as

13683:

I don't see how it creates more work. With one template, there should be less work in the long run, and it will be trivially easy to add more name options, like "Melbourne" instead of just "Mel", which makes the template easier to use for editors. The merge itself will be done by willing TFD gnomes,

19331:

Also, instead of including mapping requirements language, WP:NAVBOX also states that templates that do not meet the criteria for good navigation templates have articles included that are loosely related, and recommends that such articles would be more appropriate for inclusion in a category or list

19296:

Again, there are hundreds of navboxes with collapsed sections, so there is nothing broken in using a collapsed section to address your concern. This is to keep the topic maps on Knowledge in one place and not spread out in tangential navboxes. Again: the person's presidency is a vital part of their

19259:

The larger ones can be collapsed, that's the entire point of this long discussion which has gone off-track many times with personal attacks on my intentions. I'm a bit surprised I'm still treating CKC with some respect, and pat myself on the back for doing so. CKC seems to be saying that they wish

19041:

at the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page expressed a preference for the biography templates as I had modified them and have since expressed a preference for excluding articles related to the president's biography (i.e. the family members, books about the presidencies,

18684:

There is no consensus in the discussion you link. Very large presidential sections on president navboxes can be placed in a collapsible section without readers losing access to the complete Knowledge collection (Trump, Biden included). Much information-loss occurs when long-time entries are removed

18559:

after it had been redirected following the Tfd for its own discussion. This is a violation of policy to edit war after Tfd consensus. And in several of your edits, you cite consensus was gained, but no such thing as happened. You are subverting discussion protocol and you can be reported to the ANI

1631:

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Knowledge-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted,

19703:

As an alternative, move these navboxes to the creator's userspace. Until the project can figure this out, we don't need the discussion to drag out for over a month. And frankly, this is one user's passion project and idea, not of many. Also, there has been no consensus by the project and thus some

18647:

have missed the point there and here. As I noted at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page discussion, other editors there have expressed a preference for the shortened version of the biography templates as I have modified them, and you have consistently been dismissive of the concerns

18641:

CommonKnowledgeCreator, you missed the point there and here. Removing the presidency topics from these individuals overall navboxes separates access to massive portions of their lives from readers of the linked articles. As only one example of many, family is missing - and all of these individuals

18554:

That discussion did not result in consensus. You are ignoring long community standard of having a clear consensus on any major changes to any style of formatting in regards to these templates. If a discussion is ongoing, then a nomination for deletion is not without merit. More templates are not a

13939:

is not appropriate so some other template must used or newly created. As these templates do not have any documentation (shame, shame, shame) that too will needs be created for nineteen more-or-less templates. One template, one documentation page, one don't-use-this-template-in-citations notice.

12378:

First of all, I apologize for not including a doc page for this entry, which would likely have precluded the need to add it here; I rarely leave out the doc page, and I was in a hurry, and then forgot. This template is indeed intended for translation, and is just the first of many such I intend to

5859:

Should this template also include elections to regional parliaments when regional ministers are a member of the Council of the EU? In Belgium for example, regional ministers are a part of the Council on a rotational basis when the subject is one of their powers. If the regional ministers disagree

19588:

for example. An editor then inexplicably broke off the presidency topics on some of the navboxes in order to isolate them. If too large they can be collapsed on the individual navboxes, that's what collapsed sections are for. This nomination does not remove the topics, it just brings them back to

19525:

split these in a campaign of edit-warring, canvassing and wikilawyering. I don't know where we are with any of this now, and quite frankly the walls of text the above editor has written all over the place is just too much to read. So striking my !vote, but would recommend that we go back to the

19458:

WP:ESSAY and WP:PGE both have the Supplement tag applied, and while they are not policies and recommend against quoting them as policies, they state that there is no clear distinction between essays, policies, and guidelines because certain essays do have wide acceptance such that they are widely

19114:

Yes, it does, and no, I didn’t. The WP:NAVBOX policy states: "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." It is not from any explanatory

19095:

No, it doesn't, that's from an essay that you just tried to sandwich into the guideline criteria. As for the discussion you mention just above, that was a local discussion at an out-of-the-way talk page, and would not apply here. Collapsed sections on navboxes are useful, common, and solve all of

19065:

I think doing it like Template:Iraq War would be ideal as you can have a tab for each one. And include the Template:Presidency of Donald Trump, you can take those as well as the ones for his family, media, businesses as well. It’s weird how Trump has multiple bag boxes when you can in all honesty

18739:

Likewise, after reviewing the relist discussion for the Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox (which I was not notified of), the consistent concern expressed by editors has been mainly about duplication rather than your preference for including a selection of the topics related to a presidency in the

16053:

editors use it in different ways. Why do you feel you can demand that other editors edit like you edit? Why are editor assistance shortcuts bad? To make it clear, because I don't know if everyone actually knows what these templates, and many more like them for other leagues, generally do, is they

15039:

as for WAFL templates, there appears to be no policy against using shortcut templates in the manner in which these templates are being used. The arguments in favour of delete all seem like individuals' editing preferences and 'an alternative exists', and I can't find any policy or guideline which

4996:

If I understand the OP, I believe the objection is the proposal of bundling as a solution for excessive citation. If that's the case, perhaps the best resolution would be a documentation change - use the template for cases where there are too many citations period, not when the tagger's desire is

19412:

The material in the nominated navboxes was copied from already existing navboxes... and are thus redundant to the navbox collection. This is about deleting the duplicate navboxes and likely including a collapsed section for the presidency articles in a few of the larger cases, not about deleting

19025:. However, the letter of the WP:NAVBOX policy requires that there be no additional criteria leading to a selection of related topics for inclusion in a navigation template due to the core WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE policies, and if laws are not sufficiently related to the biography of a president even 16240:

These templates (and similar ones) are very useful for ease of editing effeciency, and save valuable time. Regarding the issue of making the Wikitext more complex, who exactly is reading the wikitext apart from other editors? And they are either of the project and themselves use the templates in

16182:

them if no such policy exists; as pointed out by the Pope, these shortcut templates are a ubiquitous and efficient feature of WP:AFL editing; and their functionality should be so quickly obvious to editors of any experience level that it renders "makes the wikitext harder to read" no more than a

15057:

14579:

that I'm trying to maintain (where it appears everywhere) and countless player articles, etc. that we WP:AFL editors are working on. Admins, is there anything that we're waiting on/any reason why we can't close this? Fair bit of pushback against merging the templates, both here and at the WAFL/W

3221:

The Ballarat template was edited full of inaccuracies for the Ararat service, and the Swan Hill template is not replaced by the Ballarat template, Swan Hill services do not run on the Ballarat line at all! On the Bendigo article, the Swan Hill template was lazily replaced with a template for the

19311:

Common sense is not a substitute for policy standards and best practices. There may very well be hundreds of such navboxes, but they all violate the already-existing community consensus that templates should not be overly large. None of the explanatory essays or WP:NAVBOX include language about

19450:

The condescension that you have regularly directed at me in discussions here and elsewhere is a form of ownership behavior per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. While WP:SUPPLEMENTAL—which is part of the WP:WPNS policy—states that essays have a more limited status than policy or guidelines, they are intended to

19207:

split entries from long-term navboxes and defends this action, although the similar navbox for Jimmy Carter's presidency had been deleted. I'm saying that the existing navboxes are fine and nothing is broken, although two, three, or so may need to include a collapsible section for the person's

18656:

and a separate presidency should be created instead because it so broad of a topic that it requires a separate map from the biography. A president's family is not related to their presidency; they had family members before and after their presidencies and having family members is not part of a

16968:

American Family Radio is less a radio network with stations and a radio station with transmitters—in other words, there is no local output. The exceptions are stations that had history under other owners, which are what is left, and the independently operated stations that take its programming

12409:

What should happen with this type of template, is that it should be kept, and then substed by bot, like many templates are. The doc needs to mention that there will frequently be no transclusions of it, and that that is the desired situation. Requiring substitution is not an advantage, either:

19123:

What I have proposed to the WP:NAVBOX policy with respect to template length is additional language that recommends but does not require splitting large navigation templates into smaller templates where the smaller templates would still satisfy most or all of the criteria for good navigation

18826:

I agree insofar as you are referring to the Presidencies of William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield since Criterion 4 of WP:NAVBOX states "There should be a Knowledge article on the subject of the template." However, the templates you have nominated for deletion satisfy

1761:

and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and

5104:

Also, the fact that it is an essay does not mean it lacks community consensus, that is not how things work around here. I can write an essay that says "fuck %insert extremely disliked person here%" and it will be an essay despite the fact that at least 99% of Wikipedians will agree with it.

14340:

whose function isn't at all clear from the template name. Right? I mean it could be anything do do with AFLW. Will you therefore try to force us to use the not very convenient "shortcut" but fully compliant template title of something like {{Australian rules football club editor assistance

18581:

It would not be necessary to repeat what I've said in furtherance of enforcing existing content policies that reflect already-existing community consensus per WP:NOTBUREAU if other editors didn't engage in the type of behavior that User:Randy Kryn has engaged, namely false accusations and

14961:

I nominated the two batches I did with the intent to nominate all of them. I stopped because you raised objections about these batches, so we would not have to have the same discussion multiple times over with N batches instead of 2. "There are other ones" is not a defense of this set.

19465:

Nope. I am attempting to follow the letter and principles of the WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE policies with guidance from the WP:NAV and WP:ATC essays. By reverting the biography templates back to revision that do not clearly reflect those policies and essay guidance, you are not. --

19278:

oversized templates, and both essays been on Knowledge for more than 10 years and have been edited by many editors other than the creators of the pages. They describe many best practices for addressing oversized templates; hiding templates and collapsing template sections are

4835:

Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Knowledge editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the

10814:

The current template mostly links to sections instead of the pages, which is a bit much. Given that there are now also lists for general elections, I believe it is better to have one template that shows all (notable) candidate lists, without linking to the specific sections.

18699:

Nope. Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CON, if consensus is not reached by editing, then consensus is reached by discussion using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense and not by voting on resolutions. Editors in the discussion have expressed a preference for smaller

929:

here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

18652:, while per WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE, editors are not permitted to create criteria for inclusion in a template that suggests certain topics related to a broader topic are of grater importance than others. Since that's the case, then none of them should be included in the 1871:— there SHOULD be no transclusions for a subst'd template (as originally designed). This got a lot of use, back when building the political pages. Perhaps everything is in such good shape these days that everything is already finished. There aren't many new US Reps. 5063:

but we could in theory create a guideline/policy/whatever that deals with citebombs/refbombs. Note that bundling is often not the best way to deal with refbombs, it is often better to just remove some of the weakest cites (or all of 'em if its an OR problem).

19646:

navbox has since been stripped of Carter's presidency again! Carter's presidency now exists nowhere in navbox form except in memory, or until someone puts it back (I've been accused of edit warring for simply replacing undiscussed deletions such as that).

19557:), which have existed without controversy. In the cases of these templates, why eliminate the connections they currently make by making busywork of trimming them down, and/or shuffling them around? They collapse, anyway, I don't think they're an eyesore. 6805:

This is a citation template created in 2009 and has only 1 transclusion. A citation template should be created when it has a substantial amount of usages. A single usage after 15 years shows it doesn't have. Subst the single use and delete the template.

7696:

Having five different templates for five different protection levels can easily cause things like incorrect protection templates being used when the protection level is changed. I think there should only be one template for all five protection levels.

19080:

See my previous comment. WP:NAVBOX has an explicit preference for smaller templates such that if a larger template can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates then that should probably be done. --

5011:

Well yes, but when are there "too many citations period"? The examples in the essay are all extreme cases where there would be little doubt. Haruka has opined that three is quite reasonable and usual, so four would not be a valid use of the template.

16054:

remove the words "Football Club" from being displayed whilst still keeping it in the link, so that prose reads better or tables or lists aren't overwhelmed by repeated Football Club. It's much easier to write {{WAFL SF}} or {{subst:WAFL SF}} than ].

1647:

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

18642:

had family living with them in the White House. Books about their presidency, campaigns which brought them to the presidency, etc., should not be divided among two navboxes when one has been adequate for the entire existence of their navboxes.

12560:), and I'm happy with that solution. The goal is that the transclusions all disappear, but not the template itself, which is a kind of way station to help translators stay productive, and should show few, or no transclusions most of the time. 1530:

Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the

18712:

templates, while other editors created the Presidency of Bill Clinton, Presidency of Barack Obama, Presidency of Donald Trump, and Presidency of Joe Biden templates—which means that there would be a consensus by editing in favor of separate

18648:

that I have raised with your assertions about how the templates should be organized. Other editors that I have had discussions with at Talk:Presidential Succession Act explicitly stated that legislation should generally not be included in

8757: 14888:

As Pope said: if they were subst'd then you can't tell the actual usage. It's not an issue of learning wikitext, it's ease and speed of editing and makes things easier. That's already two editors who edit in the project telling you this.

18555:

solution here and not every article deserves its own template. There had been no issue with the main president navbox having articles of their presidency included. You are editwarring across these templates even to go far to restore the

9761: 9725: 5874:

I have changed my mind on my last point; it should never be added to European Parliament election pages. It could only be added to pages that document the composition of the Council of the EU (these don't exist yet, something similar to

16020:

Templates which are so simple distract from learning wikitext: bare links are preferable in general so that pages are easy to update. I did not make an argument about how much they are used, but it's true, they aren't used very often.

14873:

9743: 9707: 9545: 9527: 3222:

physical Piagnil railway line, *not* representative of the Swan Hill passenger service whatsoever. I've fixed these templates back to how they always were until these random, senseless edits happened to them. Oppose, oppose, oppose.

19036:

Additionally, WP:NAVBOX expresses a preference for smaller templates such that if a larger template can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates then they probably should be, and

4502:

The intended usage appears to have been to use on STL all-time rosters, but was never finished. The only 2 roster pages completed were "A" and "I-J", which have since been userfied, again according to "What links here." Rgrds.

3649:

Curlie is dead. The static pages such as "About" or "Privacy policy" still work, but any of the dynamic content, i.e. the directory itself is no longer working. Websites such as isitdownrightnow.com report it down long term.

8789:

Sports roster for a non-current team roster. Only used in one article. Having a roster for every version of a every sports template will lead to navigation bloat and so roster teams should be limited to only the current one.

19111:

18997:

Yes. I don’t get why we don’t just merge them all into one. Like for instance, look at how the Iraq war is done, there’s sub nav boxes within that nav box. I think that would be great. Vinnylospo(talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024

14198:

and then we'll also need time to turn over everything on the project, also editors will have to relearn this, and even after that it'll still be less efficient as it's twice the length. I've been through this story with the

16492: 15253: 11510: 9617: 14561:: Is there any reason ‹See Tfd› needs to be added at the front of every time this template is used? Makes the articles very hard to read. Not sure if this a technical thing or was just added to this one to notify editors. 10855:

won't get bigger than this (it's not easy to get the information from the source). And there are no more EP elections other than I've already included in the template. If you compare the height of the target template with

4452:: I assume this is supposed to be some number that's supposed to change regularly, but the fact that this has never been changed since 2011 either shows that (a) this number never changes or (b) no one uses this template. 16630: 10758: 9599: 9473: 1731:

is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have

18515: 17242: 10740: 9653: 9581: 9455: 5644: 5608: 19332:

instead of a navigation template—which implies that the article inclusion criteria for good navigation templates is supposed to be more restrictive than for categories, list articles, or list sections of articles. --

18626:, presidential entries are now being removed from individual navboxes where they have been present since their inception. I reverted a couple but am not going to keep playing whack-a-navbox. Please stop edit warring. 11173: 9941: 9797: 9635: 9563: 9509: 19606:, Thank you for the clarification; I did misunderstand! Well, with many individuals whose career was particularly defining, it can become artificial to try and separate these elements. Their work becomes their life. 11155: 9977: 9923: 9779: 9491: 8250: 16392:), which uses a simple switch statement. There is zero reason to have a dozen templates when one is just as easy to use, and easier to maintain. The merge is trivial, simply replacing a space with a pipe, as shown 9749: 9713: 16568: 15201:, which uses a simple switch statement. There is zero reason to have a dozen templates when one is just as easy to use, and easier to maintain. The merge is trivial, simply replacing a space with a pipe, as shown 13631:, which uses a simple switch statement. There is zero reason to have a dozen templates when one is just as easy to use, and easier to maintain. The merge is trivial, simply replacing a space with a pipe, as shown 11209: 10186: 9959: 9833: 6722: 5860:

they abstain. On the deletion nomination itself, I'm neutral. If the template is kept, it should be placed under the European Parliament template on European Parliament election pages (if it is included on them).

1265:/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Knowledge's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_September_22#Template: 14976:"There are other ones" is in direct response to Gonnym's "why don't we do it for all" comment. We do do it for all in this topic space. But the "people like you will go and hunt them" was directed at you. Under 11191: 11137: 10013: 9905: 9815: 9689: 6704: 19244:

I feel honestly, if we aren't going to have the navboxes be collapseable and have all of these events, I don't see the point. You might as well get rid of Trump's too if you are going to get rid of these ones.

16496: 15257: 12385:

just means '1st' and god knows why French Knowledge thinks that is worth a template, but they do, and it results in extra work for translators everywhere it appears: which is in 300,000 French articles (about

11678: 11119: 9995: 9887: 9869: 9671: 9533: 2219: 379: 19129:

the explicit preference for smaller templates in the WP:NAVBOX policy that I've explicitly quoted in this comment reflects an existing community consensus about navigation templates while your preferences do

12504:

is much simpler than what the Module is doing, but that might be one way of doing the substitution later, and maybe some of the Module code is reusable for this. In any case, the template should be kept, and

14285:

You obviously have a problem with it on a project level. So why not have the discussion on the project level? Which as Pope says, will be messy as a whole solution. Also on the specific league, the template

11660: 11245: 9851: 9355: 8542: 2953: 2201: 14042:

I don't understand anything you wrote mate. The whole thing is one big techno babble. And don't try to turn this around as if I'm derogatory against you, I'm commenting on this specific text you produced.

11227: 10794: 9737: 9701: 9337: 10776: 9605: 9521: 8781: 7918: 2327: 2291: 9461: 16241:

editing and are familiar with it or a one-off look in who it shouldn't really affect at such a level anyway. If it really is such a big issue, the use can be changed to automatic substing via a bot. --

15058:

11726: 9641: 9569: 8763: 8008: 7900: 2309: 2273: 14439:

A project-wide discussion is fine with me; there are many templates in the project that have unreadable, editor-unfriendly names, and they would benefit from a comprehensive, consistent naming scheme.

9929: 9785: 9497: 6318:

This template is a documentation template, but it's used on a /doc page which isn't where documentation should go. Either this is useful and should be converted to the template /doc page, or deleted.

3425: 16622: 9965: 7990: 2255: 1682: 918:

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it,

10746: 10721: 9821: 9436: 16800:), start setting the consensus at the bigger leagues before making a change to a state level league which let's be fair only Aussies care about (and even in Australia only the ones in the West). -- 10376:

Unused but also something that probably should not exist. The language templates produce proper italics. If a specific template isn't producing the correct style, it should be fixed at the source.

10001: 9893: 9677: 6083: 2237: 1999: 1492:

does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

11161: 9857: 9229: 9733: 9697: 3914: 16796:

is the exception, with 12 out of 13 of the biggest sports leagues the main navbox is named after the name of the league. You really believe that your take is the correct one? (and I'll give you

11666: 11197: 9211: 6710: 11125: 10513: 9517: 8325: 7906: 3896: 2183: 9343: 7996: 2207: 17717: 11233: 9593: 8769: 8358: 7235: 5931:

are better at giving an overview of parliamentary elections and their effects on the EU institutions. Regardless of whether or not those articles should exist, I think there should be a list

2165: 19463:

The problem here is it wasn't made very clear that the deletion request concerns you removing items from existing navboxes without discussion and then thinking they require their own navbox.

14025:

You are avoiding the question I posed. If you do not understand something that I wrote, ask. Derogatory generalizations about my writing style don't contribute anything to this discussion.

12410:

requiring the translator to subst it puts us right back in the slow lane for translation; if we are going to force it to be substed, it is less trouble to write '1st' in English than to add

10782: 6685: 6174: 3421: 3373: 18485: 11714: 10734: 9449: 9390: 9217: 6011: 2840: 2315: 2279: 18685:

from the principal navboxes, which you have done at the navboxes under this discussion, citing a non-existent consensus, and then have edit warred over when that information was returned.

14209:

template and even now I curse the day of the change (and also btw to add a new team is much more annoying than creating a new template as it would be done on the current setup on AFLW). --

17523: 17499:

can't be used. However, {tl|volleyballbox}} is also not suitable since you can't indicate penaties received by each time and the topscorer of each team, as is common for handball matches.

11696: 11534: 9629: 9557: 9318: 8451:

have since undone those destructive edits and restored the Maryborough template to its respective infobox on the Ballarat V/Line rail service article. Please do not delete this template.

6079: 2822: 2243: 12428:

has 59 of them. This is too much of an additional burden to impose on a translator; a template in English is sufficient to do away with the obstacle, and then the bot cleans it up later.

5987:. BOLDly merging these as the nominator is not opposed. If anyone objects, feel free to drop me a message and I will re-open this discussion, noting that I have removed current usage in 4963:

as excessive citation really is a semi-frequent problem – would any given editor disagree with this? Even without explicit enumeration in P&G, a problem of overcitation follows from

18972:

Yes. I don’t get why we don’t just merge them all into one. Like for instance, look at how the Iraq war is done, there’s sub nav boxes within that nav box. I think that would be great.

11516: 11380: 11149: 9917: 9773: 9485: 3902: 14859:

These, like a lot of similar useful shortcuts, are often used with the subst function, so you can't tell how often they are used. Why are you trying to make things harder for editors?

14475: 11702: 10879:: Per nomination, not necessary to link all separate party lists, since they are all on the same page. (and for those interested in EP party lists across years for a particular party, 8293:

It looks fine. It is only used around 250 times because after graduating/going professional it’s no longer used on their page. I’d imagine it was used on 1000+ pages over last 5 years

2171: 18028: 17266: 16006:

These, like a lot of similar useful shortcuts are often used with the subst function, so you can't tell how often they are used. Why are you trying to make things harder for editors?

14471: 13654: 12329: 11570: 11522: 11362: 9953: 9166: 5668: 5632: 3855: 1591:

aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use

11368: 10261: 2828: 17248: 12188: 11849: 11558: 11552: 11479: 11185: 10688: 10273: 9809: 9589: 9148: 9063: 7746: 6698: 5650: 5614: 3837: 18536:

All duplication between the president biography and presidency templates has been removed per expressed preference of editors for smaller biography templates at the discussion, so

8744: 7881: 5040:

But in those extreme cases it would - even where there is little doubt of a problem, someone needs to do the work of addressing that, and tagging helps connect that someone to it.

17254: 14405:

to demonstrate how easy it is to use this new template and convert articles to using it (replacing a space with a pipe character). Of course that name should be a redirect, which

11810: 11113: 10971: 10919: 10857: 10805: 10730: 10722: 10596: 10255: 9989: 9881: 9665: 9445: 9437: 9268: 9154: 7728: 6556: 6154: 6007: 5951: 5656: 5620: 5216: 3843: 11332: 7971: 7734: 1163: 14482:, but opening a third parallel discussion here and starting it with a different premise/justification to the other two is triplicating the effort we need to get to a consensus. 11654: 11344: 10584: 10578: 10297: 10210: 9845: 9625: 9553: 8945: 6967: 6544: 6538: 6487: 6428: 6369: 2195: 10198: 8400: 6475: 6416: 6357: 6234:

I don't disagree with you about these being boldly merged, however I feel like that about most of my nominations, so I better err on sending them here :) Also I'm not opposed.

1765:

Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at

14076:

said, and isn't against any WP consensus or guidelines or anything. Honestly, I'm not even undestanding for sure what the argument against these and the WAFL+WAFLW ones is. --

11822: 11326: 11221: 11145: 10454: 10192: 10072: 10060: 9913: 9769: 9481: 9331: 8297:

I think the template looks good, and the low transclusion count is due to it only being used for active American college football players. I don't see any harm in keeping it.

6469: 6410: 6351: 3582: 3570: 2965: 1615: 19549:

The purpose of navboxes, and series templates, is to connect and categorize articles sharing common topics or concerns. There are plenty of examples of navboxes both larger (

18428: 18356: 16666:

Your whole theory doesn't vibe with the Knowledge editing reality either. Let's have a look at leagues, shall we? Both locally and internationally. Australia's major sports:

7038: 3293: 3179: 2733: 18440: 18368: 12707: 11804: 10770: 10054: 9949: 8554: 8491: 8412: 7948: 4696:

The underlying citations remain the same, but the citation style is changed, which goes against our guideline. The use of bundling creates much greater formatting problems.

4341: 3564: 3305: 2745: 18791:

I would add, as I noted in the deletion discussion for the Presidency of Jimmy Carter template and at the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page,

16141:

I had somewhat meant to use the tiny tag rather than the inline tag and then left it after nominating everything. I have no issue changing that since you've brought it up.

11738: 7376: 3961: 3877: 3437: 2697: 2148: 82: 18422: 18392: 18350: 12719: 11404: 11181: 10309: 9805: 9192: 8566: 8503: 8394: 8271: 8246: 8055: 7894: 6694: 6686: 6047: 4353: 4020: 3287: 3143: 3024: 2977: 2769: 2727: 2303: 2267: 18212: 18176: 11594: 6131: 19451:

supplement or clarify Knowledge guidelines, policies, or other Knowledge processes and practices that are communal norms, and a footnote to the policy states that where

18892:

Yeah but what about for major political deaths that they presided over like P. Nixon, R. Nixon and Foster for Clinton or Reagan, Ford, Rehnquist and Lady Bird for Bush?

18284: 18248: 12701: 11109: 10291: 9985: 9877: 9661: 8548: 8485: 8114: 7984: 7388: 7050: 4592: 4335: 3973: 3191: 2959: 2709: 1766: 635: 18320: 14188:- you just got "lucky" that the league is relatively new and that redirect hadn't been created yet. Which means that to have a single template will need something like 12766: 10135: 6095: 5295:

is thus often a cause of confusion among novice editors whose work is tagged with it. We certainly don't need two such templates. i also note that the category used by

2011: 18404: 18092: 11650: 9841: 9004: 8067: 7800: 7370: 7032: 5753:

They are templates for countries, not continents, and are typically for elections that occur in series. National elections across a continent do not happen in series.

4225: 4032: 3955: 3697:

In the meantime, could we please get an admin or template editor to blank the template? There's no value in sending readers to a non-existent website. Also, pinging

3173: 2906: 2781: 2691: 2231: 2191: 1945: 1833: 18464: 11440: 10525: 8337: 4056: 2803: 18582:

mischaracterizations as well as ownership behavior. The previous discussion continued without my knowledge and on a false premise due to Randy Kryn's reversions. --

18386: 18224: 18188: 18031:: Too fancy for its own good. It does zero computations based on its input (besides the basic "don't use this functionality if not given the necessary parameters"). 17729: 14130: 11750: 11296: 11217: 10824: 10030: 9327: 9319: 8281: 8049: 7435: 7247: 7085: 6912: 6143: 4967:

just as readily as the problem of undercitation does, if obviously as less of a problem pragmatically. There's nothing controversial about having a template for it.

4014: 2763: 511: 501: 16855: 12636: 12431:

Finally, there is precedent for this, in a related situation. Translating citation templates is a *much* bigger time-waster than relatively 'static' templates like

12070: 12011: 9402: 9205: 8639: 6023: 3449: 1702:

At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "

18296: 18260: 18206: 18170: 17765: 16822: 16639: 16500: 16419:

such a merge as an outcome of this discussion. Consolidation would bring WP:AFL more into line with other projects' usage of consolidated shorthand templates like

15261: 14610: 14155: 14102: 14029: 13998: 13952: 13229: 12806: 11774: 11732: 11416: 10927: 10852: 10809: 10766: 10715: 9755: 9719: 8512: 8236: 8152: 7580: 7544: 7345: 6513: 6125: 4604: 4379: 3890: 3155: 3036: 2666: 1802: 1795: 554: 544: 450: 440: 12889: 6739: 5090:. Now when you read the essay the first suggestion is to remove the crap ones and "if there is a good reason to keep multiple citations" then they can be merged. 3431: 1691:

creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the

19096:

your concerns. These "presidential" navboxes are not needed and, if presidential items are removed from existing navboxes, do serious damage to site navigation.

18332: 18278: 18242: 17964: 17696: 17221: 17009: 15222: 14168:

I appreciate that you're not answering questions by deflecting that someone isn't answering your question. But to answer your efficiency question - the template

12778: 11917: 11606: 11398: 10147: 8753: 8745: 8285: 7890: 7882: 6999:

Navbox with no main article and at most one possible blue link in the body. Most or all of the non-red-links lead to disambiguation pages or the wrong target. –

6107: 6043: 4586: 3137: 3018: 2299: 2263: 2159: 2023: 1778: 19018: 12397: 12387: 12200: 11630: 11102: 9129: 9075: 7508: 5595: 3818: 18314: 17997: 17430: 17227: 16576: 12760: 11588: 10219: 10129: 9280: 8126: 7980: 7972: 7616: 6089: 5228: 2411: 2005: 1957: 1845: 1639: 14306:- you just got "lucky" that the league is relatively new and that redirect hadn't been created yet. Also, I have to ask, have you ever edited anything in the 12141: 10236: 9539: 8957: 7709: 6979: 6298: 1720:

Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

18789:

I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms.

18476: 18143: 16543:

exists as a navbox. So you either have to move it, then recreate it for this task, then change all the current uses. A lot of work for virtually no benefit.

11690: 10537: 10466: 10344: 9372: 8349: 8108: 4068: 2816: 2227: 1939: 1827: 417: 400: 12839: 10559: 8799: 8254: 7935: 6519: 2077: 18458: 17741: 16291:

As others have explained, these shortcuts have utility and value. If there was an explicit policy against their use, then fine, but seemingly there isn't.

15108:

As others have explained, these shortcuts have utility and value. If there was an explicit policy against their use, then fine, but seemingly there isn't.

14192: 12346:

Oddly it isn't connected to the Wikidata entry of that template. Sure, if it's used for translation and set up as subst only with your fix, then withdraw.

10659: 10519: 8331: 8025: 7447: 7259: 6845: 6785: 6059: 4189: 4050: 2918: 2556: 1717:

until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

19578:, you may have misunderstood this confusing nomination. The presidency of each U.S. president is and was already listed on their individual navboxes (see 18549: 10173: 9201: 9193: 7652: 6450: 6391: 6332: 1853:

No transclusions. Created in 2009. The succession box templates are easy enough to use that people do not need these "under construction" placeholders. –

17723: 16867: 12648: 12266: 12082: 12023: 11452: 11356: 9414: 9238: 9016: 7812: 7429: 7241: 6624: 6035: 4904:: Usually up to three citations are enough to support a statement. Too many citations may confuse the reader and may introduce contradictory viewpoints. 4237: 4153: 3931: 3886: 3878: 2900: 19135:

As I have said multiple times in these discussions, this is not an edit war and you are engaging in ownership behavior (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) with respect to

16652:

Honestly this whole thing is a lot of waffle and time wasting for no benefit. All of the editors time would be much better spent focusing on content. --

14785: 14641: 11893: 11497: 10035: 9611: 7097: 3545: 2857: 2348: 17777: 16849: 16790: 15932: 15860: 15824: 15752: 15680: 15644: 15536: 15500: 15464: 15356: 14821: 14749: 14713: 14677: 13601: 13529: 13493: 13457: 13421: 13385: 13313: 13277: 13241: 13205: 13097: 13061: 13025: 12989: 12630: 12064: 12005: 11546: 11434: 11308: 9467: 9396: 9142: 8183: 7592: 7556: 6924: 6192:

For what it's worth, I feel like these could be BOLDly merged without the need for a TFD, given the precedent (and existence) of the primary template.

6017: 4410: 3831: 2155: 526: 17021: 15968: 15896: 15788: 15716: 15608: 15572: 15428: 15392: 15320: 14115:

Well right now with all this disruption, we can't even use them for substing as it substs in the big red textbox warning that it's up for deletion. --

13644: 13565: 13349: 13169: 13133: 12953: 12917: 11929: 11867: 9647: 9575: 8575: 8375: 6573: 3268: 206: 17759: 17561: 14479: 12413: 11290: 10249: 9935: 9791: 9503: 9250: 8862: 8651: 7722: 7574: 7538: 6906: 5720: 5702: 5686:. I am not aware of any other templates linking all elections by year for a continent (probably as not many other people see a benefit in doing so). 5192: 3629: 19051:

have interacted with throughout these discussions—of which you are only one, and would be unreasonable for your preferences to dictate outcomes. --

12682: 10356: 9971: 8529: 8466: 7763: 4316: 2940: 16386: 14441:

So withdraw this silly TfD that all editors from the project that commented here are against, and let us work it out on the project's talk page. --

12220:

Unused template other than a discussion to add back a residence parameter which failed. Subst or nowiki the example there and delete the template.

11786: 11686: 10752: 10572: 9827: 8633: 7755: 6532: 4201: 3872: 2812: 2804: 672: 483: 473: 19724:

A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at

18987:...if you can work your way through CKC's walls of text and extreme edit warring at the templates... Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 18836: 18818: 18804: 18591: 18573: 18527: 17283: 14355:

and get out of the way to let us continue being efficient and useful and helpful and here to build an encyclopedia, not demand changes on others.

12278: 11266: 10007: 9899: 9683: 9187: 8898: 7351: 7013: 6636: 5988: 4569: 4165: 3936: 2672: 19732: 19725: 18497: 12212: 11839: 11768: 11506: 11320: 11167: 10613: 10326: 9863: 9087: 8260: 7520: 6463: 6404: 6345: 4109: 455: 11962: 8433: 8030: 6504: 6445: 6386: 3995: 1284: 18009: 17505: 17476: 17442: 12194: 11798: 11672: 11352: 11203: 10231: 10089: 10048: 9292: 9069: 8587: 8524: 7628: 7502: 6882: 6716: 5783: 5740: 5240: 4882: 3599: 3558: 2994: 2423: 1624:, nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with 1596: 19673: 19475: 19442: 19341: 19326: 19306: 19291: 19239: 19148: 19105: 19090: 19075: 19060: 18923: 18855: 18753: 18734: 18694: 18679: 11131: 7912: 7067: 3322: 2798: 1713:

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the

19119:

added from the WP:ATC essay for the WP:NAVBOX policy has nothing to do with the length of navigation templates but with overlapping entries.

18416: 18344: 17991: 17537: 17424: 17238: 17228: 14536:

agree with Aspirex that having the same discussion in 3 locations is not helpful and won't come up with the best solution. Close all 3 down,

12736: 12153: 11642: 11542: 9349: 9274: 9138: 9130: 8969: 8388: 8245:

Leave the redshirt icon. Not sure about the reference to only being used 250 times. Perhaps I'm missing something. I see it all the time.

8002: 7610: 6991: 6310: 5640: 5604: 5596: 5222: 4370: 3827: 3819: 3281: 2721: 2405: 2213: 735: 16393: 15202: 13632: 11239: 10948:

I am open to other suggestions where the resulting format is that of the most recent one and the title of the template matches that format.

8775: 7405: 4518: 3990: 3414: 3118: 2999: 1881: 19427: 18149: 17599: 12695: 12135: 11624: 10788: 10478: 10285: 10245: 10237: 8951: 8479: 8084: 7718: 7710: 6973: 6292: 4769: 4745: 4707: 4691: 4469: 4329: 1676: 1655:

Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's

19713: 19540: 19506: 17931: 17837: 15988:

These are link templates only with no special function, which are not sufficiently complex to merit a template. Suggest subst and delete.

14841:

These are link templates only with no special function, which are not sufficiently complex to merit a template. Suggest subst and delete.

12795: 12741: 12677: 12328:) to subst-only template. This is useful when people copy and paste articles from fr.WP. It avoids maintenance work for gnomes monitoring 12111: 10110: 9223: 6949: 5269:

is rarely used on articles that actually read like adverts; what is most often (indeed, almost exclusively) meant is what is described by

4631: 3771: 2321: 2285: 1986: 17090: 12851: 11046: 10975: 10923: 10901: 10683:; however, the title of the nominated template does not seem like a plausible search term for "Template:Talk header". For these reasons, 10568: 10560: 10460: 8143: 7364: 7026: 6528: 6520: 5876: 4955: 4876: 4739: 4685: 4291: 3949: 3466: 3167: 2685: 2089: 1862: 623: 521: 19693: 19194: 17884: 17167: 16969:(apparently these take it for large portions of their broadcast day). The AFR-owned stations are sorted into categories as appropriate. 16281: 15098: 13960: 9123: 8370: 8089: 3372: 3212: 3063: 2249: 1920: 1808: 577: 326: 19757: 18380: 17957: 16809: 16661: 16647: 14248: 14218: 14163: 14124: 14110: 14052: 14037: 14020: 14006: 13977: 13918: 13894: 12833: 11316: 10671: 10182: 10174: 10168: 8043: 7283: 7276: 6857: 6797: 6459: 6451: 6400: 6392: 6341: 6333: 6071: 4008: 3692: 2935: 2757: 2568: 2071: 1662: 1086: 698: 516: 19627: 19569: 19217: 19127:

I would add that WP:NOTBUREAU notes that existing content policies document an already-existing community consensus about a topic, so

18939: 18779: 18635: 18618: 12040: 10500: 8312: 7704: 4494: 4310: 3908: 2472: 18200: 18164: 11794: 11708: 11498: 11469: 10653: 10554: 10044: 10036: 9175: 8306: 7664: 6839: 6779: 6119: 6053: 6000: 5935:

Having a template implies that countries are administrative divisions of the EU, which is not the most accurate way of depicting it.

5927:

While the template can be useful for navigation purposes, I think overall it is not the most suitable template to use. Articles like

5589: 5300: 4134: 3554: 3546: 2550: 2177: 2047: 582: 18062: 17366: 17093:

and then forgotten about it. It should be ready to go, so if you're willing to withdraw the nomination I'd like to re-propose it on

16888: 11528: 7410: 7222: 5796:

OK, national elections across EU countries do not happen in series and are not directly related topics that we need a template for.

5570: 5545: 4917: 3710: 2881: 1981: 19372: 18412: 18340: 18272: 18236: 17702: 16508: 15269: 14544:, identify the best solution(s), implement them, then delete the unused old templates if the single template outcome is preferred. 11392: 11374: 10267: 9431: 9028: 8384: 8376: 8207: 7824: 7646: 6186: 5944: 5485: 5456: 4580: 4249: 3812: 3277: 3269: 3131: 3012: 2834: 2717: 2490: 1605:

There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

19656: 19598: 19269: 19254: 18981: 18967: 18901: 18887: 18869: 17867: 17301: 16828: 12611: 12045: 11986: 11564: 11020: 10892: 9377: 9104: 8694:

If you plan to add them now and not in an unknown time in the future, then fine (the template was created a year and a half ago).

8240: 6603: 5950: 4848: 4825: 3788: 3729: 3657:#16 we should avoid links to "Sites that are not reliably functional or not likely to continue being functional." That's Curlie. 2875: 587: 337: 254: 18793:

not every law that they have signed during their terms in office is being included and only the ones that have Knowledge articles

18308: 18035: 14797: 14653: 14450: 12754: 12691: 12683: 11905: 11582: 10281: 10123: 10021:

Unused ranks and insignia templates. If any are re-added to articles during this TfD, they can be stricken from this nomination.

9010: 8668: 8538: 8530: 8475: 8467: 7806: 7478: 7109: 5917: 4482: 4430:

I just stumbled across this "template" which has existed since 2011 and is just a random number... Unless I'm missing something,

4325: 4317: 4231: 2949: 2941: 2450: 605: 478: 18556: 18107: 17260: 16405: 16169: 15031: 14601: 14570: 14419: 13747: 13723: 13693: 13678: 11816: 11271: 9160: 8986: 7008: 6887: 5662: 5626: 5139: 5114: 5099: 5087: 5073: 5049: 5023: 5006: 4938: 3849: 19404: 16988: 16300: 15944: 15872: 15836: 15764: 15692: 15656: 15548: 15512: 15476: 15368: 15117: 14833: 14779: 14761: 14725: 14689: 14635: 14553: 14433: 14390: 14319: 14280: 14085: 13791: 13613: 13541: 13505: 13469: 13433: 13397: 13325: 13289: 13253: 13217: 13109: 13073: 13037: 13001: 12583: 12229: 11887: 11338: 10880: 8608: 8195: 8102: 7740: 7360: 7352: 7333: 7214: 7091: 7022: 7014: 5847: 5680: 5423: 5394: 4896: 4422: 3945: 3937: 3517: 3496: 3163: 2681: 2673: 2654: 2523: 1933: 1912: 1821: 1633: 970:(explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. Note that the "Template:" prefix should 596: 559: 278: 38: 18134: 17459: 16444: 16329: 15242: 15146: 14912: 14526: 14512: 14491: 14364: 14142: 13968:

Regarding "add the wikilink to {{AFLW}}, that was created today so no need to act like it's been around forever and in use. --

12868: 12247: 10957: 10943: 10869: 10846: 10590: 10303: 9313: 8614: 7876: 7781: 6550: 6225: 5869: 5812: 5791: 5769: 5748: 4987: 4512: 4443: 19171: 18452: 18376: 18116: 18078:(which at some point should really be updated to get the country name automatically). The europe one should be replaced with 17377: 17033: 16959: 16939: 16552: 16311: 15980: 15926: 15908: 15854: 15818: 15800: 15746: 15728: 15674: 15638: 15620: 15584: 15530: 15494: 15458: 15440: 15404: 15350: 15332: 15128: 14929: 14815: 14743: 14707: 14671: 13595: 13577: 13523: 13487: 13451: 13415: 13379: 13361: 13307: 13271: 13235: 13199: 13181: 13145: 13091: 13055: 13019: 12983: 12965: 12929: 12883: 12597: 12355: 12341: 12170: 11980: 11941: 11861: 11491: 11074: 11031: 10706: 10204: 8809: 8716: 8460: 8406: 8177: 8039: 8031: 7455:

This may be a controversial decision, but I think this template should be split into multiple templates because according to

7308: 7299: 7194: 7181: 7168: 7144: 6583: 6481: 6422: 6363: 6327: 5829: 5712: 5467: 5436: 4404: 4079: 4044: 4004: 3996: 3754: 3476: 3346: 3242: 3200: 3092: 2753: 2634: 2625: 2585: 2503: 2358: 2120: 1892: 1612:

Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

17818: 17346: 17328: 16150: 16132: 14956: 12569: 12543: 12518: 11094: 11063: 10628: 10495: 10435: 10104: 10066: 8829: 8736: 7965: 6754: 6243: 6201: 5892: 3576: 3337: 2971: 2378: 2140: 18434: 18362: 18196: 18160: 18150: 17015: 16483: 16360: 16228: 16210: 15962: 15890: 15782: 15710: 15602: 15566: 15422: 15386: 15314: 15214: 15183: 13559: 13343: 13163: 13127: 12947: 12911: 12509:

has been added. Please don't increase the already heavy non-translation tasks translators are faced with by deleting this.

11923: 11722: 9045: 8874: 7423: 7044: 6167: 6158: 6115: 5984: 5928: 5880: 5369: 5204: 3738: 3641: 3299: 3185: 3048: 2894: 2739: 2602: 2110: 302: 17668: 17210: 17185: 17160: 17127: 17118:

If you're planning on using it, sure. Are the sub-pages part of your module implementation or will those still be unused?

17113: 17066: 16250: 16111: 16063: 16030: 16015: 15067: 15014: 14989: 14971: 14898: 14883: 14868: 12713: 12175: 10913: 9050: 8703: 8689: 8560: 8497: 7483: 7130: 6815: 4347: 3231: 3081: 18268: 18232: 18082: 17953: 17683: 17654: 17640: 16928: 16903: 16843: 16528: 16192: 16119:, I don't much care about the outcome of the discussion, but the all the template for deletion warnings make the article 15289: 15049: 12624: 12058: 11999: 11744: 11428: 11388: 10883:) Without link for all individual parties, there is no need for a separate template for European Parliament elections. - 10368: 8856: 8277: 7382: 5676:

These serve no useful purpose from what I can see, and the 2024 European Parliament elections are already all linked via

5566: 5419: 5365: 5186: 4576: 4519: 3967: 3623: 3443: 3364: 3127: 3119: 3008: 3000: 2703: 492: 422: 189: 18398: 17395: 16092: 14941: 11950: 11410: 11001: 10987: 9255: 8225: 8061: 4026: 3672: 3260: 3149: 3110: 3030: 2775: 2386: 18304: 18218: 18182: 18051: 17970: 17826: 17753: 17403: 14850: 12750: 12742: 11600: 11578: 11284: 10350: 10119: 10111: 8927: 8232: 7865: 7568: 7532: 6900: 6680: 6669: 6137: 5724: 5385:

needs to be page moved to the preferable title, not redirected, as the longer-standing template serving this function.

5086:'s objection to this template has little to do with the template itself, but more with the essay. That can be fixed by 4819: 4750:

I am not proposing to change it; I am proposing the deletion of a template that seeks to force its use in violation of

4299: 4284: 4273: 4213: 3457:

Single-use roster template with no documentation, categories, or template parameters. Subst into article and delete. –

1995: 1987: 1498:

If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the

1236:

with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use

857: 830: 806: 535: 506: 285: 18516:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates

18290: 18254: 18017:

After trying to rewrite this template to remove the need for passing the year as a parameter in favor of simply using

16588: 16048: 15997: 14406: 14369:

Hear, hear; it really just feels like a personal preference is being pushed on the project for no real added benefit.

14264: 12373:, although this situation here is much simpler and may not need that level of sophistication. The gory details follow. 12116: 8932: 8120: 6954: 6273: 4598: 18540:

these nominations and the prior deletion of the Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox are now arguably without merit. --

18326: 18072: 17051: 16428: 16123:

almost unreadable, and probably all others before! Please have a look for yourself. How is that improving Knowledge?

12772: 12290: 10141: 8910: 8627: 8267: 8098: 8090: 6648: 6101: 5716: 4195: 4177: 2017: 1929: 1921: 1817: 1809: 663: 568: 549: 445: 354: 237: 31: 17489:

is probably used because like in volleyball, beach handball uses a set system contrary to standard handball and why

13889: 10441: 2912: 1951: 1839: 19669: 19471: 19455:

has been added to an essay has wide acceptance and sufficient vetting to be linked from a policy or guideline page.

19423: 19337: 19322: 19287: 19235: 19144: 19086: 19056: 18832: 18814: 18809:

I'd also add that WP:NAVBOX also explicitly states: "templates with a large number of links are not forbidden". --

18800: 18749: 18730: 18675: 18587: 18545: 18523: 18470: 18448: 18043: 18039: 16984: 16277: 15094: 12272: 11762: 11446: 10531: 10509: 10501: 10385: 8892: 8680:'s fleet. This means that the template would be used on multiple pages. Is this a valid reason not to delete it? -- 8343: 8321: 8313: 6630: 4645:

is an essay it's only explaining things from elsewhere, for instance consecutive cites and bundling are already in

4159: 4083: 4062: 4040: 1736:. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually. 18665:. This is not an edit war; you are an editor acting as though you own this project (WP:OWN) since only you really 17735: 14229:

These are more efficient, because they are consistent across leagues. For example, you can't easily make a single

14090:

Show how these twenty-ish templates are more efficient and save more time for editors than a single template like

12812: 11302: 7441: 7253: 6918: 2052: 19747: 17906: 17801: 17788: 17713: 17703: 16861: 16478: 15178: 14596: 14385: 13718: 13673: 12642: 12315: 12076: 12017: 9408: 8645: 8456: 8421: 8302: 7496: 7419: 7411: 7287: 7231: 7223: 6029: 5807: 5764: 5697: 4872: 4735: 4681: 3227: 3077: 2890: 2882: 1877: 1753: 1588: 391: 309: 56: 17771: 13807:– these templates must not be used in cs1|2 templates because the rendering in the citation misleads the reader. 11780: 10634: 7586: 7550: 6820: 6760: 2531: 18744:

template of the president—which I would reiterate is inconsistent with the WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX policies. --

18579:

You are Bludgioning this discussion well beyond what has been tolerable for users to see what your argument is.

17985: 17896: 17418: 16839: 16829: 12620: 12612: 12425: 12054: 12046: 11995: 11987: 11424: 9386: 9378: 8446:

is a redirect because it's covered in the Ballarat V/Line service article. The Maryborough V/Line rail service

7957: 7604: 2399: 691: 464: 261: 14616: 14470:

Echoing 4TheWynne's comment above, can we close this one without prejudice for now and have the discussion at

13657:

yet either, so feel like Jonesey95's jumped the gun here. We've got a system that works; if it ain't broke...

8016:

Unused navbox other than in one user's sandbox. The articles linked use the stand-alone yearly one templates.

7926:

Unused navbox other than in one user's sandbox. The articles linked use the stand-alone yearly one templates.

7461: 4712:

The style of citation stays the same, bundling doesn't change if they are text / formatted or inline / short.

1100:

If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the TfD notice and the code of the template.

19762: 17811: 17792: 17749: 16525: 15286: 12418:

and we are right back where we started from, getting in the way of translators creating articles. Also, when

12206: 12129: 11636: 11618: 11280: 11272: 9081: 7683: 7679: 7564: 7528: 7514: 6896: 6888: 6286: 5736: 4951: 116: 17: 18003: 17436: 15295: 9286: 8991: 7787: 7622: 5234: 4616:

but that is an essay and lacks community consensus. Whereas forcing the bundling of references violates our

2417: 19005:, let me be very clear because you have mischaracterized what I have explicitly said in these discussions: 12147: 8963: 8623: 8615: 8263: 6985: 6657: 6304: 3767: 2594:. Plausible use case and the wrapper template in the documentation is sufficient for rudimentary purposes. 1669: 763: 13965:

Sorry mate, not sure what most of you wrote means. Could you write in English what you are meaning to say?

10472: 7072: 4361:

Only has 2 English WP entries, 1 of which is up for deletion. Pointless having a nav box for 1-2 entries.

833:, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline. 19752: 19665: 19522: 19467: 19419: 19333: 19318: 19283: 19231: 19204: 19140: 19082: 19052: 18828: 18810: 18796: 18745: 18726: 18671: 18583: 18541: 18519: 16643: 16504: 16497:

Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 14 § Template:AFLW WB and other AFLW link templates

16273: 15265: 15258:

Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 14 § Template:AFLW WB and other AFLW link templates

15090: 14159: 14106: 14033: 14002: 13956: 12845: 12827: 11758: 10403:

on this template—many proper names that are functionally non-English are an easy class of examples: e.g.

10156: 9111: 4642: 4613: 2083: 2065: 1688: 659: 628: 614: 16598: 10665: 9301: 8158: 8075:

Has 2 English WP links, one of which is up for deletion. Not much point having a nav box for 2 entries.

7951:

is still being used across all relevant articles, so the change was inconsistent with related articles.

7945: 6851: 6791: 6259:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's

6065: 5153:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's

4385: 3531:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's

2562: 19550: 19492:. Unnecessary duplication of navigation function already handled by individual presidents' navboxes. 16797: 12529: 12184: 12176: 10647: 9059: 9051: 8685: 8452: 8298: 7675: 7658: 7492: 7484: 6833: 6773: 6564:

Template that contains two redirects and one link to a non-resident mission. Unhelpful for navigation.

4892:. What? This is primarily about removing citations. Many citations need to be absolutely annihilated. — 4858: 4790: 4721: 4667: 4565: 4118:

doesn't need a separate template, and adding 3 links for venues to the main template seems fine to me.

3223: 3073: 2544: 1873: 1120: 654: 410: 19385:. The material in the nominated navboxes was copied from already existing navboxes (see, for example, 19275:

I'm a bit surprised I'm still treating CKC with some respect, and pat myself on the back for doing so.

18860:

Fair, but I think either one should be way way larger. Including major events, disasters, deaths, etc

16994: 9022: 7818: 4649:. Excessive citation can also cause formatting and access issue. Such changes aren't in violation of 4243: 1162:

If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "

17981: 17971: 17625: 17518: 17414: 17404: 16345: 14791: 14647: 12574:

That is what subst only with auto does, so I have done that. I think we are all in agreement here. –

11899: 10714: 9264: 9256: 8151: 7687: 7640: 7600: 7474: 7344: 7103: 6730:

Only has 1 entry which is now up for deletion. Even if kept, pointless having a nav box for 1 entry.

6512: 6264: 5971: 5518: 5514: 5498: 5317: 5273: 5255: 5212: 5158: 4539: 4463: 4378: 3687: 3536: 3393: 2665: 2467: 2395: 2387: 1801: 1745: 1587:

for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested

1104: 850: 684: 649: 365: 19031:

then other topics related to their presidency are not sufficiently related to their biography either

15938: 15866: 15830: 15758: 15686: 15650: 15542: 15506: 15470: 15362: 14827: 14755: 14719: 14683: 13607: 13535: 13499: 13463: 13427: 13391: 13319: 13283: 13247: 13211: 13103: 13067: 13031: 12995: 12553: 8837: 8189: 5167: 4416: 3604: 19709: 19534: 19500: 18569: 18493: 17927: 17880: 17362: 17297: 17141: 17027: 16165: 15974: 15902: 15794: 15722: 15614: 15578: 15434: 15398: 15326: 15027: 14576: 13571: 13355: 13175: 13139: 12959: 12923: 12125: 12117: 11935: 11614: 11016: 10888: 8941: 8933: 6963: 6955: 6943: 6282: 6274: 4947: 4911: 4646: 4439: 2435: 1733: 1592: 1257: 1116: 1107:, make a request for the TfD tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the 933: 19625: 19567: 13702:

to do anything like add more name options/variations; this just feels like a personal preference.

12369:(but permit subst). Tl;dr: this is a time-saver for translators, and maybe could be modeled after 11253:

We don't have navigation templates for junior national champions for other nations; why this one?

10391:

Apologies all for not using this upon creation: luckily, I've just gotten around to it. Just like

10331: 8868: 5198: 3635: 19582: 19526:

status quo and discuss the split before making these changes, rather than the other way around.

19013:

do not oppose merging the biography and presidency templates with collapsable sections. However,

17949: 17191: 17094: 17083: 16821: 16750: 16296: 15113: 14773: 14629: 14609: 12805: 12666: 12473:

which formats the French citation as a proper en-wiki reference. This leaves all the parameters (

12100: 12031:

Navbox with no transclusions and just three blue links in the body. Not useful for navigation. –

11881: 10450: 10442: 10362: 7701: 5562: 5415: 5361: 4925:: Recent experiences on my part indicate that some users tend to pile on refs as part of low-key 4716:

is part of a guideline, discussions about changing it should happen on the relevant talk page --

4098: 3763: 19029:

though they are directly related to their presidency (since the president signs them into law),

8977:

No transclusions, documentation, template parameters, or incoming links. Created in May 2024. –

8918:

No transclusions. These are simple template wrappers with no documentation or incoming links. –

4756:

Sometimes the article is more readable if multiple citations are bundled into a single footnote.

4207: 30:"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see 19689: 19190: 18058: 17963: 17833: 17695: 17615: 17483: 17469: 17220: 16324: 15920: 15848: 15812: 15740: 15668: 15632: 15524: 15488: 15452: 15344: 15141: 14809: 14737: 14701: 14665: 14203: 13589: 13517: 13481: 13445: 13409: 13373: 13301: 13265: 13193: 13085: 13049: 13013: 12977: 12823: 12813: 12284: 9118: 8904: 8171: 7872: 6676: 6642: 6569: 5940: 5307: 4814: 4398: 4306: 4280: 4171: 3706: 3681:- it was rare that Curlie contents were useful anyway, it was mostly just local business spam. 3409: 2061: 2053: 1789: 1230:

to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TfD, this time replacing

1110: 871: 129: 18930:

I think of you delete all of those, you have to delete the one for Trump too. It’s only fair.

18564:

this discussion well beyond what has been tolerable for users to see what your argument is. --

16627:

though a better name should be chosen so that the name matches the template function; perhaps

12253: 10992:

Do you mean that linking to EP electoral lists in the first template does not make any sense?

7396:

Only has 2 links. 1 of which is up for deletion. No value in having a navbox for 1-2 entries.

6611: 5966:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

4534:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

4140: 3388:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

1435:). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1. 19640: 19554: 18951: 18560:

discussion board for this. So, please stop and let other users here add their views. You are

16875:

Almost all of links are merely redirects to the network's article, making the navbox violate

16700: 16581:

as a redirect. This should be done regardless of the outcome of this discussion because the

16470: 15956: 15884: 15776: 15704: 15596: 15560: 15416: 15380: 15308: 15170: 14588: 14377: 14300: 14239:

solution, as that is aleady in use for a navbox. So the project-wide solution becomes messy.

14182: 13776: 13710: 13665: 13553: 13337: 13157: 13121: 12941: 12905: 12444: 12370: 10643: 10635: 9732: 9696: 8681: 6829: 6821: 6769: 6761: 6260: 5967: 5711:

There are several templates of this type, both at the national and local level. For example:

5154: 4561: 4535: 3807: 3532: 3389: 2870: 2540: 2532: 1644: 37:

This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see

19704:

form of deletion must be taken. A redirect to the main president's navbox is one of them. --

14271:, so they should be moved. That's a different discussion, though, which can be had later. – 10415:, so a shortcut is well-justified in my view. Sorry again for getting around to it so late. 9516: 947: 19652: 19594: 19438: 19400: 19389: 19302: 19265: 19250: 19213: 19101: 19071: 18977: 18963: 18935: 18919: 18897: 18883: 18865: 18851: 18775: 18690: 18631: 18614: 18142: 18046:. I think the without version is much easier to understand and therefore more sustainable. 17493: 16980: 16690: 16415:

I appreciate that you're offering a compromise to the discussion. I would say that I would

16128: 14575:

I definitely agree that it's extremely annoying, especially when it comes to articles like

12463: 12243: 11852:

but got no response. These nominations are a waste of time and should just be a speedy G6.

11482:

but got no response. These nominations are a waste of time and should just be a speedy G6.

10937: 10840: 10680: 8850: 8214: 7944:. This template was replaced across all articles by a single user without discussion (e.g. 7854: 7691: 7636: 7456: 5913: 5585: 5522: 5506: 5180: 5132: 5110: 5095: 5069: 5045: 5002: 4934: 4490: 4457: 4130: 4124: 3784: 3725: 3682: 3668: 3617: 2461: 1155:

Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

753: 405: 18947:, yes, agreed, but the entries for Trump's presidential term(s) should be included on his 16272:

have outlined - templates like these save time and adds efficiency and seem pretty useful

15089:

have outlined - templates like these save time and adds efficiency and seem pretty useful

954: 8: 19705: 19529: 19495: 19452: 18565: 18489: 18021: 17923: 17876: 17358: 17312: 17293: 16760: 16401: 16356: 16198: 16161: 16080: 15210: 15023: 14566: 14522: 14415: 14276: 13928: 13914: 13743: 13689: 13640: 12864: 12791: 12579: 12337: 12036: 11958: 11835: 11465: 11012: 10884: 10702: 9100: 9041: 9000: 8992: 8982: 8923: 8583: 8520: 8429: 8366: 8139: 7796: 7788: 7759: 7272: 7164: 7126: 7063: 7004: 6938: 5802: 5759: 5732: 5692: 5542: 4906: 4893: 4478: 4435: 4221: 3462: 2990: 2931: 2853: 2794: 2581: 2446: 2031:

Template is no longer needed as all of its subarticles have been merged into its parent,

1965:

Template is no longer needed as all of its subarticles have been merged into its parent,

1858: 1782: 1649: 1562: 1545: 1352: 926: 349: 68: 18514:

Discussion of presidency templates vs. president biography templates remains ongoing at

2576:

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2021. –

18561: 17942: 17863: 17323: 16954: 16876: 16805: 16657: 16548: 16292: 16246: 16107: 16059: 16011: 15109: 15063: 15010: 14985: 14952: 14908: 14894: 14864: 14769: 14625: 14549: 14446: 14429: 14360: 14315: 14244: 14214: 14138: 14120: 14081: 14048: 14016: 13973: 13787: 12800: 12565: 12514: 11877: 11868: 11850:

Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template doc pages that have been converted

11480:

Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template doc pages that have been converted

11089: 11059: 10427: 8824: 8731: 8677: 8597: 7961: 7835: 7754:

Delete. No pages exist for any links on the template. Unlikely to exist in the future.

7698: 7328: 7209: 7081: 7073: 6598: 6221: 6197: 5996: 5843: 5779: 5553: 5532: 5481: 5451: 5406: 5352: 5327: 5018: 4979: 4926: 4843: 4784: 4764: 4751: 4713: 4702: 4626: 3513: 3491: 2649: 2518: 2460:, but no objections to deleting it. 'Integral theory' is mostly an overdressed facade. 2373: 2135: 1907: 939: 863: 813: 745: 370: 148: 140: 12481:, etc.) in French, but triggers a process to come along later and subst it, leaving a 10687:(given that the nominated template has 1 transclusion on a user talk page.) Also, see 9588: 5497:

materially as per nom (there should be one template and, in content, it should be the

4477:

It is the amount of players who have made an appearance in a competitive game for the

1794: 19685: 19433:

navbox. They don't, as has already been decided in an RM on the Jimmy Carter navbox.

19368: 19186: 18048: 17823: 17334: 16924: 16884: 16521: 16440: 16321: 16224: 16188: 15916: 15844: 15808: 15736: 15664: 15628: 15520: 15484: 15448: 15340: 15282: 15238: 15138: 15045: 14805: 14733: 14697: 14661: 14508: 14500: 14487: 13990:

was created today is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that I said nothing about it being

13756: 13732: 13585: 13513: 13477: 13441: 13405: 13369: 13297: 13261: 13225: 13189: 13081: 13045: 13009: 12973: 12732: 12456: 10729: 10624: 10609: 10100: 10085: 9444: 8886: 8167: 8159: 8080: 7862: 7777: 7401: 6750: 6735: 6666: 6565: 6500: 6441: 6382: 5960:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules.

5936: 5905: 5888: 5865: 5787: 5744: 5346: 4809: 4528:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules.

4394: 4386: 4366: 4296: 4270: 3986: 3927: 3868: 3702: 3595: 3406: 3382:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules.

3333: 3318: 2032: 1966: 1728: 1692: 1657: 1625: 1532: 19719: 9624: 9552: 4853:

Yes sorry I meant MOS:VAR, as MOS:RETAIN is the one about variations of English. --

19360: 18103: 17664: 17650: 17455: 17342: 17279: 17201: 17176: 17151: 17123: 17104: 17062: 17047: 17005: 16995: 16780: 16770: 16424: 16206: 16120: 16088: 16036: 15952: 15880: 15772: 15700: 15592: 15556: 15412: 15376: 15304: 14937: 14345: 13819: 13549: 13333: 13153: 13117: 12937: 12901: 12890: 12879: 12593: 12539: 12351: 12311: 12225: 12166: 11976: 11913: 11857: 11487: 11261: 11144: 10997: 10953: 10909: 10865: 10820: 10550: 10491: 10381: 10322: 10227: 10164: 10026: 9912: 9768: 9480: 9427: 9368: 9309: 9246: 9183: 8795: 8699: 8664: 8021: 7931: 7295: 7178: 7141: 6811: 6323: 6239: 6182: 4800: 4261: 3801: 3663:

Deleting the template is preferred to removing it from multiple articles manually.

3208: 3059: 2864: 2621: 2486: 2343: 2105: 1703: 1438:

If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:

13728:

It is not my personal preference; it is that of editors who create redirects like

9948: 5727:. Moreover, these two templates that we are discussing are about elections in the 1135:

around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.

730: 19661: 19648: 19633: 19616: 19603: 19590: 19575: 19558: 19434: 19396: 19298: 19261: 19246: 19226: 19209: 19097: 19067: 19002: 18973: 18959: 18944: 18931: 18915: 18893: 18879: 18875: 18861: 18847: 18843: 18771: 18686: 18627: 18610: 17679: 17636: 17136:

The subpages are not used by my implementation, and appear to be instead used by

16974: 16138: 16124: 14537: 13843:

https://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/1145063/switching-codes-levicki-joins-port

12239: 11180: 10932: 10835: 10410: 9804: 8846: 8838: 7153: 6933: 6693: 5909: 5581: 5526: 5502: 5379: 5263: 5251: 5176: 5168: 5125: 5106: 5091: 5065: 5041: 4998: 4930: 4486: 4119: 3780: 3750: 3721: 3664: 3613: 3605: 1511: 1127: 974:

be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

911: 892: 785:

the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.

16894:

I've removed the redirects; what remains appears to be sufficient for a navbox.

11108: 9984: 9876: 9660: 3660:

Also the database has long been overtaken by spammers and ceased to be of use.

1785:

semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.

1395:

If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

19046:

have no problem with large navigation templates with collapsable sections, but

18130: 17916: 17391: 17137: 17076: 16899: 16463: 16397: 16352: 16146: 16044: 16026: 15993: 15206: 15163: 14967: 14879: 14846: 14581: 14562: 14518: 14411: 14370: 14272: 14073: 13813: 13739: 13703: 13685: 13658: 13636: 12860: 12787: 12575: 12557: 12333: 12032: 11954: 11831: 11649: 11461: 10983: 10930:

is more recent. Is merging older templates into a recent one really necessary?

10692: 10406: 10394: 10340: 10332: 9840: 9096: 9037: 8978: 8919: 8603: 8593:

I've left a notification at the talk page for the requesting editor from 2023.

8579: 8516: 8425: 8362: 8135: 7268: 7177:

Not quite true; the template removes disambiguators as well, hence "ambiguate"

7174: 7160: 7137: 7122: 7059: 7000: 5797: 5775: 5754: 5728: 5687: 5510: 5399:

That won't address the sub-optimal wording (which is apparently the reason why

5390: 4557: 4552: 3797: 3742: 3654: 3458: 3360: 3256: 3106: 2986: 2927: 2849: 2790: 2577: 2442: 2190: 2043: 1977: 1854: 1714: 1696: 1536: 1239: 1219: 1216:

If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add

907: 809:. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with 131: 64: 17922:. I think that should be merged with these two, as well, to make it seamless. 13982:

I said what I meant and meant what I said. What do you not understand? That

13940:

Need another AFLW xxx link? Don't create a new template, add the wikilink to

12859:

No transclusions, no matching category, no incoming links. Created in 2019. –

11216: 10080:

Only contains one English WP entry. Pointless having a nav box for one entry.

1772: 127: 19741: 17859: 17513: 17318: 16949: 16801: 16653: 16560: 16544: 16537: 16376: 16269: 16265: 16242: 16103: 16055: 16007: 15195: 15086: 15082: 15059: 15006: 14981: 14977: 14948: 14904: 14890: 14860: 14545: 14541: 14476:

Knowledge:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_13#WAFLW_link_templates

14442: 14425: 14399: 14356: 14352: 14334: 14311: 14307: 14290: 14257: 14240: 14233: 14210: 14172: 14148: 14134: 14116: 14093: 14077: 14044: 14012: 13985: 13969: 13943: 13922: 13783: 13766: 13625: 12561: 12510: 12443:, given the numerous parameters with different names. Thank goodness we have 11084: 11055: 10765: 10417: 9326: 8819: 8726: 8594: 8222: 7952: 7470: 7323: 7204: 6593: 6231: 6217: 6212: 6193: 5992: 5839: 5477: 5446: 5081: 5013: 4969: 4838: 4796: 4759: 4697: 4651: 4621: 4264:, and speaking as a (trainee) clerk I had never even heard of this template. 4185: 3509: 3486: 2644: 2513: 2368: 2130: 1902: 1723: 1443: 1400: 1323: 1301: 919: 882: 840: 826: 802: 792: 778: 767: 719: 713: 14472:

Knowledge:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_13#WAFL_link_templates

10689:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22#Template:Stay focused

8752: 7889: 6865:

With only one album, this navbox offers no additional navigational benefit.

3590:

Only contains 1 English WP link. Pointless for a nav box to have one entry.

2298: 2262: 19636:. The separate Jimmy Carter navbox was already deleted per an TfD, and the 19415: 19382: 19364: 18704:

templates, opposition to duplicative templates, and support for separating

18088:. The baseball one does not seem to have a generic category template (only 16920: 16880: 16740: 16730: 16720: 16710: 16680: 16670: 16517: 16436: 16420: 16261: 16220: 16184: 15278: 15234: 15078: 15041: 14504: 14483: 12728: 12506: 12262: 12254: 10620: 10605: 10096: 10081: 8882: 8359:

the creator's page, where I asked two years ago whether it was still needed

8076: 7979: 7773: 7397: 6746: 6731: 6620: 6612: 6496: 6437: 6378: 5884: 5861: 4508: 4362: 4149: 4141: 3982: 3923: 3864: 3591: 3329: 3314: 1183: 1169: 1068: 1052: 1031: 1017: 1007: 997: 964:

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process.

19007:

I do not oppose using collapsable sections with these navigation templates

14072:

They are efficient and save time for editors. It's a system that works as

11830:

Replaced with standard navbox documentation template. No longer needed. –

2616:

have a "Plausible use case" in theory, in practice, none have been found.

2335:

Not a significant enough skating competition to warrant navigation boxes.

2226: 2097:

Not a significant enough skating competition to warrant navigation boxes.

1480:

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters

1431:

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters

18099: 17660: 17646: 17451: 17338: 17308: 17275: 17197: 17172: 17147: 17133: 17119: 17100: 17072: 17058: 17043: 16202: 16084: 14933: 13925:. Usually when a template should not be used in cs1|2 templates, we add 13772:(which again is your invention and that name should actually redirect to 13762:

etc, while you who has no connection to the project has a preference for

12875: 12589: 12535: 12534:. I'd be opposed to any import template that has its transclusions kept. 12524:

What should happen with this type of template ... and then substed by bot

12347: 12307: 12299: 12221: 12162: 11972: 11853: 11483: 11254: 10993: 10949: 10905: 10861: 10816: 10546: 10487: 10377: 10318: 10223: 10160: 10022: 9423: 9364: 9305: 9242: 9179: 8791: 8695: 8660: 8218: 8213:

and in-article tables, where it does not align with the bullet points at

8017: 7927: 7291: 6807: 6319: 6235: 6206: 6178: 6177:). These were uncategorized until recently so was missed from that list. 4964: 3204: 3055: 2617: 2482: 2336: 2098: 1025: 18721:

templates so that there is duplication to justify deleting the separate

16462:

so as not to create a lot more work for ourselves, as the system works.

15162:

so as not to create a lot more work for ourselves, as the system works.

14478:. I'm in favour of Jonesey95's proposed merged template for the reasons 14253:

This is an aside; other league templates come next. Template names like

12306:

this should never be used and a regular "1st" does not need a template.

9734:

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OR/Maldives (land forces)

9698:

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OF/Maldives (land forces)

3885: 132: 17675: 17632: 17041:

Unused module. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/<username: -->

14424:

So you're taking namespace just for funsies as a sandbox experiment? --

11460:

Replaced with automatic WikiProject documentation. No longer needed. –

9518:

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/WO/Republic of China

6495:

Only contains 1 English entry. Pointless having a nav box for 1 entry.

6436:

Only contains 1 English entry. Pointless having a nav box for 1 entry.

6377:

Only contains 1 English entry. Pointless having a nav box for 1 entry.

4804: 4617: 3746: 3698: 2457: 2154: 1687:

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the

12552:

existed or would work by bot that way (it was also explained to me on

6209:, if you're not opposed, I'll just do that. Will wait for your reply. 5289:"This article contains content that is written like an advertisement." 762:

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the

18824:

But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency.

18787:

But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency.

18126: 17567: 17387: 16914: 16895: 16142: 16040: 16022: 15989: 14963: 14875: 14842: 13948:, plus a minimal amount of associated documentation, and you're done. 11685: 10979: 10604:

Only has 1 English WP entry. Pointless having a nav box for 1 entry.

9200: 5536: 5386: 3356: 3252: 3102: 2811: 2596: 2037: 1971: 11505: 9095:

Navbox with one blue link in the body. Not usable for navigation. –

770:

should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

12727:

Contains only 2 English WP links. One of which is up for deletion.

11351: 7466: 5285:"This article contains text that is written in a promotional tone." 3313:

Contains only 2 English WP links, one of which is up for deletion.

17237: 12330:

Knowledge:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates

11541: 9137: 5639: 5603: 3826: 3762:

Agree with nominee and editors above. Curlie is basically defunct.

1583:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the

17912:

and serves the same purpose, just that it is used for files with

14980:

I removed numerous adjectives from that sentence before posting.

13899: 10244: 9590:

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/WO/South Korea

7717: 4830: 4657: 4504: 781:, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, 12090:

Navbox with only two links; one of them is up for deletion now.

10972:

Template:Dutch candidate lists for European Parliament elections

10920:

Template:Dutch candidate lists for European Parliament elections

10858:

Template:Dutch candidate lists for European Parliament elections

10806:

Template:Dutch candidate lists for European Parliament elections

10731:

Template:Dutch candidate lists for European Parliament elections

10723:

Template:Dutch candidate lists for European Parliament elections

10567: 9446:

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/WO/Bangladesh

9438:

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/WO/Bangladesh

8221:. This usage could be easily replaced with the word "redshirt". 6527: 1620:

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD

991:

Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

895:(the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), 11315: 10181: 9626:

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/WO/Venezuela

9554:

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/WO/Singapore

8659:

Single use simple table. Subst to article and delete template.

6458: 6399: 6340: 4294:. Still should delete them all, given the process is obsolete. 4258:

I am not even sure what process this could be for on Knowledge.

19021:

argued that legislation should generally not be included in a

17659:

Same as SB008, forgot about that template but should be used.

17611:

Ergo, the template is needed, I just need to start converting

17168:

Template talk:Inflation#Lua version of Template:Inflation/year

11793: 11146:

Template:NavigationRussianJuniorChampionsFigureSkatingIcedance

10043: 9914:

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Navies/WO/South Africa

9770:

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/WO/South Africa

9482:

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/WO/Pakistan

3553: 2789:

Navbox with only two blue links. Not useful for navigation. –

1739: 133: 19174: