Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 4



Various TV-related WikiProject templates

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:WikiProject Television. Seems like we have a consensus for a merge. Viz the two comments marked as "comment", I think these are more about the WikiProjects rather than the templates, but this discussion is about the templates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Propose merging Template:WikiProject British TV channels with Template:WikiProject Television.
 * WikiProject British TV channels
 * WPTO
 * WikiProject The Office
 * WikiProject Television/Holby task force
 * WikiProject Reality TV
 * Wikiproject Reality Television
 * WikiProject Reality television
 * WikiProject LOE
 * WikiProject Holby
 * WikiProject Arrested Development Taskforce
 * WikiProject The X Factor
 * WikiProject Television Stations
 * WikiProject Television Game Shows
 * WikiProject Scottish Television
 * WikiProject Nickelodeon
 * WikiProject NCIS
 * WikiProject Idol series
 * WikiProject British TV shows
 * User:Riatsila/WikiProject Test Cards
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV/banner
 * WikiProject Television

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television resulted in turning the following inactive WikiProjects into WikiProject Television task forces. I propose the following:
 * 1) The task forces should be added to the main template so it can support them as it does other task forces.
 * 2) Subst the templates with the TV one.
 * 3) Delete duplication on the same page.
 * 4) Finally deleting the templates - as these are a closed-set of articles, there won't be many, if even any, new articles that will be tagged with these.

See also previous TfD here. Note: some of the templates nominated are redirects which I've added as if they're used, they won't correctly categorize the article, probably without the editor understanding why. The redirects being used should be handled as the other listed templates (see the Holby one as an example of the issue). Gonnym (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. I was notified due to the List of Episodes WP template (LOE), and that's basically just cleanup as the LOE project already merged, but the logic seems to apply to the others as well. -- Ned Scott 23:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support to continue the cleanup process. – sgeureka t•c 15:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Although not a member of these WPs, I think this is a great idea. There is a small but possible chance it will also result in increased editing and collaboration. Also it reduces the amount of time that some future editor will waste with WP-related administrative tasks if they are part of an umbrella project. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent cleanup and simplification plan. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that BritTVShows and BritTV should themselves be merged together into one task force. Also the purview of TV Game Shows is only Quiz Shows and not "Game Shows", many game shows falling outside its purview, so the name is bad. (particularly "Japanese game shows" with physical challenges, and professional knowledge, season-long tournaments, and practise game shows (like cooking game shows) -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that BritTVShows and BritTV should themselves be merged together into one task force, as part of Television. Why should British Television be at all separate? If I update any British TV shows, stars, stations, networks to add WikiProjects, I use Television and Television, not the British ones.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Semi-wikibreak2

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

The result of the discussion was delete. That is, replace with Semi-wikibreak and then delete. There doesn't seem to be a particular reason here for keeping a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Fork of Semi-wikibreak with only minor wording variation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Semi-wikibreak2 - 8 transclusions
 * Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete – yeah, there's not enough difference there for "merge" to even be a fruitful suggestion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Very similar; pointless and confusing to have multiple such templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, User:Pigsonthewing. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to semi-wikibreak per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Current Zimbabwean MPs

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 February 12. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Current_Zimbabwean_MPs
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Amini Cishugi

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC) completely useless template as it's all red links. even if the main article is kept, this is unhelpful. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Amini Cishugi
 * delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Frietjes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Campaignbox Arab–Iranian conflict

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

The result of the discussion was keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) ——  SN  54129  12:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC) %100 original Research template not backed by a single source. The creator coined his own term and created the template with it. YousefAbdollah (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Campaignbox Arab–Iranian conflict
 * Oppose See Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - just to counter the claim of "single source", see those WP:RS sources The Origins of the Arab-Iranian Conflict by Cambridge U-ty Press,,Soviet-American Relations with Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, p411,Turkey's Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: A Changing Role in World Politics, p192. Even Iranian official news agency uses the term "The Egyptian daily said that by promoting such a plan the United States is going to preoccupy Arabs with an Arab-Iranian conflict"GreyShark (dibra) 15:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal of the template. The template is backed up by existing articles. - Mardus /talk 18:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Link language

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

The result of the discussion was deprecate and delete along with the template wrappers. This was (more or less) what was determined at the previous TFD but this one has a clearer mandate. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Following the Link language wrapper TfD almost all transclusions have been replaced with the improved and backwards compatible template in lang. The remaining ones are on talk pages and can be handled by redirecting to in lang. I'm not proposing full deletion and if there is a desire to delete the resulting redirect (as there were some desire to do in the original discussion) I believe that would be more appropriate to discuss at RfD after this discussion is over. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Edited: 16:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Link language
 * Delete template and replace all uses of it and its wrappers with in lang. All article transclusions were replaced, and as the nom said, only talk page and others (some category and help pages) are left. Those should be replaced, as is routinely done when a template is replaced. There is no value at all with leaving the wrappers now that the new template is created. Leaving them will just result in pointless maintenance from MonkBot. I'm sorry to inform you Trialpears, but you can not dictate what kind of end-result this discussion might have. --Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for not making it clear that the last part was just my opinion for how best to handle the redirect question. I have now reworded it and I hope that it is more appropriate now. I have no problems with removing link language from templates to encourage usage of the somewhat better name in lang, but preventing users from using Link language as a redirect would be a net negative. By removing it users would be getting errors from attempting to use a non-existent template several times a day with barely any benefit. While we regularly delete templates after merging there is usually some other reason such as syntax differences or the redirect not making sense to the merge target (recent example being Template:Pro-football-reference to Template:Footballstats). None of these applies in this case. Deleting the redirect would also require thousands of edits in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN and the resulting redirect would meet several of the criteria set out at WP:R. If you wish to pursue deletion of the redirect that's fine with me but I think it's likely to be counterproductive to do it here. Could we focus this discussion on whether we should fix the redundancy between link language and in lang, something I think we both can agree on, and have a fully fledged RfD focusing on the redirect question later? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A few comments. This aren't redirects, these are wrapper templates, which means that TfD is the correct venue to discuss them and not RfD. And as these templates are related and tagged (because they use link language) this specific discussion is the correct discussion. WP:NOTBROKEN has no relevance here, as again, these aren't redirects, but wrapper templates. Even if they were templates, that would still not have any relevance here as these templates use a name that is very different to it's function. The editor adding it might not care, but an editor unfamiliar with this bad naming convention will never know that a template named "xx icon" is actually used for text in a different language (So even if we were talking redirects, this would be WP:R#DELETE#2 and 4). --Gonnym (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to the wrapper templates which clearly shouldn't be redirected (per WP:R #2 as you said) but the main link language template. I think link language should be redirected to in lang and if I have understood you correctly you think should be deleted after replacing all current uses with in lang. Is that a fair characterization of your position? If that's the case the difference between our positions are that I think link language should be kept as a redirect and you think it should be deleted. In that case redirect policies such as WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:R are highly relevant. I see that there is an argument for the deletion of the redirect but there is also a strong argument for keeping it which I think just makes the argument to take it to RfD stronger where the matter can be discussed fully with the people who have experience with handling redirects. I think we are in agreement about a lot of things here, namely that we should not have two redundant templates and associated category trees, but we have some disagreements about the redirect. Perhaps it will be easier to get this done by taking it step by step and leaving the redirect question for RfD. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You nominated a template for deletion. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted. And no, I have no interest in either doing it step by step or going to RfD - this is the same discussion. Please don't continue arguing this. --Gonnym (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that this nomination is out of order. The  wrapper templates (and their redirects) that depend upon  should be deleted first; 251 of them have already been deleted.  A small sampling of the remaining wrapper templates shows that they have been marked with the  template since 4 August 2019.  It seems to me that the remaining wrapper templates should be deleted before  is deleted.  According to  there are 99 wrapper templates and their redirects.  I am in favor of retaining this nomination because all of the extant wrapper templates currently refer to this discussion (by way of  in ) which serves as notice to the general editing population that something is happening.  But, any action resulting from this discussion should be delayed until all of the remaining wrapper templates have been deleted.—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , being deleted doesn't mean that there is a consensus to delete the wrappers just that a TfD outcome is being implemented and as you can see in the close of the original discussion we did not reach a consensus to delete at the time. We need a new discussion before doing so and I will be putting together a set of the least used remaining ones, but I'm not comfortable with outright deletion of all of them as that would be disruptive for almost a dozen users a day (data from Monkbot contribs) who will attempt to use deleted templates. My stance is that link language should be redirected to in lang which I believe wouldn't require any other changes and deal with the redirect in a separate RfD if there's a desire to get it deleted. If we turn it into a redirect now there would also be less usage of link language since people wouldn't look at the page for usage instructions making the deletion argument at a potential RfD stronger. My goal here is to make the transition between the link language and in lang as smooth as possible and neither deleting templates in heavy use or having redundant sets of categories, templates and documentation is helpful for that and causes real confusion as can be seen at Template talk:Link language. If you anticipate any problems caused by redirecting link language please raise them but as far as I can see it would just be a natural step towards full adoption of in lang without any significant drawbacks. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the inception of this tfd, it is possible that I am noticing a drop in usage via the icon templates because of the tfd notice that attaches to each  template instance.  If this anecdotal evidence holds, then surely, there is no reason that we shouldn't proceed to tfd the remaining however-many  templates now and then, assuming that this tfd results in a decision to delete, delete  and be done with the whole mess.  And then I can retire Monkbot/task 15 (looking forward to that ...)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the few hours the TfD has been open is enough to draw any conclusions, but I think I have a solution both to more efficently reduce usage of the wrappers and to retire Monkbot. I could add a transcluded deprecation message (my proposal being The template xx icon is deprecated. Please use instead. ) and add an explanatory message to the template page, my suggestion being below.  It is also possible to retire Monkbot and let AnomieBOT's User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster handle the rest now that there are only a few uses. AnomieBOT also have the advantage of higher run frequencies and an edit summary including what template was replaced which could be helpful for gathering statistics.  ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just commenting on your yet another proposal in the same TfD (3rd one now?) - oppose. --Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Monkbot is THE main reason that pages such as the "Deaths in [year]" ones have taken to changing to  voluntarily. Removal of the bot may result in some slippage backwards on that. Ref (chew) (do)  08:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Depreciate and delete wrappers. We literally gain nothing by deleting link language that can't be accomplished by depreciating it and deleting all the wrappers. My main concern is preserving the edit history here. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , what do you think about a redirect? That would preserve the edit history and removes redundancy? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If the wrapper templates still get deleted, then I'm cool with that. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment For transperency's sake I should mention that I just mentioned the discussion in a related thread at Village pump (technical). ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all is a better outcome than the duplicative redirecting, followed by an RfD discussion (esp. since the RfD participants would first have to familiarize themselves with the long history).  We could keep the bot. running in case someone used the (now deleted) template and didn't notice the resulting redlink. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Useless and ugly change to the language links. or  worked perfectly, no reason to change to a new template and all the old ones show up with this stupid TfD with it. No reason to change a winning team. Tisquesusa (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * two comments: 1) there was extensive discussion that led to consensus around the very good reasons for the new, identically appearing template, and 2) the "stupid TfD" will disappear from the old templates as soon as this discussion is closed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So glad I missed all that backoffice discussion, I am writing articles. The other template worked fine, but as long as it works it is fine. Then I'd say close the discussion and implement the change? What is holding us back in that decision? Tisquesusa (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).