Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15



Template:Ccnorm

 * 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 September 26. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ccnorm
 * Ccnorm
 * 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).

Module:Time interval

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC) No longer used after Special:Diff/724713686 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Time interval
 * 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:Janáček operas

 * 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. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Unused. Everything in this navbox template, bar the image, is in Leoš Janáček, which appears on all the pages in this one, and does so in the more usual position at the foot of the article. Furthermore, it does not appear for mobile users - over half of our readers, AIUI - and so hides the image from them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Janáček operas


 * Concur.  Tim riley  talk   23:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * delete, redundant. the navbox version is better since it doesn't crowd the article prose. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: For the avoidance of doubt, I'm proposing that the template be deleted. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:01, 24 September 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:Lecocq operas and operettas

 * 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. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Unused. Everything in this navbox template, bar the image, is in Charles Lecocq, which appears on all the pages in this one, and does so in the more usual position at the foot of the article. Furthermore, it does not appear for mobile users - over half of our readers, AIUI - and so hides the image from them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Lecocq operas and operettas
 * I find these horizontal navboxes at the bottom of the page inconvenient and difficult-to-read. A vertical list at the top is far better. When we had them, I used them frequently, but these new horizontal ones, almost never. I'm very happy to see a vertical drop-down is still used for Handel's operas. I'm in favor of adding a drop-down chronological list of operas by the same composer to the opera infoboxes. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has clearly standardised on horizontal navboxes at the foot of articles. Navbox is, apparently, "used on approximately 2,780,000 pages"  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy's opening comments, but he is premature in thinking WP has standardised on horizontal navboxes at the foot of the page. I wish! Coincidentally there is a discussion (getting a little heated in spots) here on that very subject, where comments from Andy and Robert and anyone else will be most welcome. Meanwhile, I support the deletion of the Lecocq operas and operettas template, which has specifically been declared pretty much mothballed here.  Tim riley  talk   22:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: if the template is deleted will the discussion on its talk page vanish with it? I'd rather regret that, as it's a useful snapshot of opinion at the time. Perhaps I should copy and paste the discussion to my talk page archive or some such?  Tim riley  talk   23:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pigsonthewing wrote: it does not appear for mobile users - over half of our readers, AIUI - and so hides the image from them – Not quite. On my Android mobile device using Wikipedia 2.7 (2020-08-04) the image from the navbox is shown above the article. OTOH, horizontal navboxes at the desktop's version bottom are not shown on that version, so that doesn't seem to be a convincing argument. The same point applies to the nomination below, . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not quite. An extract from the page's lead image is shown, which may or not be the image from this template, but often not the full image.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pigsonthewing wrote: and so hides the image from them and An extract from the page's lead image is shown – a) so it's not hidden; b) isn't that the case for (almost) every article's lead image in the mobile app, navbox or stand-alone? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The image in the template is hidden. The lead image on, for example Mozart (which has no such template) is shown in the header in the manner you describe; but it is also shown in full as an on-page image. furthermore, what you describe occurs in the mobile app. The image in the template is not shown at all on the mobile website.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Wikipedia has standardised on horizontal navboxes; I demonstrate that it has, quoting that they are "used on approximately 2,780,000 pages". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support deleting because it's unused. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Tim Riley has a good point. Isn't it also true that when a legacy template is deleted, the history of the pages that utilized the template in the past will no longer render correctly when it is called? If so, maybe it is not a good idea to be deleting these old templates? --Robert.Allen (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * delete, redundant. the navbox version is better since it doesn't crowd the article prose. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 16 September 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:Scarlatti operas

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Everything in this navbox template, bar the image, is in Alessandro Scarlatti, which appears on all the pages in this one, and does so in the more usual position at the foot of the article. Furthermore, it does not appear for mobile users - over half of our readers, AIUI - and so hides the image from them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Scarlatti operas


 * Concur.  Tim riley  talk   23:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * delete, redundant. the navbox version is better since it doesn't crowd the article prose. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 16 September 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:Tfdl2

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Apparent fork of Tfdl; little used - around 20 transclusions, mostly in old archives. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Tfdl2


 * Comment: I created this template in 2009 apparently to "fix several annoyances [with Template:Tfdl] and make [the] template more intuitive", but I've long since forgotten what any of those changes were, and Tfdl looks pretty intuitive these days. At any rate, I'm not involved any more with any areas of the project this template might be used in, so I don't really care what the outcome here is. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」☎ Dinoguy1000 20:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Substitute then delete. I see the differences. Tfdl is formatted like a heading, while Tfdl2 is formatted in such a way that it could be used in-line where Tfdl would be awkward. That said, one could also just use a wikilink for the same purpose as Tfdl2 so, if usage is low, the template can be substituted and deleted. But we should avoid replacing tfdl2 with tfdl here. --Bsherr (talk) 23:18, 15 September 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:Usercomment

 * 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 September 28. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Usercomment
 * 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).

Module:Wikidata Infobox

 * 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. There is consensus against a full merge of these two modules. There may be some support for copying/moving some of the generic functions into Module:WikidataIB, though that can be hashed out elsewhere if it is desired. There was also some discussion on whether the proposed module, Module:Wikidata Infobox, and its accompanying template, should be deleted on this wiki. Interested participants may wish to focus their efforts there. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Propose merging Module:Wikidata Infobox with Module:WikidataIB.
 * Wikidata Infobox
 * WikidataIB

We should have one Wikidata infobox module and make life easier for our editors as learning a new module everytime takes time. This one is used on less than 400 pages with minimal documentation, while Module:WikidataIB is used over 1m times. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Module:Wikidata Infobox is extra Lua code that is used by Wikidata Infobox beyond Module:WikidataIB. It provides extra functions that are useful in that infobox, and while they may also be useful elsewhere I don't think other templates use it. It is used a lot more on Commons than it is here (>3 million times). I don't mind if they are merged, but if they are then they need to be kept in sync across all of the wikis. probably has views on this! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm a bit less concerned what other wikis do and if or how they keep their modules updated, and more concerned with what code is used here. Template:Infobox telescope is an example, of a very badly coded template, which uses Wikidata Infobox, WikidataIB and Module:Wikidata (which is deprecated). I'm pretty sure that WikidataIB can either handle the required functions now, or be made to handle it without a lot of trouble. --Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The argument presented here about Template:Infobox telescope is inapplicable since the only use of Module:Wikidata Infobox there is, which is an unnecessary Lua module that could be implemented in Wikitext. Module:Wikidata Infobox is intended to be a module implementing Template:Wikidata Infobox, not a general purpose Wikidata infobox module, and I would support removing all usages of it from templates other than Template:Wikidata Infobox to support that purpose. * Pppery * it has begun...  14:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That still leaves only 14 transclusions of Wikidata Infobox, which some are pointless and others can use Infobox person/wikidata or the actual standard infobox for that type. I doubt this template has any consensus to be used in place of the standard infoboxes as its style is completely different. --Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The style is easily changeable (see Wikidata Infobox/styles.css). I use it regularly, but people always come along and change it to a non-Wikidata infobox, hence why there aren't more transclusions. It's worth keeping at least as an example, and there will probably be discussions about it in future (but having that discussion here is not appropriate, I think). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleting Template:Wikidata Infobox is not what is being proposed here (although I would support that proposal as well if it were properly proposed) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support moving some of the common helper templates, like ifThenShow, into WikidataIB - they are useful, and are mostly implemented by small templates like if then show that aren't very portable. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And I would strongly oppose that. Template:If then show is working just fine in wikitext as is, and there is no reason it and several other equally simple functions should be aggregated into some sort of mega-module. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that the purpose of the two modules is sufficiently different to justify keeping them separate. Module:WikidataIB was designed to function at the individual infobox field level, supplying the tools that allow a template editor to upgrade an infobox to draw information from Wikidata for some or all fields individually, for any infobox. Module:Wikidata Infobox was designed to implement an entire particular infobox template (albeit one that is completely generic). I can see value in moving a few of the generic helper functions into WikidataIB, iff they would find use in other templates, but I don't really see what value would result from a wholescale merger. For what it's worth, I implemented if then show using template functionality, because it's so simple that I didn't see the need for a Lua implementation. My preference is reserve Lua for functionality that's messy or impossible using template syntax, but where to draw that line will depend on individual taste. --RexxS (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per RexxS, different purpose. But looking at the names Module:Wikidata Infobox and Module:WikidataIB, reading from left the different parts are " Infobox" and "IB". If IB is replaced with "Infobox" then the only difference is in a space. I am happy oppened the discussion. Since Module:Wikidata Infobox is an infobox module, Rename ( withdrawn see below ) Module:WikidataIB so it makes transparent what it is about, e. g. Module:Wikidata data retrieval, dropping "IB" completely if neither the structure of the output nor the manner to call it is confined to infoboxes. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * you make a valid point, but I think it's too late to rename now. When I wrote Module:WikidataIB, it was a fork of Module:Wikidata designed specifically to meet the needs of bringing Wikidata into infoboxes, so I named it to reflect that. Since then, I stopped development work on Module:Wikidata, which then became deprecated. I've concentrated on improving the functionality of Module:WikidataIB over the years so that it can now be imported unchanged into almost any other language wiki or Wikimedia project. That means that 100+ other wikis depend on the enwiki version and so I'd be loathe to rename Module:WikidataIB now. It's also in use on about a million pages here (and two million on Commons), so that would take a bit of effort to rename all the invokes (modules can't be redirects). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for the explanation, didn't know redirects don't work on modules. If it is used under the same name in other wikis then it would make copying code between wikis harder. I withdraw my proposal until knowing more about how renaming could be done. Maybe some magic WMF-wikiwide dbside edit. ETA not before 2030. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:59, 20 September 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:AMD Zen 2 based Ryzen Desktop Processor with Radeon Vega Graphics

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Unused and unfinished draft template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * AMD Zen 2 based Ryzen Desktop Processor with Radeon Vega Graphics
 * 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:Add quotemarks

 * 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 Userfied per creator's request. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Add quotemarks

Unused and unfinished draft template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, this came off the back of a retracted bot request earlier in the year, and I gave up on it through lack of support or interest. Please archive it somewhere on my user pages, if that's possible? --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved to User:Lord Belbury/Add quotemarks. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 15 September 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).


 * Module:Add quotemarks should also be moved to the user's module sandbox page. --Gonnym (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Beginner version
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Unused and unfinished draft template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Beginner version
 * Keep; template has a clear purpose not replicated by any other template that I know of. As explained from the talk page, we're waiting before introducing it widely, but and I discussed it as recently as three days ago, so it's not sitting around collecting dust. I left the draft RfC tag in place to indicate that it has not been deployed yet, but it is not "unfinished" as it is fully functional. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sdkb has been doing some important work on this front. Template is not abandoned and appears functional to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:30, 15 September 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:Walled garden
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Unused and unfinished draft template Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Walled garden
 * Delete. The issue the template refers to does not actually pertain to the article itself, but rather the articles it links to. If those articles are appropriately tagged as orphans, there's no need for this. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:23, 15 September 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:Use shortened footnotes
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Clear consensus to keep this template. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Use shortened footnotes

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Bsherr (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP: there is no reason why all references in an article should all necessarily be of the "shortened footnote" type. It is very common for an article that contains numbered footnotes that several of these are of the "shortened footnote" type, along with several others which are not of that type (e.g. explanatory footnotes which are not "shortened footnotes"). There is no guideline, and even less a policy, that says they should all be converted to the same shortened footnote format, e.g. the explanatory footnotes guidance is explicit: "... both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists ..." (emphasis added). Hence, this is a solution in search of a problem, and this problematic template should not be introduced. Francis Schonken (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Stong keep I believe that the above is an ineffective argument to make, as WP:CITEVAR clearly applies here. The editor proposing this deletion has failed to consider featured articles such as Cleopatra, the Finnish Civil War, & the Winter war, all of which exclusively use shortened footnotes. They currently use the Use Harvard referencing to help enforce the shortened footnote style. However, use of Harvard or parenthetical referencing inline has been deprecated as of RfC (concluded 5 September 2020), hence the need to properly replace a template that has existed for nearly eight years.
 * I will note that Use shortened footnotes was initially proposed at Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 9 where other editors have expressed support for it. I would invite editors to read that discussion, to which both Francis Schonken & myself have been participants, in conjunction with this.
 * Peaceray (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the references contained in Winter war reads:""This is one of several references in the article which are neither a "shortened footnote" nor a "Harvard reference" of any sort. Furthermore, I think this is unproblematic. Use shortened footnotes makes something that is not a problem into a problem, hence, instruction creep. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP is to keep Wikipedia policy and guideline pages easy to understand. It applies to project-level policy and guideline pages. The Use list-defined references and Use shortened footnotes templates are applied to individual articles, and the instruction they provide can be revoked by discussion on the talk page of those articles, per WP:CITEVAR, so WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP does not apply here. Biogeographist (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Biogeographist, last time I checked you are still contending that template documentation supersedes approved guidelines. Which is an infringement of the WP:CONLEVEL policy, as I already explained to you and others elsewhere. The point is, templates can contain (admittedly, low-level) guidance, and such low-level guidance is particularly susceptible to instruction creep: things that would never pass as consensus in guidelines or policies for being instruction creep are maintained without much opposition in templates and essays: and that's where the bulk of all conspicuously cultivated (as opposed to: eradicated) instruction creep currently is. So, no, better not have the instruction creep at all. Especially in this case, as the ones who likely are going to cultivate the instruction creep, are also the ones contending that template documentation supersedes guidelines. In what you write above there's already a next piece of despicable instruction creep – you write: "templates are applied to individual articles, and the instruction they provide can be revoked by discussion on the talk page of those articles, per WP:CITEVAR" – wrong, and stifling instruction creep: the templates can be removed by anyone as they have no statute covered by any actual policy or guideline, so it is instruction creep to contend that such template can only be removed after talk page consensus (this is different from date-format-variant or variant-of-English templates which are indeed covered by consensus contained in guidelines). For citation formats, the protection of the format comes from the CITEVAR guideline (which has to be read as a whole), and the proposed template does not improve that protection at all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Francis Schonken said: you are still contending that template documentation supersedes approved guidelines. No, that's not what I intended to say, though I can see how what I wrote could be misinterpreted. What I meant was what the content guideline WP:INLINECLUTTER says, after mentioning list-defined references and shortened footnotes: "As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so." Removing the template does not require consensus; doing a large-scale conversion between shortened footnotes and another citation system, or vice versa, is what requires consensus. The Use list-defined references and Use shortened footnotes templates merely reflect prior consensus and communicate it to new editors; they don't dictate the citation system. Biogeographist (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And although it is not relevant to the current TfD, since Francis Schonken made the following claim, perhaps I should respond to it: Which is an infringement of the WP:CONLEVEL policy, as I already explained to you and others elsewhere. The only other place where Francis Schonken mentioned WP:CONLEVEL to me was in this edit at, but as I pointed out in this response to him, his reference to WP:CONLEVEL there was incorrect, since it confused one of the WP:HOWTOPAGES with a WP:GUIDELINE page. Biogeographist (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity: "explanatory footnotes" are not citations, so WP:CITEVAR does not apply in any sense to "explanatory footnotes" – thus, I continue to oppose the template, not only for being instruction creep and incompatible with current guidance (which explicitly allows explanatory footnotes along with footnoted citations), but furthermore for being yet another confusing message in mainspace, which already confuses the creator of the template (leave alone what future editors will do with such confusion). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , shortened footnotes sfn are not explanatory footnotes efn. Shortened footnotes are references that point to full citations. Peaceray (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote:"explanatory footnotes ... are not 'shortened footnotes'"
 * You wrote:"shortened footnotes ... are not explanatory footnotes"
 * I fail to see the difference (I see no reason to parrot me, just say: "I agree"). These expressions compare two types of footnotes: "shortened" ones, and a different type, "explanatory" ones. The "Use shortened footnotes" instruction which could reasonably be understood as "don't use explanatory footnotes" (see your first comment above: you immediately understood it that way) is again a wrong name for a template: better to stop this right here and now.
 * Could you also please stop pinging me with every reply? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If "explanatory footnotes" are not citations & WP:CITEVAR does not apply in any sense to "explanatory footnotes", then why mention explanatory footnotes at all? Use shortened footnotes has nothing to do with explanatory footnotes.
 * (A clarification for other editors: Shortened footnotes are generally different from explanatory footnotes as one can see from most of the examples at Help:Shortened footnotes. This becomes explicitly obvious if one uses the {{{Tl|sfn}} & efn. Shortened footnote template must use either the Reflist or the should also be removed from Module:Wikidata, since that code block is also unused here.  If that code block is kept here, then Module:I18n should also be kept for same reason.
 * --Ans (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this line of argument entirely. Modules should not exist on the English Wikipedia unless they are actually going to be used on the English Wikipedia. The purpose of the English Wikipedia is not to serve as a template repository. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 14:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To keep Module:I18n is not to serve as template/module repository, but to serve internationalization purpose, and Module:I18n is important part of internationlization in Module:Wikidata. --Ans (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Modules that could theoretically be used but the conditions required for their use never apply on the English Wikipedia have been deleted in the past. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 15:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia does not need to have a module of this sort: it is written in English and there is no reason to write code that dynamically conjugates text in other languages.
 * I disagree with this line from Module:Linguistic deletion. Many modules on English Wikipedia is designed to also apply on any non-English Wikipedia.  Many modules on English wikipedia have the code like, , which is the evidence that the purposes of those modules are to also serve messages translation on any non-English wikipedia, so the mechanism to serve these purposes should be kept.
 * --Ans (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely with the suggestion that The purpose of the English Wikipedia is not to serve as a template repository. Any module that is used on multiple projects needs to have a repository somewhere, i.e. an authoritative version that other projects can import. Most big modules have a principle maintainer and developer, and doing that job quickly brings you to the conclusion that you need to do maintenance and development on a wiki where it is in widespread use and where you are comfortable editing. For me that's the English Wikipedia, and I expect to be able to do maintenance and development of modules here, which means that the 100+ projects using WikidataIB will expect to import updates from here. That makes enwiki the default repository for such modules, regardless of unsupportable assertions to the contrary. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is it used in Module:Wikidata? And why can't mw.message.newRawMessage be used, along with the enwiki module itself moving strings into a separate page? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's used in Module:WikidataIB, but only for wikis that don't have English as their site content language. See lines 83-86 (approximately). WikidataIB contains all of the English internationalisation strings and functions within the opening section of the code. That allows the module to be used on other wikis which can then override the English text with their own by using a module called Module:WikidataIB/i18n, which is not needed on enwiki, of course. The concept of moving bits of functionality out of a module into other modules makes importing the module into another wiki a nightmare, and nobody who has ever tried to implement an enwiki module into another language would dream of suggesting separate pages. As far as the deletion request goes, the module performs the function of merging an external table from another module, with the ability to replace (or not) the corresponding keys in an existing module table. It may have functionality beyond just integrating a local internationalisation module, but if you decide to delete it, I can just duplicate its functionality directly into Module:WikidataIB. --RexxS (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Ans and User:RexxS. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep module is in use. No apparent benefits to deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is not in use (the only link there is a self-transclusion). The fact that this module could be transcluded if  does not equal   does not mean that it is "in use" in any significant sense. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  19:45, 18 September 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:Pop row wikidata
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 for multiple reasons: AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Unused. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 03:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:Pop row wikidata: Delete; deleted by
 * Module:Country population table: Moved without redirect to Module:Sandbox/Frietjes/country population table by
 * Pop row wikidata
 * Country population table
 * 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).

Module:Lunar eclipse
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 September 26. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Lunar_eclipse
 * 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:CouncilDataTest
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Unused. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 03:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * CouncilDataTest
 * CouncilData
 * comment: This is a project to allow political representation data (initially for Belfast City Council) to be kept up to date in one place and invoked in a versatile way from anywhere. I think. It's been a while and I don't know if it would have worked. Anyway, I've saved it all to my sandbox so do your worst. ta – <font face="segoe ui" color="#080" size="0.5em">FLYING CHRYSALIS  💬 17:53, 19 September 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:Q number
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Unused. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 03:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Q number
 * Q number
 * 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:Eix Transversal Ferroviari Line
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Unused, and can't find an appropriate parent article. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Eix Transversal Ferroviari Line
 * 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).