Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 21



Template:2020 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby group B standings

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 August 29. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_group_B_standings
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_group_A_standings
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_A1
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_A2
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_A3
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_A4
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_A5
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_A6
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_B1
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_B2
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_B3
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_B4
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_B5
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_B6
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_C1
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_C2
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_D1
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_D2
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_E1
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_wheelchair_rugby_game_E2
 * 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:2016 National Women's League table (New Zealand)

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 September 5. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2016_National_Women's_League_table_(New_Zealand)
 * 2017_National_Women's_League_table_(New_Zealand)
 * 2018_National_Women's_League_table_(New_Zealand)
 * 2019_National_Women's_League_table_(New_Zealand)
 * 2020_Women's_Premiership_(New_Zealand)
 * 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:CPI(M)1967

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Moved to userspace by author Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Unused and unsure of what election this is for. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * CPI(M)1967
 * 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:Norfolk legislative election, 2007

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC) An outdated template with extremely little information about an election from 2007. There is no article about a 2007 Norfolk Island election for this to be properly substituted on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Norfolk legislative election, 2007


 * Delete. If that information is needed or relevant, that should be in prose and not in a table. Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete So little information that this is pointless. Number   5  7  19:43, 26 August 2021 (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:2020 Summer Paralympics women's goalball group C standings

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 August 29. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_group_C_standings
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_group_D_standings
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_C1
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_C2
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_C3
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_C4
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_C5
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_C6
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_C7
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_C8
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_C9
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_C10
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_D1
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_D2
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_D3
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_D4
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_D5
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_D6
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_D7
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_D8
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_D9
 * 2020_Summer_Paralympics_women's_goalball_game_D10
 * 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:Quebec general election, 2003

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC) All single-use and should be substituted where used on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Quebec general election, 2003
 * Quebec general election, 2007
 * Quebec general election, 2008
 * Quebec general election, 2012
 * Quebec general election, 2014
 * Quebec general election, 2018
 * As far as I can see, the only policy with respect to deleting templates is where it is not being used at all within an article. Therefore, a single-use template is OK. I believe the underlying logic for using one was to reduce the bloat within an already large-sized article.Raellerby (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Except single-use templates like these don't make good use of template space. Templates should have multiple uses. However, results for elections shouldn't be on a template because the results should be a part of the article mainspace. Not on its own. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Subst and delete Unnecessary single-use templates. Number   5  7  11:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Subst and delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2021 (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:Ontario general election, 2007

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC) All single-use and should be substituted where used on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ontario general election, 2007
 * Ontario general election, 2011
 * Results of the Ontario general election, 2018
 * As far as I can see, the only policy with respect to deleting templates is where it is not being used at all within an article. Therefore, a single-use template is OK. I believe the underlying logic for using one was to reduce the bloat within an already large-sized article.Raellerby (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Except single-use templates like these don't make good use of template space. Templates should have multiple uses. However, results for elections shouldn't be on a template because the results should be a part of the article mainspace. Not on its own. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Subst and delete Unnecessary single-use templates. Number   5  7  11:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Subst and delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2021 (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:New Brunswick general election, 1991
<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(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 19:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC) 1991 is unused as the article uses a different table. 2003 and 2006 are sinlge-use and should be substituted on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * New Brunswick general election, 1991
 * New Brunswick general election, 2003
 * New Brunswick general election, 2006
 * Delete/subst and delete as appropriate. Number   5  7  11:34, 22 August 2021 (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:Ninawa governorate election, 2013
<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(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 19:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Single-use and should be substituted on the 2013 election article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ninawa governorate election, 2013
 * Subst and delete Unnecessary single-use template. Number   5  7  19:42, 26 August 2021 (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:Latest stable software release/GNOME
<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(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. There are also seemingly some issues that need to be worked out. NPASR if they are and there are still concerns. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC) originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Psypherium with the reason "main article now has replaced this with a wikidata reference, likely uncontroversial"  F ASTILY   05:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Latest stable software release/GNOME
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * * Retract Nomination I retract my nomination until these 43 pages are altered: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Latest_stable_software_release/GNOME&limit=5000&hidelinks=1&hideredirs=1 Psy pherium talk page 06:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

KEEP If it should be deleted, so Template:Latest preview software release/GNOME‎ should be deleted too. it happened on 28 March 2021 by, edits: Special:Diff/1014626797 (stable) and Special:Diff/1014627115 (preview), I prefer to keep all stuff in here (except the images), because it does not require to also watch / track the edits on WikiData, for EN-WP we don't need WikiData. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * * KEEP (for now) Many of these articles which transclude from this template do not share the same release version number or date of main GNOME. As many of these as possible should be switched to a wikidata value in order to create accuracy of information. The bots seem to be more easily able to automatically add new versions from git to wikidata than to wikipedia, changing these to wikidata values could mean that fewer human inputs are required to keep the information up to date, thereby saving editor time for more valuable tasks. At the moment, in order to keep everything up to date, it is required to change the template, and the wikidata values. Without this template it would only be necessary to change the wikidata values, so there is one fewer thing overall that needs attention. Psy pherium talk page 11:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Although, now that you mention it, I would say that Template:Latest preview software release/GNOME‎ should be nominated for deletion. This template only serves to provide incorrect information to 42 different articles. It appears that this template is overriding the wikidata parameter in the infobox for all articles, which causes the appearance of two different data sources, one from wikidata for the stable release, and one from the template for the preview release. Psy pherium talk page 11:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete OK, it is not a big issue, no problem.  surely they can do it but I haven't seen any bot for this purpose, have you? histories of the WikiData items for GNOME and WINE show that these info have been entered only by human editors. I checked fr:GNOME and de:GNOME, also their GNOME apps pages, they use WikiData for most / all parameters of infoboxes, so I think there is no problem if EN-WP uses WikiData for these parameters. Regards. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems like there is only a bot for github at the moment https://github.com/konstin/github-wikidata-bot Maybe there will be a similar bot in the future for gitlab, that would work for GNOME projects. It seems like it works currently with some GNOME projects that have a mirror on github, like for the GNOME Character Map: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1262130&action=history


 * You have made me realise that changing these to editable wikidata templates is good not just for EN-wiki, but it is good for wikis of other languages, many of these other languages are taking data from the same wikidata source. It is good to change all these infobox release versions to wikidata values so that humans will be encouraged to maintain them while the bots are yet to be configured. In this case, it's better to have people from all languages edit the wikidata information in order to benefit every language wikipedia, instead of having english speakers edit an english wiki template to only benefit the english wiki.


 * I still think that this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Latest_stable_software_release/GNOME&limit=5000&hidelinks=1&hideredirs=1 should be cleaned up before this template is deleted though, I have brought the number down to 35 (30 are actual articles), but I still have some cleaning to do before this template becomes fully unnecessary.


 * My opinion is (Temporarily) KEEP: Template:Latest stable software release/GNOME, but DELETE: Template:Latest preview software release/GNOME‎. I am having a problem at the moment where I am unable to change the "latest preview version" to a wikidata parameter, it will automatically default back to transcluding the non-generally-applicable data from the template instead. Psy pherium talk page 16:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's because Template:Infobox software says that the name parameter is for and the link in the quote clearly shows that it is for  so we should remove name to solve this problem, then title would be useless, because it is for  so we should also remove title.

I noticed that your yesterday edit at one of the GNOME apps articles by adding wikidata with several parameters for made a big red error in the info-box ("") under the stable release data, and Start date and age was showing two dates for stable release, to solve this problem I looked at the article's Wikidata item and recognized that those dates are the "publication date" for "stable version" and "beta version", I didn't know how to specify "version type" in wikidata to show only one of them, so I looked at Template:Wikidata and its last example helped me to recognize that I should use   to specify a qualifier, I also recognized that entering the article's Wikidata ID is unnecessary; per what I learned, the following syntax and code is the most portable and simplest and easiest wiki-code:

Before deleting these templates, We should do following steps in the article's info-boxes:
 * 1) removing name and title
 * 2) removing latest release version, latest release date, latest preview version and latest preview date if existed
 * 3) adding the above wiki-code (wikitext)
 * 4) provide a good edit summary for those edits, like following:

regards. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

who is best known for the edits with "SPDX: GPL-2.0-or-later" or "SPDX: GPL-3.0-or-later" edit summaries, has changed wikidata in some articles (example), when I checked its code / wikitext I found that it has a bad syntax compared to the above code, but has a big advantage, it uses the "pre-release version" qualifier (Q51930650) instead of "beta version" (Q3295609), its page shows that it covers all types of pre-stable releases ("pre-alpha version", "software alpha version", "beta version", "release candidate version"), the qualifier was not added to / available in the articles' Wikidata items at the time I was writing the above code, and I was unaware of its existence, their history pages show that the IP added this qualifier on yesterday (24 August), so it's best to use it, so instead of the above code which uses Q3295609 for "beta version" we should use the following to use Q51930650 for "pre-release version":

regards. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems by using the above codes which specify exact "version type", removing name and title is unnecessary, and I think it's better to keep them, so if in the future the community decided to use the local data (Template:Latest stable software release/GNOME) there will be no need to re-enter them. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Not only "better" but necessary to keep them! because I noticed that some of the GNOME articles don't have "pre-release version" or even "beta version" data in their Wikidata pages, so they use local data instead, check GNOME Terminal and its Wikidata page, also some have very old / wrong / out-of-date data, check GNOME Character Map and its Wikidata page. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Better and updated edit summary: please enter (just copy-paste) this edit summary if you want to edit the GNOME articles for this case. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, pre-release version is not a magical catch-all value for beta version, pre-alpha version etc. (that's what I thought). You still have to add it manually to Wikidata statements. From a database standpoint, it is redundant to add both pre-release version and beta version to a statement but this does make it easier to query all preview versions. —Dexxor (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for response to my request (next time I will ping from here😄️); yes I knew that, by default if we don't specify any qualifier, wikidata shows "stable version", the problem is pre-stable releases, one approach is labeling / tagging all pre-stable releases as "pre-release version", another approach would be specifying all pre-stable releases in wikidata so it will show the newest pre-stable release, but I don't know how, another approach is ignoring the Wikidata and create a local Template:Latest stable software release/NAME for all GNOME apps. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I also don't know how to specify all pre-stable releases in wikidata: If you use multiple qualifier conditions, e.g.  they are joined with a logical AND; what we want is a logical OR. So tagging the Wikidata statements with something generic like pre-release version or unstable version in addition to a more precise type like beta version (if applicable) seems like the way to go but whatever version type you choose, it should be consistent per Wikidata item. —Dexxor (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2021 (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:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States Annual Total
<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(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 19:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC) This template gives the total number of killings listed in articles like List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2010. The problem is that this number is meaningless, as these lists are all incomplete, being sourced from media reports collected by Wikipedia contributors rather than from any attempt to comprehensively count the number of law enforcement killings in the US. Its primary usage seems to be in Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, which thus requires the disclaimer "Numbers given show how many total killings per year are recorded in the linked lists, not the actual number of people killed by law enforcement." It would be better to simply remove these meaningless totals and delete this template. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States Annual Total
 *  Keep - Keep this template that tells the number of deaths recorded in the articles. Please add the aforementioned disclaimer if needed.  This TFD warning is distorting the template in which it is used. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer is already there, but it looks silly, why should be be putting in numbers with no real-world relevance and then adding a disclaimer saying they have no real-world relevance? I tried to make the TFD warning smaller so it wouldn't distort the template. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 *  Keep  per Jax 0677. In addition, I would like this to be concluded as fast as possible, since this discussion is warping the template. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2021 (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:Works of 2020 Summer Olympics pictograms
<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(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit  00:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Not an acceptable use of the "Non-free use rationale" template, and the template (which has been moved twice) has already been removed from the article by Hammersoft). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Works of 2020 Summer Olympics pictograms
 * Delete Delete, delete, delete. Not a good use of template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think the creator understands the purpose of templates. Regardless, templated rationales are generally not acceptable. Even it were in this case, the images noted in the rationale are not and will not be used on the article in this manner as they have been replaced by File:2020OlympicsPictograms.gif. There is no conceivable use for this template. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2021 (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).