Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 18



Template:Chilean Social Outbreak

 * 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. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Template relies on overly general links to the recent history of Chile, and seem not neutral as it links a series of events, with no clear-cut connection to the topic, in the last 20 years with the 2019–2020 Chilean protests. Dentren &#124; Talk 03:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Chilean Social Outbreak
 * Delete Template header "Chilean Social Outbreak" links to 2019–2020 Chilean protests, which seems to be the primary topic here. The sidebar is much too broad in its compass, most of the articles are unconnected to the 2019–2020 Chilean protests. We have a good category Category:2019–2020 Chilean protests which currently has 9 articles. The sidebar is in 6 of these and nowhere else. Seems to me that the main article (2019–2020 Chilean protests - which is quite a detailed article) and the associated category are plenty. Nigej (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I made this template with the idea of creating the red links related to that article. You might think it is detailed, but you haven't seen the spanish version. There is so much information related. I want to work translating and correcting some mistakes. I hope I can get help. Tommy Boy (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:04, 18 March 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:Deathbound

 * 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) 21:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Navigational template for band, no longer serves a purpose now that the three listed albums redirect to the band article. Lennart97 (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Deathbound
 * Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 15:34, 25 March 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:Tlu

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Izno (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Tlu with Template:Template link.
 * Tlu
 * Template link

It would be better if template link worked for any namespace. It would also be better if tl can show parameter usage. The merger code is in Template link/sandbox. JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC); edited 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge, assuming backwards compatibility for tl is not broken. Also, please, move this to the tl talk page instead. The inline notice is disrupting. MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. &#123;&#123;tl&#125;&#125; is kept simple for good reason. It is often subst'ed, and merging &#123;&#123;tlu&#125;&#125;'s code and functionality into it will cause lots of bloat for little benefit. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. is very a effective short-type, happy to use it. Did not even know, and seeing its 'documentation' I am not sure I will shortly. So after the merge I must type ns "Template:...", really?
 * But please add a/the universal formatting parameter option to, without breaking (i.e., use new name like f). Then deprecate these subs.
 * (An other improvent could be, in opposite development: allow to accept ns "[Tt]emplate:" prefix and solve when it is template; think when I do c/p pagename).
 * -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't what the proposal means. As I understand it, per the proposal the template will work exactly as it does now and nothing will change for current users of tl. Only change is that it will be able to resolve colons (ie User:ProcrastinatingReader/test will work). If no namespace is given, it should default to Template as now. The instances of this template that use multiple parameters should really be merged to tlx (tlu is really a mess). So, really, this proposal is just an alteration of the code followed by a possible one-way merge, which is why this would've been best discussed on the template talk page for the first part. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I understand it you say: same problem here. (Again, /doc does not clarify. It does not even clarify where "Tlu" comes from. An other angle: If  claims to 'know' prefix "Template:", then no-prefix = Templatespace??? How is that consistent (because no ns-prefix=mainspace)? And agian: unclear how the merge diffs between formatting and T-parameter input. (Don't think I should have to learn that from bad /doc & a sandbox; may I expect a concept description somewhere?) -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The merge can change some aspects of usage, such as requiring mainspace templates (uncommon) to escape out the namespace the same way as is necessary using the actual template syntax (eg transcludes the Main Page, not  ). The tl should behave exactly like the template tag if you copied and pasted the template code *without* escaping it. It's an error that it currently doesn't, and this TfD is totally sound to fix that (to be clear to the closer, this is a strong support). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As a demo, look at Template:Template link/sandbox (testcases). Minus how it looks for the Main Page (which I can't seem to figure out a fix for immediately. Perhaps someone else can). It's a very minor change to the template code. The usages of tlu with parameters should be converted to tlx instead. Currently, tlu is a redundant mixture of tl and tlx. It's not very much work at all to clean it up (which is what should be done - there's no logical reason for keeping these separate). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanx for clarifying. Did not exepect to have to research this myself (IOW, bad proposal change documentation). Not sure I will have time to review this shortly. So be it. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My last revision of the sandbox template ended up working perfectly for a large variety of parameters, even when substituted. The latest version breaks for templates that happen to have a colon in their name. JsfasdF252 (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:JsfasdF252 That is not the issue. Problem is that both and this proposal are horribly under-documented. If you propose a new template, it is up to *you* to provide description. Instead, you leave it up to others &mdash;like me&mdash; having to discover the intention &tc., plus the risk of misunderstanding (obviously). It's up to you. -DePiep (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reason as . As for notification, this is the correct venue to discuss this subject. For some editors the notification can be a necessary evil, and for others it can be just simply necessary. If the time comes when a template you heavily use is discussed here at TfD, you might then find the notification to be more necessary than evil.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 21:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't care about the merger, but can we get rid of the links to this discussion being everywhere on project/talk pages? 力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 18:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also think this could just be discussed on the talk page of tl and then discuss a one-way merge. (tl has 6 million transclusions, most of them won't care about this presumably uncontroversial change) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps set disabled? JsfasdF252 (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI 力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 21:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am happy to have discovered this TfD because I am a heavty user of . And so I am able to add here. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you find this acceptable? Nardog (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to misform my post. Speak for yourself, I'm sure you can. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Huh? This should be on the talk page, at RM, or at an RfC... the current state of affairs is putting a TfD message on every single invocation of tl across the project (see this sentence for an example). What a mess! jp×g 22:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Get rid of ‹See TfM› immediately. I don't like "‹See TfM›" appearing everywhere the very handy and convenient tl pipe syntax is used for linking a template rather than the clunkier "template:whatever pipe whatever" construction would be. I never saw it before today and I'd like to see it gone today!  – Athaenara  ✉  22:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing what this did to WP:TALKLEAD made my eyes bleed. Spam, spam, spam, templates and spam, indeed! -- GentlemanGhost  (séance)  22:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the edit request has been overlooked for a couple hours now, I've notified WP:AN. Nardog (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with previous. This is affecting way way too much stuff... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The embedded TfM link is not a requirement for having a TfM. We can just turn it off but keep this discussion open. Nardog (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Now resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Admin note I've moved all of the "remove the tag!" notices to the collapsed section above this message. If you are one of the individuals who expressed such an opinion and still have an opinion on the merge itself, please feel free to add a new comment below this one. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good action btw. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. WP:NOT. To the extent we have bureaucracy like TfD, it is the tail not the dog, and we should not disrupt thousands of pages in hopes of attracting a handful more !votes to a discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. While merging away functionally redundant templates is something we do regularly, we don't do it when there are good reasons to preserve a simplified version of something. That mostly comes up in the cases of "utility" templates like this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How about we merge the sandbox code into tlu, but not merge it with tl? JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose, different use-cases. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 25 March 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:NextGen Series

 * 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. Izno (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Competition that only happened twice, and the two articles can navigate between each other and the parent article without the use of a template Joseph<b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * NextGen Series
 * Weak delete Only appears in 3 articles, the main one and two season articles. In the two season articles NextGen Series is linked in the lede and the other season in the infobox. On the other hand, this is the only navbox in these 3 articles, so perhaps someone might scroll to the bottom expecting to find something and be disappointed. Nigej (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - serves no useful purpose. GiantSnowman 12:40, 19 March 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:Confusing section
<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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator Yes you can just close it like this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  13:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC) This template is unnecessary at this point, because Template:Confusing has a parameter to allow the wording to be changed so that it can be applied to sections. This template was previously nominated for merging with Template:Confusing, but I have no idea what happened there. (Addendum 05:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC): As in, the result was merge but that didn't seem to occur.) This template is transcluded on 254 pages, so will need to be replaced with Template:Confusing using the parameter to change the wording to "section" with the original date before deleting. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Confusing section


 * Nominator comment: Okay, it seems that when it was merged, this template was changed to invoke with the section parameter. I'm still not sure if this is necessary, though. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful and intuitive template wrapper. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an intuitive way to do this; and well having to guess which templates are in the and which ones are in the  format is not helpful. Better to just keep both; redirects like this are cheap. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  23:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment: I'm convinced by the above arguments that deletion is not the right course of action here, points that I didn't even think about when I nominated this template. Should I withdraw this nomination or something? DesertPipeline (talk) 05:06, 19 March 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).