Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 23

 &lt; April 22 April 24 &gt;

Template:Wikicode

 * 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) 00:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Remnant of a failed proposal that was shuttered when the dinosaurs still roamed the land. The sole remaining use is a talk archive entry from the same year. Paradoctor (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikicode
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:30, 25 April 2023 (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:Contested technical RM

 * 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) 00:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC) No transclusions or substitutions found. Redundant since contested technical requests usually already have a comment asking to open an RM. – Material  Works   (contribs)  12:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Contested technical RM
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2023 (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:Female congenital anomalies of genital organs

 * 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 merge to Template:Congenital anomalies of genital organs. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Female congenital anomalies of genital organs with Template:Male congenital anomalies of genital organs.
 * Female congenital anomalies of genital organs
 * Male congenital anomalies of genital organs

These templates already have overlapping content due to some anomalies not being classifiable as "male" or "female". The current classification is unnecessarily confusing; for example, Swyer syndrome is listed in the "male template" although people with this condition are assigned female at birth and have entirely female external and mostly female internal genitalia. Thus, I propose a merger with listing all conditions at Template:congenital anomalies of genital organs. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. Nomination sounds reasonable. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:31, 25 April 2023 (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:568 Group

 * 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) 23:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC) The organization associated with this template has dissolved; it's no longer helpful to use this template as it indicates membership in an organization that no longer exists. ElKevbo (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 568 Group
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Invalid rationale. With the same argument, we'd have to delete, say, Members of the 15th Bundestag or Monarchs of France. Paradoctor (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is your assertion that membership in this financial aid organization is of such importance that it needs to be permanently documented in a template in the article of every college and university that was once a member of it? No one is proposing that the organization's article be deleted or that all mentions of it be scrubbed from the articles about the former members. ElKevbo (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Importance is subjective. Policy isn't. Is there a policy-based argument for deletion? Paradoctor (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for staying on top of developments like this. As a process matter, though, I see you have been removing this template from many articles. Please don't do that — let the nomination play out, and it'll be automatically removed should we decide to delete.On the nomination, I see that its website declares it to be dissolved, but I can't really find media coverage of it. All the coverage seems to be of the lawsuit its facing, and it makes me wonder whether the dissolution is a legal maneuver rather than indicative of it truly being dead. Could you share more about your understanding of what's going on? Iff it is truly dead, I'll be inclined to delete. I respect Paradoctor's point above about WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but there have been so many associations of universities over time, the only way to really control the navbox soup is to limit it to still-existing ones. I don't see much historical value in keeping it, particularly when we're talking about the navbox rather than, say, the category, where I might be more on the fence.Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the shortcut, it's annoying when one doesn't recall the right magic words.
 * As regards your point about "soup": you're suggesting a proposal for a policy change, for which this is not the right forum. What we have is WP:CLNT, which says right at the top Soup is food. ;) <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any additional insight into the status of the organization. But you're completely correct that we must employ editorial discretion in determining which organizational memberships rise to the level of a template (or category or list) as US colleges and universities are typically members of dozens or hundreds of organizations. Frankly, this template never should have been created as this particular organization isn't important enough to justify the space it takes up in each article. At best, this may have merited a category and even that isn't completely convincing for me. Paradoctor seems to be saying that once a template is created we are stuck with it forever as long as the organization exists and that is unworkable nonsense. ElKevbo (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "dozens or hundreds of organizations" Only a tiny fraction of which is notable, and thus rates navigation.
 * "isn't important enough" The editor(s) that added it clearly disagree with you on that. I suggest you take it up with them.
 * "seems to be saying that once a template is created we are stuck with it forever as long as the organization exists"
 * No I'm not, please don't misrepresent my words. As I already said, and Sdkb clarified, this is not about "importance", nor is it about existence. The 568 Group is a notable subject, we have an article on it, and the template serves to navigate it's member organizations. That all is part of building an encyclopedia.
 * Writing this, I noticed that there is possibly a concern of yours that has not been adressed yet: . Are you meaning to say readers could be misled into believing the organization still exists? <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and other similar concerns including that this template misleads readers into believing it has considerable significance for the member institutions. Even if this organization still existed, I would still be nominating it for deletion - membership in the organization simply doesn't merit a template at the bottom of every member organization. A category might be helpful for readers, a template is not. ElKevbo (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Yes" Then what should we do about Members of the 15th Bundestag? The 15th Bundestag does no longer exist. By your argument, that template misleads readers into believing it does still exist. So we need to delete it, and all its siblings except for the current one. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you should do with that template - I have no particular expertise in that subject or experience editing articles in that area. Why are you so insistent on this template be retained when it serves no meaningful use for readers? Why do readers need to know - via this specific template - that these colleges and universities were a member of this defunct organization that played no defining role for the institutions? ElKevbo (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How does your expertise figure if your argument for deletion is that the organization is defunct?
 * "meaningful use" is navigation, like all such templates.
 * "Why do readers need to know" ... "that these colleges and universities were a member of this defunct organization" The same question could be asked of a category, which you indicated you would accept. That's inconsistent. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that there is no category for the group. I wonder if we ought to create a "Need-blind educational institutions" category? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Soft delete, subject to restoration if the organization is revived. Paradoctor, the "policy-based argument for deletion" is that there is no good use for readers for a navigational template based on a defunct organization, and templates that have no viable use may be deleted per WP:TFD #3. I don't believe I'm proposing any policy change, since WP:NOTTEMPORARY applies to notability for articles, i.e. we shouldn't delete 568 Group. It does not say that every piece of information that was ever validly in an article must be retained, nor does it say anything about navboxes. WP:CLNT also doesn't seem to say anything indicating that we need to keep it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You realize that ElKevbo mass deleted all uses of the template after nominating it? <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do, and I criticized them for that in my initial comment above. But if all uses of the template were invalid uses, then the spirit of #3 clearly still applies. Best, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Beg pardon? By that reasoning, you could get any template deleted you like, no discussion needed. Just remove all its uses after nominating, and presto, #3 applies, case closed! <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not my reasoning at all. My view is that any template that ought to have no uses should be eligible under the sprit of #3, regardless of whether or not it actually does. The fact that ElKevbo deleted the uses is immaterial to that rationale. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a misinterpretation. What you think ought not be used is your personal opinion. You're of course welcome to argue for that, but that is not what #3 is about. You may have missed the part about (emphasis in the original). That is directly contradicted by actual usage, which was the case until hid ElKevbo hid that fact, in the process also suppressing the in-article notfications about this discussion. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * delete, navbox creep. we don't need a navbox for every former grouping/association/consortium. if anyone is interested in seeing the membership in this former consortium, it is in the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2023 (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).