Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Closing discussions[edit]

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review[edit]

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

  • Template:Fb_cl_footer2018 September 10Fb_cl_footer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl3_qr2018 April 22Fb_cl3_qr ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r2_header2018 April 28Fb_r2_header ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r2_team2018 April 28Fb_r2_team ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r_footer2018 April 28Fb_r_footer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_r2018 April 28Fb_r ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl2_team2018 April 19Fb_cl2_team ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl2_header_navbar2018 April 19Fb_cl2_header_navbar ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Fb_cl_header2018 April 19Fb_cl_header ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
    Would it be possible for a bot to convert the transclusions of these templates to Module:Sports table? S.A. Julio (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
    Should be doable, yes. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    I could probably do something while I am converting all the {} templates. But, I will have to see how complicated the code is. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Plastikspork and Primefac: Can your bots using Module:Sports table instead in this case, such as [1]? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    Hhhhhkohhhhh, sure. That particular template only had one use, and that use was in userspace, and the title of the page was "concept", so I didn't bother to fully convert it. But in general, the plan is to convert the various table/cl header/cl footer/cl team templates to use sports table. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    I am replacing all of these fb templates Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge into {{Aircraft specs}}:
    There's a discussion about this merger at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot --Trialpears (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For merging into {{Yesno}} - will need heavy sandboxing:
    Primefac You indicated that you had some kind of idea how this merger may be done while closing this discussion with the first step being making a If affirmed/declined a yesno wrapper. I've done that in the sandboxes, but as you can see in the testcases it does change the value for a not insignificant amount of values. Are we supposed to go through each and every template that uses if affirmed/declined to see if it breaks anything and if it doesn't substitute it in? Do anyone have a better plan? -- Trialpears (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see your changes to {{Yesno/sandbox}}. If you don't change the source, then the template won't know what the "yes" and "no" values are. --Gonnym (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry if I were unclear, I meant Template:If affirmed/sandbox and Template:If declined/sandbox is where I've made a simple wrapper version. This will inevitably lead to some output differences if we don't change YesNo directly but I don't believe we have consensus to do so. Several people in the TfD thought we shouldn't touch YesNo and last time a RfC was required before they added on and off. -- Trialpears (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    {{if affirmed}} is basically done, just 750ish transclusions from broken substitutuion of {{welcome cookie}}. Could someone with a TfD bot go through these replacing
    {{ {{{\|safesubst:}}}if affirmed\|{{}} \| \| ask me on {{ {{{\|safesubst:}}}ifsubst \| \[\[User talk:{{{{{{\|safesubst:}}}REVISIONUSER}}\|my talk page]] \| my talk page }} or }}([^\[]*\[\[User:)([^|]*)
    with
    {}} | | ask me on {} or }}$1$2
    . There seems to be a few more cases left, but this should be the vast majority. Regex is tested and there is no way this will cause false positives. --Trialpears (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Will get to this in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Template:Ctime:062019 March 8Ctime:06 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Template:Ctime
  • {{link language}} wrappers - listed at WP:LLWRAP, see TFD for full close. In short - wrappers should be orphaned; first from template use (see §4 of LLWRAP) then article space.
    Wouldn't this be solved by just making all of them auto-substitute? The templates are so simple that they're already substituable. --Trialpears (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    That is certainly possible for most of them. I do highly suggest you actually read through the discussion before just slapping a one-size-fits-all solution to almost 300 templates; some of them are not direct wrappers and some of them have extra content that may need to be considered. Additionally, all of them have a commented-out section giving the language - this should not be subst'ed. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have read it and will check that they actually are only a direct wrapper (using regex). before adding auto substitute, but if that is enough for 90% of them that's what I'll do after dealing with the unprotected templates. I also wonder what I should replace them with. I feel like In lang would be the best choice, but since this wasn't even a redirect an hour ago and there were so many opinions about it I thought it would be best asking you. --Trialpears (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry if I implied that you were going to rashly jump into this; thanks for being cautious. I would say that for anything that isn't protected and/or has <50 uses, {{language link}} would be fine to use in the wrapper (i.e. they can pretty much stay unchanged). I'll have to have a think about the higher-use ones, though; in particular, I'm going to look at the {{ill}} merger and how we dealt with combining multiple templates with very long names. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    {{in lang}} with rudimentary documentation created.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know what a substitution forcer file is, but I would suggest that if the list at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9/Link language wrappers § Templates with above 100 transclusions is intended to identify templates that should be substed from one template to another template, then that list is flawed. There are templates listed there that are also listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9/Link language wrappers § Non-standard templates.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    AnomieBOT require templates with over 100 transclusions to be added to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force for them to be auto substituted. I thought it would be useful having a list when that time comes. The first step will of course be fixing the unusual templates before starting substituting them. --Trialpears (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Is that even the right tool to use? Substing {{de icon}} templates will return {}<!--German--> (I'm not sure how categories are handled in these kinds of cases). But, if the intent of this whole thing was to replace the icon templates with a more appropriately named template (which {{link language}} is not) then how is the AnomieBot task the correct task? One task to troll through and subst all of the various icon templates and then another to subst all of the {} templates? Is that safe? Are there cases where {} is used natively where changing those transclusions to {} would be the wrong thing?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I was planning on doing an AWB run to make sure all templates are only transcluding {{link language|langcode}} or whatever redirect we decide on using and then let AnomieBOT substitute it, which I think would do the job. The categories are handled by the template and removing the comments would not affect them. I'm not sure what's happening with {{in lang}}. It was only a redirect to link language a couple of days ago and I thought that was the intent based on the closing comment. Why do we have two templates doing the same thing now? Updating the original template would be better if you want to implement new features. --Trialpears (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    The only consensus reached is for removal of the wrapper templates: the various {{<xx> icon}} templates change to something. The close doesn't say to what those templates are to be changed. One might infer that they are to be 'unwrapped' to reveal the inner template which may not necessarily be {{link language}}; I suspect that to be the most common (and likely only) template that has been wrapped for this application. The use of {{LL}} as a redirect is addressed to the extent that a WP:RFD is required to do anything about it (an implicit no consensus). As a result of this RFC, {{in lang}} was created as a redirect to {} but never used for that purpose (redirect because no consensus to rename {}). I converted that redirect to a template as a way out of the mire that the fourth bullet item and definitive no-consensus declaration leaves us in:
    explicit consensus to remove (from article space) {{<xx> icon}} wrapper templates (first bullet point in the close)
    explicit no consensus to delete the wrapper templates (fourth bullet point in the close)
    consensus / no consensus not stated with regard to deprecation of the wrapper templates (implicit no consensus)
    What point is there to removing the wrapper templates from article space if we don't have a consensus to do anything with the wrapper templates themselves once the transclusions are removed from article space? We don't have a consensus for deletion yet the wrapper templates are marked with {{being deleted}} templates which contradicts the fourth bullet item in the close; both conditions cannot simultaneously exist (deleting something that we don't have consensus to delete). The close is mute on deprecation so apparently we don't have consensus for that either.
    So, a new template with enhanced features and different categories to replace any-and-all uses of the wrapper templates. This, I think, meets the single consensus we do have, to remove the wrapper templates from article space. A new template is not constrained by the contradictions of the close. The wrapper templates are left to be deleted in dribs and drabs as anticipated in the close.
    To answer your question: Why do we have two templates doing the same thing now? Yeah, there are two templates doing similar things; the original is constrained by the decisions (and lack of decisions) of an inconclusive RFC. The new is not constrained by that RFC and can be used to replace the wrapper templates in article space in compliance with the one consensus decision achieved by the RFC; the new template has features that the original does not: |link=, |cap=, multiple language support; the new template fills different categories; the new template name is consistent with what it does (preceding text – may or may not be a link – refers to something that is written in <language name>); the new template does not support |cat-lang= for the reasons stated at Template talk:Link language § the cat-lang parameter.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Since there has been no further comment I have done these things:
    1. written Monkbot/task 15: normalize lang icon templates
    2. created as a test bed:
      1. Category:Articles with non-English-language sources – parent category for sub-cats:
        Category:Articles with Abkhazian-language sources (ab) et al;
      2. Template:Non-English-language source category – documentation template for sub-cats;
    without objection I shall:
    1. start a WP:BRFA for Monkbot/task 15
    2. create additional sub-categories in Category:Articles with non-English-language sources according to those categories in Category:Articles with non-English-language external links that are not empty
    3. when approved, run Monkbot/task 15 to replace {{<xx> icon}} and redirects with {{in lang|<xx>}}
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't approve of having both {{link language}} and {{in lang}} doing the same thing. {{link language}} should be updated and then {{in lang}} be redirected. Other than that I think it sounds good. --Trialpears (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    Nor do I approve, however, they are not doing the same thing. It is true they are doing similar things but {{in lang}} is about sources and allows multiple languages to be references whereas {{link language}} is for only external links (which "sources" might be considered to include) and does not allow multiple languages. The latter also has a few issues with some extra parameters allowing strange categorizations. So in shorts {{in lang}} was resigned without the historic constraints imposed upon {{link language}} allowing it to be more flexible and potentially more things (if it is ever widely deployed to so such). If anything, after most of these transclusions have been updated to use {{in lang}}, {{link language}} could be updated to use/redirect to {{in lang}} (or just be deleted outright with the rest of the templates targeted by this RFC decision). 50.53.21.2 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm confused. You start out by saying Nor do I approve but then appear to talk yourself around to suggesting that the {{in lang}} should be deployed as I have outlined above. So which is it?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Trappist the monk There are now four templates using cat-lang after I fixed the easy ones a while ago: {{bal icon}}, {{ilo icon}}, {{nan icon}} and {{ksh icon}}. I think there are really two ways to handle this, either starting a CfD to change the names of these categories or modify Module:Lang. When this situation is dealt with we should sync with your improved link language template and then make sure all templates subsitute properly and then finally use AnomieBOT to mass subsitute these and then delete them. --Trialpears (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Your posting above is merely pro forma since you have already set AnomieBOT to work?
    I think that you meant {{bla icon}} not {{bal icon}}.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    I set it up for a few templates all with few transclusions. It was mearly for testing and if there's consensus to do it some other way it can be reverted. Based on those tests it worked exactly as expected. I'm ready to do the rest if you think my course of action is suitable. --Trialpears (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Apparently we are at deadlock because you object to {{link language}} (which, it appears, you wish to retain) and {{in lang}} existing simultaneously. I object to continued support of {} (which I want to go away) because the text that {} associates with in article text is often not a link. You think that all of the wrapper templates should be subst'd to {} and I think that the wrapper templates should be replaced with {}. You did write above when discussing this topic with Editor Primefac: I also wonder what I should replace them with. I feel like In lang would be the best choice, but since this wasn't even a redirect an hour ago and there were so many opinions about it I thought it would be best asking you so perhaps we aren't at deadlock and are talking past each other.
    Still, at the moment, I don't see any consensus here to do anything there being only two of us participating.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    Why is it a problem that not all uses of link language are associated with a link? How would that problem be solved by using in lang? Since they have the same output I don't see any reason to keep them separate. I intend on starting another deletion discussion exclusively dealing with very low transclusion wrappers to gain consensus to delete wrappers under 50 transclusions. The arguments for keeping the wrappers don't apply to these and would be helpful for getting rid of a significant chunk of them. --Trialpears (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    The problem is one of semantics. These are taken from Amazons:
    * A. Klugmann, ''[https://archive.org/details/dieamazoneninde00klgoog Die Amazonen in der attischen Literatur und Kunst]'' (1875) {}
    * H.L. Krause, ''Die Amazonensage'' (1893) {}
    These sort-of-work for both cases because {{de icon}} isn't specific about what kind of text precedes the template. Change {} to {{link language|de}} and the first example works because there is a link to a German-language source. The same cannot be said for the second example because there is no link.
    Change {} to {{in lang|de}} and both examples work because {} does not refer to links but does refer to the language of the sources. Editors are often 'literal' and are confused by template names that do not accurately reflect what the template does (one of the reasons that {} and similar are not well named – template doesn't produce an 'icon', this is the sort-of-works that I mentioned above) so an editor reading the wikitext of the second example where {} has been changed to {{link language|de}} may be confused by that because the second example does not have a link.
    Isn't it first necessary to decide what those wrappers under 50 transclusions are to be replaced with before you charge off and delete them? Why are you in such a rush?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    I am fine with using in lang as the template name. If we turned {{in lang}} into a redirect that would indeed be my optimal outcome. Can we start working on removing the last few cat-lang uses so we can redirect it now? Regarding the TfD: The main reason is that I kind of messed up yesterday CSDing 4 unused templates thinking there was an exception to the deletion no consensus for unused templates. A TfD would be a solution to this, but I guess they would also fall under T3. I will discuss with the deleting admin (Justlettersandnumbers) to see what they think I should do. --Trialpears (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    OK, I was pinged. Were those mistaken nominations, Trialpears? If so, they can easily be restored – just say the word! (oh, and give me the page titles if you have them handy). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    Justlettersandnumbers Yep they were mistaken, the discussion didn't actually reach a consensus to delete any of the templates, not even these unused ones. I think they would fall under WP:T3 and will probably tag them so they can be deleted after the 7 day hold. Please undelete {{Av icon}}, {{Arn icon}}, {{Ak icon}}, {{Als icon}} and {{Ajt icon}}. --Trialpears (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
     Done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    If you are fine with using in lang as the template name, what is the point of redirecting it? If we are settled that the template name shall be {{in lang}}, then the task ahead is to replace all instances of {{link language}} (and all of its redirects) with {}. Deletion of {} (and all of its redirects) as unused to follow. What then, is the point of a making {} into a redirect?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    If you prefer to redirect in the opposite directions that's by all means fine by me. As long as the end result is one template. --Trialpears (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Just to move this along, I support Trappist's proposal of replacing the icon templates with the new one. --Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    I still think that Trappist's solution is more complicated than necessary, leaving the inevitable merger of these identical templates for later will cause more work overall and replacing it with another template is a bit dubious when the consensus was "Merge to Link Language". I'm however confident that the end result will be basically the same either way and won't block the proposed implementation. --Trialpears (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    With regard to:
    {{bla icon}} see Talk:Blackfoot language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{ilo icon}} see Talk:Ilocano language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{ksh icon}} see Talk:Ripuarian language § language naming inconsistencies
    {{nan icon}} see Talk:Taiwanese Hokkien § language naming inconsistencies
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC) (bla) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC) (ilo) 17:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC) (ksh) 14:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) (nan)
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages § language naming inconsistencies
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

  • None currently

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

  • None currently

Transport[edit]

  • None currently

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

Could I claim this merger? I would like to convert this into my first module. It may take some time though since I have zero lua experience. --Trialpears (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Go for it. Just makes sure you sandbox heavily and maybe have one of us check it before you go live. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

To convert[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletion[edit]

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently