Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 May 10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 10
Template:Deletion sorting/multi
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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:Deletion sorting. Izno (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Deletion sorting/multi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Deletion sorting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Deletion sorting/multi with Template:Deletion sorting.
We don't need two templates that do exactly the same thing. The parameters and the output are the same, except that {{Deletion sorting}} doesn't allow more than 1 category. I propose moving {{Deletion sorting/multi}} to {{Deletion sorting}} and then redirecting the former to the latter. FaviFake (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Merge, and I came to the same conclusion regarding the move and redirect as well after looking at the pages. Choucas0 🐦⬛ 15:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. Anternoare (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:In case of death
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 23:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Template:In case of death (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Deceased Wikipedian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:In case of death with Template:Deceased Wikipedian.
The functionality of this template is redundant to Deceased Wikipedian and thus should be merged. Aasim (話す) 19:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: The two templates differ starkly in their requirements. In case of death appears open for anyone to put on their user page. Deceased Wikipedian has strong requirements for reliable sources to confirm the death. The proposer's rationale does not address this potential issue. CapnZapp (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- Merge – Their scopes aren't different, and we shouldn't even have different requirements for placing two templates which say the exact same thing. FaviFake (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- Keep as I do not understand how these two templates can be considered redundant. As User:CapnZapp says, one is for preventive use by an editor themselves, and the other is placed by the community. I could support editing TM:deceased to provide the same functionality (not showing before a date is filled in, or a simple yes/no parameter) and then aliasing TM:In case of death to it for example, but until that happens I really do not think this should happen. Besides, has anyone considered that merging might make "deceased" banners suddenly appear on editors userpages, or remove them when no date was provided? I find that a pretty uncomfortable prospect. Choucas0 🐦⬛ 15:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- You raise a valid point. Perhaps there is a way to circuit {{In case of death}} with {{Deceased Wikipedian}} without doing a full merge. Aasim (話す) 15:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per Choucas0. Anternoare (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per CapnZapp and Choucas0. YeetV4 (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Robloxguest3 (talk)
00:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC) - The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:TriviaGame
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 23:11, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Template:TriviaGame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template along with Module:SatelliteTrivia appear to have been created to host a satellite trivia game on the creator's userpage. Template and module should be deleted as Wikipedia is not a webhost. – NJD-DE (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, unlikely to be used, and indeed WP:NOTWEBHOST per nominator. Choucas0 🐦⬛ 15:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete, looks like a failed Lua Module to me, from what I know of them. Correct me if I'm wrong. Anternoare (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Tactical RPG templates
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2026 May 17. Izno (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Vgtrpg-chrono (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Chronology_of_tactical_role-playing_video_games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:2013 World Twenty20 Qualifier
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2026 May 17. Izno (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:2012 World Twenty20 Qualifier
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2026 May 17. Izno (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Template:2012_World_Twenty20_Qualifier (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Bioterrorism
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Bioterrorism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Sad navbox. Not included in most of the articles it links, and includes a bunch of links that are much broader than the concept of "bioterrorism" (e.g., Fungi, Virus, Mold (fungus)) Plantdrew (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: Useless linkspam navbox. We don't need one for everything, after all. MediaKyle (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Very indiscriminate in scope and without really any realistic use. Choucas0 🐦⬛ 15:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: It could be useful in some cases, but it doesn't look very useful as of now. Anternoare (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. "Sad" indeed! Scope is undefined, links some very general topics. --woodensuperman 12:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Bart
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 14:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Bart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
It could be replaced by using {{stl|BART|(station)}}. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 03:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: No valid reason for deletion is given. This is a perfectly useful wrapper template with >200 transclusions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Pi.1415926535: "Template:Station link" could be called from Module:Adjacent stations. For this, it should be called from "Module:Adjacent stations/BART", so that this template becomes worthless to use. Beacuse of that, it isn't suitable to create or maintain this independent station link template. Thus, "Template:Bart" could be replaced by "Template:Station link". By the way, WP:BOTR could help replace all. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 03:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Sinsyuan: This is a wrapper template for {{station link}} that is simply a more convenient way to call it for BART stations. You have not given any reason why getting rid of this useful shortcut is a good idea. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Considering maintenance, it is unnessary and doesn't have to create wrapper templates especially one railway systems with a template series of station links, rail icons, line links, line terminus links, etc. (eg. {{Bart}}, {{MTS icon}}, and other wrapper templates in Category:United States rail succession templates) After creating, it has to spend more cost on maintaining each wrapped templates and Module:Adjacent stations. However, {{stl}}, {{ric}}, {{lnl}}, {{ltl}}, etc. are maintained by Module:Adjacent stations only. Thus, for this disscussion, especially railway and rapid transit series, {{stl}} is more flexable than this wrapped template and worth using in many articles. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 04:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Sinsyuan: This is a wrapper template for {{station link}} that is simply a more convenient way to call it for BART stations. You have not given any reason why getting rid of this useful shortcut is a good idea. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Pi.1415926535: "Template:Station link" could be called from Module:Adjacent stations. For this, it should be called from "Module:Adjacent stations/BART", so that this template becomes worthless to use. Beacuse of that, it isn't suitable to create or maintain this independent station link template. Thus, "Template:Bart" could be replaced by "Template:Station link". By the way, WP:BOTR could help replace all. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 03:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: Most transit systems have these; it is much easier for editors to use these wrappers. The TfD notice is also breaking several templates. WMSR (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- I felt embarrassed about that. However, look at this archived disscussion, (though it is out of scope here) many articles for Japan railway series used the independent templates of "icons". After I found that Module:Adjacent stations can provide the icons, these independent templates should be replaced by "ric". Back to this, {{stl}} is called from Module:Adjacent stations and station link for BART stations is called from "Module:Adjacent stations/BART". The using of {{stl}} is more valuable than using {{Bart}}. Please believe me that this template should be replaced. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 03:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy keep (and a WP:TROUT for wasting people's time): the TfD mentioned above has absolutely no bearing here, as it wias the rationalization of multiple individual templates. However, BART is a large system with 50 stations and hundreds of links to, within, and from station articles. Among other things, templates are intended to make editing easier, so there is no rational reason to eliminate a useful shortcut, even it does offend Sinsyuan' sensibilities of "what ought to be". Also, nobody is insisting that Sinsyuan needs to work on any templates, so the maintenance argument is a red herring. (And I am also ignoring the nominator's plea for faithful acceptance of his belief – we aren't starting a new religion here.) Useddenim (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Useddenim: Sigh, I could make bot requests first, could't I? Per Jonesey95's statement and Gonnym's statement at Template:Taoyuan Metro line icon and similar deletion requests, I was inspired by that and started excavating Module:Adjacent stations. However, these wrapper templates for each railway/rapid transit system are comparable to zh:Category:路线标志模板, zh:Category:铁路运输颜色模板 and so on in Chinese Wikipedia. Also, I think that wrapper templates for each railway/rapid transit system are unnessary to be created and existed because these templates are wrapped with {{ric}}, {{lnl}}, {{stl}}, {{rcr}}, {{ltl}}, etc. Although some editors claim to keep for easily using and many articles use this, me and other editors have rights to replace this or other wrapper templates by {{ric}}, {{lnl}}, {{stl}}, {{rcr}}, {{ltl}}, etc. for unnessary existance of wrapper templates for each railway/rapid transit system. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 05:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Sinsyuan: for starters, this is en: not zh:, so please throwing false equivalences into this discussion. And yes you could have made a bot request, but given your disruptive editing with respect to not only this template but others (, , , , , ) in an attempt to impose your preferred editing style, you would have likely have your editing privileges suspended or revoked. And you do not have the "right" to ignore general consensus (as you seem to be doing here). Useddenim (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Useddenim: Sigh, I could make bot requests first, could't I? Per Jonesey95's statement and Gonnym's statement at Template:Taoyuan Metro line icon and similar deletion requests, I was inspired by that and started excavating Module:Adjacent stations. However, these wrapper templates for each railway/rapid transit system are comparable to zh:Category:路线标志模板, zh:Category:铁路运输颜色模板 and so on in Chinese Wikipedia. Also, I think that wrapper templates for each railway/rapid transit system are unnessary to be created and existed because these templates are wrapped with {{ric}}, {{lnl}}, {{stl}}, {{rcr}}, {{ltl}}, etc. Although some editors claim to keep for easily using and many articles use this, me and other editors have rights to replace this or other wrapper templates by {{ric}}, {{lnl}}, {{stl}}, {{rcr}}, {{ltl}}, etc. for unnessary existance of wrapper templates for each railway/rapid transit system. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 05:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: Don't fix what isn't broken. I am thoroughly unconvinced that any action is necessary here. MediaKyle (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Is there any consesus that using {{Bart}}, etc. (especially the US) is more suitable than using {{stl|BART|(station)}}, etc. before this discussion? I think it is unfair to me as I like to prefer to use "stl" rather than wrapper templates. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 11:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Also, making wrapped templates for railway/rapid transit system (especially the template wraps up with {{stl}}, {{ric}}, or {{lnl}}, etc.) is redundant and not necessary for only it is easy to use and understand for some editors. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 11:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- {{Bart}} (and all of the templates noted above) have proper documentation. If you don't understand how to use them properly then you should either ask for help on a talk page or (or more likely given the mangled English of your preceding comment) not be editing in en: at all. Useddenim (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Is there any consesus that using {{Bart}}, etc. (especially the US) is more suitable than using {{stl|BART|(station)}}, etc. before this discussion? I think it is unfair to me as I like to prefer to use "stl" rather than wrapper templates. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 11:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Pi.1415926535, WMSR, and MediaKyle: It has become the barrier for whether to use wrapped templates for railway/rapid transit system (especially the template wraps up with {{stl}}, {{ric}}, or {{lnl}}, etc.). Some railway/rapid transit systems prefer to use {{stl}}, {{ric}}, or {{lnl}}, etc. and others to use their wrapped templates. This discussion was beyond my expection and I decided to withdraw and speedy kept. Maybe I can start the further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rapid transit in the future.--Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 14:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.