The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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).
This seems like a CLEAR case of WP:T3 to me. The only article where this template is transcluded is on the page for Hydrogen. (The 2 other transclusions are a user sandbox and the template's test cases.) Seems like this instance of ((Infobox element)) should just be copied over to Hydrogen. I would have simply tagged this with WP:CSD under WP:T3 but the fact that these infoboxes exist for every element makes me think that I am missing something. Can someone enlighten me? What is the rationale for this? Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE this discussion relates to all infoboxes in Category:Periodic table infobox templates. I.E. whatever decision is made on this one template will also be applied to the rest unless there is some unique case pointed out. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to article space without leaving a redirect, then redirect to parent articles for attribution reasons (aka Delete) per nom. Templates do not make sense unless they are transcluded on multiple pages. Pppery 23:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to make the main article less intimidating/awful to edit. Is there some problem with Template:Infobox hydrogen? I don't understand the issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before posting comments, may I ask Zackmann to re-read TFDs linked from Template talk:Infobox hydrogen and list new arguments that have not been addressed there. There are many non-standard reasons to move information out of this particular set of articles, such as ease of data maintenance (we regularly mass-update those templates), ease of editing (they are bulky, and will swamp the article if copy/pasted back there) and vandalism protection (there was a good reason to semiprotect all these templates while keeping many parent articles unprotected). Materialscientist (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MZMcBride: it is a hard coded instance of a template which is a criteria for speedy deletion under WP:T3. Templates (by convention) should only be made if they are used on multiple pages. These are each used on one page and thus (by convention) should be replaced with ((Infobox element)) on each page. The fact that it makes the article less intimidating/awful to edit is not a argument that I have ever seen and I respectfully don't think it is a valid one. While I totally get what you are saying, the same could be said of any large page. For example, Los Angeles International Airport has a large and intimidating Infobox... Following your point there should then be a ((Los Angeles International Airport)) just so the Infobox is separate out. I know tone is hard to interpret so please don't take that as a snarky comeback, just trying to make a counter argument. (please also read my comments below). --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding transclusion counts, it would be easy to point out that nearly every /doc subpage is technically a template that's only used once, of course. Examples: Template:1745 Establishment ships/doc, Template:1872 National Association Record vs. opponents/doc, and many more. If we ignore /doc examples, there are many other templates that are only used once. Examples: Template:1951–52 Yankee Conference men's basketball standings, Template:1995 MILL standings, and thousands of other templates. I can generate a full list if you're really interested. The point is that templates with few transclusions are fairly common. Some templates even deliberately have zero transclusions, mostly templates intended to be substituted. When you mention template conventions, I'm not sure what you're basing your statements on.
Regarding other articles, yes, we've discussed moving out complex templates into separate pages before. It still might make sense in some cases, such as airport articles, as you note. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MZMcBride: yes Other stuff exists such as Template:1951–52 Yankee Conference men's basketball standings, Template:1995 MILL standings but because there are other poorly used templates doesn't mean this one is correct. Subpages are of course an exception. There would be no way to make a subpage of a template without making it itself a template and templates that are substituted are also a perfect example of where transclusion counts don't matter. But this template is not meant to be transcluded. It is 100% a hard coded instance of a template. Let me ask you this, what would you see WP:T3 being used for then? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08: CSD T3 was intended to provide a lighter weight alternative to TFD, as I recall. It was closer/more analogous to the proposed deletion process for articles. The idea is/was to have an easier way to delete deprecated or unused templates. For example, if we combined 26 A–Z templates into a single "Latin alphabet letter" template using a #switch ParserFunction, the individual templates could be speedily deleted as they're deprecated and no longer needed. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MZMcBride: I agree with you that those are one purpose of WP:T3. I would just point out that in bold letters it also says that T3 is for hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template. Anyway, I say we agree to disagree. There seems to be an overwhelming vote to keep the templates. I disagree but of course respect the consensus. I see no need to further the discussion and am happy to withdraw the nomination. I don't spend any time working on the WP:ELEMENTS project so I think it is best left to those who better understand the project. Appreciate the discussion though! Always interesting to hear other points of view. :-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Materialscientist: your vandalism point is not without merit. Not something I had considered. I just respectfully disagree with the notion of creating a template just so the template's content can be protected while leaving the page unprotected. I also think that a lot has changed in the 6 years since the first discussion was had about these back in 2010. Editing Wikipedia has gotten much easier with many more tools and even the WYSIWYG editors. I think you will agree that the normal way things work is that you do not make a hard-coded template. It seems thatthe question here is whether or not there is merit for an exception to this policy. I don't think there is, but I can certainly see where you and others would think that there is. Goes without saying that I will bow to consensus. Just wanted to get the conversation going again. If you feel it more appropriate to have this conversation elsewhere with a WP:RFC I have no problem with that. Might actually be a better approach. Thoughts? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I just respectfully disagree with the notion of creating a template just so the template's content can be protected while leaving the page unprotected." - if this is a main concern then an RFC would indeed be more appropriate, because TFDs are rarely visited while this protection mechanism is widely used, e.g. on userpages. Materialscientist (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all 120 per all the previous deletion discussions. (It seems that we can reliably expect this to come up every two years.) As for the WYSIWYG editors – certainly they make vandalising Wikipedia much easier, but I have yet to be convinced of their utility in actually creating good, cited, content and maintaining this sort of data securely in the infoboxes. As one of those editors who regularly mass-updates the templates, I would also add that it is a lot easier to do it this way than if they were all integrated into the main article. Double sharp (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You're right that it's a clear case of WP:T3, but extensive discussion in two previous RfDs concluded that the articles were better with the infoboxes segregated and WP:IAR superseded. Perhaps instead, T3 should be modified? (I note in passing that providing the flexibility to experiment before implementing new rules is an important function of IAR.) As the earlier discussions mentioned, /doc subpages also technically violate T3, but are used for fundamentally the same reason: they reduce the amount of clutter that an editor has to wade through to edit the "main text" of the article/template. I quite like the idea floated earlier to place such single-use templates in article space, but the obvious location of a subpage of the article page is awkward because subpages have been disabled in mainspace so that articles like AC/DC can exist. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on this specific case of TFDs at hand, it seems to me that the rationale of "remove the scary wikitext" goes away if the core template at Template:Infobox element is Wikidata-enabled. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Materialscientist and Redrose64. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Agrl
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 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).
"List of killings" templates without significant parameters
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 replace with "labeled section transclusion" and deletePlastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, See also (talk ·history·transclusions·logs·subpages)
These templates that take no parameters and are used for storing the same text across many articles. The same feature could be accomplished just as easily using labeled section transclusion without polluting the template namespace or storing article content in templates. (And yes, I am aware that these were nominated just last month and kept). Pinging: @Primefac, Uanfala, Jax 0677, and Millionsandbillions:Pppery 17:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery, where do you propose to store the text? – Uanfala (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: I propose to store the text in List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States and access the see also section in the subarticles via ((#section-h:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States|See also)). The "estimates" template would be placed inline in that same article, wrapped in <section begin=estimates /> ... <section end=estimates />, and then refer to it via ((#section:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States|estimates)). Pppery 17:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I forgot about labeled section transclusion when I made the original nomination. I concur with the usage as described above, or simply putting <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags around the relevant information (this is found often in TV series for episode counts/lists), though obviously that would only work once on a page. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
replace with #section: links and delete. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment((List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, List)) added. Pppery 23:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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).
Navbox for a reality show which only ran for a single season in 2011, and was then cancelled. This was created in good faith at the time, as there was a reasonable expectation that it would be like other Got Talent shows in getting multiple seasons -- but in practice, it now serves as a navbox for a one-off thing without a significant number of articles to link: the host, the three judges, the winner, the end. The program's article already links to all of these topics anyway, whereas the individual participants' articles also link back to the show already but don't have any pressing or defining need to interlink each other in addition to that. All in all, this just isn't needed anymore. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Unused child taxa templates
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 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:Chem/1
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 all. WP:G7 & WP:G6 Speedy deletion by author. These had become redundant due to a rewrite of ((chem)). Jimp 00:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of templates
((Chem/1))
((Chem/2))
((Chem/3))
((Chem/4))
((Chem/5))
((Chem/6))
((Chem/7))
((Chem/8))
((Chem/9))
((Chem/10))
((Chem/11))
((Chem/12))
((Chem/13))
((Chem/14))
((Chem/15))
((Chem/16))
((Chem/17))
((Chem/18))
((Chem/19))
((Chem/20))
((Chem/disp00A))
((Chem/disp0A0))
((Chem/dispA00))
((Chem/dispA0A))
((Chem/dispAA0))
((Chem/dispAAA))
((Chem/initial0))
((Chem/initial00))
((Chem/initial0A))
((Chem/initialA))
((Chem/initialA0))
((Chem/initialAA))
((Chem/linkauto))
((Chem/linkoff))
((Chem/linkon))
((Chem/overflow))
unused subtemplates Frietjes (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Century category header
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 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:CasTemplate
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 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:Cabinets of Republika Srpska
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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).
unused and all redlinks Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:CVE lines
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 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:CTrain Fare Free Zone style
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 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:CHP 2012 results
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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).
unused and no indication of where it would be used Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:CH Yearly Record Entry
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 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:PFC Lokomotiv Mezdra squad
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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).
After the club relegated from 2nd Bulgarian league in summer 2016, most (all?) notable players left and this template does not provide much navigational value anymore. Kq-hit (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 02:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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).