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. ✗plicit 00:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Australian rules football statistics F (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics FB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics FP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics FPB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics FS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics FSB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics FSP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics FSPB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics H (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HFB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HFP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HFPB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HFS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HFSB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HFSP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HFSPB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HPB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HSB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HSP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HSPB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics FPW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics FSPW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics FSW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics FW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HFPW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HFSPW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HFSW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HFW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HPW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HSPW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HSW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian rules football statistics HW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following the discussion Here (Please read this to understand the context), I have listed a large amount of templates for discussion, as I believe the statistics behind them break WP:OR I propose keeping Australian rules football statistics B, P, PB, S, SB, SP, SPB, and W, PW, SW and SPW, (representing Brownlow winners, Premiership players, Entire season statistic leaders, and combinations of those) as those statistic leaders can be found, with sources, Here (AFLTables) and Here (Footywire) for the 2021 season, going back to 1965. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as starter. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm for maintaining the H series as is. It is an important marker to highlight winners of the Coleman Medal, which only applies to goals kicked in the regular season. Deleting the H series would not allow highlighting for players such as Jack Riewoldt, who in 2012 won the Coleman but did not finish the year (after finals) with the most goals. --DustyNail (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @DustyNail I see your point, but, as I have said before, there is no source that gives us complete Home and away season statistics to use. This means including it breaks WP:OR and thus cannot be included. in the proposal of using only B/W (Brownlow, Women's B&F), P (Premiership player), S (Entire season statistic leader), and the combinations of those, Matthew Pavlich and Lance Franklin would get the highlighting for total goals (S) and Franklin would also get the S distinction for goals (average). Sure, it would be "nice" to include it, but if it breaks Wikipedia's rules then it's not really possible. Creating a new letter & template, and fitting it in to the table somehow would be possible (if you could throw out some ideas that aren't hard to integrate, that would be good), although using more letters just adds to the unwieldiness of all these templates (especially the duplication of W and B as it stands; having C (for Coleman) and G (I guess, for Women's Leading Goalkicker) would be a lot of duplication for the sake of one statistic).

  Coleman/Leading goalkicker awards are already listed in player's infoboxes, mind you. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per DiamondIIIXX above. Cassiopeia talk 23:22, 10 October 2021 (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(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. Please make sure any extant uses that are not also covered by the split templates are replaced and not just orphaned. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:US military utility vehicles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Navbox that is far too big for easy navigation (it occupies two full screens of my ipad). Per WP:NAV-WITHIN a split by era was proposed and agreed to (see Template talk:US military utility vehicles#Splitting proposal) so ((WWI US Soft Vehicles)), ((WWII US Soft Vehicles)) and ((Post-WWII US Soft Vehicles)) were created, the template creator has subsequently withdrawn their support for the split. List of utility vehicles of the United States Armed Forces, which is linked in all three new navboxes, provides all of the information about vehicle payloads and drive from this navbox in searchable columns. Cavalryman (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Navigational benefit is not here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• POSTPONE deletion Please – 1). Creator (user GeeTeeBee) is still in ONGOING DISCUSSION about splitting this template — 2). The statement that: "..creator .. withdrew .. support for the split." IS utterly UNTRUE !!. – 3). IN July of 2020, Cavalryman proposed splitting the lengthy template in three period/era boxes. To which I directly AGREED ! — HOWEVER: Axing Most of its Navigational Structure was NEVER DISCUSSED – NOR Sound ARGUMENTATION for this PROVIDED..! – Simply splitting it would be enough to make them "wieldy" again! – 4). NAMES of US Military rigs are Notoriously CRYPTIC CODES of Just Letters & Numerals – PLUS: Contrary to cars, which almost All have just Four Wheels - US Military vehicles exist in an Almost Bewildering VARIETY of propulsion Configurations! —

5). Please FREEZE the Deletion process, until a). Ongoing discussion has run its course; and: b). after considering this navbox was created in April 2019 to fill an UTTER VOID; — c). For over FIFTEEN Months NOBODY Complained about its size, although the box was added to over 150 articles ( !! ), giving the impression that it did more good than harm  !? — d). Not until July 2020, Cavalryman contacted me, and we Agreed on splitting the existing box in a couple of eras — but that's not what he did... — After OVER a YEAR WENT BY, his new boxes are indeed wonderfully compact, and neat and tidy to look at, but about EIGHTY Percent of the navigational structure was Cut Out, as well... – Per WP:NAV-WITHIN, a nav-aid must DO MORE, than just box-up related article links, and leave it to the reader to click them, and use trial and error, to find out, what the Cryptic "XYZ-789" model‑codes mean, and how to get to the vehicles they're really interested in!? – PLUS: relegating navigational structure that fits perfectly well within the boxes - Once they have been split as intended! – but unnecessarily sending the reader to a list-article to find out, isn't the intended job of a navbox, now is it ?? —

6). After noting this Deletion Procedure has prematurely been started, I (have to?) conclude that Cavalryman has no intention to be a man of his word, and actually do what we originally agreed upon in July 2020, - namely splitting THIS box by era (without completely changing its structure!).. — So I'm now doing all that myself. – 7). But as I pointed out back in 2020,

I'm a chronic pain patient, with very low energy levels, so I can only do LITTLE, and very SLOWLY, at that... but I'll take some more oxy, and will resume the discussion this week !! – Regards,  GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Split them up into separate templates. This is not a reason to delete it entirely. Noah^Talk 14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: it has been split into several templates: Template:WWI US Soft Vehicles, Template:WWII US Soft Vehicles and Template:Post-WWII US Soft Vehicles. Cavalryman (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... nvm I was under the impression it has been agreed to and hadn't entirely happened yet. This should be deleted in that case. Noah^Talk 00:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by GeeTeeBee: Belated – although splitting had been agreed on Template talk:US military utility vehicles#Splitting proposal — on 19 July 2020 — the three split boxes created by Cavalryman are severely lacking in more than one way... 1). Navbox ((WWI US Soft Vehicles)) contains just eight (8) article links – so small, that it could just be a "See also" section in their articles, and thus could be nominated for deletion ! – 2). Moreover, All of Cavalryman's navboxes severely cut down the navigational structure: by a) cutting out whole categories, b) by radically cutting down the payload categories, and c) completely cutting out the navigational aid by number of wheels and drive; – 3). Cavalryman left out the interbellum, I believe; and 4). His boxes only list vehicles, based on their year of introduction – not based on their U.S. military's service life !...

With Over a YEAR passing, the Splitting Job could have been done a lot better — So I did myself what was agreed in July last year, resulting in these navboxes here.

'MY submissions, as the preferred Replacements. — Please View them and consider them with integrity:

((US Mil. Support Rides; WW I–WW II))((US Mil. Support Rides; WW II–1990))((US mil. Support Rides 1990–present))

I hope you appreciate my efforts, done in haste ... – best regards, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This Deletion procedure is Still Premature, and thus should Still Remain FROZEN, because there is Still NO consensus on HOW to Split it properly ! – That discussion should still first Run Its Course !

To Clarify: the Deletion Nominator (Cavalryman), and the original template creator (I, GeeTeeBee) DID Agree, that: – 1). this template would benefit from splitting; – AND: 2). to split it in three parts: a: World War II, b: "Cold War era," and c: "Post‑1990." – And so, besides reducing its size, helping readers find vehicles from the different eras, was also a prime objective.

Thirdly: modifying the navigational structure of this template was then not discussed, and to this day NOT agreed on !!

When editor Cavalryman told Hurricane Noah, that it had, by now, been split into several templates: Template:WWI US Soft Vehicles, Template:WWII US Soft Vehicles and Template:Post-WWII US Soft Vehicles, he told only half of the truth... — Firstly: contrary to what we agreed to in July 2020, he still lumped Everything Post-1945 into one single box – not only at odds with his own 2020 proposal, – which I still support – But: this also largely defeats the principally stated and agreed purpose of helping readers find vehicles from two of the three named eras, namely: the "Cold War", versus "1991 and onwards"...

Furthermore, Cavalryman's navboxes have removed the majority of the logical navigational structure, present in this original — a drastic measure, that he did not first mention, and on which we have Not yet reached anything remotely approaching consensus! Very Logical navigational structure, that I deliberately added, to help readers know in advance, to what kind of vehicle they would go, before clicking on a link.

Plus, aside from his U-turn, and not offering the reader any clue about where between 1945 and today ( ! ) a vehicle was introduced, he more than Cut in Half the number of post‑1945 vehicles' articles linked – from well over 100, to just fifty !? — We are yet to discuss Why and what purpose is served by that !? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacing with Template:WWI US Soft Vehicles, Template:WWII US Soft Vehicles and Template:Post-WWII US Soft Vehicles per nom. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ladies & gentlemen, Wikipedia is Not a democracy ! – And this is so Essential, that this is also part of the First of Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Consensus must be reached, based on sound arguments, applying rules insofar verily applicable (?), and consistent, logical reasoning. The discussion towards consensus should run its course, and with WP:MULTI in mind, it's still taking place at Template_talk:US_military_utility_vehicles#Splitting proposal - way forward --GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2021 (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(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) 22:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Base 36 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Duodecimal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unused outside two userspace tests. Module:BaseConvert is available and offers clearer notation, i.e. the difference in meaning between ((#invoke:BaseConvert|36to10|234)) = 2704 and ((#invoke:BaseConvert|10to36|234)) = 6I is clear, whereas it is not obvious which of those ((Base 36|236)) corresponds to. User:GKFX^talk 18:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Added ((Duodecimal)) with identical rationale. User:GKFX^talk 22:57, 3 October 2021 (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(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. There is a consensus emerging that there are not enough links to merit a navbox at this point in time. There is no prejudice against recreation if more articles are created in the future that would fit in this template. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hurricane Ida series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navbox. There are only two links to articles here - Hurricane Ida and Hurricane Ida tornado outbreak and only two other relevant links - Category:Hurricane Ida (which isn't really useful as it simply contains the two articles already linked, plus this navbox) and c:Category:Hurricane Ida (2021). This isn't sufficient for the navigational template to be useful to readers. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep see the example, yes is linked but if there a Hurricane related (article) we added this series Template:Hurricane Isaac (2012) series and Template:Hurricane Isaias series . HurricaneEdgar 09:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @HurricaneEdgar: honestly, I think something like ((Hurricane Isaias series)) should be deleted too. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep People are working on another article right now so I don't see what the point in deleting this would be. Noah^Talk 11:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No one outside of the WikiProject would know this - I think these navboxes shouldn't be made until other related articles are published. Otherwise, I can understand why this was proposed for deletion. – The Grid (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The two links are not going to be the only ones there. An article for Louisiana impacts will DEFINITELY be needed and I wouldn't be surprised if an article is made for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast impacts as well. We need to keep this.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we get rid of this now? The consensus is keep and there is no reason to still be debating this.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because there are already some people who are drafting separate articles for its effects in the U.S. (specifically Louisiana); though I must note that, as mentioned in the talk page for Ida's main article, it has not yet reached the point that it should be split. But for this template, I think it should still be kept, just like in the Isaias series template. Vida0007 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Yes if we want to cover Ida and its impacts in full then yeah it probably will need further articles, but i do not see the need for this navbox, until it has more than 5 or 6 articles especially since we already have a category devoted to Ida.Jason Rees (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We already have drafts for Northeastern US and Louisiana, the former of which is nearly ready can could be sustained in articlespace. Also, Isaias and Isaac both have templates.Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm going to make this a separate comment to better address the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones crew: no one outside of the WikiProject would have known related articles were in draft. I think these navboxes shouldn't be made until other related articles are published. Otherwise, I can understand why this was proposed. – The Grid (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would only have to check the talkpage of Hurricane Ida to see that these were being made. Although, I do agree the box shouldn't have been made when it was. It just seems rather pointless to delete something and bring it back a short time later. Noah^Talk 21:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice against recreation at some future date when there are more articles. Three articles is simply insufficient as a navbox. --Izno (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, only connects three articles and the "Effects of Hurricane Ida in Louisiana" draft has been declined. this can be easily recreated if more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete we are not a crystal ball; templates should exist based on the present, not speculations of the future. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only two links. There is no benefit in keeping it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why in the world was this relisted not once but twice? The consensus has been keep (5-1) for over a MONTH. Seems clear to me that THAT was a consensus.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It was relisted for the sole reason of getting people outside the weather project involved. It is not 5-1 keep, it likely going to end as consensus to delete. Noah^Talk 19:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, still links only 3 articles. But, I see no problem with allowing it to be recreated if a couple more articles are written. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:42, 16 October 2021 (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(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:Source-attribution. Izno (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PD-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Source-attribution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Citation-attribution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:PD-notice with Template:Source-attribution.
((Citation-attribution)) was recently nominated for deletion but there was no consensus for outright deletion. While reviewing the arguments I noticed that all three templates are essentially doing the same job, with only minor formatting, wording, and coding differences between them.

The primary difference (wording) can easily be addressed by a single parameter (e.g. |sentence=yes to make the template read "sentence" instead of "article"), and the coding of "source inside the template" or "source before the template" can easily be set up to avoid needing to change all of the templates. I'm not particularly bothered as to the final name of the merged template as I can see benefits for any one of them. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose discussing this here (and making the changes as proposed here). This is not the best forum for this discussion as both ((Source-attribution)) and ((Citation-attribution)) are part of the documentation in WP:PLAGIARISM see Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Proposal redirect Template:PD-notice to template:Source-attribution. The talk page of WP:PLAGIARISM (Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism) is likely to bring in more editors with experience of using these template than this discussion. -- PBS (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. This is a proposal to merge to templates, so TfD is the right place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no "right places" but depending on circumstances there are better places. In this case ((Source-attribution)) and ((Citation-attribution)) have been documented in the text of the plagiarism guideline since 2010 (about a year after the guideline came into existence), so I think that is the better place to discuss this. While User:Primefac was writing this entry in "templates for discussion" I was simultaneously writing a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism which was a follow-up to my comment at a previous TFD which was closed at 15:35, 3 October 2021. Am interested to know why, given I had written in that TLD "I think that this conversation would be better continued on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism as all three of these templates exist to help stop plagiarism...", User:Primefac did not contact me before proposing this TLD. For that discussion see Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Proposal redirect Template:PD-notice to template:Source-attribution, where I have proposed that there is a merger, but with other intermediate steps. -- PBS (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose CRS-20 (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ​ Because....? Primefac (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment possible WP:CITEVAR issues. When I originally wrote ((Source-attribution)) and ((Citation-attribution))—as I had done for many other templates such as ((EB1911))—I could of written one template and had a switch as User:Primefac proposes. I did not do so because the two templates then ran the danger of people claiming WP:CITEVAR and editors unfamiliar with templates would be confused/intimidated by names parameters being used as switches. The intention was to keep the templates as simple as possible (no switches) so that no-one would have a reasonable objection to their use. Since then other templates such as ((ISBN)) have been created and accepted and not rejected. But like ((Source-attribution)) and ((Citation-attribution)) such templates do not take any parameters other than an unnamed one. With ((Source-attribution)) and ((Citation-attribution)) although they can wrap around an unnamed parameter, they can also be used as is just in front of a citation. If named parameters are added then (1) it becomes more complicated for an editor not familiar with templates to use them, (2) editors may complain under WP:CITEVAR (3) it actually makes a single template more complicated to write and hence maintain than two simpler templates. -- PBS (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PBS's comments. Full disclosure, I've used the ((Source-attribution)) template in hundreds of articles and think there's a place for it in our work. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Rosiestep, just to check, you know that I'm not proposing to delete these templates, right? If you've been using ((Source-attribution)) now, you'll still be able to use it (and likely with zero change in syntax for that particular version) if the merge goes through. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh! I didn't realize that. My bad! Thanks for clarifying. Rosiestep (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Already getting too complicated. Deal with Source-attribution and Citation-attribution first, and see how that goes. Manannan67 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Manannan67, not sure I follow - this is dealing with source- and citation-attribution. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom (and this is the correct venue to discuss this). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To summarise my more detailed proposal on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism is to alter all the ((PD-notice)) templates within footnotes to ((Citation-attribution)) and then turn it into a redirect to ((Source-attribution)). For reasons I stated above (11:36, 4 October 2021), I think it unnecessary and a bad idea to merge ((Citation-attribution)) and ((Source-attribution)) into one.-- PBS (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for consistency. There's at most two functions being done here, so three templates is unnecessary. I'm unconvinced of the need to have two separate templates instead of one with a switch. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that three is one too many. What about the WP:CITEVAR implications of having named parameters in a template within a footnote or References section, when there are no other citation templates in use in an article apart from one that do not use switches like ((isbn))? conversations about CITEVAR on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources tend to resembles discussions about angels dancing on pinheads, why invite that sort of problem with unnecessary switches? -- PBS (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what CITEVAR means, and I honestly I'm starting to wonder what the heck you're talking about. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not what WP:CITEVAR ought mean, but, I checked and, you have only made two edits to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. I suggest you so a search of the archives of that talk page for CITEVAR and see how minute the disputes over its interpretation is. (1) Why risk dragging these templates into that cauldron? (2) If the coding of the templates was complicated then I would be in favour of one merged one (as it is trivial to writ a wrapper), but as the code is so simple I see no need to merge ((Citation-attribution)) and ((Source-attribution)) as a wrapper would involve almost as much coding as the original and the switch makes coding, usage and documentation more complicated. -- PBS (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2021 (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(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) 16:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Andrew Yang series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Every article this infobox is on already has a better infobox. I would like to remove them all. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough for a sidebar template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was already an AFD for this and the result was keep. Helpful to navigate between Yang's campaign for President, his books and races he has been in. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an XFD filled with Yang fans during the heat of the campaign. Which of these articles needs a second (or in the case of 2021 New York City mayoral election, fourth) infobox? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even more so, it was 2.5 years ago, and wp:Consensus can change - Nabla (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He's never been elected to any office, or even had a particularly impressive showing. Most of the entries on the table do not even mention him prominently. We don't have enough articles devoted to him to justify this sort of navigation template, nor is there any particular reason to think that such articles will suddenly appear. --Aquillion (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  His book, presidential campaign and endorsements from campaign are all linked. Mentioned prominently in 2020 Presidential primary article and 2021 NYC Mayor race article. He has a new political party and book coming out so another article, or two, is likely to be added. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this isn't an infobox, it's a navigational template. I think there's enough relevant stuff listed here for it to be worthwhile. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By infobox, I mean "box designed to be at the top right of an article". Or, on 2021 New York City mayoral election, apparently center-right, as it is the 4th box. I plan to remove that transclusion even if this discussion is not closed as delete (and then figure out if the "Eric Adams" box needs to be TFD'd as well). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• neutral (leaning on delete) Note that many of the articles are not (at all) centred on Yang (Davis Polk & Wardwell, Manhattan Prep, (Democratic) Primaries, 2021 New York City mayoral election, Vilcek Prize) so the template seems to be largely promotional, trying to enlarge Yang's achievements, while he is only a one liner referece in some of those. If kept, it should be cleaned up of such articles whis are *not* part of a series *about* Yang. - Nabla (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning delete. seems useless. BrokenSegue 15:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many of these links (such as Davis Polk & Wardwell, Manhattan Prep, Vilcek Foundation) are only tangentially related to Yang for our purposes and do not need a special template for linking. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only 2 of the articles are about Yang (his unsuccessful bid for the presidency & his book). This sidebar looks more like a résumé than a Wikipedia navigation bar; it just lists his places of employment and awards that he's been given, some of which aren't even notable enough to have their own articles.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no series about Andrew Yang. "Early life" redirects to the main article, Davis Polk and Manhattan Prep are completely independent from him, the awards listed in "Recognition" have been awarded to many people (see also WP:PROMO), and all but one of the books listed in "Published works" do not have articles. JBchrch talk 01:18, 5 October 2021 (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).