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 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:National parks of Tasmania interactivemap
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 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:Marstime
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 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:WTA Tier I tournaments
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 01:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant as per linked consensus to merge its contents into the other template. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2022 (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:COVAX-AMC donors
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 01:09, 30 November 2022 (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:Copacon
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 01:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and redundant Spanish-language version of an existing tournament bracket template. Likely created from an existing es.WP template without attribution. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2022 (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 keep. ✗plicit 01:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of Template:Notability and Template:Unreferenced, looks to have been made to be specifically WP:POINTY about sports articles. The process for articles without significant coverage is AFD, there is no need for a sports-specific template for this. Do not ping me with replies to this, as I am watching this page. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 creates a requirement for sports articles to include at least one source containing WP:SIGCOV. This template is intended to help track articles that don't meet that, as an alternative to redirecting them or immediately nominating them for deletion.
It doesn't need a separate template specifically for sports articles though, when general existing templates suffice perfectly adequately. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Different requirements apply to sports biographies than apply to general articles. I also believe sorting sports biographies into a separate category will make it easier for interested sports editors to identify articles they may be able to find sources for. BilledMammal (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with BilledMammal that this is a useful template.
Keep It's useful to track sports articles specifically and also remind editors of the special sourcing requirement. –dlthewave☎ 14:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fills a useful niche. It's not redundant to ((notability)) because it more clearly specifies the problem is sourcing, not one of the non-source-based SNG and removes what some would say is an implied obligation to do a WP:BEFORE before tagging. It's not redundant to ((unreferences)) for reasons explained above. It might be reasonable to merge Template:No significant coverage with Template:No significant coverage (sports) following the same logic in which ((notability)) takes a parameter to differentiate types of articles rather than the separate Template:Notability (sports). * Pppery *it has begun... 17:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between these templates and the notability template is that these templates add sports biographies to an additional category, but that should be possible to keep even after merging.
However, do you know if it is possible to create a template redirect that automatically adds a parameter? BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not possible, no. In most such cases you make a shell template and optionally make it subst only. Izno (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good grief. You might as well say that ALL warning templates above Level 1 are "pointy," and with just as much justification. (And, frankly, to the degree that chowderheads keep on creating stubs and sub-stubs without the slightest intention of ever sourcing them, giving them a measure of trout slapping is all to the good.) Moreover, "[t]he process for articles without significant coverage is AFD" would be just as valid ground for eliminating ALL notability tag templates; has the nom nominated those as well? Beyond the other comments, though, the nom might be unaware that sports biographies form a hugely disproportionate block of articles, with the count at one point being one biographical article in seven being of soccer players. Not one in seven being sports articles; one in seven being of just ONE sport. Ravenswing 19:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note Not agreeing or disagreeing, but there were missing words in the doc and poorly written English. I have corrected those issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pppery. --Izno (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this template is useful for tracking these biographies that need improvement to meet SPORTBASIC and puts the article creator on notice without actually starting the deletion process. Jogurney (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all of the above. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sympathetic to the idea that this template could be considered WP:POINTY, but imo it'd be pointier to just take an article straight to AfD. This seems like a better middle ground that encourages people to add better referencing rather than immediately starting the deletion process. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this template is used to tag the thousands of sports bios sourced only to comprehensive databases, it has real value and I support keeping and using it. However, if it is plastered on articles where there is simply a good-faith dispute as to whether or not other, non-database sources have sufficient depth, it would not be productive IMO and would add to a battleground atmosphere. Cbl62 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2022 (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:Glory (Britney Spears album) tracks
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 12:54, 29 November 2022 (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:English National Badminton Championships
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 12:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus established at Wikiproject Badminton, this template is now redundant. Requesting deletion. zoglophie 07:23, 22 November 2022 (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).
Second batch of New Jersey county commissioner templates
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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 15:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:TG by storing article text. All templates should be substed and deleted. This is a follow up of November 3 TFD, same rationale applies here. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Same as above) I agree with comments made by Alansohn in the previous discussion (November 3 TFD of New Jersey commisioner templates). These templates make it significantly easier to update information across "literally" hundreds of pages. But if you are volunteering to individually change every single NJ municipal page when new officials are elected, be my guest and delete these. JerseyThroughandThrough (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TG says Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. which is why the previous templates were correctly deleted, and exactly why these should all be deleted too. Article text should be in articles not templates. If you need repetition of text in multiple articles, use section transcluson. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One only has to look at the aftermath of the last wave of deletions to see the truly disruptive nature of these TfDs. There are 40 articles that used the now-defunct Template:NJ Burlington County Freeholders, all of which have been substituted with the content of the template, as at this edit by our nominator, along with 39 others. When the information that was in that template changes, as it will in January, it's impossible to update the data by making ONE edit to ONE template. Now FORTY articles need to be updated one-by-one and the content needs to be kept in sync across all FORTY articles, not ONE template. Wikipedia is worse off for this senseless wave of deletions, as the deletion of the template makes it more difficult to edit the content; FORTY times more difficult. Alansohn (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exteremely useful for maintaining up-to-date information in multiply article that changes regularly, thus of great benefit to encylopedia. Djflem (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Djflem points as well. They allow for rapidly changing information to be updated without having to sift through hundreds of pages at a time. GigachadGigachad (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the previous TFDs, and use WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION if the same text is needed in multiple articles. The purpose of templates is navigation, not storing article text. Note to closer: All of these above keep votes are in violation of WP:TG, as they are based on "it's too much work to use a proper method of doing it". And any post saying the change needs to be made 40 times anytime you update is factually incorrect, as WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION allows it to be changed once and applied everywhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So then what is this doing at TFD? If indeed the method of storage is the problem then that should have been taken to the talk pages of the templates to be discussed or been actually been added to the articles using a different one. Deletion will only lead to the loss of the information/content, which is not the the point of the contention, and lead to the loss of years of work and damage the encyclopedia. Djflem (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TFD is correct procedure for deletion of templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that there are some people here trying to build a functioning encyclopedia and have been using these templates for the past 17 years, fully in keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia:Template namespace, which states that its purpose is "to store templates, which contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages, usually via transclusion." and Help:Template, which states that the purpose of templates is to "contain repetitive material that might need to show up on a larger number of articles or pages." Those pushing for deletion consistently misrepresent these guidelines and push for the elimination of templates that make editing far easier and the result of the previous cycle of deletions only proves this. All that's necessary is to look at this edit and dozens upon dozens of articles just like it, in which the nominator substituted the template ((NJ Burlington County Freeholders)) and replaced it with thousands of characters of text, making the process of editing the content orders of magnitude more difficult. The consensus is that these templates should be retained, the arguments for deletion are specious and not based on policy, and the net result of previous TfDs only shows the disruptive impact of these needless deletions. Alansohn (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does address the loss of valuable content? Djflem (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. --Izno (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Same reason for relisting the legislature templates. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen many articles that have out of date content like this, and this ensures information is accurate. Reywas92Talk 15:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is article text that does not belong in a template. * Pppery *it has begun... 17:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the issue is with the form, not the content, the loss of which would detrimental to the project. That appears to be at cross-purposes with building improving and maintaining an up-do-date enyclopedia. The issue should have been brought up at concerned talk pages, not TfD. Djflem (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There will be no loss of content if these are deleted, since they will be substed or converted to selective transclusion. TFD is the right venue for this. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will certainly be lost if deleted. Or are you planning to do the conversion before they are? Djflem (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All one has to do to see the utter purposeless disruption of these deletions is to look at this edit, where ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ carefully subst'ed the content of ((NJ Atlantic County Freeholders)) and replaced it with 5,664 characters of content from the template into two dozen articles. It turns out that a bot found in edit that three of the sources that had been in the template were no longer accessible. Those sources would now need to be updated in each of the 23 articles and not just once in the template. The utter pointlessness of these deletions are obvious, but the usual crowd is pro-deletion, regardless of the negative impact. These deletions are disruptive and destructive, plain and simple, with no effort to implement any of the alleged alternative solutions. Alansohn (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bot found those links as inaccessible only because it exists in mainspace, it doesn't check it in templates. A poor reason to keep article text like this in templates no? They had existed in the template for a long time and not fixed by anyone, because as WP:TG rightly says, it was more difficult to edit in templates. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deleting it serves no purpose but it makes matters worse by requiring us to edit every single article that has that template associated with it. It'll also become a hassle on making this encyclopedia up to date. If this is kept, all of this could have been done in one go and without a problem. 20chances (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2022 (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).
New Jersey legislative templates
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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 15:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Same as above) I agree with comments made by Alansohn in the previous discussion (November 3 TFD of New Jersey commisioner templates). These templates make it significantly easier to update information across "literally" hundreds of pages. But if you are volunteering to individually change every single NJ municipal page when new officials are elected, be my guest and delete these. JerseyThroughandThrough (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These templates make it significantly easier to add information to the hundreds of pages where it they included., thus keeping them up-to-date after election cycles. Djflem (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TG says Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. which is why the previous templates were correctly deleted, and exactly why these should all be deleted too. Article text should be in articles not templates. If you need repetition of text in multiple articles, use section transcluson. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the suggestion you are making? How does that work? And who is going to do it?Djflem (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to 'section transclusion'? Djflem (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you in favour deleting the years of work that has gone into these templates, but are unwilling to do the work to transfer them to your preferred method of keeping the text? Djflem (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say I am unwilling to do the work of transferring them out of template namespace? As Alansohn has said below, I was the one who enforced the previous TFD outcome, which was to subst the templates [1]. I can help with substing or converting to selective transclusion if that's what this TFD results in. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One only has to look at the aftermath of the last wave of deletions to see the truly disruptive nature of these TfDs. There are 40 articles that used the now-defunct Template:NJ Burlington County Freeholders, all of which have been substituted with the content of the template, as at this edit by our nominator, along with 39 others. When the information that was in that template changes, as it will in January, it's impossible to update the data by making ONE edit to ONE template. Now FORTY articles need to be updated one-by-one and the content needs to be kept in sync across all FORTY articles, not ONE template. Wikipedia is worse off for this senseless wave of deletions, as the deletion of the template makes it more difficult to edit the content; FORTY times more difficult. Alansohn (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, you can use WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION to have the same text in multiple articles, and so you still only have to update it once. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you didn't have selective transclusion, it's a strong wiki smell when someone says "here's article content put in 40 places". We have hyperlinks: use those instead. There's nothing special about this content that requires it be transcluded everywhere. Izno (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the previous TFDs, and use WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION if the same text is needed in multiple articles. The purpose of templates is navigation, not storing article text. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you are willing to transfer the material and the years of work gone into them to your preferred method of keeping the text? Djflem (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not "my preferred method", the one that follows Wikipedia guidelines. You don't get to just ignore template guidelines because you feel like it. And nope, I have no subject interest so won't personally be doing it, but it is a fix that ought to be done by someone. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't feel like doing anything to save the hard work put into information, and ignore the fact they improve of the articles in which it's included (and thus the encyclopedia) and prefer to see it deletion, which is damaging. Djflem (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The people who should be fixing it are the people who violated template guidelines in the first place, and the people with subject knowledge/interest. Neither of which is me. Stop trying to make this about me, rather than about Wikipedia's template guidelines, which you appear determined to ignore. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions and stated template guidelines. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be nice for hosts to selectively transclude these templates' sentences from to be specified. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is article text that does not belong in a template. * Pppery *it has begun... 17:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the issue is with the form, not the content, the loss of which would detrimental to the project. That appears to be at cross-purposes with building improving and maintaining an up-do-date enyclopedia. The issue should have been brought up at concerned talk pages, not TfD. Djflem (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There will be no loss of content if these are deleted, since they will be substed or converted to selective transclusion. TFD is the right venue for this. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly will be if deleted. Are you planning to do the conversion before they are? That certainly would have been a solution before proposing TfD. Djflem (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be incapable of understanding how TFDs work. Nothing will be lost because the templates will not be deleted until they are replaced by subst or selective transclusion. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All one has to do to see the utter purposeless disruption of these deletions is to look at this edit, where you systematically subst'ed the content of ((NJ Atlantic County Freeholders)) and replaced it with 5,664 characters of content from the template into two dozen articles. It turns out that a bot found in edit that three of the sources that had been in the template were no longer accessible. Those sources would now need to be updated in each of the 23 articles and not just once in the template. The utter pointlessness of these deletions are obvious, but the usual crowd is pro-deletion, regardless of the negative impact. These deletions are disruptive and destructive, plain and simple, with no effort to implement any of the alleged alternative solutions. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bot found those links as inaccessible only because it exists in mainspace, it doesn't check it in templates. A poor reason to keep article text like this in templates no? They had existed in the template for a long time and not fixed by anyone, because as WP:TG rightly says, it was more difficult to edit in templates. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "There will be no loss of content if these are deleted" isn't going to make things better. It is completely unnecessary to delete these templates (as well as other templates you requested to delete) and it will make editors try to edit every single page that originally have that template instead of having a single page. It serves no positive output and all it does is to make maters worse. I also have to agree with Alansohn. He has a very good point. If these templates were gone, it would take maybe a lot of hours just to update it should a representative or a county commissioner, or whoever is represented in government come and goes. 20chances (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deleting it serves no purpose but it makes matters worse by requiring us to edit every single article that has that template associated with it. It'll also become a hassle on making this encyclopedia up to date. If this is kept, all of this could have been done in one go and without a problem. 20chances (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One more reason why keeping this in templates is a bad idea – someone had added it to New Jersey legislative districts, 2011 apportionment in 2011 but the templates now have 2022 data, which makes most of the article senseless. Due to continuous updation of article text in the template, not all transclusions of these templates are actually accurate in the current artcile context. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Please. Be serious. I can show you more than 500 articles where these transclusions make complete and total sense, and your best argument for deletion is that you found one -- and only one -- article where their use doesn't make sense, entirely in retrospect. So now you demand that content must be duplicated across hundreds upon hundreds of articles, making it far harder to maintain articles and keep them consistent, all because there is one article where the templates should not have been used. Please recognize that editors here are trying to build an encyclopedia that is easier for readers to understand and for editors to keep updated. One set of templates misplaced in an article a decade ago does not justify their deletion. Please. Alansohn (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2022 (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).
New Jersey senate and congress templates
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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 15:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with comments made by Alansohn in the previous discussion (November 3 TFD of New Jersey commisioner templates). These templates make it significantly easier to update information across "literally" hundreds of pages. But if you are volunteering to individually change every single NJ municipal page when new officials are elected, be my guest and delete these. JerseyThroughandThrough (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TG says Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. which is why the previous templates were correctly deleted, and exactly why these should all be deleted too. Article text should be in articles not templates. If you need repetition of text in multiple articles, use section transcluson. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explain 'section transclusion' and link to it please, since that is your suggestion solution.Djflem (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All one has to do to see the utter purposeless disruption of these deletions is to look at this edit, where ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ carefully subst'ed the content of ((NJ Atlantic County Freeholders)) and replaced it with 5,664 characters of content from the template into two dozen articles. It turns out that a bot found in edit that three of the sources that had been in the template were no longer accessible. Those sources would now need to be updated in each of the 23 articles and not just once in the template. The utter pointlessness of these deletions are obvious, but the usual crowd is pro-deletion, regardless of the negative impact. These deletions are disruptive and destructive, plain and simple, with no effort to implement any of the alleged alternative solutions. Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bot found those links as inaccessible only because it exists in mainspace, it doesn't check it in templates. A poor reason to keep article text like this in templates no? They had existed in the template for a long time and not fixed by anyone, because as WP:TG rightly says, it was more difficult to edit in templates. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One only has to look at the aftermath of the last wave of deletions to see the truly disruptive nature of these TfDs. There are 40 articles that used the now-defunct Template:NJ Burlington County Freeholders, all of which have been substituted with the content of the template, as at this edit by our nominator, along with 39 others. When the information that was in that template changes, as it will in January, it's impossible to update the data by making ONE edit to ONE template. Now FORTY articles need to be updated one-by-one and the content needs to be kept in sync across all FORTY articles, not ONE template. Wikipedia is worse off for this senseless wave of deletions, as the deletion of the template makes it more difficult to edit the content; FORTY times more difficult. Alansohn (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These templates make it significantly easier to add information to the hundreds of pages where they included, thus keeping them up-to-date after election cycles. They are of great benefit to the encyclopedia, despite claim.Djflem (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the previous TFDs, and use WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION if the same text is needed in multiple articles. The purpose of templates is navigation, not storing article text. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can somebody help the keep voters learn alternative ways of doing these templates' jobs? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is article text that does not belong in a template. * Pppery *it has begun... 17:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm going to be very blunt on this. Deleting this will cause more work to be done on every single page and it will become a hassle. If we were to delete this template, all of us would have to edit EVERY SINGLE article that has this content, compared with just one template where it makes it easy. I have to mention Alansohn, which that user made a very good point. Keeping this template and updating it will make our lives easier. Compared to just doing the same processes with all of the articles that originally have that template. 20chances (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2022 (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:Timeline Tour de France Winners
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 03:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete, now merged with attribution. Frietjes (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (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:Timeline Vuelta a España Winners
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 03:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete, now substituted with attribution. Frietjes (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2022 (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).