Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or add more links? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit23:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NFL navbox of its type is listed here and makes a good argument that applies here. These navboxes are likely to not be updated weekly. It has Spencer Rattler listed as the South Carolina Gamecocks quarterback despite being drafted by the New Orleans Saints and editors at the college football WikiProject have noted that some players have entered the transfer portal. As it sits it is the only template of its kind collegiately and should not be replicated and this template should be deleted. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were already merged, but then MSGJ reverted it; please see the talk page discussion of Template talk:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies#Duplicate banners resulting from merge. I don't think we really need a separate discussion here as the consensus for the merge (of the WikiProjects) is already there, it's just a question of how we do it technically. It would be great if you could withdraw this nomination so I can re-do the merge without the bot edit warring with me. – Joe (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't correct and point 3 there should be more clear about it. Basically, if you redirect one template to another, you aren't merging anything the redirected template did.
If you wanted to preserve Category:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies and its articles sub-categories (which aren't tagged for deletion, so it seems you are), then redirecting the template does not do that. If your intention is to delete those categories then in that case redirecting one template to another is also incorrect as that can lead to two identical templates on a same page, which we've recently eliminated with a group effort. Instead, a bot (TfD has one) should replace the usages while making sure there aren't duplicates left.
If you do actually mean to merge the code of Ancient Germanic studies into the History banner so that the article categories are kept populated then that template needs to be updated to accept the new parameters and then a bot needs to replace the template with again making sure there aren't duplicates left. Gonnym (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, I've been editing for nineteen years, can you give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that if the wording I use isn't clear, it's not because you need to condescendingly explain the difference between redirecting and merging to me? When I say merge, I mean the WikiProjects are being merged, not necessarily the individual templates. Maybe I didn't make that clear in the edit summaries, mea culpa. It doesn't mean you need to assume I'm an idiot.
We don't need to preserve the categories or its subcategories. We don't need to preserve any parameters that aren't already in the target. The problem with duplicated templates is acknowledged, covered in the instructions I've just linked you to, and I've already said in the discussion I linked to you that I intend to follow those instructions and submit a bot request when the process is finished. Ditto for the category deletions. This discussion isn't exactly getting us closer to that point.
There are about a thousand uses of this template, and eventually, we will need to consolidate those. Everything currently tagged with this template ought to end up with a single copy of the larger group's template. Once it's settled and stable, the cats will be empty and can be deleted as ((db-catempty)). However, it doesn't all have to be done on the same day. There are benefits to being slow about this, as it gives editors an opportunity to understand what's happening. If we did everything quickly, some people would go to sleep on Monday night thinking that nothing was happening, and wake up Tuesday morning to discover that the page/tool/cat/template they were silently relying on had suddenly disappeared. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've explained that you don't want to preserve the category system, then I finally have an understanding what you mean. So no need to merge, nor redirect. Just replace the nominated template with Template:WikiProject History with a simple bot run. Once that's done, delete the template and categories.
To WhatamIdoing, while I can see the benefit in going slow in some parts of the project, not when it comes to things like this. Once you get consensus for something (that part is what you take the time to make sure editors have enough time to know what is happening), you need to see it through in the least amount of time to cause the least amount of issues. Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That depends, @MSGJ. Did you revert it because you are an active member of that particular group of editors who just accidentally missed the merge proposal for the last six weeks, but now you want to keep that group separate and try to WP:REVIVE the group?
I do not oppose a merge of the projects (indeed I support such merges) and have confirmed as much to Joe. But I want to ensure that the right actions happen with the templates. We have all the right tools for replacing templates at TfD, and I don't understand the opposition to using TfD. As you stated above, there is no rush to complete this, so a week in TfD should not be a problem? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the original redirect, since no substantive argument against doing so has been provided, merely procedural arguments. This can sit in the holding cell while people work out what's best to do. * Pppery *it has begun...03:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That group is also inactive/non-existent. It should be merged up to the broader group, too. (Perhaps something for a different round.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is part of a series of over thirty template maps of Continental Asia across different time periods. I know I've seen this one transcluded in an infobox before, early in article development prior to replacement by a newly created more specific map template.Our encyclopaedic coverage of circa 200 CE Asia history topics is not yet particularly thorough, and it would be a shame to discard this work just because it's currently unused.In general and as a set, I think all templates in this series should be kept whether or not they have any transclusions at the moment. I think my memories of how this template was previously used could be extrapolated to future use cases: templates from this series are transcluded until a more specific map is located or created, if ever. Just because the usage is temporary doesn't mean that it's not useful. Folly Mox (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone removed them in between when I wrote that comment and now. I don't know what to tell you -- I made it so that template documentation could list redirects to the template, and I had it on several doc pages. I guess I can go add it on them again. jp×g🗯️17:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 222980 records in wikidata with the property that template presents, the thing itself is an ID for identify media that is not tied into a particular vendor or platform, if effort is needed, it is it promoting EIDR not in dismantling the infrastructure around it Back ache (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template is of little use. It would be used to add an external link to articles, however the link in reality really adds little value to the articles. The basic information is already in the articles, and providing IDs solely for other databases and streaming platforms isn't of any use to the vast majority of article readers. Anyway the link itself per WP:EL needs to be immediately useful and they aren't. Additionally it seems to provide nothing that isn't already what Wikidata's point is which renders it a pointless duplicate link. Canterbury Tailtalk00:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be useful for the reader? The creator is now mass adding them to film articles, with no explanation. MikeAllen00:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to show by example some of the articles it covers, it also has the potential to me more than just a link template because as an industry wide ID there maybe microdata that could be added Back ache (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be rewritten as a catalog id template for citations, rather than for use in external links (which no one uses templates for anyway). See my comment below. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to external link templates, there are some very popular ones for example youtube, twitter, linkedin etc the advantage with using them is as a platform evolves (as is currently happening rapidly with twitters transformation into "X") if the surrounding URL's change, just a change to the template is needed. Your point about transforming it into a citation template makes sense Back ache (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could this work better as an authority file entry for ((authority control))? That seems a better place to consolidate structured metadata than in subheading External links, or inside a citation (although I could see citations to this database supplanting user generated sources like imdb for things like runtime). Folly Mox (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links. This could be converted to a list article if such a list is desired. Created in January 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With catalog id templates, the purpose is to have a uniform replacement for entries in the |id= field of CS1 templates (there are many of this variety, until/unless CS1 adopts a specific field for that catalog). As build-it-and-they-will-come doesn't work (and it seems a lot of people are confused as to the point of catalog id templates, and I've had two erroneously rewritten into citation templates), the best option is to use an AWB script to convert OJ url citations automatically. I am extremely busy this summer, but the script should be quick to at least populate a few transclusions. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions about this template. Created in 2013 and listed as deprecated in its documentation since 2013. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't |editor-link= its editors, doesn't supply isbns or dois or gbooks links, doesn't employ ((CS1 wrapper)). It's telling that none of the over 700 citations to this source in ns0 use this template. The documentation doesn't even list it as deprecated, but rather DEPRECIATED [sic], which is even worse. Folly Mox (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. It is unclear if this was made as a joke around the time when the OBOD went away, but it is not useful and does not appear to work as designed. Created in 2013. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four transclusions outside the context of TfD. Don't really see any potential for future use except for aficionadae of certain older skins. Subst and delete.Folly Mox (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an unused transwikification of pt:b:Predefinição:Piano. Could potentially be useful for articles about chords playable on piano, but those seem to use a standardised notation rather than graphic depiction. Not really suited to encyclopaedic purpose. Folly Mox (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2013. Possibly superseded by Module:Adjacent stations and its more modern ilk. From the amount of usage of the other templates in this family, it appears that they are slowly being replaced as articles are updated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:2026 FIFA World Cup knockout stage bracket
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Ulster Rally
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Delete: I could wear the template as a statement of intent if there was a realistic change of those links turning blue imminently, but they've sat in red for fourteen years. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.