The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep as wrappers. Past precedent and trending consensus are generally enough to overturn a numerical majority for an opinion, but in certain circumstances a WikiProject has demonstrated enough of a presence to add more weight behind what would normally be seen (globally) as a minority opinion (example). The primary argument from the WIR members is "maintaining a historical record", while those advocating deletion are doing so based on the current trend towards minimising banner presence on a page (specifically reducing the number of banners to the minimum required, see also past TFDs on these banners). Keeping these as wrapper templates is the best middle ground that can be had; those wanting to keep the templates get to keep them, while those wanting to minimise banner count will see these wrappers be converted into the primary WIR banner. I would encourage the WIR leaders to consider whether it is necessary to continue creating these wrappers given this TFD and the global trend away from such things, but as this TFD is looking at the already-existing templates I cannot make a mandate to do so or prohibit said creation.If WIR decides at some point in the future that these wrappers are no longer necessary, I see no issue nominating them for G6 deletion, citing this TFD and the discussion to delete. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these templates are used anymore. They have all been replaced with ((WikiProject Women in Red)) and should have no transclusions. Since 2024, the tagging process for Women in Red no longer requires a separate template for each event. The new syntax is ((WIR|299)) instead of ((WIR-299)) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note shifted huge list to subpage. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all with ((WIR)), or, failing that, delete. From the read up here, most of these are entirely pointless now so I think it would be safe to merge or delete. Awesome Aasim 18:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They have all been merged into ((WikiProject Women in Red)) already — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Good job on taking this task and seeing it through. Gonnym (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all on the assumption that they're all unused now (I spot checked a few, and none were being used). If any of them are being used anywhere in Talk space, then convert to the general WiR template first. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. No, do not delete them. They are historical documentation of the work of Women in Red. Mark them as being preserved for historical records, or some such. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Templates like these are not kept for some historical record. And they have been merged with the main WikiProject template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I must admit to being confused as to why these have to be deleted, and why they can't be kept for historical record - I'm not a TfD regular, but it's not clear to me why these can't be retained as wrapper templates, and why such wrapper templates wouldn't be relatively cheap (that principle is usually applied to redirects, but - as I understand it - template wrappers in this case are essentially the functional equivalent of an ((R from move))/((R from merge))). If members of WiR (such as Rosiestep) want to retain these for historical reference, I'm not clear on why they can't be retained in their current form. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 18:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If there was any valuable or historical information in these templates then I would agree with you. Most of these templates have at most 3-4 revisions in the history and every detail (wording, structure, custom images, etc.) has been incorporated into the main template, so there really is nothing of value there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it not for a community to say what is of value to them? Lajmmoore (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To you, there is no value, but I would have guessed that since you proposed to delete them. But did you ever stop once to consider anyone else? Ever once considered the morale affect this action would have on the core group of editors that have worked tirelessly through the years on WiR? The effort it takes to build and maintain a Wikiproject with the size and scope of WiR? When several members of the Wikiproject express a strong desire one way or the other I think that should carry extra weight. --ARoseWolf 11:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At this time, my !vote is to keep. A number of members of the WikiProject have expressed the view that they wish for these wrapper templates to be retained; and, given that I'm not aware of how their retention would be harmful to the wider project, I don't personally see a reason to go against this wish. In my mind, this isn't about WIR WP:OWN-ing their project templates, but more as a matter of courtesy -- if the project for which the templates were created wishes to retain them, and there isn't a benefit to the wider project that would result from their deletion, I don't see why they can't be retained. In the absence of harm that would be caused by these templates' retention, my view is that WIR members' request to keep these is not an unreasonable one. Furthermore, as noted below, some of these wrapper templates are still being used -- judging by the article talk pages currently sorted into Category:Templates for deletion, they've been used at least three times since this discussion began ([1] [2] [3]). Even if members of WIR didn't object to these templates' deletion, the merging into ((WikiProject Women in Red)) only took place relatively recently, and I can see an additional benefit in retaining these wrapper templates for the benefit of editors who are used to the previous format. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 14:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd encourage people to take a look at the discussion on the Women in Red talk page, as I think many of those who have been foundational to the success of the project would like to see them remain. Furthermore, as an internationally significant project, archived activities need to remain openly available. It would also be really nice if consultation on these things could take place in advance of the changes. On a personal note, and as an active but not daily participant, it sometimes feels that changes are communicated as a fait accompli, rather than presented as a suggestion to be supported by consensus (or not). I am certain this is all done in good faith, and I don't under-estimate the time these things take, but the lack of consultation doesn't helping with cohesion - either between, or within, projects. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reason MSGJ is asking for these to be deleted is that without meaningful consultation, he has single-handedly modified each template to fall in line with the changes he has made in connection with the hundreds of events the project has developed since 2015. The editors who developed these templates were not informed of a proposal for their imminent deletion. Those of us who have supported the project since the beginning have not been happy with the changes although it appears they were made in good faith. Several of the most active editors on Women in Red have expressed reservations on the project's talk pages and have stated they would prefer to be able to continue developing meetup events on the basis of the tried and tested approach which has worked well over the years. There might therefore be a strong case for maintaining the templates if they can be restored as they could be used as a basis for re-implementing our traditional approach. MSGJ did in fact inform me that I was free to use the traditional approach if I preferred to do so. The results were however unusable as so many related changes have been made and a new six-step procedure must now be followed. In my opinion, no further deletions in this connection should be made until consensus is obtained from content editors active on the WikiProject Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't understand the desperate need to delete these without the consensus of or even consultation with the Wikiproject that uses it. "Templates like these are not kept for some historical record."" But why? Because we have to destroy everything and never keep a historical record? Because we have to make it where we can't easily go back to a tried and tested way of doing things in the event that members change their mind and decide they don't like this new method and want to go back? And why would the proposer of this action tell members of the Wikiproject that they could continue using the traditional method with full intention to delete the ability to do so? Why wasn't the editors that developed these templates properly informed of this discussion from the start. What happened to good faith courtesy and empathy for the hard work and dedication of fellow editors? How does leaving these templates hurt the encyclopedia? I think the proposer and the delete votes should ask themselves if their rationale for this action actually causes more harm than good. If it does more damage to the WiR Wikiproject than it benefits the overall encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 11:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - basically no process of consulting or listening to the actual project in this case is really bad practice, and like similar actions in the larger project of other issues - there seems to be the need for more respect of historical records in projects than what is being shown so far. JarrahTree 11:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The templates do indeed have value as a historical record. Since its inception WiR has been and continues to be a highly active and successful wikiproject. It has helped to lessen the gender gap and systemic bias, recruit new editors, and increase the coverage of women in the encyclopedia. What value is there in occluding that history? Netherzone (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Goodness, this looks like the last time WIR showed up to this forum. A lot of arguments that hold no water here, at best. Delete all.

  There is no value to keeping these templates, not even in the historical. What history there is of actual value is already on the talk pages on which they were placed - to identify those pages as being of interest. Only rarely do we keep templates for "historical" reason, which must be an actual strong reason for a template (thousands of historical uses of a single template that were in place, for example ((qif))). This set of templates does not fit that category in the slightest.

  With regard to consultation, all I have seen is WIR saying "no, we don't want to change anything" without regard to why these are being removed, which has been discussed ad nauseum with multiple TFDs to remove this series of templates. This discussion is the natural end result of someone (MSGJ) having done the work to integrate all the disparate WIR templates into the one. No community has been disturbed in any meaningful fashion. Yes, there is going to be a slightly different way to use (and now add to) the banner. No, that is not meaningful.

  Several of you would do well to review WP:LOCALCON in general. Izno (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Goodness me, thank you for the condescending remarks about fellow editors and the hard work they put in at WiR. I'm sure we will take your statements and complete disdain for us showing up at discussions to heart. Perhaps our viewpoint is your comments hold about as much water as the evidence presented that these templates hurt the encyclopedia by being kept and tagged as historical, which is none. --ARoseWolf 13:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What "hard work" exactly did it take to copy one WiR template and create another one? Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Claiming that "none of these templates are being used anymore" is a blatant falsehood. I myself have been using these templates for some time now and even in my most recent article created just today, from where I noticed these templates are for deletion. Being an ardent WIR contributor, this deletion nom just feels like utter nonsense. X (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I in principle agree with Izno's, but TfD should not be actively hostile to the users of templates without a very good reason, and there is no very good reason here, just a general quest for tidiness. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or projectify if the edit history is of any use). Deleting templates that have been superseded makes old revisions slightly harder to read, but has no effect on the current version of pages. No historical use (or even potential historical use) has been presented. While Women in Red is an important project (and I share many of its goals and have often collaborated on women's biographies with some of its members), that does not make everything ever touched by Women in Red worth preserving forever. Izno is absolutely right here. Could we try to argue on the merits of the template instead of whatever the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Deletion_of_wrapper_templates was meant to accomplish? —Kusma (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Many (if not all) of the old versions of the templates do not even work correctly (I assume this is because ((WIR)) was changed), see for a random example Special:permanentlink/941788174 compared to current ((WIR-158)), so the only thing remotely interesting is the names in the history, which could be done by moving to project space, say Wikipedia:Women in Red/OldTemplates/WIR-158. Is there any objection to such moves from those who wish to preserve the history? —Kusma (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone link to where there was consensus to merge all of the templates? There was this proposal last year, but that proposal failed to find such a consensus. Was there a similarly well-attended proposal revisiting the subject since then which did find consensus to do so? Here the question put to us here takes that decision for granted, asking us not "should they be merged" but "what should be done with all these obsolete templates, now that a merge has taken place". But it seems to me the people who actually use the templates under discussion (as opposed to those looking around for things to optimize) never actually wanted this. Unless such a proposal took place with a finding of consensus to merge, I don't see why the merge and its related changes shouldn't just be rolled back and this secondary proposal considered moot.
  If someone can point to that successful proposal, I'd lean towards keeping and marking as historical. One person's technical instrument to streamline and optimize is another person's historical record, included not just in on-wiki project pages but off-wiki print-outs, presentations, etc. I just don't see any benefit to deleting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bumping this to ensure we're not about to close a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed my delete vote- if there was never a consensus to merge into one template in the first place- and that TFD is a consensus not to merge- then I support keeping and reverting back to using separate templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's put this to bed. Detailed discussions took place over a number of weeks with several participants. Please check archives of main project talk page, and also the template talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you provide a link to where consensus emerged that's sufficient to go against the outcome of the well-attended formal discussion? The WIR talk page archives are very long, and I see nothing resembling such a consensus on the template talk page or its one archive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that the discussions MSGJ is referring to are here and here -- however, MSGJ, please correct me if I'm wrong. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 22:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. It's still concerning that the first link concludes with David Eppstein's remark that I see that now despite the strongly expressed opposition above and lack of consensus for this change, MSGJ is going ahead and doing it (e.g. Special:Diff/1197668850) causing the bots to run around replacing all these templates, in violation of Wikipedia:Fait accompli. (and subsequent replies indicating discussion continued on the template talk page, which doesn't look to have ever been very active). The other link above looks like a constructive discussion, but still doesn't provide a clear consensus. In fact the people who lead coordination of the WikiProject -- those who actually create and use these templates, and who voiced objections in multiple previous threads -- weren't involved at all.
    Let me be clear that MSGJ's efforts to improve the template and respond to feedback have been admirable. In isolation, I'd think it's an improvement over using several event-based templates. However, I still have reservations that this appears to be a project which MSGJ was determined to complete regardless of what the stakeholders think. The discussions were all framed around "how can I make this better" even when told "we don't want this". It's a tough call because if it were put to the broader community in an RfC, it would probably find consensus to go with a single template, but if put to the people who actually use the template, such consensus probably would not exist. Hard to weigh, but at very least we should be acknowledging that this was something pushed forward despite many stakeholders' objections. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• move to project space seems like a reasonable compromise. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any interest in simply leaving these as wrappers? This would allow for those not wanting dozens of different banner templates to be happy, while those wanting a historical record would also be satisfied.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if that keeps all parties happy. Project members have stated numerous times that these provide a historical record for the project, but no one has been able to point to a single aspect which is valuable. However I can see these templates have some sentimental value to some people, and feelings are important. I am happy to acknowledge that these wrappers are doing absolutely no harm in staying around - this nomination is purely an attempt at tidiness as Pppery noted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It doesn't seem like most editors pressing urgently for the retention these templates understand how templates work? Are they unaware that none of them appear to be transcluded/in use anymore? Are they aware that each template does not contain any history of its usage? Are they aware that the individual events they represent have their own pages and are already listed elsewhere? Guess not. — TAnthony^Talk 22:49, 15 May 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.