Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 July 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

July 13

edit
edit

This template is used in 99 articles, almost exclusively Eurovision-related such as Eurovision Song Contest 1973. This template is really distracting, and unnecessary for something that readers would quickly realize when reading articles with interlanguage links, which aren't that uncommon. Skyshiftertalk 22:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see a situation where it would be useful and it takes up a lot of space. Paditor (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at the template page at first I thought this was a talk page banner and therefore mostly useless; but now I realize this enormous banner is actually in the middle of articles? This is just plain disruptive to the reader. Our interlanguage links are intuitive enough as they are, and if they were not it would need to be addressed by changing how they look, not putting these enormous disclaimer chunks of non-contents in the middle of articles. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 22:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/United States Department of Defense

edit

CT editnotice related to an expired page protection. No opinion on the BRD restriction, but that is presumably expired as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consonant templates

edit

All these templates (listed at Category:Consonant templates) go against the very first general template guideline, as they are used exclusively to store article text that is consequently not cited inline. Some are used on dozens of pages, some are very short and little used, while some others are much more consequent, such as Template:Affrication of Fricatives in Adyghe dialects. There is no obvious need for the standardization they bring, and therefore I do not believe an exception should be made. As such, I propose that they all be substituted and then deleted. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close, this just f'ed up essentially every consonant page (e.g. Voiced alveolar approximant#Features, Palatal ejective stop#Features, Voiceless velar fricative#Features etc.). Their standardization is quite obviously beneficial. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, let's not exaggerate, it just displays a small header while making the bullets appear slightly different; not exactly the kind of disruption that warrants a speedy close. Since I said it was not obvious to me in the nomination, I would appreciate if you explained why you think it is, and especially how it warrants ignoring template guidelines or forgoing inline citations on all this content. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A la WP:BLUE, they have no need to be cited. They are repetitive and basic definitions that are better to maintain as one than per-page; if they ever need updating, one only needs to do this once, instead of dozens of times.
I think you need to better articulate (no pun intended) exactly how they ignore template guidelines. Some of these templates have been around for 15+ years without issue.
It broke bullet listing and interrupts the basic reading of these sections; looking at any individual consonant page, it is rather plainly disruptive. It is not just one small header, it is several in a row.
As a side note, an equivalent set of templates exists for vowel pages, as well. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what needs to be articulated further, as I linked WP:TG in the nomination and am referring to the very first line, but I can quote it if need be: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.
Regarding the age of these templates, it is frankly irrelevant; 15+ years templates with a bigger footprint than those get deleted/merged/etc. all the time here at TfD.
Now, I am actually really confused at your invocation of WP:SKYBLUE: this is an explanatory essay about how some simple statements likely to be easily and universally understood irrespective of background can escape the core of WP:V, being Statements that may be challenged require inline citations to reliable sources. Many of these templates are not mere statements, some can be paragraph-sized, or even section-sized for the example I mention in nomination. To take a random example from the list, do you genuinely believe writing in an article about a given consonant that Its manner of articulation varies between approximant and fricative, which means it is produced by narrowing the vocal tract at the place of articulation, but generally not enough to produce much turbulence in the airstream. Languages do not distinguish voiced fricatives from approximants produced in the throat. is a "basic definition" that has "no need to be cited"? Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 21:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
do you genuinely believe writing in an article about a given consonant that ... is a "basic definition" that has "no need to be cited"? Yes, actually. Although the wording is technical, such a feature is rather unanimously recognized in the field, and is an entirely uncontroversial statement of fact; it is hugely verifiable, and then some. Nothing in WP:BLUE says anything remotely about needing to be understood irrespective of background or escaping WP:V; the point is that some things are so verifiable as to be redundant.
All that said, the template that you picked out happened to only be transcluded to a singular page, [ʕ]. I just replaced it with the direct text, so now {{approximant-fricative}} does actually have grounds for deletion, being unused. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Oklopfer – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I wonder whether these sections are really necessary. Wouldn't linking the individual parameters of articulation be enough? If you want to go through and replace all of these sections with e.g. "/dɮ/ is a [voiced] [pulmonic] [alveolar] [lateral] [affricate]", then you could request the templates for deletion due to them no longer being used. But as long as we give lists of definitions across multiple articles, we should use these templates to keep them consistent. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Would it be so difficult to simply change the transclusions to substitutions with an AWB run? Maybe even leave behind comments that inform future editors that the text is standardized. I question the utility of "it's easy to update if they ever need updating" as a justification for keeping these. If they are indeed so uncontroversial and basic (which I agree that they are), then why are we making provisions to keep them so updatable? They shouldn't, don't, and won't need any updating. This is clearly the precise kind of template that WP:TG warns against, and I don't see any justification for why that should be ignored in this context. Kisseran (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't, don't, and won't need any updating. There is always more copyediting to be done; and ensuring that their consistency is not disrupted post-substitution is easier said. ~ oklopfer (💬) 08:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KansasHandKinesiology

edit

Links, usually within 'see also' seem irretrievably broken & do not appear to add significant value to the pages they are on. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete broken and pointless. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Tommy Cash (rapper)

edit

Editnotice about an expired semi-protection. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I changed the editnotice to {{Contentious topics/editnotice|ee}} since the CT portion of the notice still applies even if protection has expired. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The template is now unused though, as Talk:Tommy Cash (rapper) has the standard CTOPS notice; what is the point of keeping this specific template? Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Andy Robertson

edit
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 Delete; deleted as G6 by Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer should be complete now. However, I'd suggest creating a temporary-editnotice template for people who are about to be transferred between sports teams and clubs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:04, 13 July 2026 (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.

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2026

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_July_13&oldid=1364162459"