Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 5 15 20
TfD 0 0 2 2 4
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 0 31 31
AfD 0 0 0 2 2
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed.

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

Shortcut

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects
List at Redirects for discussion.
Moving and renaming
Use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

Shortcut
  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template[edit]

Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

Note:

  • If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the TfD notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the TfD tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators or Template editors.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TfD, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_April_18#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.

Add this text to the top of the list:

  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without brackets|result of previous TfD}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the |text= field of the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
III: Notify users. Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts.

Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors[edit]

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

Notifying related WikiProjects[edit]

WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{Tfd notice}} for this.

Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

Notifying substantial contributors to the template[edit]

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.

At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

Twinkle[edit]

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion[edit]

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.

Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.

Closing discussion[edit]

Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.

Current discussions[edit]

April 18[edit]

April 17[edit]

Template:Kerala State Television Awards[edit]

Current template mirrors Template:Kerala State Television Award for Best Actor and if these was a listing of State Awards, there would be only two articles. One for film and television. This is unused and the best actor is. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry without knowing I had created this template.

Template:Campaignbox Polish-Cossack-Tatar War (1666-1671)[edit]

Similar to the template below. This just has two links. Not enough to navigate with. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Halifax family tree[edit]

Unused family tree chart. The Halifax family as the name would suggest never existed and instead the Earl of Halifax is just a peerage title of different members of political families. Each with a different last name. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polish-Cossack-Tatar War (1666-1671)[edit]

Unused and only one link. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK territories image map[edit]

Unused map. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Skytrain MIA[edit]

This template has entirely redundant information copied from Template:Miami International Airport, which provides better context for this people mover within the airport as a whole. The Miami International Airport template is also the route diagram template (RDT) used in the articles for the airport's other two people mover systems. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Animal actors[edit]

This navbox is not necessary IMO, as it essentially serves the purpose of a category. We already have a category and a page for animal actors, so we don't also need a navbox. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT, I would like to withdraw this nomination. As Randy Kryn pointed out, WP:CLN renders my concern moot. In addition, the navbox has been edited and is in much better shape than it was previously. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to withdraw it, Randy is misinterpreting the guideline. --woodensuperman 08:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you are misinterpreting the guideline, please read it, and please don't ignore the nominator's comment about the navbox being in much better shape. As for categories, lists, and navboxes, of course all three are not needed in every case. But when all three do exist they, according to the guideline and commonsense, compliment each other and are not in conflict with each other. This animal actor navbox is a good guide to the subject and provides the topic with an easily viewed and easily understood Wikipedia map. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is nothing wrong with this navbox. As for having both a category and a navbox, please read WP:CLN which states: "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others...Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." (boldface in original). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep spouting the same spiel about WP:CLN but it seems like you haven't actually read it. Sometimes categories are appropriate where navboxes are not, and vice versa. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods. --woodensuperman 08:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete, seems strange that there are 10 entries in Category:Chimpanzee actors but currently only 7 "Non-human primates" in the navbox. seems like a maintenance headache to try to keep the category, list article, and navbox in sync. Frietjes (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frietjes, thanks for pointing that out. The primate entries have been added (in one case removed, was Michael Jackson's chimpanzee Bubbles an actor?), so have addressed much of your concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    still a maintenance headache since there are still more missing. correcting this would require checking every entry in the category and in the list article and syncing with the template. Frietjes (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, at least as far as the list (have just synced the list with the navbox). Not really much of a headache at all, and similar to any other navbox which includes multiple entries (as all navboxes should). Will work on the category entries. The navbox could be further sectioned for accuracy and navigational ease (bears, etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and  Done for the categories and expanded the sections. Thanks Frietjes, your concern, now remedied, has helped to better this navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely better suited to category navigation. The articles do not refer to each other, the only association is tangential. We don't have a navbox for {{Human actors}}, no reason for the same logic not to apply here. --woodensuperman 08:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human actors are a totally different topic. Dogs, bears, a crocodile and assorted other animals do not personally choose and endeavor to excel in a career in acting. These pets are made to act by their owners for personal profit. In any case, this is not a very large navbox, and if the Wikipedia collection of human actors included only 85 articles the topic would reasonably have a navbox, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think so. They are not a defined set, inclusion here is tangential, they do not relate to one another. --woodensuperman 12:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not a defined set and do not relate to one another? They are animal actors. What else do you need? Perplexed in Portsmouth, Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And categorising animal actors as such is fine for categories, but it does not make a good navbox. Keiko (orca) and Trigger (horse) have nothing in common other than this tangential intersection. --woodensuperman 12:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not understanding how your reasoning works on this. The topic is "Animal actors", which include both Keiko and Trigger. What do they have in common? Being animals, and being actors. And again, and I'm sure I don't need to remind you, WP:CLN specifically says not to pit categories and navboxes against each other, but correctly tel us that they compliment each other and work in tandem. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are are animals and actors. But that's not a reason to have a navbox for this, when a category is more appropriate. Why should we have different rules for human actors and animal actors? You are cherry-picking WP:CLN again, which clearly states: The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods. There are advantages for a category or a list here, but it is not appropriate for a navbox. No-one needs to navigate between Keiko and Trigger in this manner. --woodensuperman 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Izno (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is long-standing precedent that seemingly duplicative lists, categories, and templates all serve distinct niches in our navigation framework and all serve to present content to interested readers in different formats. I would also argue that people concerned about animal rights and the potential exploitation of working animals would find a great deal of correspondence in the working conditions of cetaceans, non-human primates, elephants, etc., and may very well appreciate having all out animal actor articles available to them in one topic box. jengod (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note... that the nominator withdrew this nomination soon after it opened. Primefac, wouldn't this withdrawal make a difference in relisting? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but would like to also point out for editors that one of the reasons for the nominator's withdrawing was "the navbox has been edited and is in much better shape than it was previously", which hopefully counts as reasoning for the next close. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It still has exactly the same issues, it's just been split into more groups. My !vote was placed after the amendments had been made. --woodensuperman 12:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't have the same issues as the nomination (that's why it was withdrawn). The addition of more groupings improved the navbox to the extent that the nom was voided. That you still objected is tangential to that action. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As well as misinterpreting WP:CLN you seem to be misinterpreting the WP:Deletion process too. The nom is not in any way void. How is my !vote tangential? --woodensuperman 12:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is tangential is saying that the navbox "has exactly the same issues". No, it doesn't, it was nominated on a set of concerns which were remedied. Your concerns are of a different nature than the nomination, that's what I meant. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was nominated because it is better suited to a category. These concerns have not been remedied as it is still better suited to a category. --woodensuperman 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:CLN, where it's clear that categories, navboxes, and lists should be considered as complimentary to each other and work together. It is your opinion that this topic should stay limited to a category, but myself and a few other editors see the quality of the topic in the navbox. If a good percentage of commenting editors notice that value then shouldn't the readers be allowed to experience the same value? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the third (!) time: The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods. --woodensuperman 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hindu term[edit]

Template for making a bunch of translations. WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hum Award Best Music Band[edit]

One entry, WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 11:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hum Award Best Soap Series[edit]

Only one entry with an article, nothing to navigate --woodensuperman 11:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hum Award Best Drama Series[edit]

One entry, nothing to navigate. --woodensuperman 11:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prize for the best interpretation at the Marrakech International Film Festival Awards[edit]

2 entries, WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 11:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-wnr4im[edit]

Already covered entirely by {{Uw-hoax}}; there is no reason for there to be a specific UW template for intentionally fake and made-up hoax versions of Windows (WNR seems to mean Windows Never Released). Very likely to never be used. See {{Uw-wnr1}}. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 04:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This template refers to "WNR/NROS" but doesn't define what this term refers to, like is it a policy page? The template would be pretty meaningless without an explanation provided. This term is used with all of the other similar templates nominated now for discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this comment was made prior to the below merge, and is referring specifically to {{Uw-wnr4im}}. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I am being slightly BOLD and combining these five nominations, as they are one template family and have been nominated with identical rationales. Original nominations can be seen in Special:Permalink/1219376816#Template:Uw-wnr4im. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no reason for an over-specific version of {{Uw-hoax}}. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HK-MTR route title[edit]

Redundant to MTR line articles. Using the infobox is ok. 阿南之人 (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 16[edit]

Template:Major Leagues[edit]

Propose merging Template:Major Leagues with Template:Top-level sport leagues in the United States.
Redundant and could be easily incorporated. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{Top-level sport leagues in the United States}} instead. There is no corresponding article, and as WikiOriginal-9 points out, it seems a bit random. --woodensuperman 11:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The major leagues are the top level leagues and the top-level navbox should be for the top sports like baseball, football, basketball, soccer, hockey. Fencing, swimming, eating, and gaming are not really sports in terms of major league sports. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Best Screenplay Award at the Marrakech International Film Festival Awards[edit]

2 articles. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 15:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jury Prize for Best Director at the Marrakech International Film Festival Awards[edit]

Nothing to navigate --woodensuperman 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disney Adventure World[edit]

Presumably Template:Walt Disney Studios Park will be moved to this space once the park is officially renamed in 2025. This is 100% jumping the gun. GSK (talk • edits) 00:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 15[edit]

Template:Family Guy (season 1)[edit]

These templates have been merged into {{Family Guy episodes}}, which uses a switch to display the episodes for a specific season. Clever. The individual navboxes are unused now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning oppose and restore these templates and delete {{Family Guy episodes}} which is clearly being misused to create navboxes full of non-links and redirects. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the pointless usage at Family Guy season 22#External links. Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. AFAICT, the links in the centralized template are the same as those in the individual templates. Having one template create a variety of navboxes is better than having 10+ templates. The listings for season 22 should be removed from {{Family Guy episodes}} until articles exist, but using the centralized template at Family Guy season 4#External links is better than using {{Family Guy (season 4)}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The baby is a lie. There is a reason only those seasons had a template and that is because the other seasons don't have enough links to support one. So what did those "clever" editors do? Merge them all so finding and removing these is that much harder. Gonnym (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For any season that has the navbox for a season with no articles, the choice is to remove it and replace it with the main Family Guy navbox with a link to that season. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I realllllllllly do not like navboxes that are conditional. These are some of our most-simple templates and the conditionality steps up the complexity significantly. Izno (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No need for the individual season episodes. I've always thought that {{Doctor Who episodes}}, which is ths same principle, works rather efficiently (although I have no idea why there is an "episode count" at that other template). --woodensuperman 13:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peter Cook[edit]

Unused and in archaic format, many articles fall foul of WP:FILMNAV, etc, etc. Don't really see the need for a dedicated navbox, but no prejudice if someone wants to WP:TNT and start again in line with existing guidelines. --woodensuperman 10:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Going through Cook's category and the subcats there is enough to have a navbox for. This needs to be reformatted to reflect that. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, have tidied up and there is more there than I first thought. Happy to WITHDRAW my nomination. --woodensuperman 13:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Header test[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. Speedy delete as author requested (WP:G7) Whpq (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a test from September 2023, discussed at VPT, that didn't appear to result in anything (or did result in something but is no longer needed). – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created it. It can be deleted. Along with its associated CSS file:
Template:Header test/styles.css
--Timeshifter (talk) 08:17, 15 April 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.


April 14[edit]

Module:Map of English football clubs by league[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BR-SP-Diadema[edit]

Flag icon and link to city. No transclusions. A proper "Country data" template should be created if this flag icon is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ludzie nauki[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. No English-language text. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hicaron[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, template parameters, or incoming links from discussions to explain what it is or why it exists. Created in 2006. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 13[edit]

Template:German pies[edit]

There is no concept of "pie" in Germany other than as something imported from Britain or the US, compare de:Pie. Calling these particular German Kuchen "pies" is WP:SYNTH original research. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Zwetschgenkuchen. —Kusma (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a corresponding category nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_13#Category:German_pies. —Kusma (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I agree with Kusma that the concept of pie (as separate from the overall categorization of such foods as cakes) seems to have no meaning in German. All entries in this template are German cakes, not German pies. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed, there is no such thing as pies in German cuisine, and all three of the entries listed here are cakes, not pies. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 12[edit]

Template:Roanoke–Lynchburg Radio/doc[edit]

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AIV Notice[edit]

Appears to be a recreation of Template:Reported to AIV, which was also deleted with consensus. I'll quote myself: Is there really a purpose to notifying vandals that they're on WP:AIV? The whole purpose of AIV is for blatantly-obvious vandals that we want to revert, block, ignore, not introduce them to AIV. The reason why you need to notify users when they're reported to WP:ANI is because ANI is not for obvious vandalism, but for situations that require discussion. Vandalism does not require discussion to resolve: blatant vandalism is reverted, and the users blocked when they continue. What's the purpose of this template, aside from potentially feeding the trolls by giving them attention that they desire? (I have similar issues with users using 4im warnings after reporting vandals to AIV; this is unnecessary: just report the user to AIV and then move on) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Real vandals won't care about AIV. AIV doesn't matter to non-vandals. Therefore, the template serves no practical purpose. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no obvious use and contrary to WP:DENY, per nom and per other discussion Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as one of the most active AIV admins). I actually came to the template intending to nominate it. AIV is not a place for discussion or dispute resolution and notifying vandals that they've been reported serves no purpose other than to potentially invite more disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Really no point in keeping it, WP:DENY and seems counter productive. Possible G4? User3749 (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree as unnecessary ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asian Saga[edit]

Propose merging Template:Asian Saga with Template:James Clavell.
Other than the characters and the video game, all articles are already at the target, so could easily merge. --woodensuperman 14:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:84Mahasiddhas[edit]

Most of the linked articles do not mention "Mahasiddha" in their body text. No navigational purpose. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

as you have withdrawn, then withdraw the propose also. Bengali editor (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the TfD template from the template page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 08:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 11[edit]

Template:Texas–Permian Basin Falcons football coach navbox[edit]

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify/userify. This template has two blue links and no red links in its body now, but represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. More linked articles will likely be created in the future. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BeanieFan11's comments. Or Delete per Jweiss11's comment and has a counterpart in userspace already. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UMass Boston Beacons football coach navbox[edit]

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Averett Cougars football coach navbox[edit]

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Castleton Spartans football coach navbox[edit]

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Concordia Cardinals football coach navbox[edit]

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Évora Line stations[edit]

Navbox with no blue links in the body. There were a couple of links to articles, but they have been draftified. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sydney Hornsby suburbs[edit]

This template started as being one for suburbs for Hornsby Shire but somehow expanded to include "Suburbs within Hornsby Shire, North Shore, Northern Suburbs, Hills District, Sydney". This is a rather random combination. It also omits North Shore suburbs like Chatswood, Killara. Suggest deletion of template or scoping back to Hornsby Shire suburbs only. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd say scale back to the Hornsby Shire. Remove all unrelated links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions[edit]

April 10

Template:Charyapada

[edit]

The template is not used, nor directly or by template substitution, and has no likelihood of being used. Most of the links seem unrelated to the topic. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the template in the articles, don't be hurry. Charyapada is most important ancient document in Bengali and assamese literature. Bengali editor (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you added the template to seem unrelated to the topic. For example, you added it to Aryadeva, where the only mention of the word "Charyapada" is in the template and categories, which you addded. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did the same at Miranda E. Shaw. User:CanonNi, do we have to look at all of them? Drmies (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be too long to put here, but sure. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aryadeva was "surely" an important figure in Charyapada, but in case of Miranda M. Shaw, you can remove the template.Bengali editor (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know the template is unrelated to the topic, why put it there in the first place? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and I did the same in a bunch of others, and you really need to stop because it looks like you're gaming the system. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miranda M Shaw and Bangiya Shahitya Parishad is mentioned in Charyapada article "As songs of realization, the Caryāpada were intended to be sung. These songs of realisation were spontaneously composed verses that expressed a practitioner's experience of the enlightened state. Miranda Shaw describes how songs of realization were an element of the ritual gathering of practitioners in a ganachakra:" and "The original palm-leaf manuscript of the Charyapada, or Caryācaryāviniścaya, spanning 47 padas (verses) along with a Sanskrit commentary, was edited by Shastri and published from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad as a part of his Hajar Bacharer Purano Bangala Bhasay Bauddhagan O Doha (Buddhist Songs and Couplets) in 1916 under the name of Charyacharyavinishchayah. This manuscript is presently preserved at the National Archives of Nepal.". They are not unrilated, bangiaya sahitya parishad first published the biblical version of research on Charyapada and Miranda M. Shaw is a notable western resercher on ancient twilight language researcher including the document of Charyapada, please check the Charyapada article. Bengali editor (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are related, why is the word "Charyapada" not mentioned in the articles at all? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bengali editor, that should have been part of the article content--properly written, with secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the relation of Bangiya Sahitya Parisad and Charyapad here in a lot of secondary established sources written in both bengali and english in google book search. For bengali, use google translate, https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-oppo-rvo3&sca_esv=38e6d9cfed2f671c&sca_upv=1&q=bangiya+sahitya+parishad+charyapada&tbm=bks&source=lnms&prmd=ivsnmbz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx3MbFt7aFAxUIR2cHHWO0DAcQ0pQJegQITRAB&biw=360&bih=668&dpr=2 [1] "Charyapada is credited to the early 20th- century scholar Haraprasad Shastri who bumped upon the palm-leaf manuscript at the Nepal Royal Court Library in 1907 and published in the form of a book in 1916 from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad "

Bengali editor (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if the topics are related, why isn't Charyapada mentioned in Bangiya Sahitya Parishat? In addition, the Google Books key terms in the book you linked has no mention of Charyapada when I Google Translated it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is poorly written above it's importance and the google translate "surely" mentions the world "Charyapad" (চর্যাপদ) with Bangiya Shahitya Parisad (বঙ্গীয় সাহিত্য পরিষদ) in lots of books. Check again please. And the book i mentioned is in english, not bengali, you don't need to translate. Check again. Bengali editor (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 mentions of the word Charyapada appeared when I searched in the book:
  1. Charyapada are believed to be written by some ascetics in the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism. It is believed by many scholars that these poems were first composed, then sung, and later written (between the 6th and 12th centuries). The ...
  2. Akash Dutta. AN. INTRODUCTION. TO. THE. HISTORY. OF. BENGALI. POETRY. Although the Charyapada (composed, sung, and compiled between the 6th and 12th centuries CE when Beowulf, the earliest example of Old English literature, was also being ...
No mention of Bangiya Sahitya Parishat. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mystical poems of the Charyapada are believed to be written by some ascetics in the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism. It is believed by many scholars that these poems were first composed, then sung, and later written (between the 6th and 12th centuries). The language was a kind of Abahatta that was the precursor of many Eastern Indo-Aryan languages including the Assamese, Bengali, Odia, Magahi, and Maithili. Hence the unending debate whether each of these languages had originated from the same source or not.

The discovery of the Charyapada is credited to the early 20th-century scholar Haraprasad Shastri who bumped upon the palm-leaf manuscript at the Nepal Royal Court Library in 1907 and published in the form of a book in 1916 from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad as a part of his Hajar Bacharer Purano Bangala Bhasay Bauddhagan O Doha (Buddhist Songs and Couplets) under the name of Charyacharyavinishchayah. It is assumed that some scholars of Bengal and Mithila fled to Nepal and also to Tibet when the Turkic soldiers invaded Bengal in the 12th century A.D. The major poets or Siddhacharyas of Charyapada were Luipada, Chatillapada, Bhusukupada, and Kanhapada. All of them wrote in highly allegorical language while using riddling and often confusing terms infusing numerous religious symbologies and mysticism. Since the language of these hymns can only be moderately understood, it is called Sandhya Bhasha or the twilight language. The Charyapada hymns have been critically appreciated for their linguistic and literary values.[2] Bengali editor (talk)

Sarkar, Pabitra (12 February 2024). "Vangiya Sahitya Parishat, the first Bengal Academy of Literature". The Daily Star. Retrieved 10 April 2024. The Parishat also boasts a proud list of great publications, particularly those concerning old and middle Bengali literature. The Charyapadas, which carry the first samples of the earliest Bengali, is one such publication (1916). It was edited as Hajar Bachharer Puratan Bangala Bashay Bouddhagan O Doha by Haraprasad Shastri, who had discovered it in 1907 at the library of Nepal's Prime Minister. Another example is Shrikrishnakirtan, collected (1909) and edited (1916) by Basanta Ranjan Bidvatballabh. Bengali editor (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dutta, Akash (15 August 2021). The Light of the Hidden Flowers. Global Collective Publishers. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-954021-37-2. Retrieved 10 April 2024.
  2. ^ Mukhopadhyay, Nirmalya (15 August 2021). The Vision of the Solitary Man. Global Collective Publishers. p. XXIV. ISBN 978-1-954021-35-8. Retrieved 10 April 2024.

April 3

Template:Historical American Documents

[edit]

During the course of this TFD there was a majority opinion that this template is potentially too large and should be split (not only for size reasons but to avoid duplication with templates such as {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}}). This is a procedural nomination to see if there is a formal consensus to do so. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split per discussion you mention above where there was significant support for this. {{Constitution of the United States}} and {{Signers of the Continental Association}} also already exist, so there is already substantial duplication, not only between these navboxes, but also within this nominated navbox. For example Samuel Adams is present 3-4 times, so if navigating, which occurrence are you even navigating from? --woodensuperman 12:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this navbox is not placed on the pages of the individual signers, which is taken care of by the alphabetical signers navboxes. The names are linked for the convenience of the readers, and unlinking them would be the "solution" and that seems kind of an unneeded and almost over-the-top technical nuance (so let's leave the links per commonsense). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all the more reason to split and make sure that navbox transclusion is correctly implemented without redundancy. --woodensuperman 14:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no redundancy, the individuals listed on each section of the navbox are part of the history of the specific document. All that would change would be unlinking the names, which seems kind of an unwarrented round-about exercise in denying readers access. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the navbox should be transcluded. You seem to be advocating a two tier system of navboxes, split into component parts and transcluded, and merged but not transcluded. This is not how navboxes are supposed to work. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --woodensuperman 14:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are names of the individual signers of the documents. Are you saying that the navbox, or the four navboxes if split, should be added to each of the individual signers when there are already an adequate navbox for the signers of each document? You are simply advocating removing the links to the names, which seems like a head-scratcher of needless adherence to a guideline. For this one, to keep the names linked on the HADocuments navbox, the policy WP:IAR would adequately apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not once have I suggested we remove any links. --woodensuperman 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then what are you suggesting? That the single navbox or the four split navboxes all be added to the pages of each of the signers? That's fine with me but seems undue since the alphabetical navboxes for the signers of each document exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting the navbox is split so that there isn't the duplication, redundancy and seemingly two-tier system we have now. --woodensuperman 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep as to the discussion listed, please note that there was no alert given at the navbox for deleting this navbox, no alert given at the topics in would affect, and no alert given, well, anywhere. Such an established and respected navbox should not, of course, be deleted as an aside at a totally different discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as to this nomination. This is the best map of the American founding documents of the United States on the internet, and is a full map to Wikipedia's collection on the founding documents. There is no duplication as to individual signers, the navboxes listing the signers are in alphabetical order which this full template lists the signers by states. It doesn't have to link the names, but it would be kind of foolish not to, and many topics have various navboxes which link to the pages and many others have sections which are combined as a full topic, as this one does. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Randy. Any duplication that may occur exists withing the context of its own section. Many reference manuals make the same general statement, but in different context. e.g. Did you know that in most reference manuals about the American Revolution they mention several times that George Washington was the first president?  Indeed.. but always in a different context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and let's notify major editors of this template, Drdpw and Paine Ellsworth. This is not a standard just-another-day beanbag navbox, this is the major template outlining, as a specific group, the four founding documents of America just as we are in the midst of the nation's 250th birthday celebrations. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split of unnecessarily long template as consensus on the merits at the individual discussions. I do agree discussion of such a highly visible template should get appropriate notice, but necessary housekeeping does not invalidate the need for such discussion. The creation of this discussion to confirm the apparent outcome of earlier discussions demonstrates OP's efforts in this regard. The individual discussions linked demonstrate a general consensus to split these (not delete them) so they make more compact forms. IMHO, there's nothing policy-based in User:Randy Kryn's very bolded "strong keep". Nobody is advocating deletion of any kind. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The four together form a notable topic, and probably hundreds if not thousands of templates are presented in navigatable individual sections. This seems a good navbox for such a typical combination, and has been since its creation (with no objections by anyone until now) in 2010. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, your opinions have been made clear. You are bludgeoning these discussions but not gaining support for your positions. It won't be necessary for you to comment on each disagreeing assertion in this discussion. On the merits, notable topics have their own individual articles and templates. In my opinion, this template is unnecessarily massive. BusterD (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No bludgeoning is taking place, simply comments and replies to aspects of this unusual nomination to clarify. As for not gaining support, this discussion has just been put up, so any support would come later and not during the initial clarifying discussions which often occur at such noms. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your replies are in response to the multiple statements made by another editor. The only "bludgeoning" I see around here is coming from an editor making accusations, which only compounds and frustrates the debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support of Split the template is unnecessarily long and can easily be split into multiple templates. This just seems like common sense. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • split, as mentioned above {{Constitution of the United States}} and {{Signers of the Continental Association}} exist, splitting would help with this duplication in navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —There's lot's of talk about splitting, but not much about what will be moved. The template is well organized and laid out in separate sections -- easy to navigate. It would seem we need more than the opinion that it's "too long". It's like complaining that a dictionary or a a reference manual is too big. That could be the case if the dictionary wasn't alphabetized, or the manual didn't have a Table of Contents, and/or an index.i.e. Organized. Our template is well organized, and all on one easy to navigate, sectioned, chart. Any "duplication" only occurs in the context of a different section on the chart. i.e. Consistency.  Splitting will involve further debate, for who knows how long, not to mention the potential for disruption among those editors who actually use this template to help their writing and referencing. Unless we have more than an opinion that the template is "too long", there seems to be no pressing reason to try and fix what isn't broke in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per previous discussion. Izno (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split. While, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, I'm voting to "split" since it would avoid duplications. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split: I do not understand why there is such an argument. We can have our cake and eat it too in this situation. Why not just split {{Historical American Documents}} into a bunch of sub/child navboxes (where {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} could potentially represent the Continental Association section although I might be alright with a different navbox with duplication here if it was adequately called for). Each of the subnavboxes just needs a their border parameters controlled with something like: |border={{{border}}} and then {{Historical American Documents}} can just call them each with |border=subgroup in much the same way it already calls each section {{#invoke:navbox|navbox|child|...}}} but convert each to {{NavboxTemplateName|border=subgroup}}. The only real difference would be more V • T • E navbar links (unless |navbar=plain is used) and smaller lists of things to maintain on each subnavbox. —Uzume (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no meaningful reason to perform a split like that. It's literally not a win over either the status quo or the suggested (full) split of the template. Izno (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to split this to discrete navboxes for each topic, not overcomplicate or overthink this. --woodensuperman 08:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if we're going to split, let's keep it simple. For example...
  • The Constitution section', with its subsections, should remain as is.
  • The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the Continental Association sections should go together in a two-section nav-box, as these documents were like the prototypes of, and were the precursor to, the Constitution..
  • The Declaration of Independence section should get its own nav-box, as it ties into almost everything else.
Each of these nav-boxes of course should have bold links to the others, perhaps at the top of a given nav-box for easy access. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, three or four discrete navboxes as you suggest. However, we should not be linking away to template space from navboxes. Links in navboxes should only really link to article space. --woodensuperman 08:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to reduce duplication as suggested above. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nav-box in question, when collapsed, reduces down to a hidden stack of sub-navboxes, very neat and orderly. This is the way it occurs in all the articles that include this navbox at the bottom. IOW, our navbox is already split into sub navboxes. This so called "duplication" only exists among separate navboxes. It's as if we're making an issue over the idea that a given fact occurs more than once, in a different context, in a particular article, which is common place here at WP, and in most historical texts. While there has been generic mention of "duplication", no one has bothered to explain how this poses some kind of problem. Bear in mind that if we split as suggested above, the navboxes in question will simply be stacked one above the other, in the same way they already occur in our navbox here, and the way all the navboxes are listed here and here, and in many other articles. Splitting will mean the stack of navboxes in these articles will only get taller. As indicated, I can go along with splitting, as this is the overwhelming consensus, but I fail to see what we will accomplish other than to make the stack of navboxes in the given articles taller. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: cutting across the grain here, but a split wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for insistence on retaining these space-intensive (and duplicative) links to each and every signer, no matter how minor the historical figure. As an alternative to splitting, I could propose we replace each of these list of biographies with a link to "list of signers of Foo" pagespace. BusterD (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I voted, I'm not for a split...but linking to a list? ...I dunno. The whole purpose of a navbox is for guick reference and easy navigation. Again, the duplication is under different headings, or contexts. e.g.Roger Sherman occurs under the Constitution and Continental Association and Articles of Confederation ... and Declaration of Independence subsections.  John Hancock occurs under the Articles of Confederation ... and Declaration of Independence subsections. If a reader wants to find out which person signed what document this can be quickly and easily accomplished in one navbox. If a reader has to jump to a list to ascertain these things in every instance it sort of defeats the whole purpose of a navbox. Moreover, if one has to jump to separate navboxes to accomplish this it again undermines the whole purpose of a navbox. All the sections of this navbox are collapsed into one heading bar, so article space isn't an issue. IOW, are we all here to fix what isn't broke, and in the process making it more difficult for an editor to go about what should be a simple task? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be aware of several things,
1) This navbox is not expanded but collapsed, so it amounts to one line at every article it is presented at, so Wikipedia space is not an issue.
2) There is no need to add the navboxes to each signers page, this is accomplished by the concise and alphabetical signer's navboxes. The links to the signers is for readers ease when reading the navbox.
3) Some of the confusions here for splitting editors is that the navbox covers too much when, if fact, it condenses and joins the Founding documents of the United States, a valid topic.
4) Wikipedia has hundreds if not thousands of sectioned navboxes. Splits like this are not uncommon, are useful for topic recognition and in this case very useful for full mapping of the topic 'Founding documents of the United States'. If split then many articles will have to have two, three, or even four navboxes in its place, which will do the opposite of the concerns here.
Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should also be aware of WP:DETCON  :  "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."  Thus far, all we have to back the idea of a split is "duplication", with no qualifying statements that follow, and which ignores the fact that this duplication exists in different sections under different contexts. There is no WP policy that says that a statement of fact, or a title or name, can't be repeated if it's presented under a different section in a different context.   It was suggested that if there is a split, the four resultant navboxes can be tucked away under {{navboxes}}, but the existing navbox already contains the different sections under one title bar. So again, we're trying to resolve a problem that doesn't really exist. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and please note that the visible name of the navbox is Founding documents of the United States, a much more definitive and non-inclusive name than 'Historical American documents'. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

AFI templates

[edit]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Recently recreated navboxes were deleted unanimously per this discussion. Recent deletion of similar navboxes here shows that appetite has not changed. --woodensuperman 08:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep. Recent deletion of similar navboxes (...) shows that appetite has not changed. does not sound like an actual reason to delete these templates. SD was declined (see page history). I cannot see the problem with those navboxes.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, these navboxes are of large interest to readers and cover reputable and non-controversial major film polls. Other deletion attempts of similar material are either being kept or are being considered for deletion review, and the linked deletion is from 2012 Nothing wrong here except "I don't like it". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter how old the discussion is, the arguments are still the same, and per this more recent discussion, consensus is still there. It's not a matter of "i don't like it", in fact it's the opposite Randy. It's more WP:ITSINTERESTING on your part. --woodensuperman 16:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussions, little value in navigation. Indagate (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great value in navigation. If seen at someone's favorite film a reader may want to follow the pattern of films chosen by AFI as representing the best of the profession. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that represented in this navbox? Stick to the articles, content of these navboxes is way too tangential. --woodensuperman 16:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles on a film or actor listed in the navbox may mention the honor, but would not give readers an overview of the thinking of the critics of their profession about the totality of films and individuals so-honored. The navboxe does this instantly. Navboxes are very wonderful things, and may be one of the most undervalued of Wikipedia features. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Keep: Concur with @Randy Kryn, in that the navbox functions in the exact same way as a Best Picture Oscar box would. With BP, those are sometimes dubious decisions that receive mixed retroflection. AFI Top lists are more valued and esteemed, regarded as the best of the best, and therefore, it does in fact guide a user to other high caliber titles or list items. There is nothing objectionable about this navbox; it is very well-maintained, clean, functional, informative, and useful. I also concur w/ @Mushy Yank that the reason isn't sound either. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounding the alarm? Let's also ping get all the editors who edited these and any other film poll/award navboxes. I don't understand why, upon reading that some editors have good keep reasons, editors don't just let navboxes-under-discussion stay. If a healthy percentage of experienced editors find value in them then a percentage of readers would too. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the reasons are good "keep" reasons. All I'm seeing is WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSINTERESTING. If this is encyclopedic, it belongs in an article, not a navbox. This and {{Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films}} are completely unsuitale topics for a WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 11:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are completely suitable topics for a navbox, and concisely present the best films and film stars as reputably polled by the American Film Institute (with much press sourced coverage I may add). What "is interesting" is that only 50 stars were named in the "100 stars" poll. As for the Cahiers du Cinema's top ten films, they are accepted as a major poll, and the navbox highlights the top ten of all time in an easily understood format. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article from 2008. Should we have navboxes every time a magazine or website or film society list their favourite films? What about a navbox for TimeOut's Best Martial Arts Movies of All Time while we're at it? Or The BBC's 100 Greatest Comedies of All Time? All of these lists fail the purpose of a navbox. These films do not form a clearly defined set, they're just opinion polls. --woodensuperman 11:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The honoring of these films and actors is the clearly defined set. The 2008 poll is definitely accepted as one of the major all-time polls, with the main poll being Sight and Sound's esteemed tenannual poll. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a definitive set by any stretch. "Best of" is always subjective. It's just opinion. --woodensuperman 11:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? The Academy Awards are just opinion. The Nobel Peace Prize is just opinion. The Golden Globes are just opinion. Will also ping Butlerblog who has shown past interest in voting in film poll deletion requests. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no fan of any "awards" navboxes, but that is a list of winners for any given year, not nominations. At least an award is something tangible, appearing in an opinion poll is not. Also Randy, I should warn you about pinging an individual editor just because you think they will agree with you in an attempt to game the system. Did you ping all of the editors in the discussions that this user expressed an opinion in? --woodensuperman 12:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you pinged them. But left out Butlerblog. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not, they did not participate in either of the linked AFI discussions here or here. I'm trying very hard to WP:AGF, but... --woodensuperman 12:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you just pinged the AFI discussion, I included the Sight and Sound deletion request participants (there were three, two of them must have also commented at AFI). I'm acting in good faith in wanting readers to have these good navboxes available to them, if that's what you're concerned about. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is about the previous discussions for the AFI templates, not the separate Sight and Sound one. Your comment that you are "wanting readers to have these good navboxes available to them" seems like an admission of bad faith on your part. And stop claiming these are "good" navboxes, as previous consensus shows they are not. --woodensuperman 12:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So wanting readers to have these navboxes available to them is "an admission of bad faith"? Uh, okay (insert gif of Homer Simpson backing into the bushes here). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've admitted that you WP:CANVASSED this user because you want the navbox kept. --woodensuperman 13:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I canvassed one person because you were canvassing the participants in these poll deletions and left one out. I thought you included the Sight and Sound deletion because it's been discussed in this discussion, but you didn't (the two others who commented were in your ping list). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Randy Kryn has supported that it's WP:APPNOTE, not canvassing. And as noted, had I known about the other AFI discussions ahead of time, I most certainly would have provided input. I can only watch so much at any given time, and it's frustrating to find out about these after the fact. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Randy Kryn, I tend to agree that AFI isn't the same as a top 10 from Joe's Cool Film Site. It's not a random magazine - it's a primary source in the industry. Also per Mushy Yank - a twelve year-old discussion is not as relevant as something recent, and that shouldn't flippantly discounted. I appreciate Randy Kryn's ping because I don't see where this was cross posted to WP:FILM, which it affects. I've seen a tendency in the past for that to happen (or actually, not happen) - and a template that a larger discussion may have kept is deleted because of a 3-person discussion. (Had I been aware of the other related discussions mentioned that I was not involved in, I would have participated if they were FILM, WP:WESTERNS, or WP:TV.) ButlerBlog (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for identical reasons as my comment here. It is not likely that a reader would view the work's AFI listing as its defining feature and seek to navigate around these articles directly. It is more likely that an interested reader would learn about the AFI list, or start from the AFI list, which should be mentioned and linked in each article and provides the central point of navigation. — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would a reader have to view the AFI listing as a film's defining feature? Not understanding that point. And if a navbox on the page lists the AFI films then a reader is being given the option of reading the navbox and possibly would be interested in reading about, say, the first three films on the list. I don't understand the point of your last sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as navbox creep. a list article is enough. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a reason to delete, the guidelines reiterate that lists, navboxes, and categories are all equal ways to navigate pages on Wikipedia and should not be argued as an either=or choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are different ways to navigate, not equal ways. It doesn't mean that all are suitable in each case. --woodensuperman 12:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still meets the merits of deletion as it did last time. AFI is a list honor, not an award. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question and discussion, per WP:IAR we should be keeping this in order to maintain Wikipedia. All the edits we make should be for one purpose: to inform the readers. How is removing these navboxes either "improving" or "maintaining" Wikipedia per IAR? Seems they should be an easy keep taking those criteria into consideration, and in consideration of keeping readers fully informed and able to come across links doing so in a timely fashion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We only WP:IAR if it benefits Wikipedia. Trivial navbox clutter does not benefit Wikipedia. It seems sometimes that you forget that there are such things as articles where people can be informed and stumble upon things whilst reading. --woodensuperman 15:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just adds to template clutter since most of these films would have received other accolades as well displayed via other navboxes (some that should probably be nominated for deletion as well). The connection amongst the films themselves is tenuous. This is a perfect example where having the list is sufficient for those interested in the topic. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The connection is obvious: AFI's selection. As for a list as opposed to the template, see WP:CLN where the summary reads: "This page in a nutshell: Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others.", and in the text: "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Randy Kryn (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Although the previous deletion discussion is interesting, I believe it is no longer relevant and in light of its actual usage it should be kept. The nomination points at a very old Tfd which in turn points at another where the primary reasoning was lack of content and duplication. This seems to no longer be true (and the declined SD seems to reinforce that). —Uzume (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As noted by Bilorv, inclusion in AFI's list is not a defining feature of the article subjects, so it is highly improbable that readers would want to navigate from one article to another through this navbox. Anyone interested in the AFI lists would naturally go to the article for that list, and if desired navigate further from there, in contrast to navboxes for series and directors, where an interested reader is likely to visit an individual film's article first. Reviewing the "keep" arguments, they all seem to merely support the retention of navboxes in general and articles for AFI's lists (both things which no one in this discussion has argued against so far as I can see), or debate whether the 2012 consensus is still valid. If there is an argument for why a navbox specifically for AFI's lists is sensible, I'm not seeing it here.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They define the respect and critical selection of each film and individual as one of the best films ever made or the best actors in the practice of their chosen profession. Some readers certainly may be interested in the other films or actors in that elevated class. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are interested, they can read the article, this is not justification for a navbox. --woodensuperman 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nor is it a reason to delete these easily navigatable navboxes. Would like to note that this discussion had been reasonably closed as "no consensus" and then reopened by the closer for a good faith but unspecified reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As these recently created templates were deleted through deletion discussion, a "no consensus" outcome should result in the status quo: i.e. there is no consensus to re-create the template. Which is why they should have been speedily deleted in the first place unless appetite for re-creation was demonstrated. --woodensuperman 15:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

Template:Officially used writing systems in India

[edit]

I researched this thoroughly. Of the scripts include in this info box, only three have any official standing. The rest are just used by convention. PepperBeast (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, it is not the use of the scripts that is officially/legally enshrined, but rather the languages written with them. Nevertheless, for every language that has official status at the national or state level in India, there is an associated script (in a very few cases two scripts). The use of this script is a simple matter of fact for most of these languages, just like English is written in Latin script. I don't think there is an explicit regulation about the latter fact in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada etc., but I'm sure English writing in Cyrillic won't bring you far in an official context (or any other context). So when for instance the lawmakers who passed the Telangana Act No. 9 of 1966 ("Telangana Official Languages Act") wrote: "The Telugu Language shall be the Official Language; and the Urdu Language shall be the Second Official Language", they wouldn't have dared to imagine that their "negligence" to mention the associated scripts could be construed as not having given official standing to the respective scripts. –Austronesier (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how X being associated with every language that has official status at the national or state level in India means X should have an infobox template. Lots of things are associated with lots of other things; you need to show this specific grouping is more natural, useful, or current in the scholarly discussion than other possible groupings.

    they wouldn't have dared to imagine that their "negligence" to mention the associated scripts could be construed as not having given official standing to the respective scripts

    But the fact they chose not to mention it is clearly evidence that this is not a grouping or categorization system of interest to them! Our ontologies need to reflect those in the real world; otherwise we veer into WP:OR territory, at best, if not outright irrelevance. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show us the definition of "official" used in Wikipedia that you are applying here. Please do not create a definition on the fly. Chaipau (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a whole article on what an official language is! The wonders of Wikipedia. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? We are discussing scripts here, not languages. They are different. Chaipau (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And? As I've commented elsewhere, I think it's official if it's named in legislation, as a few scripts are. What's the definition you think applies? PepperBeast (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When a single script has been in use with a language for hundreds of years, then that script is not legislated as official separately. It follows that when that language is legislated as official, the associated script too is deemed official. This is the case with most of the Indian languages, and that is why you see all the official languages in their official scripts depicted in the Indian rupee note/bill on the reverse side. Most of these scripts, used officially here, have no legislation to back it up.

    Only when there is a conflict and a political interest to support one script over others is the script legislated into law. This is the case for Gurmukhi (a Brahmi script) in India and Shahmukhi (an Arabic script) in Pakistan, both used for the Punjabi language. Legislation was needed for the Boro language too, because of competing use of the Latin script and Bengali-Assamese script, and finally Devnagari script was legislated as official. Similarly there was a conflict between the Meitei script and Bengali-Assamese script for Manipuri language in Manipur and that led to legislation.

    Your claim that all official scripts have to be legislated is your personal opinion. In real life this is not how it operates.
    Chaipau (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but the article Official script disagrees with you:

    An official script is a writing system that is specifically designated to be official in the constitutions or other applicable laws of countries, states, and other jurisdictions.

    The rest of your comment is merely explaining why official scripts are official in the first place. This has no bearing whatsoever on whether a script is official to begin with.
    Contrary to your claims, it is actually your personal opinion that scripts are official even when not declared so. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaipau My bad, I meant to link to official script. Again, a whole article flatly contradicting you here; if you think the way scholars use the term is wrong, fine, but that's not for us to decide— see WP:RGW. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead of Official script has no citation. Not a reliable source.
    On the other hand, I have shown you a number of instances how the Government of India supports these scripts officially. Active participation in the Unicode Consortium, and the use of these scripts in the currency notes. Chaipau (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. As if you've attempted to give any citations at all for your claim that "official script" is used the way you wish it were used? Probably because you realize scholars don't actually use the term this way, and that this is just your own WP:OR. I did a quick search through Google Books on how terms like "official writing system" and "official script" are used, and I could painstakingly copy these over for you, but are you really going to make do that? Why don't you try providing a single source that claims something as ludicrous as "a government working with the Unicode Consortium to design a script standard elevates the script to official status"? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me state the two positions explicitly.
    Official when legislated:
    For a script to be official it should be legislated - an act passes a vote in a legislative body and establishes a script as official.
    • Official script. Unfortunately, there is not a single citation in the text of the article let alone one that defines an "official" script and it fails reliability on WP:WINRS.
    Official when used and supported officially
    The alternative definition (stated by @Austronesier above) is that when languages are legislated as official, the associated scripts too are deemed official by default, unless there are more than one scripts associated with a language when particular scripts are explicitly legislated as official. Here we depend on the dictionary definition of official, specifically 3a, which states that something is official when something is prescribed or recognized as authorized. Here the authoritative body is the Government of India, and these scripts are therefore recognized as official by the following actions of the Government of India:
    • The Indian government officially actively supports these scripts in the Unicode Consortium. There are other Indian scripts which are supported not by the Indian Government but by non-state parties and are deemed non-official (e.g. Tirhuta (Unicode block) supported primarily by Anshuman Pandey, and Ahom script supported by linguist Stephen Morey), which are not official.
    • The Indian 1-rupee note (issued by the Indian government - all others are issued by the Reserve Bank of India), lists the official scripts of India. This is a recognition of these scripts by an authoritative body, which is the Government of India.
    Chaipau (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The one-rupee note features the official languages of India. The scripts used are conventional. PepperBeast (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pepperbeast, the GoI, an authoritative body, using the "conventional" scripts make them "official". They are being used for official purposes. Chaipau (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, something like this would make Cyrillic, Hanggul, and Arabic "official scripts of New Zealand"? PepperBeast (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to not understand what "official" is. Handing out information in a language/script does not make that language official, unless that language/script is used in the working of the authoritative body. The languages you see in the Indian 1-rupee note are the ones mentioned in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India (1950). These languages and scripts are working languages/scripts, in the sense that records the working of Indian governments (union/state/local) are kept in these languages.
    When the Imperial Japanese govt dropped English pamphlets during WW2, that did not make English an official language of Japan. Chaipau (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that the Government of New Zealand isn't an authoritative body, or that elections aren't part of its workings? PepperBeast (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying very hard to assuming GF here, @Pepperbeast. No, New Zealand is not using Arabic in this example to run the government. Chaipau (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to not understand what "official" is. Handing out information in a language/script does not make that language official,

    But working with the Unicode Consortium does? You are literally just making stuff up as you go, and you have yet to present a single example of any reliable source using "official script" in the way you are using it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I cared how the dictionary defined a word, I can check for myself, thank you very much; you combining the definitions of "official" and "script" is just your WP:SYNTH, and that's without even going into the other holes in your synthetic argument.
    You have yet to provide even a single example of a reliable source that uses "official script" the way you do. I'll wait. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show me your WP:RS for your claim. Chaipau (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can, as annoying and painstaking as it is, and in spite of the fact that you've made zero effort to show any RS'es yourself, but can I first ask if you did the bare minimum of due diligence in checking yourself? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a JSTOR search for "official script". Once you disregard the obvious mismatches (e.g. those references Clerical script, sometimes called official script, a style of Chinese calligraphy), what do you notice? Literally all of them refer to polities (from ancient ones like the Qin dynasty to modern states like the Kyrgyz Republic) legislating a specific script as official, not any other more nebulous sort of association such as those which you would like us to believe define official status. Notice that such official status is always conferred by explicit legal decree. Do you need me to go one by one and transcribe the specific quotes from each and explain the historical and sociopolitical context of each quote too, or are you capable of doing a minimum of your own due diligence? And again are you able to provide a single source using "official script" (or "writing system") as nebulously as you do? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please refer to WP:SOURCEDEF. A search result, which is what you have provided, is not even a source. Further you have to quote from the source properly where you get the definition of an "official script". So we are still at zero WP:RS from you or Pepperbeast.
    • We are discussing Officially used in the name of the template {{Officially used writing systems in India}}. I have given you a link to the Constitution of India (here) which contradicts your definition because the Latin script has been used to write the constitution, which according to you is not an officially used script. Reductio ad absurdum. Or in other words, WP:DUCK.
    Chaipau (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) (edited) 10:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we are still at zero WP:RS from you or Pepperbeast.

So the same as you? Except I have actually made an effort to hand hold you a bit, whereas you have made zero effort to do any due diligence whatsoever? Are you really incapable of clicking on the search results and checking for yourself? You really need me to copy paste quotes manually, or are you just demanding this out of complete bad faith?
Seriously, how can this be interpreted as anything other than laziness on your part? Can I once again point out that you have made zero attempt to even insinuate that a single scholar agrees with your definition? I am just not going link by link and copy pasting quotes from the search results to try and convince someone who, it is increasingly clear, is not open to being convinced at all. Anyone with brains who isn't an obviously bad faith actor can click on the JSTOR search results for themselves without demanding someone else do a bunch of tedious work for them. If you can't do the absolute bare minimum amount of due diligence, or even make an attempt at providing a reliable source in favor of the definition you pulled out of your ass, I'm done handholding you.

We are discussing Officially used in the name of the template

We are actually debating multiple things, in part because the issue is more nuanced than you are letting on and in part because you are forcing the rest of us to entertain your goalpost shifting. I'm going to put aside the semantics of "official use" for now because it is entirely clear you are unikely to be convinced on this point. I would instead like to focus on the issues you haven't even attempted to address.
The chief problem here is the fact that "officially used is extremely slippery, imprecise language, and this debate itself is evidence of that. First, it is not clear why India is so special it deserves its own template like this. Second, it is not clear what criteria should be used for inclusion of a script in this wording of the template, nor what criteria should be used for determining if the template should be included on a given scripts page. According to you, for example, India working with the Unicode Consortium on a given language is enough to include it on this template, but the Government of India, as well as the governments of several Indian states, are voting members of the Unicode Consortium— should every script encoded by Unicode have this template, then? Do you see just how imprecise this header is, even when working within your own set of definitions?
Further, consider that the creator of this template never even attempted to include it on the page for Latin script, despite Latin appearing on the template itself. I wonder why? In fact, I am entirely certain that even you, who have repeatedly tried to claim that Latin is "official"/"officially used" because the Constitution is written in Latin script, would not try to include this template on the page for Latin. Any guesses as to why? Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said why your reply is deficient: [1]. It seems we are still in the same status I stated two days ago: [2]. If you are unwilling to provide a WP:RS to support your claim, we may stop here. Chaipau (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unwilling to provide a WP:RS to support your claim, we may stop here.

The feeling is mutual. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not true that there is no "official" recognition of the "scripts". The Government of India has actively participated (sometimes in a confusing way) with the Unicode Consortium to create standards for these scripts to be used digitally. Here is an example: Unicode Standard for Indic Scripts UTC #94. This is a letter from a government officer [3]. Caveat—please do not use the Unicode standard to define the Indic scripts. Chaipau (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the Government of India working with the Unicode Consortium has absolutely nothing to do with official status. This argument is patent nonsense. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not relevant. There might be some case for content regarding South Asian scripts in Unicode, but that tangential to this. PepperBeast (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brusquedandelion, why is it patent nonsense? @Pepperbeast, why it is not relevant? I think you are just pushing your case.
@Pepperbeast, you have been hacking away without any good reason. [4] is an example, where you have removed perfectly academic sources and something that has been extensively discussed and debated. I am not certain you know exactly what the issues here are. Chaipau (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that edit was just a plain clumsy manoeuvre on my part, and we're discussing the issue at hand, not me PepperBeast (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's patent nonsense because that's not actually how anyone uses the term "official script/writing system" except you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or potentially move/refine as {{South Asian writing systems}} or {{Brahmic scripts}}, as discussed Template talk:Officially used writing systems in India § Convert to navbox? and User talk:Pepperbeast § Proposal: Writing systems of South Asia (EDIT: thought about it, Brahmic scripts is the grouping that makes the most sense; see my comments below). Clearly ill-conceived and poorly thought out template, much like the corresponding article Official scripts of the Republic of India; while the AfD for the latter regrettably did not receive much attention and closed without consensus, it has since been established thanks to @Pepperbeast's diligent investigation that there's only really three scripts that have any sort of legal status anywhere in India, and not even necessarily by the federal government. This is a poor and paltry basis for any template. @Austronesier argues above that even if the scripts do not have official status in and of themselves, languages do have legal status (Scheduled languages of India) and these in turn are associated with one or perhaps two scripts. That's all fine, but languages are associated with many things. Should we make templates for the Official phonemes of India or the Official clusivity distinctions of India too? No, this is obviously patent nonsense. These things just aren't obviously natural categories that are so important and so worth stressing, as a group, and to the exclusion of other possible groups— and IMO the same is true for this template as it stands.
Now, as mentioned, I do think one could make a much better case for a much more natural grouping being scripts which are used in India, regardless of official status; or, arguably even better, {{Brahmic scripts}}, which is a way of grouping scripts that scholars actually use and not something some Wikipedia editor came up with one day because they felt like making a template. Again, these alternatives have been raised by at the two talk pages linked at the beginning of this message, as well as at the AfD for the corresponding article, but the creator of this template/article has made no attempt to engage with this suggestion, quite possibly because they realize their proposed categorization is clearly and self-evidently less natural and defensible. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This. Also, there can be some pretty substantial difference between the intentional and the assumed. The selection of Devanagari by the Union or Meitei mayek script in Manipur, are absolutely intentional, political choices, not just underlining of conventions. And I absolutely agree that this is just not a useful grouping the way that (say) 'Writing Systems of India' might be. PepperBeast (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the scripts used in India are not all "Indian". There is Tibetan script, which is not an Indian script, but which descends from Brahmi script, which is definitely Indian; and there is Nastaliq, which is an Arabic script but used in many Indian languages. Both non-Indian and Indian scripts have support in India, as the PDF I have posted above shows. South Asian is also not right, because the Tibetan script is not even South Asian.
We look forward to a glimpse of your thorough research on this subject.
Chaipau (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could also explain to me how water is wet. PepperBeast (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this, the more I think it makes the most sense to have the template group {{Brahmic scripts}} and leave it at that. As you correctly point out, not all scripts used in India are necessarily "Indian", and while it is true that a title likr "Scripts of India" or "Scripts of South Asia" does not make any claims about the Indian-ness or South Asian-ness of any script other than asserting the simple fact that script is used in India, it raises thorny questions like "Should Nastaliq have two templates, one for India and one for Pakistan? What about Tibetan?" IMO all of this is avoided by having the infobox target a "genealogical" (perhaps not the right term; but you know what I mean) grouping rather than a geographical or political one. And this way you could use the same template on scripts no longer in use e.g. Sharada or Brahmi itself. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look below why "Brahmi script" is not appropriate.
What would you call a group that is a collection of writing systems used by federal/provincial/local governments for official purposes? May I suggest "Official writing systems of India".? Chaipau (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are only three officially used writing systems anywhere in India. All three of them happen to be Brahmic. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? English is widely used and it is not Brahmic. Chaipau (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English is a script, not a language. I am beginning to think this disagreement boils down to you not understanding the difference between these terms. This is a common error in societies that stress the primacy of literacy, such as our own, and linguists commonly have to disambiguate these terms for a lay audience. Most languages to have ever existed have never been written, and of those languages which are/have been written, they can and often are written in a multitude of scripts. I suggest you review the two articles I linked above, as well as this excellent article by the Linguistic Society of America (the LSA just overhauled their website today, so it appears that link is having technical issues presently; here is an archived copy). Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my position, since you seem to not be getting it:
  1. In the first place, I really don't see what's so fundamentally wrong about {{Infobox writing system}} that we need to be having this discussion. It already has slots for "official script"—nuff said—but also for the more nebulous "status"— which can be used, theoretically, to indicate not just official status, but also de facto use. Isn't that satisfying enough for you, since your basic argument (the most charitable version of it I can construct, at least) consists of obfuscating the difference between de jure and de facto?
  2. If we must have a new template, it should be {{Brahmic scripts}}, to be included on pages like Devanagari and Khmer script, but not to be included on pages like Urdu script. I just don't see any reason why we need a template for the "most commonly used writing systems of the scheduled languages of the Republic of India", which is essentially what your vision for this template boils down to. Why is that such an important grouping? Is there any other nation that gets such a template for its nation's language's scripts? Put any nationalist feeling aside for a second; how special do you think India is that it deserves a template like this? The only one I can think of is that India happens to have perhaps more scripts in common usage than any other country (someone fact check me on this if I am wrong). But so what? Many languages have numerous languages that have different numbers of scripts; maybe not as many as India, but still quite a few. Notable for this discussion is Singapore and Malaysia, where Mandarin Chinese, Tamil, and Malay all enjoy official recognition (I don't know about "official scripts" per se but I am extending your facile argument to these countries as well). Should the page for the Tamil script have three infoboxes? Should Latin script have an infobox for India, but not any other country? Or should it have dozens, one for each such country? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of the language/script debate, this remains unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This cannot be a good reason because it is the proposer himself, Pepperbeast, who has removed the infobox from all pages. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], ... and so on. Look at it yourself: Special:Contributions/Pepperbeast, edits from March 16, 2024. Chaipau (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So? @Pepperbeast did this with a completely reasonable rationale: there is no evidence that more than three scripts are official anywhere in the Replubic of India. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? The constitution is written in English. Look here for a photographic reproduction. And the Latin script is not official according to your definition. Chaipau (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, it is not official. Yours is a facile argument; the Constitution of the USA is also in English, but, famously, the USA has not even an official language, much less an official script (it would certainly be a surprise to the various nativist and right wing demagogues who have campaigned for English to be the sole official language of the USA to learn that they are, in fact, fighting for nothing). It isn't my definition; it's the definition used in reliable sources, unlike your own. This is easy to verify with three seconds of time spent on Google Books or with a real life book on the subject of language policies. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but rename to Writing systems of India. "Officially used" can be a parameter in assigning WP:WEIGHT for inclusion/exclusion decisions, but I don't see why official use is of any importance in general. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kautilya3: Do you mind explaining why this is preferable to e.g. {{Brahmic scripts}}? Keep in mind that a number of writing systems used in India are also used outside of it— do we include {{Writing systems of India}} on a page like Tibetan script or no? This raises thorny questions that IMO are better addressed by having the infobox target a "genealogical" (perhaps not the right term; but you know what I mean) grouping rather than a geographical or political one. And this way you could use the same template on scripts no longer in use e.g. Sharada or Brahmi itself. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Brahmi scripts" is not appropriate simply because not all the scripts used officially in India are Brahmi. Chaipau (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that not all the scripts used officially are Brahmic. That is literally my point! I am saying the template should target a different grouping altogether, because the grouping you want it to target makes very little sense compared to other possible groupings. Remember, it is generally not a good idea to have multiple infoboxes, so you should pick the grouping that makes sense.
    Frankly, the more I think about it, the less I see the need for any template other than {{Infobox writing system}}, but if you must have one, the natural grouping is Brahmic scripts. And yes, that means pages like Nastaliq would not have such a template, but, fortunately, Nastaliq isn't an official script anywhere in India anyways (same with Tibetan), at least not by the definition of an "official script" used in the real world. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh... I find this to be one of the pointless discussions belabouring non-issues. The template is a sidebar navigation template, meant to guide the reader to other related pages. So, please worry about that issue, and the purposes of Wikipedia, rather than what is "official" and what is not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Words have meanings, we can't just sidestep that. But yes, I agree that sidebars are navigational aids, and I fail to see how the existing {{Infobox writing system}} fails to accomplish this purpose; and if we must pick a replacement, I think something like {{Brahmic scripts}} makes for a much more systematic categorization system, and thus a better navigational aid. Again, how do you propose a page like Tibetan script should be handled? I don't see any good solution for it if we advocate the use of a geographical or geopolitical grouping like this, because it will inevitably open the door to complains from the standpoint of other countries where those scripts are used. How many infoboxes can a page bear? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kautilya3, I agree. We could have a {{Scripts used in India}} and denote the officially used scripts as a subset.
    But what is concerning in this process is a unilateral removal of this template from all pages (that happened on March 16) with non-collaborating attitude (look here for instance) and then opening up the discussion. I am surprised to see that there is no WP:RS on the definition that is being foisted on us. This has been disruptive, to say the least. Chaipau (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that this is disruptive, but so far, we have no WP:RS on any definition of "official script" and no WP:RS on anything like "official scripts of India". Removing material that doesn't pass WP:VERIFICATION from articles is a pretty normal thing to do. So far, the plain-English reading of "official" as defined by law is as good a a definition as we have, here, and that covers very little of what the template claims. You have provided nothing like RS for your preferred definition, nor for the idea that any of the named scripts is "official" beyond the ones that I've pointed out. And, as I have already commented in this dreary discussion, we are discussing the template. We are not discussing me. If you really want to do that, you're welcome to take it to WP:ANI. PepperBeast (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have made literally zero attempt to provide a reliable source in support of your definition. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary or TLDR: This discussion is no longer moving forward, and the following could be taken as a summary of the current status -
For Delete - the side feels that if the scripts are not mentioned in a legislative document, then they should not belong in this group. This voters provided the following evidence.
For Keep -
Others could provide alternate summaries below.
Chaipau (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your laughably biased summary completely omits any arguments you personally chose not to reply to (what an incredible illustration of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT):
  1. Why is India so special that it should get its own template? Should a page like Tamil script have three templates, one for each of India, Singapore, Malaysia?
  2. How come no one for a keep vote is in favor of including this template on, say, the Latin script article? Perhaps because they are aware that their template would be swiftly deleted with prejudice the second it got enough attention from editors who aren't from the segment of Wikipedia editors who zealously guard any and all coverage of the the Motherland, and continuously demand us to treat it differently from every other nation? Or perhaps they realize how ludicrous that would be, but are incapable of extending the same logic to any of the other roughly two dozen pages they want this template to appear on? Either way, it is incredibly telling that no voters for keep have even pretended to try and address this or the prior point. This is especially relevant when you keep trying to claim the Latin script is official because it is used to write the Constitution of India—and yet, even you would not try and include this template on Latin script.
  3. The argument scripts are named in legislative documents only when there are more than one scripts associated with a given language explains why some scripts are made official. It does not deny that some scripts are official and others are not, and is this, in fact, an argument for deletion.
  4. The Government of India is a voting member of the Unicode Consortium, and if this is somehow relevant (you seem to believe it is), every script encoded by Unicode must be considered (of) official (use) in India (by your argument; not mine—I think this is inane, but I am simply showing you the logical results of your own argument).
Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in discussing this further, since I too sense WP:IDHT. It is probably time to close this discussion. To help the closer, I made a summary statement from what I believe is NPOV. You may do the same. Chaipau (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions[edit]

A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".

For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1212425185"