en.m.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 16
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 15April 17 >
April 16
Template:Str index code
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:Str index code (edit · talk ·history · links · transclusions · logs ·subpages · delete)
Unused, not sure why you wouldn't use {{str index}}. User:GKFXtalk 21:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reason for this to exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps just make it a redirect? ネイ (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Why? No one is using it and it didn't do the exact same thing as {{str index}} anyway AFAICT. User:GKFXtalk 18:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:P3
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:P3 (edit · talk · history · links ·transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused (besides a demo on a talk page). P1 and P2 are needed by Template:Ifeq but this isn't. User:GKFXtalk 21:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Lastbut1
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:Lastbut1 (edit · talk · history ·links · transclusions · logs · subpages ·delete)
Unused; the more capable Module:Pn is available. I substed it on Help:Parameter default which is a "historic" help page and so shouldn't change over time. User:GKFXtalk 21:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I honestly cannot remember why I brought it over from Meta Wiki. If it’s not used, then its deletion cannot have too many consequences. — SpikeToronto 07:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:16TeamBracket-2legs-with final four
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:16TeamBracket-2legs-with final four (edit · talk · history · links ·transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant to {{16TeamBracket|legs=2/2/1/1}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Plastikspork: After the change in the code of this kind of templates (using now Lua module) I believe that most of those templates can be deleted due to being redudant. But in the main template (for example 16TeamBracket) the explanation (or link to it) how to adapt the template (number of matches/tie, etc) should be there (or clear if its there). There is a lot of potential to have a few good templates and documentation of so many (that were created just because the code was much harder).Rpo.castro (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and some more documentation has been added to Template:16TeamBracket​. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Isle of Wight Railway diagram
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Template deleted by Athaenara per CSD G7. (non-admin closure)Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:Isle of Wight Railway diagram (edit · talk · history · links ·transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Duplicate of existing (and much better) template Template:Isle of Wight RailwayLaplorfill (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Note the (only) author blanked the page shortly after it was nominated for AfD, so I have requested its speedy deletion under G7. Laplorfill (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:4RoundBracket-Byes-NoSeeds-2Legs
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:4RoundBracket-Byes-NoSeeds-2Legs (edit · talk · history · links ·transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, redundant to {{4RoundBracket|byes=2|seeds=no|legs=2}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Prima J
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:Prima J (edit · talk · history · links ·transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
I've just redirected the first song in this navbox for lack of notability, and while I realize that redirecting articles and then nominating the template for deletion is frowned upon, the truth is that this would still fail WP:NENAN even without my actions. The second song in the navbox, "Nadie (No One)", is a cover of the Alicia Keys song, and the Prima J version isn't mentioned anywhere in the No One (Alicia Keys song) article. The third song was redirected by another editor as far back as 2008 for lack of notability, and the tour article again doesn't mention the group anywhere in it – I assume they were the opening act on one or more of the dates, but as neither the tour article nor the group article mentions it at all, it's impossible to say. So even if I hadn't redirected the first song article, this navbox would still only contain one album and one single that mentioned the group in any capacity. As the duo have long since given up their musical careers, there's no chance this navbox can be added to in the foreseeable future. Richard3120 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Pst name
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:Pst name (edit · talk · history ·links · transclusions · logs · subpages ·delete)
Not transcluded outside a couple of userspace test pages. Modern complicated templates should be done in Lua so there is no need to keep this around in case of someone wanting it. User:GKFXtalk 11:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of using Lua versus Wikitext for this, Delete due to lack of use. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
My point about Lua was just that someone who woild have wanted this in 2010 is much less likely to want it now. User:GKFXtalk 15:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Expand language
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep. There is a clear consensus that the community finds the premise of this template useful. Mainly, editors argued that the template attracts new editors to the project, gives users clear tasks on how to improve the article, and thus overall improves the quality of enwiki articles. Some editors also believed the template is helpful to readers, as it gives them links to other articles which may have more complete information. Editors felt that moving it to the talk page would significantly decrease visibility. There may be a rough consensus to move it to the bottom of articles, but that isn't ascertainable from this discussion. Further discussion would also be needed for other proposals such as having a bot automatically remove the template after some period of time, or if the article reaches a certain length. I suggest those discussions happen at the template talk or at the village pump, however. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:Expand language (edit · talk ·history · links · transclusions · logs ·subpages · delete)
This template is a violation of namespace guidelines – articles are not meant for communication between editors – talk pages are. Cleanup templates are an exception because they warn of clear issues – but this is not a cleanup template, simply a "this article could be better" template – and therefore belongs on talkpages. I propose redesigning this template as a talkpage banner, and disallowing its transclusion in articles (or failing that, the template be deleted). Elli (talk | contribs) 11:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree strongly - the "expand language" tag is also very useful for a reader, because it points to a more detailed account of a subject in another Wiki. The language links in the sidebar only indicate the existence of an equivalent article in another language, not whether or not it's worth looking at. Ingratis (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree I've been working on reorganizing this template on articles tagged with it in the Articles needing translation from French Wikipedia category for a while now, and was unaware it did run against any guidelines, and are not completely opposed to it becoming a talkpage template, but I would suggest that the guideline present on the template page itself be followed and any instances of the "expand language" template be replaced with the intended subtemplate such as "Expand French" or "Expand German". Sadenar40000 (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'm referring to all subtemplates in this nomination too. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    In that case, they should probably be tagged with this TFD then. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    It is present on those subtemplates currently Sadenar40000 (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support, this template is unnecessary and unactionable clutter for the vast majority of readers, and it has a tendency to remain on top of articles for decades. The talk page is the correct location to point editors to material that they can use, just like {{Refideas}}. In most cases where this template is used it's obvious that a sister project likely has a longer article, such as with French municipalities or Swedish poets. – Thjarkur(talk) 13:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
In a lot of cases where it's used, it's not obvious which language has best content to translate. For example many non-Europeans sportspeople have articles which can be expanded from French or German Wikipedia, but without the expand language tag, users would have to scroll through every language's page to see if one language has content to use. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this template is another way to attract new users to the project. Stub templates also serve the same purpose and are not cleanup templates either. – SD0001 (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this template is useful in article space to encourage users to expand articles, same as how stub tags are in article space. Possibly they should be moved to bottom of the article (like stub tags are) to be less prominent, but the tag is way less useful if on the talkpage. I've frequently found these tags on articles and then improved the article as a result, but there's no way users would go looking for this template on talkpages. Thus, moving it to talkpage would inhibit article expansion from other languages in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree. It's a useful pointer to more information, and is thus relevant to general readers as well as editors. However, the preferred location for the banner should be at the bottom of the article, below any "stub" template, like in this recent article: |Ángel León (chef). Locating this template at the top of an article is a distraction. Hallucegenia (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is indeed a cleanup tag, as it links to foreign wiki pages with potentially useful information to add in. It should be kept at the top of the article so editors can help out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It would do very little good on talkpages.★Trekker (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Keep, but put at bottom of page as a compromise. Second choice is Support. Less is more. The reader has come there to read about Ivan Vejeeghen or whatever in English. If she's Russian or can read Russian well, she would probably be at the Russian article in the first place. Let's not clutter the reader's experience by shouting at them, at the very top of the page, about stuff that has nothing to do with the actual subject of the article. It they can read the other language well and want to, savvy readers will know about the language links at the left of the page anyway. Herostratus (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect this makes little sense. If that Russian language article were a featured article and our English one a stub then wouldn't it make sense to help improve the English one as well? I can't read or understand Russian... why should I have to miss out on a FA? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: featured articles do have a special icon next to their link in the sidebar. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, sure, there are a lot of articles that could stand improvement. There's various ways to do that -- one is by going to the foreign article and translating it in. Another (a lot more common I suppose) is to expand the article from English sources. Apparently the {{Expand article}} template is long deprecated... if that one's gone you'd think this one is even more specialized. (Granted, {{Expand section}} etc. is still used a lot, but that's pretty different and not shouting from the very top of the article.) Herostratus (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen way too many stub or start-class articles with this templates pinned to the top for more than 10 years.--Darwinek (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree - this is a rather important and useful template, and having suggested steps for improving an article right in front of browsing editors/readers who might want something to do is in my opinion a good way to get people to contribute and make said articles better. I'd also argue it counts as a cleanup template in a sense, as it is a notice for editors and readers (editors see what to do, readers know that the articl has flaws and have a good alternative). Remagoxer (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is a call to action for editor to improve the article, not a warning to readers, the majority of whom will not have the ability to read the foreign language article in question. As such, this is a project-oriented message and should not be the first thing a reader sees on an article. SFB 23:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This huge and ugly template on the top of the page creates the false impression for the reader that something is wrong with an article. It often points at articles in Wikipedias where the quality is not very strong. This template does enormous disservice to Wikipedia! As the nominator points out, it conflicts with our guidelines. Thank you, Elli, for nominating! gidonb (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    If it points at articles where the quality is not good, then the template should be removed from that article. It should not be resolved by moving to talk page. ネイ (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Believe me, I tried! These lazy contributors who put these templates everywhere but never expand anything will put it right back! In the meantime, articles are tagged FOREVER with visually alarming templates. For all I care it is NOT moved to the talk page (I'll take it for sure!) but deleted once and forever. The stub templates at the bottom of the page already serve this purpose. These "in the face" templates are an EXTREME overkill that undermines the trustworthiness of Wikipedia for no valid reason! gidonb (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    So change the template guidance to say that it should be placed at the end of an article.Hallucegenia (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    It serves no purpose and does damage to WP. Anything that takes these monstrosities out of sight is an improvement. Straight deletion will be best, moving to talk page comes next. Moving to the bottom still conflicts with our guidelines but, for sure, it is better than the current situation. If there was a choice between just these two options, it would still be an easy one for me. It's just not how this discussion and our guidelines work. gidonb (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Except the entire premise is flawed, since it assumes the template is based only to help editors communicate with other editors, which is not true in the slightest: it is a signpost to readers there's more information available in another language. SportingFlyer T·C 12:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. When was the last time you checked a talk page for a template like this, or in general? Might as well move a majority of templates to talk then, and watch constructive edits plummet. While I understand the supporters in a way, this is an absurd proposal, even as someone who cares about pages being "pretty" than most; it's not even "ugly" (there have been far worse aesthetic decisions in past years). And I can't recall one person who's been dissuaded from an article because of this template - in other words: WP:AINT​.--​~Sıgehelmus♗​(Tøk) 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The gist of the template is that more information about the article subject may be found in a different language edition of Wikipedia. I find it informative as a reader. Nardog (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. this is useful for readers as well, to alert them that the other language WP may be more extensive. Many of our readers are to some degree capable of reading other languages than English, and to a certain degree the available translation can also supply information. It also lets people capable of doing translations immediately spot the article if they come across it.In fact, seeing this on the article page is how I usually find articles I can at least partially improve from the other versions (most commonly by adding references) DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, even though I'm a Support "voter", I'd expand your point to add that google translate, if you know how to use it, will usually let you get the general gist of an article and/or at least some specific material. Herostratus (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Change to a hidden category Keep the template, but make it invisible, along the lines of "uses dmy dates", etc. I've seen ALOT of these templates hanging round for more than decade, with little or no evidence to show they are helpful. Anyone who wants to work on expanding X article from Y language can work through the category structure. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The template has very little effect, stays on pages for much too long, and gives the impression that something is wrong with an article when often it is just short. KittenKlub (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    While I understand you have your own opinion on this subject and wish for the template to be removed soon from article space, could you refrain from doing so like you did in 2021 Curaçao general election until the discussion is actually concluded? I just think it's bad form to go forward with doing this when the debate is still on the table. Sadenar40000 (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a typical example of what's wrong. The election is over, so there are few editors looking at that page. Obviously the expand French (??) had very little effect. Yet you insist that it stays on the page even though it will not make a difference anymore. KittenKlub (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly Most articles with the template tend to be lesser-known, and contributors tend to be less prolific editors. Additionally, most users tend not to be aware that articles are available in other languages. Displacing this template to the talk page (which is used very little by non-active editors) would arrest the further development of the article by users/IP's that have a vested attachment to the topic of the article, and would like to expand on its content uncontroversially through inspiration from foreign-language Wiki articles. Esmost talk 12:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as a multi-lingual user myself it has helped me enormously in my early days of Wikipedia editing. Most casual users do not venture onto talk pages. You can't fix something that is not broken, this is a terrible idea with a justification in a minor technicality, dubious in itself. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I find these templates to be an unhelpful addition – I have 10,000+ articles on my watchlist and have seen this added to numerous articles. I very very rarely see anyone actually act on it and the tags remain in place for years. As a result they are simply clutter that distracts from the article. However, I agree with Lugnuts that it could be turned into a hidden category for editors wanting to do translation work. Number 57 13:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Also, if the proposed deletion fails on this occasion, could we get a bot to record how many of these tags are removed and what expansion has taken place before so (e.g. in the few days before removal)? If the numbers are as tiny as I suspect, then I think that should be sufficient evidence to come back with confirmation that they don't do the intended job. Number 57 13:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose almost nobody will see the templates there. Who goes to the talk pages to see potential issues a page can have? It will do more harm than good. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    The issue is that people seeing them doesn't seem to have any effect – why do we want articles to spend years plastered with a template for no end results? Number 57 14:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been around since 2005 and I don't think I've ever seen this tag removed because it was acted upon. Part of the problem is that the tag suggests it shouldn't be removed until the article has been expanded from another Wiki, which is absurd. Like Number 57, I'd like to see actual evidence of the usefulness of this template. Srnec (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Those stating they've "never seen it acted upon" must not spend much time at any of the translation projects where numerous editors work on translations. Native English speakers tend to be more provincial wrt to multilingualism than much of the world is, and perhaps don't realize how useful the tag is for project volunteers. Also, and I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but en-wiki attracts a large number of bilingual viewers, and I consider some percentage of them as 'future volunteers'; having the {{Expand language}} template on a particular article can be a great recruitment tool to entice someone to join the project. Finally, I don't get the "hanging around for years" complaint; should we remove a {{Unreferenced article}} template after it's been hanging around for years as well? I don't think so. As long as that template, or this template, is useful to alert editors how to improve it, it should remain. There's WP:NODEADLINE on improving an article. Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment since it works so much better as a "there's more info in another language" targeted to readers than a "bilingual people please help" targeted to editors, why not edit it to be a template more specifically for that use? --~​ฅ(ↀωↀ=)​neko-chan​nyan 20:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Neko-chan: Because not everybody reads Basque or Bosnian. Those readers can already go to eu-wiki or bs-wiki and read the articles there. What we're looking for, is serving people who read English but don't read those languages, by expanding the English version of the article. {{Expand Basque}} and {{Expand Bosnian}} helps that happen. Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. with suggestion of putting template at the bottom of page: I read comments by both sides. Yes they are useful for encouraging other editors to improve by translating from more developed language pages. Yes they are useful for native speakers to explore the page in the original language page. Yes, they are useful for non-native speakers as well that have the a translator device, and many do these days to be able to read German or Russian text in English. But I also agree with opponents that it is an eyesore at the top of a page and quite intrusive. At times, a template might occupy as much space as the stub article itself. So I am agreeable to letting it stay in main rather than talk page but at the bottom of the page. Readers of the article will be led to the foreign language Wikipedia page only after having read the English article and feeling unsatisfied with it. As for editors, they can develop the habit of scanning for the edit notes at the bottom. To avoid the eyesore effect, the template could appear more like the "stub" notice appears. More like a one liner without the intrusive box all around it! I would have the same suggestion for "Refimprove" templates, or "multiple issues" template, another eyesore. i.e. all those notes would be at the bottom of the page and visually less intrusive. But that's for another discussion. Hope this reconciliatory suggestion helps. werldwayd (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. In fact, the documentation for the Stub template even uses a form of words which we could copy: "Place a stub template at the very end of the article, after the "External links" section, any navigation templates, and the category tags." Hallucegenia (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also agree, and have changed to my first choice from Support to this. A good compromise. Herostratus (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with this as well. Having the template at the bottom of the article still draws attention to what it suggests can be done without being distracting to readers by taking up a lot of space at the top of the article. KnowForge9 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose (keep or move to the bottom of articles): The template promotes editing in a largely beneficial way, although moving them to the bottom of articles may not be a bad idea (as an alternative to outright deletion or moving the template to the talk page). The template is actually a cleanup template, since cross-wiki expansion comes in several forms including adding references, improving encyclopedic tone, balancing POVs, etc. This template also exists for the same purpose, to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made (regarding "need to be made", the call isn't mandatory in this template just as it isn't mandatory in most cleanup templates) as given at WP:CLEANUPTAG. Just look at all of these "Expand" cleanup templates!Also as a note regarding some of the arguments here (in both directions): anecdotal evidence of not having seen most of the templates realized or removed isn't really convincing; anecdotal evidence of seeing articles improved due to the presence of the template isn't really convincing either; they're equally unconvincing. — MarkH21talk 22:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose from my perspective as an AfC reviewer, this template is vey useful for communication between different reviewers, as well as with editors. This template will simply never be seen on the talk page. Curbon7 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose More people see the top of the article than see the talk page, so putting it on top of the article seems like it would improve the odds of people actually doing what the banner asks.E0126E (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DGG. While users know there are other language versions of articles, I often assume they are of lower quality to or just translated from the English article, especially in smaller languages. This brings attention to both editors and readers that machine-translatable content and sources may be available elsewhere. Moving to the bottom or making smaller may be good alternatives. Reywas92Talk 22:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as others have said the template provides a hint that there is more information at a different language Wikipedia, and most browsers have a translation feature, making understanding the foreign language content not too much of an issue. The idea of moving it to the bottom can work as well, though I think putting it in the See also or the External links section (like with Template:Commons) would be a better placement. Jumpytoo Talk 22:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the template might indeed not be a cleanup template, but it can be kept like a stub template. Moving it to talk page is useless for editors since no one would check talk page with no reasons. While for readers, the template provides an idea to take a look on other language wikis as per above. Perhaps it can be put to the bottom of the article page along with the stub template if technically possible. Sun8908Talk 07:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Agree, this template although may not be a cleanup template but it could be used like a stub template. In addition, putting the template on the article itself rather than the talk page will make it more visible. We could also do something like to put the template at the bottom rather at the top. User3749 (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because no one will see it on the talk page and it is a good notice that there is more information available in another language. It is definitely useful and it should be displayed prominently to facilitate and accelerate article improvement. Every other suggestion about article improvement (even ones that are not very useful) is placed in that same spot so this should be too. --Nicholas0 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is useful, at least to me, as it does directs me to look into other language wikis for content/references. However, I am of the opinion that this template needs some streamlining in its messaging and not occupy so much headspace. – robertsky (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Talk pages typically receive far fewer page views compared to Main namespace pages. Moving this template to talk pages would simply hinder articles being expanded with content from other wikis, because far less people would see it. Thus, improvements to the encyclopedia would be lessened, in favor of bureaucracy about where templates can be placed. As such, also opposing per WP:NOTBURO. North America1000 14:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, on the article - this template actually carries information which will help some readers: it tells them that a different language Wikipedia has a better article on the topic. If you can read a French article, and see a message that the French Wikipedia article is better, then the template is helpful for you. Animal lover 666 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I call upon the closer to consider a compromise and change instruction so as to place at bottom of page. Compromise is often good when there's a good one. Looks like both numbers and strength-of-argument are running roughly equal, and so rather than doing a coin-flip binary decision (or rendering the usual "no consensus to change" even though there is no consensus to not change), let's do this. This was suggested late in the discussion, but I've changed my vote to this and some others have supported this. Herostratus (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, or as a compromise, move to the bottom of the page. The information is non-central, and does not deserve to be at the very top. Aristotles (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For now, a majority chooses not to delete this template. We need to meet for a consensus.From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Oppose: ~24 (Majority) (I also voted)
    • Neutral: ~1 (estimate)
    • Agree: 9
(Update this chart if you count or withdraw your vote) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgundian Feudalism (talkcontribs) 16:04, April 18, 2021 (UTC)
@Burgundian Feudalism:, this procedure of discussion is how Wikipedia develops consensus about a topic, but it is not a simple vote count, and depends more on strength of argumentation based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so there's no need to keep your chart tallies up to date; evaluating the result of a discussion is left up to the closer. You can express your opinion here, too. Your comment "I also voted" above might be read by some as meaning that you oppose the proposal, but it isn't 100% clear. If you would like to clarify, just follow the style others have used in this discussion, and make sure you add your signature by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. And, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment - If someone wants to open a discussion about a redesign then why wasn't this done through an WP:RfC on Template talk:Expand language or have this taken to WP:VPI? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this is "Templates for discussion", so here seems as good a place as any to have it. I have added a note at Template talk:Expand language to draw editors' attention to the discussion here. Hallucegenia (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Knowledgekid87: given that this proposal significantly changes where this template can be used, I felt TfD was a more appropriate venue. Given the participation here, I think my choice was reasonable. I'd rather have a clear consensus than something that gets three comments after a month as most comments on template talkpages do, if lucky. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Its effect is just the same as of other cleanup template. It suggest a specific way to improve the article, sort of like a more specific stub tag (which are, surprise, placed on the article, not the talk page). Note that {{Sources exist}} is a bit similar. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Alternatively, {{Refideas}} is a talkpage template. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as noted by Ingratis. This template is not merely useful for editors by also for readers. Perhaps the template should also have some instructions to direct readers explicitly to the other language. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. In addition to the arguments brought up by Number 57, the template is often dumped to articles without any consideration and stays in the article forever without any maintenance. Often the templates point out to the Wikipedia language versions which have much less strict citation standards than we have, and translation of these articles would not be beneficial. Sometimes they even contain POV, and since users adding the templates typically do not speak the language they suggest to translate from they can not detect POV. Often the templates stay so long that our articles become better and more up-to-date than the articles they point out to, but nobody cares to remove them. As an extreme example, after recent reform of the administrative division of Ukraine hundreds of our articles point out to the articles of Ukrainian Wikipedia which have not been updated and contain plainly wrong information. The argument that the template is for readers and not for editors I do not find very strong: if the reader speaks say Romanian they know where Romanian Wikipedia is and that it is likely to cover the topic better than us, if they do not that the template saying the Romanian Wikipedia has a longer article is useless. And in 99% cases it is obvious which Wikipedia has a longer article, and the list of interwiki links is that far away.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – just noting that anyone who prefers this template at the bottom of the page, wishes it were smaller, or doesn't want to see it at all can do so with appropriate instructions on your Common.css. This page is not the right venue for discussing this, however; so if you're interested, please open a discussion at the Talk page or some other centralized location. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on condition The template serves two functions: to tell editors how the article can be improved and to tell readers where they can get more information. I think the latter function should be served by an article template and the former by a talk page template. Therefore, I would support reworking this template so that it is more discreet and appears less like a maintenance template and more like an informational template. Ergo Sum 19:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    In the style of amboxes, this is appropriately styled. One might consider making it shorter in size. --Izno (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support moving to talk or bottom of page. It's an editor message that is not useful to the end reader. It's also often untrue that you can expand the article from the other language, in my experience. For example, French Wikipedia, where I have translated articles from in the past, has terrible standards compared to English Wikipedia. At least half the time there is no source for the claims, or the source is not enough to meet our standards. The gist of this template, "hey, free material at other site!" is thus rarely true. If kept the template should be changed oto "There is avery slim chance that this article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in XYZ Language." --- Possibly (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment why not have a bot to remove the template after a certain period of time like what is done for {{Current}} and related templates? From what I observed, this template is usually placed when there is a current event affecting a non-english subject of interest, and the rate of content expansion is faster in the other wiki than here. If there are interested bilingual editors, they would have noticed and worked on the translations then. – robertsky (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Example of why I personally think these templates can be distracting, ugly, and take away from the article
  • Support If for the only reason that the vast majority of people who go to pages are readers and the template makes certain articles look wonky, particularly when it can be expanded in 10 languages. Most editors can find the talk page useful and most will at least check it once. That's just my position however I do see arguments for it being on the article itself such as gaining more traction, but I think it's generally much better on the talk pages of articles. Des Vallee (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    FWIW, per the image example at right, multiple templates in articles can be collapsed quite a bit by incorporating them into the {{Multiple issues}} template. North America1000 00:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    Good suggestion. Tried it, and normally that would work very well, greatly reducing the total vertical height; but it doesn't do that right now. In preview mode, it made a fat banner, due to the small Tfd banners that both added their own bit of vertical height, as well as suppressing some of the collapse factor that {{Multiple issues}} normally provides. So, I didn't publish. But that's the fault of the unique situation of this template being under discussion; as soon as it closes and the notification templates are removed, adding {{Multiple issues}} to Zeeland would be a good idea. Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    Mathglot, Cewbot removed it because it is 'not' maintenance template. See Special:Diff/1016810219 – robertsky (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    Doh. No way I could have predicted that to occur! North America1000 06:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    I've reinstated the multiple issues and denied Cewbot for now, but honestly, it doesn't look better this way, so if you want to revert, go ahead. That may be a bug on Cewbot's part; need to revisit this later. Mathglot (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    It doesn't look better for now because ther TfD notices in the templates elongate them, which shows up within the Multiple issues template. North America1000 07:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    Northamerica1000 The thing is an expansion of an article from a language isn't really an issue with the article, but with that in mind I don't think it needs to be displayed so prominently it's very large and extremely distracting while trying to read, especially when it's the first thing you see once you click on an article. Des Vallee (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    Hey, it's all good. It doesn't bother me at all atop articles, but other's don't like it. I don't foresee changing my !vote, but I appreciate that others have differing opinions. North America1000 15:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'd delete the entire system of expand lang templates per Ymblanter and others in preference to moving elsewhere in the article or to the talk page. I can only assume they were conceived before we had interwiki links and before we upped our standards such that it is nearly impossible to translate material from another Wikipedia while simultaneously observing our policies on verifiability (most particularly the absence of citations or the absence of inline citations). General indicators that an article exists in another language already exist in the sidebar; we shouldn't duplicate that function in a hard-to-banish "information" message that isn't useful to boot. Secondary preference would be to move it to the talk page, but that's a very weakly supported preference. (I also would have a much better preference for hidden category transclusion type material than moving it.) --Izno (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of visibility. As others have already said, it points the average reader, who knows nothing about talk pages, towards a potentially more useful version of the article.Pancho507 (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Readers need more prods about things to fix, to understand what Wikipedia is and be motivated to help. --
    06:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as the template is also relevant for readers, not just editors. On several occasions, after seeing this template I've gone to the article in the corresponding language, and used Google Translate to read more about the subject than I could've through the article on English Wikipedia. If it was on the talk page, readers would never have a chance of seeing it. Also, personally, from an aesthetic viewpoint I believe it looks fine - I don't find it "ugly", and it's not so large that it distracts from the article. SpringDay03 (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I regularly use the template both to find pages to translate and to remind myself of the steps of properly attributing, setting a translation note, etc, after an article is finished. So, I do not believe the editors who say it is never actioned or useful—it's one of the single templates I use the most for my contributions to Wikipedia. I do think reducing the clutter it makes on a page is a good idea. One thought: Is there anyway to make the template list multiple potential languages and linked articles for expansion? I think the template is most distracting when it's duplicated, with the only difference being the link and language code. —Wingedserif (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Wingedserif: That functionality already exists! Use parameters like |langcode2= and |otherarticle2= (Template:Expand language/doc#Multiple languages). — MarkH21talk 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    Oops/thank you! I think I've tried to use those functions before but had no luck formatting them correctly; I'll try again 🙏. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Wingedserif:, when you try again, can you please write down any problems or misfires you encounter when trying to format it correctly this time? If you are having issues, the problem is not with you, it's due to unclear documentation. If you raise a discussion at Template talk:Expand language, noting each issue, we can use that as a starting point for improving the doc. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - template can be relevant for both readers and editors and does not actively impair the article by being present; I can't remember a single instance where a template like this interfered when I was a reader, but I have found them useful in cases where I've used foreign language wikis for sources and a better understanding of a topic (using Google Translate or similar). Gazamp (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree strongly - This is helpful for me as a reader and editor. As a reader, I can pick up extra information from a subject's "native language" - see for example Hiroshi Yoshimura vs. JP:吉村弘. The Japanese article has around 30 more albums than the EN article. The Chess Game of the Wind has no plot summary vs. FA:شطرنج باد which does. In a world where Google Translate gets better every year, we should not remove useful information for our readers. Similarly, as an editor, I can save time and not reinvent the wheel by seeing what other languages have already written / organized on the topic. If this is a style issue: "namespace guidelines – articles are not meant for communication between editors", the namespace guidelines should be updated. Furthermore, the template is for readers, not just editors. It's similar to a "See Also" section, and could perhaps be reworked with that in mind. Anonymous-232 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    It is not always trivial to convert a page title to another language. You can't just look up Hiroshi Yoshimura on JP Wikipedia, you have to transliterate it to a Japanese script. Some translations / commonly-known names in one language are not literal translations to another. Bare minimum, some cross reference should be kept between useful alternate-language articles. Anonymous-232 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Anonymous-232: Interlanguage links exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The template is useful to readers to flag that the information that they are reading is incomplete. JECE (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU​. On some devices, TPs are pretty much impossible to find unless you already know that such things exist. Narky Blert (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose as this will cause confusion. —ÐW(T·C) 14:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Template is useful both fopr readers and editors, indicating whe on wikipedia extra info may be found. Not to say that nearly nobody looks into talk pages, except for controversial cases. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Sometimes an article in another language has sources in other languages, and it is easier to add this template at the top of the page for other editors to look into than to try to do the translation myself. This especially helps when I have not found enough English sources to prove the notability of the subject, but the sources do exist in the other language versions. BOZ (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's a self-reference in the way we tend to avoid — I can sympathise with the desire to encourage new users through Content Translation, but I'd guess mbox templates at the top of articles are generally perceived as meaning "this article has problems", rather than "this article could be expanded from this article in a language you probably can't read". — OwenBlacker(he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't buy the thesis that this is harmful in any way, and besides, it's not just for editors -- this provides an obvious starting point for someone who is trying to learn more about the subject. jp×g 02:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Then what would be the point of it being supported by {{multiple issues}}? Firestar464 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Firestar464: it shouldn't be supported by {{multiple issues}}... Elli (talk | contribs) 06:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think the original statement that this template is just "communication between editors" is true. It's very useful for readers finding information that may be too obscure for a good article on Wikipedia but has good coverage in another language. I would support moving it from the top of the page, however, or making it friendlier to readers in general. //​Lollipoplollipoplollipop​::​talk 07:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per above– it leads the reader to a more comprehensive article in a a different language, that could then be translated. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Useful template, both for the reader and for editors who may want to improve the article. --John B123 (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I personally find this to be an extremely helpful tool when I'm looking for info on a personal topic OR when it can be expanded if I find a particular page is missing data. I would be more likely to seek additional data and more likely to improve existing data if this banner exists. If it needs to be modified in design to meet requirements so be it, but this is like saying taking away the Insufficient/Missing references banner that can point users to finding more data and contributing back. Larcondos (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Very strong support. Our readers do not need to see this, it is a notice intended to be seen by editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
but we are all editors, and we read articles also, and those like myself who only do occasional expand/translate instead or specialising in it, need to spot that it's needed and likely to be worthwhile. Every one I've done, I've done because I saw this template at the top. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
BMK, can you elaborate whether you see your comment directed more at this template specifically, or does it apply equally to other templates ostensibly aimed more at editors and conventionally rendered at article top position, such as: {{unreferenced}}, {{In use}}, {{Globalize}}, {{Advertisment}}, {{lead too long}}, {{orphan}}, not to mention all the move, split, merge, and delete templates? If more the latter, perhaps this is only a subset of a bigger issue and there should be a discussion about hiding or moving all or some of them, rather than discuss each one indvidually. Mathglot (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Not only is it a guideline to editors that there's a very easy place to go to improve the article (that you wouldn't necessarily see on the talk page) it's a guideline to readers that the topic is better-covered in a different language. Definitely should not be moved to the talk page, which would render it very useless. SportingFlyerT·C 12:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ingratis and Hallucegenia. This family of templates is useful to editors and readers alike, and any substantial change to it would hamper readers' ability to find information. The original proposal assumes that this template is only meant for the eyes of the editors, but in my experience that isn't true. Whenever I throw myself down a Wikipedia rabbit hole, an "Expand language" template (at least for a language I speak) is a godsend because it redirects me to another language Wikipedia that has more information. There are many people who, when reading Wikipedia, has good use of this family of templates. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with numerous other editors that this template is useful to both readers and editors where it is. When used correctly, it provides valuable information about the article's potential shortfalls, enabling viewers to both learn more and to assist in translation. Moving it would deprive it of any value. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
A possible way forward
I note that the Wikipedia style guidelines at WP:MOSSIS already state that "Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section ...". Arguably, this already applies to the Template:Expand language, but clearly this has not been generally adopted, so can I propose the following process:
  1. Amend the style guideline to read "Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section .... This includes templates linking to wikipedias in other languages".
  2. Amend the instructions on Template:Expand language, in line with WP:MOSSIS, to say that "This template should generally appear in the "External links" section, or after any Stub template".
  3. Copy this amendment into all Expand language templates for specific languages
  4. Update the layout all articles using Expand language templates to follow this guidance, perhaps using a bot.
I think this approach will address most of the concerns raised above. What do others think? Hallucegenia (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
EDIT: The page at WP:MOSSIS is not part of the Manual of Style, but it is referred to at MOS:Interwikilink as the place to go for further information, so is officially recognised.​Hallucegenia (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Hallucegenia's proposal.​Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Support seems sensible to be at the bottom. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd agree with this as a decent compromise, though obviously I prefer my original proposal. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Unacceptable This is not a compromise. The point of the template is that it is visible immediately. This serves all non-monolingual readers who might prefer another language if their article is better, and all editors (or even readers who have never edited before) who might do one, but only if they see it. They're not goign to see it at the bottom. Perhaps all we need do is make thetemplate (and for that matter all article-related templates) render in a less glaring manner. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per DGG. I also think templates are meant to render glaringly. SportingFlyer T·C 12:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose in part per DGG above. It is less likely to be seen at the bottom of articles compared to the top, and per the consensus forming above, this attempts to create a solution when no problem really exists, relative to the overall consensus that is forming above. North America1000 13:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say there's a clear policy-based consensus above - more WP:ILIKEIT. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    Since the template serves both readers and editors, though, there's no clear policy-based consensus the other way - more WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SportingFlyerT·C 14:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    Self-references should remain out of articles unless they're cleanup tags or disambiguation - this is neither. Interwiki links already exist, interwiki links that indicate whether articles are decent already exist (GA and FA badges). Elli (talk | contribs) 15:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    With the raw tally running 50-23 'oppose' at this point, a closer would need to see very strong argumentation in favor of the proposal in order to find that there is clear, policy-based consensus for a 'support' result overturning the status quo. Is that what you see? Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Mathglot: yes, I think I'm right here in line with policies - and if most people don't check talkpages, that is their problem. A lot of info in talkpages could be useful to readers. That doesn't mean we include it in articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DGG. BOZ (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose As said, this is hardly a compromise. If it's not going to boldly encourage people to help the article by looking to better versions in other languages, what's the point? How many people even look at that part of the sidebar anyway? What about mobile users? However, it's at least better than moving to talk page so that's why I'm only moderately opposing.--​~Sıgehelmus♗​(Tøk) 03:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Millionaires (group)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:Millionaires (group) (edit · talk ·history · links · transclusions · logs ·subpages · delete)
Only one navigable link; the rest were redirected for failing notability and being unsourced or containing one source for a decade. Doesn't need to still exist. Ss112 06:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Provides no useful navigation. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need. gidonb (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I can’t even comprehend this article. It either needs improvement or a chance of total deletion. P.S. Who uses this link? I haven’t heard of anyone using Wikipedia for this - From Burgundian Feudalism (talk)
  • Delete. All of the supposed links merely redirect right back to the main article so it provides absolutely no useful navigation to anywhere else. This information is already in the article so it is redundant and unhelpful. --Nicholas0 (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. I cannot even work out what this relates to really. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete All of it's link are redirects, could be replaced by the contents section. ÆæÆœŧ (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Last edited on 25 April 2021, at 00:27
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
Desktop
HomeRandomNearbyLog inSettingsDonateAbout WikipediaDisclaimers
WatchEdit