Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 26 July 28 >

July 27 edit

Module:ISO 639 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 merge to Module:ISO 639 name. Per the discussion, only the functionality that is currently employed by active transclusions of Module:ISO 639 need to be included in the merger. Once that is done, it can be replaced and deleted. Primefac (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:ISO 639 with Module:ISO 639 name.
Both modules do the same thing (as far as I can tell). If nothing is needed to be merged, then just replace usages. As a side note, would appreciate if anyone can help me with tagging the templates in Category:ISO 639 name from code templates for the next nomination. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Summon Trappist the monk, who I suspect will have opinions. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. These two modules aren't identical though they largely do the same things. Module:ISO 639 supports ISO 639-5 hierarchy and has support to strip diacritics from uppercase letters. Neither of these are supported by Module:ISO 639 name. The only other obvious difference is iso_639_name_exists() in Module:ISO 639 name which serves as a replacement for the #ifexist parser function.
    Were it up to me, I don't think that I would merge these two modules. Rather, I would replace instances of the module with fewer transclusions with the other. If there are cases where such replacements don't work 'out-of-the-box', module tweaks can be employed as a remedy.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like they are supposed to do the same thing, but Module:ISO 639 name is used 100 times more and has better code. While I haven't done a through check of everything I trust Trappist the monk in this area and my cursory look indicated that replacement is suitable. --Trialpears (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:LDS edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. Per TFD guidance, the poster (myself) can speedy close if there is clear consensus. There is clear consensus to keep, and just modify the template to point to appropriate Wikisource sources when possible. Epachamo (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template creates an external link to various religious sources. All of these sources are available on wikisource, which I believe should be the preferred link. Epachamo (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closest translation appears to be American Standard. Compare John 3 LDS and John 3 Wikisource (American Standard). If we deleted the template it should be replaced with links to this translation. However, the LDS page is better formatted and has annotations (links) and side-notes (cool feature). So there would be a loss not 1:1 replacement. The template has around 200 transclusions. -- GreenC 03:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the proposed action here something akin to a merge with {{Bible verse}}? In that case I would be all for it. --Trialpears (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be ok with a merger with a template merger. Mostly I think we should use wikisource sources vice an external POV source.Epachamo (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with above. It's preferable to use WikiSource as compared with an external source; from our point of view it's likely to be more impartial, and additionally we are less likely to face a problem of a future dead link. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep/Don't Merge. I would vote against deletion for sure, and unless I'm misunderstanding what is being proposed as a merger with {{Bibleverse}} I am opposed to that as well. Deleting would definitely be a bad idea because LDS scriptures include three significant works in addition to the (KJV) Bible—the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price (e.g., Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)—so it deserves its own template. And I don't think merging would make sense since Bible verses are a subset of LDS scripture citations, so I assume the merged template would have to specify whether it is citing the Bible or the Book of Mormon or whatever (which I don't think the many many more pages that use the Bible Verse template just to cite to the Bible would like). While I have never merged any templates before, since the Wikipedia:Merging Templates article describes it as "one of the most complex operations on Wikipedia" I don't think it should be attempted without a clear explanation of what the result would look like. That said, I am absolutely open to retooling the template because I agree that there are issues with relying on a single (non-neutral) external source for the links. That discussion, as I understand it, should happen on the Talk page of the {{LDS}} template. I'd be happy to discuss those issues there (and put in the work to help improve it). biggins (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Biggins thanks for your comment! That would have been annoying to miss. We should definitely preserve a template for linking these other books. It seems to me like migrating links to Wikisource should be possible anyway though. The Bible part of LDS seems to correspond to KJV as used at {{Bibleverse}} as we've already established. The LDS Book of Mormon looks to be the same as wikisource:Book of Mormon (1981), The Doctrine and Covenants can be found at wikisource:The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price may also be on wikisource. Would it be reasonable to move the links to wikisource or have I overlooked something? I wouldn't worry about the implementation part if I were you. We have several highly experienced people (me included) working at the holding cell and basically all mergers get carried out smoothly given enough time. --Trialpears (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trialpears ok that's great to know that there are people ready to help with implementation! For the Bible, yes, the LDS Church uses the official KJV text so those links can absolutely just be migrated to Wikisource, and the same for the Book of Mormon (using the 1981 version, yes). The Doctrine and Covenants can also be migrated to Wikipedia with the one exception of the most recent addition from 1978, "Official Declaration 2," which as the Wikisource page notes is still copyrighted in the US. Would it be possible/appropriate to link to Wikisource for everything in the Doctrine and Covenants except Official Declaration 2, which would link to the LDS Church website? The Pearl of Great Price (use the 1913 version looks like it is complete on Wikisource so that can be migrated as well (there have been some tiny editorial changes in the LDS Church's official text of that since 1913, like changing "viz." to "namely," but I don't think anything serious enough to prevent its use). A few questions:
  • Should I make this a formal request somewhere?
  • Would it be possible to keep the current behavior of linking to the LDS Church's website as an option via a flag (e.g., "LDS")? There is some nice functionality built in to the current version of the template to take advantage of that website's ability to highlight (even non-consecutive) ranges of verses, which I think is nice.
  • And finally, since it seems like there's consensus not to delete this template, can the notice of the template being considered for deletion be removed from the template everywhere it's used?
Thanks for the response! biggins (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Biggins, Thank you for explaining what wikisource pages are acceptable. Regarding your bullet points:
  • A discussion at the template talk page like the one you started is the best way to work towards improving a template. Nothing more needs to be done in that regard.
  • Keeping it as an option is definitely possible and seems like it would be desirable.
  • Removal of TfD notices is only done when the discussion is closed which should be done by someone uninvolved (i.e hasn't participated in the discussion). --Trialpears (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep/This note from Craig Luthy.

I apologize in advance for not being familiar with the markdown you use. I am a Latter-day Saint (i.e. a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and noticed this conversation on removing the LDS template and changing links to wikisource instead of external links. There are many good reasons for preserving the external links: The church maintains a huge library of material. Links can change, but they make an effort to keep it stable. For instance, the KJV the church uses has many enhancements such as references to the other canonized scriptures we depend on like the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. As another example, it also contains references to the Joseph Smith translation of the bible which corrects or enhances passages from the regular KJV. And, it is not appropriate to replace a link to this version with any other bible translation since it is the accepted version for the church. I'm sure there would be other subtle but important information lost. I do not know all the pros and cons here so it would be best if you reached out to the church technical team that maintains church website and sources before links to them are removed. I'm not sure who the author of this article is but it is very comprehensive and looks pretty authoritative to me. Reaching out to him/her would be a safe way to go, too. I think this link would get to the church technical team: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Web43037 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This illustrates exactly why this article should not link to the LDS Church website. These "enhancements" and large library of material promote a particular POV not appropriate for the general audience of Wikipedia. It could also be seen as endorsing a particular sect of Mormonism, which is also undesirable.Epachamo (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but make Wikisource an option in the template per my comments above. Just putting this here to make my position clear. --Trialpears (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of Order — I am not familiar with the TfD protocol beyond what I've read on the pages linked above, but I'm not sure why this keeps getting relisted. There have only been votes to keep it (as well as suggestions for improving it, which I am in the course of implementing — see {{LDS/sandbox}}). I totally understand that generally an uninvolved admin should close the discussion, and I recognize that only a handful of people have participated in this discussion so far, but given that everyone who has commented so far is in agreement not to delete would it be ok to at least take out the inline notice that appears everywhere this template is used? Alternatively, Epachamo, as I understand the protocol, as the person who initially nominated the template for potential deletion (and without any votes to delete) you are an exception to the rule that only admins should close these discussions if you are now in favor of a speedy keep (as suggested by your comment over on the template's talk page). If you would like to do so, it looks like there is a brief overview of the process here. Or if you don't want to deal with it, no worries, I'm sure this will stop getting re-listed eventually :) ― biggins (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions are relisted when there is not an single obvious consensus (and there is a belief that the editors involved, or additional editors, can help bring it to an obvious consensus). They are usually in the realm of "eyeball check" and not "detailed read". (The other "no consensus" close is "no consensus", for when the closer does not believe that there will be resolution with the listing.) Given that this one has been relisted twice (once by me), it will likely be closed the next go around regardless. --Izno (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. I hope I didn't come off as angry or anything—I just haven't navigated these particular waters before, and while I appreciate all the process that goes into this stuff, I did want to make sure this wasn't getting lost in the shuffle :) Thank you for the reply, and all your work on these behind-the-scenes-tasks! ― biggins (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Biggins: I can close it. It does seem like the overwhelming consensus is to "keep" the template. I am personally satisfied if it is kept, but with changes to point to Wikisource (whenever possible). Thanks for putting in the leg work to update the template! Epachamo (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:IS Entermedia Group edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template contains too few links for a navbox, there are only four transclusions of it, and plus there isn't an article on the template's main topic (IS Entermedia Group). KhaiDo (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and because this is only a loosely related collection of links so per WP:NAVBOX. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:ViralZone edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 01:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems to be used once. That single entry could be converted to a normal reference or link. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it seems to be a concept to help with inserting links to many different sections of an external website, but it isn't being used, so it should go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:Mesh2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong (please check, as the transclusions list is a little complicated), but I can only see this template used in sandboxes, not on any active templates. It's confusing to have both this template and the existing MeSH templates ({{MeSH name}}, {{MeSH number}}), so I propose this gets deleted. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Is indeed unused. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:MerckGeriatrics edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used once, and I propose that it is deleted and replaced with a reference / link like most external links. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a 14 year old template is used only once, it's probably not needed. As it's used as a reference and not an EL (even though it's in the EL category), it should be replaced with a proper citation when deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:RXlist edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is only used a handful of times, and links to a website full of advertising that does not come across as a reliable source. I don't see the benefit of linking readers here as compared with them conducting a google search. I propose that it is removed from those pages where it is used and deleted. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also don't quite see the point in the template, and share Tom's concerns about the source link. Skylar MacDonald (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:Gray subject edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 00:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just putting it out there. This links to an external archived website which provides access to Gray's Anatomy public domain edition, which is now over 100 years old. Although anatomy moves more slowly than medicine, terminology and understanding has changed in the preceding years, so I do not think this is a reliable source. I propose this is deleted, and the links removed. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's transcluded on a couple of dozen pages, but if you medical guys are sure it's obsolete, we should Delete it all the same. Some cleanup will be needed as for instance at Aponeurosis it's the only external link, so the whole section should go in that article, probably others too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:FPnotebook edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template was created 16 years ago, updated a handful of time, and remains unused in article space. I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:EMedicineHealth edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used once, could just be replaced by a link. Two other eMedicine templates exist ({{EMedicine}} and {{EMedicine2}}). I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The other two should really be merged and use the non-italic. --Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:CrispThesaurus edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 17:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used on 2-3 articles only as an external link, there is no clear reason why this link to, of all things a thesaurus, needs to exist. I don't think it adds any encyclopedic information to articles, so I propose deletion Tom (LT) (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EL templates with dead links are pretty much pointless. --Gonnym (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym above. No reason to keep a dead link around. Skylar MacDonald (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:BSE specified risk materials edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 14:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used once, this contains just an image that should be instead placed on the parent article. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:Dysphoriants edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate following discussion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_20#Template:Depressogenics, and ping to contributors (LaundryPizza03, and Jfdwolff)

Used once, and not even on the primary article. Similar to the previous nomination, this template lists drugs which have been associated with dysphoria as a side-effect, although primarily those associated with delirium (which as a side-note could encompass almost all drugs).

Firstly, list scope is huge and we are WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Secondly, dysphoria / delirium are non-specific and may not be directly attributable to the action of the drug. Contents are unsourced. Lastly, it's unusual to link medications by their side-effects. Therefore I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as almost unused, and as an unusual way to index things. Templates are however always unsourced... Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal project of permablocked user. JFW | T@lk 22:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:Ketamine-related arylcyclohexylamines edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate following discussion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_20#Template:Depressogenics, and ping to contributors (LaundryPizza03, and Jfdwolff)

Unused, and unsuitable for navigation. Content is included in {{Ionotropic glutamate receptor modulators}} and {{Hallucinogens}}, but this template is even harder to read. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no good having unused and unusable templates around. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal pet project from permablocked user. JFW | T@lk 22:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:WikiProject Musicians edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 no consensus. There has been zero input from the WikiProject Musicians membership on this template, which means that there has been no input as to whether they find it a useful template. Generally speaking, when an interested party says nothing, then per WP:SILENCE it is assumed to be acceptable. There is NPASR if there is an indication that the Project does not want this template, though if it is a strong enough consensus the template can simply be converted to a wrapper of WikiProject Biography as described here. Primefac (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created in May 2020 by SportsOlympic (talk · contribs), without being proposed or approved either at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. The WikiProject's main page shows (in three places: Adding articles; Articles in need of attention; and Project banner) the use of {{WikiProject Biography}} with |musician-work-group=yes and does not mention any other WikiProject banner, let alone {{WikiProject Musicians}}.
This WikiProject has existed since March 2006; early on, its own WikiProject banner was created, but following this discussion it was merged into {{WikiProject Biography}} in September 2006. The resulting redirect was deleted three years later, following this RfD (admins may view the history at Special:Undelete/Template:Musician). The most recent discussion on the WikiProject's talk page seems to be this one in April 2009, so I think that if the WikiProject had once again wanted a banner that was independent of Biography, it would have been discussed since the deletion in September 2009.
Note: the above is based on my post of 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Template:WikiProject Musicians, which was inconclusive. I feel that if the WikiProject don't care enough to comment, they probably don't care about keeping the banner template.
Therefore, I propose that pages using {{WikiProject Musicians}} should have that replaced by {{WikiProject Biography|musician-work-group=yes}} with |importance=value, if present, being replaced by |musician-priority=value and the other parameters left alone. Of course, if {{WikiProject Biography}} is already present, it merely needs to be given the two additional parameters. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, this is the reason I created it: the WikiProjects about Music are unclear. There is
  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, also including bands
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, but the template {{WikiProject Music}} does not exist.
So I think there are two options
And so:
  • Keep, and wrong venue. A WikiProject is just a group of volunteers, with a common venue to make editing and communication easier. It's up to them to determine their scope, and if they want to be merged into another project that discussion should happen on the WikiProject, not here where lots of uninvolved editors such as myself may chip in. TfD isn't the right place to make that sort of change, and worse it risks making life and editing more harder and more frustrating for editors who are happily and quietly editing in those areas. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tom (LT): It already was merged, back in September 2006 with the consensus of the WikiProject - the template was recreated a few weeks ago without their consensus, as I explained above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. So the problem seems to be that an editor has created this and now it's widely used, so the question is what is the better Wikiproject for this content? --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_27&oldid=1138134786"