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

The result of the discussion was keep. Izno (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:1930 Canadian federal election/Waterloo South (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I couldn't find sources to verify this information Boleyn (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the source (from the Library of Parliament) has been in the green expandable "Source(s)" box at the bottom since I created the template. I did notice the link was dead, so I've updated the citation with a Wayback link. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 22:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, sourced by a reliable source. Frietjes (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chinese elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Had made a suggestion for improvement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive 33#Chinese elections, but no changes have come forth. Moving towards deletion as the template does not deliver on what its title promises, it merely lists sessions of the National People's Congress which is just a rehash of certain heads of {{National People's Congress}}, and does not serve as a navigable aid to articles about the actual process of delegate selection to the NPC (compare with {{Chinese elections (1912–1949)}}). Neither are NPC elections the sole form of elections in China. This template needs a complete overhaul and as of now is very apt for a WP:TNT. Gotitbro (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the articles included do not have 'election' in their titles, they do include details of the respective elections. For example, 1st National People's Congress includes details of the election to the Congress and the Congress' election of the chairman and vice chairman. In future, you would likely get more engagement by raising the matter either on the template talk page or WT:E&R, where there are more likely to be editors interested in the specific topic. Cheers, Number 57 23:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are only two articles when digging through the main category that are not the entries in the navbox. However, none of the links in the navbox are of election articles even if it is mentioned in these articles, but they make up a part of it and are not the central focus of it. There isn't still enough with this navbox worth keeping. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Izno (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:SO Cholet squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No people with any existing articles linked on this squad template. Club was relegated five whole divisions and everyone notable left. Will be a while before any wikilinks appear here, so just delete and create again in the future (and that's only an IF they get promoted in the future) Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No purpose in keeping this right now. Gricehead (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 14:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, no blue links. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Please {{subst:r}} into <ref>. For my arguments for deletion, I cite the preivous TfD's !keep reasons, except I claim that VisualEditor's introduction has turned them into !delete reasons. Also see the centralized discussion leading up to the TfD and my inspiration, Template_talk:R#This_abomination_needs_to_go.

Help:List-defined_references#Overview (LDRs), key word "Alternatively", are off-topic and not to be confused with {{r}}. WP:CITEVAR's spirit is stability in visual appearance, which substing doesn't affect. Its repetition of WP:COSMETICBOT defers to consensus here at TfD.

Previous reasons against use focused on needlessness and the learning curve. No, this isn't even a separate referencing system, only a wrapper. Another editor said "my first time seeing that" and "not at all obvious". In response to arguments claiming difficulties in reading the source code, I extrapolate "Normal editors should not ... require[] at least a little bit of computer programming skill", and assert that normal editors in 2024 should not be required to understand wikitext.

The main argument at the previous TfD was a "50% reduction in visual clutter" going from <ref> to {{r}}. I claim a further 50% reduction in visual clutter by deleting this template in 2024. <ref name=X/> is length 13, while {{r|X}} is length 7, but VE's [1] is as short as length 3. VE gives us a 75% total reduction for named refs, and a 99% reduction for refs containing URLs and used once. In fact, quickly working with references is my main use case for VE. "For me visual clutter in edit mode is the largest impediment to editing for flow, to the point where it's nearly impossible to do so with a lot of references." The problem is that {{r}} not only breaks VE, but is slower to parse and learn.

142.113.140.146 (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support retiring {{subst:r}}. We need to clean up old code. Anything that is not compatibile with VE needs to be retired or rewritten so that it is, to improve new editor experience (and experience for most old editors as well). Effectively, articles with {{subst:r}} are hard to edit and improve by most editors (who use VE), and this is not sustainable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly useful, as it is used on 28,000 pages. Whether the nominator likes it or not, WP:CITEVAR is an established guideline, and applies here. If this template doesn't work with the just-out-of-beta Visual Editor, the Visual Editor should be fixed. Unfortunately, VE has many bugs that the WMF developers have chosen to left unfixed while moving on to shiny new projects like Vector 2022 and dark mode, but that doesn't mean we throw away useful templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Substituting it doesn't change the citation style, just the markup. {{r|a|b|c}} and <ref name="a" /><ref name="b" /><ref name="c" /> are the same citation style, like X, pp. 7–8 and X, pp. 7{{en dash}}8 are the same citation style. I rather doubt that WP:CITEVAR means use whatever markup the first contributor used. Nor does always substituting it get rid of the template. SilverLocust 💬 23:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The above statement is not congruent with the consensus interpretation of CITEVAR. Replacing {{cite web}} with its expanded wikitext would be an equivalent CITEVAR violation and, if you tried it, would have people showing up at your door with pitchforks and torches. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is circular reasoning. CITEVAR is a guideline. The WP:DEL-REASON's reason 10 ("Redundant or otherwise useless templates") is a policy. Policies takes precedence over guidelines, which "are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Here at TfD, this discussion is the "seeking consensus for the change" part of CITEVAR. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that it is widely used means ipso facto it is not useless. It is not redundant because no other template provides the same function. One can use spelled-out html-like markup instead, but that doesn't make it redundant, no more than any template that expands to something else is redundant, such as {{reflist}}. (A redundant template would be a new name for the same function as another template, and even in that case we would often redirect rather than delete.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a silly and cluttersome WP:COSMETICEDIT (and pretty difficult, given that substing {{cite web}} doesn't work), but that doesn't make it a CITEVAR issue. I imagine people would be just as annoyed if you substed an infobox, so the example doesn't reveal anything particular to citations. SilverLocust 💬 01:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I thoroughly dislike this style of referencing, but if I wanted to get rid of this template I'd have to get consensus to deprecate the referencing style first, and I don't see that succeeding. The TfD nomination of a template that implements the style is the wrong way to go about this. As for the comments about VE, I'm a big fan of the visual editor but it should never be the case that the limitations of an optional editing interface should control the style choices we approve of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fix VE. EEng 17:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep convenient shorthand for named references (regardless of whether list-defined or duplicates from elsewhere in an article). Whenever we have a Wikipedia problem related to Visual Editor, it is always Visual Editor that is the problem. Delete Visual Editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Personally, I don't like this template but don't see how the template could be deprecated from this discussion. There is a valid reason to substitute and move on: the same effects can be achieved with <ref name="">, and that second method will work on the VE while {{r}} is very awkward for new editors on VE. However, I don't think this discussion will have a broad enough reach to achieve consensus (per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). There are thousands of pages where editors have chosen to use {{r}} over <ref name="">, and the TfD notice is not transcluded onto those pages. To transclude it would destroy the readability of those articles for the week or so the discussion ran. Also, I remember coming across a howto video on creating a Wikipedia article from scratch from GSoW (off-wiki writing workshop for skeptical and scientific writing on-wiki), and it recommended {{r}}. GSoW editors would be another hundred or so folks that would presumably vote to keep here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to weak keep.

  @Rjjiii: My fault not using better consensus seeking venue WP:VPR, but it's almost snowing.

  @David Eppstein: I realized {{r}} resembles a non-redirect {{tsh}}. I generally accept {{tsh}}s' usefulness and nonredundancy. Despite VE's Ctrl+C Ctrl+V autogenerating named refs, I learned about source users' continued convenience. Anyway, definitive consensus from this TfD'd be nice.

  Testing invalidated claims {{r}} not LDR breaks VE, but VE rebuts 2010's !keeps. However, I didn't anticipate CCC softening hostility from the CD, by editors claiming increased usage and establishment as a real style. CITEVAR seemingly encompasses the CD now. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful template. Nomination makes no sense. Polygnotus (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The template isn't just a substitution of ref tags. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.