August 22

Template:P.S.

Template:Find a Grave

Template:First cabinet of Ana Brnabić

• Template:First cabinet of Ana Brnabić (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template as First cabinet of Ana Brnabić uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Government of Vojvodina

• Template:Government of Vojvodina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Government of Vojvodina 2008–2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Government of Vojvodina 2012–2014 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Government of Vojvodina 2014–2016 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Government of Vojvodina 2016–2020 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Tables which are only used at Government of Vojvodina and should be subst to it. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Substitute on the government article then delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pellegrini's Cabinet

• Template:Pellegrini's Cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Table which is used only at Pellegrini's Cabinet. Should be subst into article. Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: As a creator of this template, I am not against having it removed, and instead having the information it contains set within the article. I created the template by copying the template of the previous government, for the sole reason that I do not have sufficient wiki markup skills to create a sufficiently well looking table into the article. Thus, if someone transfers the template into a table in the article, I do not see a reason to reatain this template. If, however, the template is deleted before the information it contains is transfered into the article, I will consider it as a loss of information.
  • The information is important and there is no reason at all to remove it from the wiki, just to place it inside the article instead of in a template.

• Delete Substitute onto the article then delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fico's Third Cabinet

• Template:Fico's Third Cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Table which is used only at Fico's Third Cabinet. Should be subst into article. Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Substitute onto the article then delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cabinet of Igor Matovič

• Template:Cabinet of Igor Matovič (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Table which is used only at Matovič's Cabinet. Should be subst into article. Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Substitute onto the article then delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis cabinet

• Template:2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox which is used only at 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis and should be subst. Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Substitute onto the article, then delete it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swedish political officeholders table start

• Template:Swedish political officeholders table start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template created 11 years ago. Probably would have been in use by now if useful. Gonnym (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legislative Yuan election labelled map 2016

• Template:Legislative Yuan election labelled map 2016 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election map. Also seems broken as some of the numbers are above the water. Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not necessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sub judice

• Template:Sub judice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sub judice and Contempt New Zealand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sub judice and Contempt Ireland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sub judice and Contempt Gibraltar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sub judice and Contempt Bermuda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a quite scary template (created Dec. 2018) that seems to be advising (in a very non-specific manner) to defer to the government and not publish anything on the page the courts might not want. That sort of deference is totally misaligned with Wikipedia's values, where we write an encyclopedia based on verifiable reliable sources, regardless of what anyone in power wants. In practice, this template probably discourages negative information, even when it's well-sourced, which is not desirable. We have WP:NOLEGALTHREATS protecting editors against legal action, and any edit so slanderous as to not be covered by that is surely in violation of BLP or other notices on the page, making this redundant. I'm also nominating some forked templates in the same family, where the same concerns apply. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I hope editors remember that we have an awful banner blindness problem on talk pages; the question is not "could any editor possibly find this at all helpful", but rather "is this essential to have on every page related to legal proceedings when most will presumably already have lots of other banners"? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have dug up the circumstances behind my re-creation of this template, and it appears to have been related to a high-profile ongoing criminal prosecution which had an extremely strict suppression order in place in the relevant jurisdiction. Several large media organisations had just been hauled into court over breaches and many local Wikipedia editors may have breached the order unknowingly, placing themselves at risk. The intent of the template, rather than to intimidate anyone, was simply to alert local editors to an unusual and temporary risk within their jurisdiction. It is in the interest of the proper administration of the encyclopedia that our editors not get sued into oblivion.

Having said this, I can understand that subtlety may not be realised by all editors who add the template to a talk page, and that the template may remain in place for a period exceeding that which is necessary. In this respect it has a time-sensitive and limited scope in the same way as {{Current}}. For these reasons I am comfortable to support Delete or redesign if that is what people would prefer. Cheers. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that context—the impetus for creating this in the context of the George Pell case makes sense. I remember that that case ignited a firestorm of criticism from free press advocates, so hopefully nothing like it will come up again, and if it does, we'll likely want to have a conversation about whether we should abide by the orders or not.

To give my own context, I came across this at Talk:Marilyn Manson, which might give an indication of how it's currently being used. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Marilyn Manson situation. Is it possible an editor might write something about it that could make them liable to prosecution in the jurisdiction they are under? (BTW, WP:NOLEGALTHREATS doesn't apply, because that's about one editor threatening another, not about breaching orders of a court.) Nurg (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nurg, sorry I missed this comment before. I know of nothing a reasonable editor might write on the Manson page that would make them liable to prosecution: there is no suppression order or anything like it that I know of, and U.S. free speech laws are much more lenient than most other Western countries due to the 1st amendment tradition, so any such order in the U.S. would prompt an outcry far louder even than the one over the Pell order. Part of why I'm seeking deletion here is that this template is incredibly prone to overuse: its wording refers to all situations in which a subject is facing prosecution, but it really applies only when there's a suppression order or similar. I want to assume good faith on the part of the editor who added the tag at the Manson talk page, so I'll keep the example hypothetical, but adding this to a page for a subject facing controversy but where one does not want that controversy covered is extremely tempting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia should not have something like this. Contrary to the views and policy of this site. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I'm content to leave legal matters to the Foundation. If they have concerns, they're sure to let us know; if they don't, there's likely no need for such a template, particularly given its intimidating appearance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think it's intimidating, it's a legitimate warning to editors that they ought to be particularly careful. PatGallacher (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. I think the point of this warning is that while Wikipedia as an institution tends to follow the law in the state of Florida where it is based, individual editors may face tighter restrictions in the legal jurisdiction where they live, where they are not protected by e.g. the First Amendment. PatGallacher (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging AKeton (WMF), who seems to be the contact person for WMF Legal—would you have any perspective on this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - useful template to warn editors where they may need to take extra care when editing. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no different to the notice whenever you edit a living person's biography, telling you to avoid libel. "In practice, this template probably discourages negative information, even when it's well-sourced" - as news sources have to follow the same rules, there is actually a scarcity of local sources around the time of criminal trials in the UK, apart from verbatim reports of what is heard in court. I do not see this template as deference because in one case which I won't name, I have seen it written that a famous man has been arrested despite the UK press being banned from naming him - nobody on Wikipedia has wanted to remove the foreign source naming him. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's very different from the BLP notice, since WP:BLP is a Wikipedia policy, whereas "abide by suppression orders from all governments, even when reliable sources covering a topic are available" is absolutely not. Are we going to put a notice on every controversial China topic, for instance, advising "hey, if you're a Chinese editor, maybe don't add details on Tiananmen Square?" See also the WP:NODISCLAIMERS guideline. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTV artist

• Template:MTV artist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete The mtv.com website has been restructured, and so this template no longer produces working artist-specific links; all default to a high-level page on the site. Research reveals no edits to the template code that would solve this issue. Only 32 mainspace transclusions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Now redundant and outdated. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Information from Jeremy Cuss, son of Eileen

• Template:Information from Jeremy Cuss, son of Eileen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One-off template used a single time to annotate a detail in Herbert Cecil Potter and no likely other use-case. Proposing subst-and-delete. DMacks (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welsh Constituency Election box begin

• Template:Welsh Constituency Election box begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Scottish Constituency Election box begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both redundant now after I made the fix to the coding on the articles where these were used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you can't do this without adding the table headings. these template generate the table top and the table headings, you have erased the table headings and should be fixed before these are deleted. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

okay, what a mess, but I think I fixed all of them. Frietjes (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, apologies for this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]