Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 65 0 65
TfD 0 0 26 0 26
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 1 14 0 15
RfD 0 0 7 0 7
AfD 0 0 5 0 5
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, with a few exceptions, is discussed.

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. See also WP:T5.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline.
Template redirects
List all redirects at Redirects for discussion.
Moving and renaming a template
Use Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Listing a template

[edit]
Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow the three-step process below. Do not include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps.

If you have never nominated a template for deletion or used Twinkle before, you might want to do it manually to avoid making mistakes. For more experienced editors, using Twinkle is recommended, as it automates some of these steps. (After navigating to the template you want to nominate, click its dropdown menu in the top right of the page: TW , and then select "XFD".)

Step Instructions
Step 1

Tag the template

Paste one of the following notices to the top of the template page:

Note:

  • If the template is protected, request that the TfD notice be added on the template's talk page using the {{editprotected}} template, to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • If the template is designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
  • Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use the meaningful title you chose earlier: {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}}.)
TemplateStyles pages
If you are nominating TemplateStyles pages, these templates won't work. Instead, paste this CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025_November_2#Template:template_name.css */
Step 2

List the template

Edit today's TfD log and paste the following text to the top of the list:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without square brackets|result of previous TfD}} in the |text= field immediately before your rationale (or alternatively at the very end, after the last }}).

Use an edit summary such as Adding deletion/merger nomination of [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, paste the following code instead. You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters |). Use the same meaningful title that you chose in Step 1.
  • Multiple templates for deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • Multiple templates for merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
    • If there is a template you want the other templates to be merged into, you can optionally specify it using |with=.
Related categories
If this template deletion proposal involves a category populated solely by templates, paste this code in the |text= field of the {{Tfd2}} template, before your rationale: {{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
Step 3

Notify users

Notify the creator of the template, the main contributors, and (if you're proposing a merger) the creator of the other template. (To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template.) To do this, paste one of the following in their user talk pages:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd notice|template name}} ~~~~
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm notice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~
  • Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination. In these cases, write a personal message.

If you see any WikiProjects banners (they look like this) at the top of the template's talk page, you can let them know about the discussion. Most WikiProjects are subscribed to Article alerts, which means they are automatically notified. If you think they have not been notified, you can paste the same message in the projects' talk pages, or use Deletion sorting lists. Note that Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects.

Consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination notice is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

[edit]

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

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

  • Notifying related WikiProjects: WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{subst:Tfd notice}} for this. Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they are subscribed to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
  • Notifying main contributors: While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the creator and any main contributors of the template and its talk page that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.

At this point, no further action is necessary on your part. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone other than you will either close the discussion or, if needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. If the nomination is successful, it will be moved to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

Discussion

[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]

November 2

[edit]

Template:Annual readership

[edit]

This is a bit of a longer nomination. The short version: the new Charts extension is not suited to replace this template, and therefore this template should be deleted as redundant to pageviews.wmcloud.org.

This template has been broken since the Graph extension was disabled. It was nominated for deletion, but was kept and wrapped in <noinclude>...</noinclude> in the hopes that the Chart extension would save the day and get it working again.

The old Graph extension used the pageviews API directly. There is no such capability in the Charts extension. To mimic this functionality, we would need a bot at Wikimedia Commons (Charts are hosted at Commons) to update the data. A bot would need to upload 53,000 charts—more as the template gets added to extra pages—and update them every so often. We would also need permission from the Commons community to run a bot there. All of that effort... or we can just link to pageviews.wmcloud.org, which allows for comparison between pages, arbitrary time frames, filtering by views on mobile/desktop, and other additional functionality which would not be easily replicated by a bot. We would also need someone to code the bot, and I suspect most bot coders will ask why pageviews.wmcloud.org is insufficient.

My proposed solution is delete the template, which will also help with banner blindness. We need fewer banners so that editors actually see the more important ones, like {{contentious topics/talk notice}} or {{Frequently asked questions}}. We could include a link to pageviews.wmcloud.org in {{talk header}} if people feel that the link already provided by the MoreMenu gadget is insufficient. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well argued nomination. Redundant to wmcloud.org. No need to keep broken code laying around. If someone DOES want to make this work, better to just WP:BLOWITUP anyway. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Muizzu sidebar

[edit]

Only six articles exist for the subject in their navbox. There is no need for a sidebar. Much of this is clutter to links to article sections and links with no direct relevance. No need and not every world leader or politician needs a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon Harris sidebar

[edit]

Only links to articles of direct relevance. Rest are to article sections or political positions. Fails navigation. Not every world leader or politician needs a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British barrelled name

[edit]

To be blunt, I don't understand what this template is for. It is constructed to give advice on how to write somebody's surname, but as a hatnote for readers. Surely that makes more sense as an edit notice? Articles in question will show readers the correct formation of the subject's surname by its usage in the text. The recent edit to reflect "barrelled" not having any meaning in the English language in connection to surnames exposes how ill-conceived this template was from the start, and how its intended usage has never been apparent enough for effective usage. U-Mos (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NB This template is also redundant to Template:Family name footnote, which in my view provides a more appropriate way of noting a British person's surname at first usage to readers, if such a thing is desired. U-Mos (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As I've explained here, this is a reasonable explanatory header. People may not be aware of the existence of such double-barrelled names. It's just like how East Asian subjects like Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Jae Myung have a header saying that the surname for both are Lee: Both examples provide context for readers on the subjects' name. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 12:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree: the purpose of the hatnote in those examples is for non-English names, where an English-speaking reader can benefit from immediate clarity. That problem doesn't exist for British surnames to anywhere near the same degree.
    And in fact, those articles use Template:Family name hatnote, which is exactly how this template would need to be rewritten to address its grammatical issues (i.e. starting with "This surname" and being addressed to writers rather than readers). So now I'm aware of the family name hatnote template's existence, I believe this extra template is even more redundant, even if using hatnotes in this scenario is still considered beneficial. U-Mos (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And likewise readers (particularly non-British readers like myself) can benefit from immediate clarity for double-barrelled surnames, especially those without a hyphen in between. I can definitely see some people assuming that since (picking an article at random) James Earl Jones's surname is Jones, then Simon Peyton Jones's surname is also a single Jones. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I don't mind rewording the template to make it grammatically perfect, but I don't see the need for it to be deleted. Another solution I would accept is to merge into Template:Family name hatnote but I'd like to see Double-barrelled surname linked in it for context (as is the case for the template we're currently dicussing). S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say use Template:Family name footnote for that purpose, but again, Template:Family name hatnote could also be used. This template is surplus to requirements in any event. The discussion could of course be closed as a redirect to Template:Family name hatnote, which I wouldn't object to if consensus was that some form of hatnote remained appropriate. U-Mos (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with U-Mos. In the Asian example cited, the "family" name (Lee) actually comes first, and that is the key point. There is no reason for this double-barrelled template to exist: a hatnote is sufficient Billsmith60 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into / delete and replace with Template:Family name hatnote (not sure which is the best option technically). There is nothing intrinsically "British" about a surname having two or more bits in it. As a case in point I've just come here because this template is used on Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi which is clearly an Italian surname which became "double barrelled" in Italy (see Villa Mapelli Mozzi for the history). It's still worth hatnoting such surnames which aren't hyphenated but this template is not necessary. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I think was noted when it was created, it was created to distinguish the British tradition of two surnames from other traditions (at that point, specifically Spanish, because it arose from clean up of those hat notes). That is, no, filelakeshoe, as the wikilink in the hat note indicates, there *is* a specific British reason for certain surnames to have more than one bit. There are various hatnotes for this in other cultural traditions, and it is appropriate to distinguish from them. As the British reason is evidently unknown to many users, the hatnote is useful to both inform and prevent confusion. If there are inappropriate uses, remove the hatnote use, just like if a Spanish two-part surname template was inappropriately used for someone whose surname is not of that tradition. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and improve. I have taken one step to improve it by changing the output from "barrelled name" to "double-barrelled name". I suggest we move this template to {{Double-barrelled name}}, improve its wording, and link it to Double-barrelled name. Including that link is more helpful to the reader, whether it's in a hatnote or a footnote. It would be useful if WP:Hatnote or MOS:BIO offered guidance on in what circumstances family name info should be included as a hatnote or as a footnote or excluded, to avoid repeated discussions as at Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. PamD 15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or convert to a talk page template. Oppose merging into Template:Family name hatnote. This is an editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page. Unlike cleanup templates which are also mostly editor-facing, are temporarily and are meant to address an issue, this template is a permanent editor-facing template that addressed an hypothetical issue, so offers nothing to our readers. Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert uses to footnotes and then delete per template:Family name explanation#Footnotes vs. hatnotes. While confusion is indeed possible, it is not nearly likely it significant enough to justify a banner of this prominence. Rather than banner bloat, we should just use a footnote. Sdkb talk 15:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above (editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page and we should just use a footnote). It's a minor detail to do with article content and should be noted in the article text, not in-your-face at the top along with any disambig & clean-up hatnotes. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sub2

[edit]

Non-standard special-purpose character-format. We have long had general ways to subscript a "2", or any number, or superscript any number, in chemical formulas, either as regular HTML or as {{sub}} or {{chem2}}, etc. Only use is User:Yhynerson1/ECS, and that user has been gone for 7+ years. Propose substitute and delete the template. The userspage page itself is at best an abandoned draft related to Standard electrode potential (data page). DMacks (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a Pandora's Box we do not want to open. Do we make {{sub3}}, {{sub4}}? etc. {{sub|2}} produces the same thing and takes one extra character to write... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only "subn" or "supn" we appear to have, so it's not even part of a self-consistent deprecated approach. DMacks (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mishustin sidebar

[edit]

All sidebars fail navigation. First two, for Mishustin and Sobyanian have too few links and mostly links to article sections. While Mishustin has five links, it is still too small for a sidebar. We don't need a sidebar for every political leader or politician. If you took articles from their respective category, you will still a small number of articles. For Yavlinsky, if you took articles from their respective category, you will have links to mostly election articles where he was a candidate. Not a good use of a sidebar. And per WP:LEADSIDEBAR, this is mostly clutter and turning these into navboxes would not be a good use of them either. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup then convert to bottom navigation template or delete. Remove all redirects, section links, and links to articles that aren't articles about the person. If after that there are less than 4-5 links (I include their main article), then delete templates. If there are more, convert to a bottom navigation template. Sidebars are much less reader friendly. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zhirinovsky sidebar

[edit]

Both sidebars fail navigation. They both link to mostly to election articles where they stood as candidates. Only two articles outside of election articles themselves including the articles on their respective electoral history. We don't need a sidebar for every political leader or politician. If you took articles from their respective category, you will have links to mostly election articles where he was a candidate. Not a good use of a sidebar. And per WP:LEADSIDEBAR, this is mostly clutter and turning these into navboxes would not be a good use of them either. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup then convert to bottom navigation template or delete. Remove all redirects, section links, and links to articles that aren't articles about the person. If after that there are less than 4-5 links (I include their main article), then delete templates. If there are more, convert to a bottom navigation template. Sidebars are much less reader friendly. Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medvedev sidebar

[edit]

A navbox exists for the subject that is much better in terms of scope for navigation. And while that navbox could use an improvement, a sidebar is not necessary. Not every world leader and/or politician needs a sidebar. And there is nothing that this sidebar is doing that the navbox can't. And per WP:LEADSIDEBAR there is no need for this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. Sidebars are much less reader friendly. Add any relevant missing links to the bottom navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Members of the Imperial Russian State Dume (Kharkov Governorate)

[edit]

All have less than five links. Third template only links to one article three times. Fails navigation per NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unhelpful and unneeded. WP:NENAN. -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Electoral history of Russian presidents

[edit]

Two links and a link to an article section. No need. Already covered by other navboxes. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially duplicates Template:Presidents of the Russian Federation - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Continental Asia in 10000 BP

[edit]

Unused map. Concerns of OR two years ago. Not sure if they were resolved. If maps OR concerns can be fixed and used then we can keep, but if not - delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created over 2 years ago and isn't transcluded anywhere. The small barely noticeable link on the image is not how we handle maps. If the map isn't used in any article it isn't needed. Those links should be deleted. Links between non-article pages on templates should only be available for navigation on the template itself (or its doc page), and should be hidden on transclusions. Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Integralism

[edit]

In brief: If not deletion, this needs attention from someone with expertise in the relationship between right-wing/reactionary politics and political Catholicism. As it is, the various categories within the "series" are essentially a grab-bag of any traditionalist Catholic who has written on politics and any pre-modern Catholic political philosopher. Simply uncritically categorizing e.g. Augustine and Aquinas et al. as "integralists" is at the very least anachronism because integralism develops as a reaction to the emergence of liberalism and socialism and at worst is dangerously misleading as it proposes a decidedly non-NPOV/original research thesis about the history of political philosophy and religion that snowballs simply into fancruft.

In not-so-brief: It's a "series" of articles where the "principles" are a list of anything that sounds reactionary even when it has no necessary connection to Catholic integralist political philosophy. Some of the principles and sources named have also been used by liberation theologians; there are communists who are Thomists. Until going through and editing this, the "thinkers" also included a Revisionist Zionist figure—despite "anti-Zionism" being one of the "principles" above it—the "politicians" included various medieval kings who were being branded "integralist" because they were Catholic, the list of "thinkers" is semi-coherent at best and is just an ever-expanding list of conservative/traditionalist/far-right Catholic writers on politics etc.—I'm raising the question of whether it's even helpful to have a template like this since it easily gets out of control and creates an illusion of unity where it isn't necessarily present. It's probably possible to have a series like this but it would need much more pruning and scrutiny to keep the focus narrow (e.g. on the political philosophical legacy of Counter-Enlightenment Roman Catholic thinkers and clerics in western Europe and its sphere of influence between roughly 1789-1975 and their fellow-travelers such as Charles Maurras) and it not just turning into what amounts to fancruft. M.A.Spinn (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the issue is with what links to include, then whatever is in Category:Integralism should be valid. Navigational templates should follow the category system. If the category itself has pages it shouldn't have, then fix that issue first. Gonnym (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adjacent place

[edit]

Delete and replace with Template:Adjacent communities - This is essentially a duplicate of Template:Adjacent communities that has been reconfigured to work as a sidebar. If you compare this search to the transclusions list, you will see it is exclusively used on New Zealand pages. Every other settlement type page uses Template:Adjacent communities. I don't see why New Zealand shouldn't follow what is done everywhere else in the world. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: {{Adjacent communities}} is a bad template. It's a pretty dumb template as a navigation template, taking way too much space for a very trivial piece of information. I also really doubt that readers navigate between articles like that. Additionally, it is being used in a lot of situations in the middle of an article, which hides article text completely from mobile viewers. Since {{Adjacent place}} does not use a base navbox it doesn't hide the information, nor does is it unnecessarily large. Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 1

[edit]

Template:Taxonomy/Pleurobranchomorpha

[edit]

Clade emended in spelling and rank into order Pleurobranchida in Bouchet et al. 2017, see also WoRMS - World Register of Marine Species - Pleurobranchomorpha. Further discussed in the text of the article Pleurobranchidae.

Template:OSC notice

[edit]

This template is now useless as Battle for Dream Island has an article now. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 31

[edit]

Template:Jamie MacDonald

[edit]

There's only three directly-related articles to the main topic here, and they all sufficiently link to and from one another without this navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYK defcon

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation of template parameters, or incoming links. Created in February 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox PVL conference finals

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in April 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Script/Znamenny

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in August 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ties

[edit]

Created as a proposal during an August 2025 discussion, but never documented or adopted. It can be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Silver Streak (bus)

[edit]

Unused route diagram template. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No longer unused.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 17:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not centred

[edit]

Pointless template that should never be used as it makes the claims seem MoS driven. Even with that MoS text removed, this banner should be deleted as being pointless and misleading. Gonnym (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This template was created as humour; I was thinking maybe users would put it on their talk page as a parody of {{censor}}. Remember that humour templates aren't often actually used (does anyone really warn people using the uw-constructive templates?), they're more there to give people who stumble across them a good laugh.

Template:Not a test

[edit]

I don't find this template helpful. It does not identify what a page is, but what it isn't (a test page) and claims in a "authoritative voice" that the page should not be deleted. Any page can be sent to XfD and it's the venue's role to decide the outcome, not some banner template. Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BCTime

[edit]

Unused time related template. Gonnym (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BAB-BS-Bau-AS

[edit]

Unused autobhan template. Also not linked from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-u5

[edit]

U5 has been repealed. This template should not be used anymore. Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Algeria national football team results and fixtures

[edit]

Newly created sidebar template that is redundant to the existing {{Algerian national football team results}}. The existing template should have been edited to include more links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes sorry, that's mistake for me, however if you are ok, I propose to merge both. My appologies and best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Faycal.09: That would be fine. You are welcome to edit the original template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RC Relizane squad

[edit]

Empty template, similar with RC Arbaâ situation. Svartner (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MC El Bayadh squad

[edit]

Only three players with articles. Same situation than JS Saoura/MB Rouissat squad templates Svartner (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christian Drew Sidaris

[edit]

Only links to two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. The director also has no article. DoubleCross (‡) 01:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geoff Burrowes

[edit]

Links to only two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 01:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alix Delaporte

[edit]

Links to only two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 01:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MB Rouissat squad

[edit]

Only three players with articles. Same situation than JS Saoura squad template. Svartner (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This tamplates show the current sauad of the MB Rouissat, the same for JS Saoura and MC El Bayadh. Even if there are only three players with articles in each template but they are up to date and give information about the current squad of each team. I am against deleting them Hako33 (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JS Saoura squad

[edit]

Only two players have own articles, the others are just red links/non-notable. Svartner (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AS Aïn M'lila squad

[edit]

Empty template, similar with RC Arbaâ situation. Svartner (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 30

[edit]

Template:Aziza Jalal

[edit]

Two transclusions from articles that link to and from one another without the need of this navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-notwebhost-notice

[edit]

As WP:U5 has now been repealed with Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#RfC: Replacing U5 with a primarily procedural mechanism, and the {{db-u5}} template now useless, this should now be deleted. The template {{db-u5}} should also probably be deleted as all other repealed CSDs have been (e.g. {{db-x2}}), but not sure how to do that with it template-protected. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 16:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom (but not webhost, which could probably be dabified as a reasonable alternative to deletion) Oreocooke (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Washington Commanders greatest players

[edit]

Not worthy of its own Navbox. This can be placed as a list in an article (which it was already), but this is a very subjective list that in this form does not explain who/what has determined these players to be the greatest. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither of you are adding anything new to the conversation that has not been brought up before (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#Template:Washington Commanders 90 Greatest, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#Template:The 80 Greatest Redskins). My notion is the same 1) you are incorrect the team itself announces the players (the comment there is "no article on the subject" is wrong - it is released by official team website and 2) if you're going to do this then it has to be the same throughout all 32 NFL teams. So you can't just make this discussion about just the Washington franchise - it has to be every NFL team so no more Template:PatriotsAllDynasty, Template:Patriots2010s, Template:Patriots50th as so on. @Dissident93 let me know if I'm forgetting anything but to me this discussion has been done and argued with the decision being to keep. Diddykong1130 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Diddykong1130: your argument is purely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. NOTHING in your response argues that this list is in any way notable... You are just saying that there are other similar lists and therefore this belongs. Thanks for the links tho. I'll make sure to nominate them as well. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument you brought up is it is "subjective". That would entail it was up for debate by outside opinion which in this case is not correct. My point was that this is an official list created and released by the franchise itself of personnel (players and non-players) that were deemed to have contributed the most to team's history. Even your statement of "who/what has determined these players to be the greatest" that can be applied to almost any template that recognizes sport icons like the NFL HOF. There's no written criteria of what makes one candidate more worthy of the HOF over another candidate and that's why XX got in and why ZZ was left out. Again if consensus is to delete team specific templates then I think that's fine but it shouldn't be argued on an individual template basis. It should be a collective nomination where the templates from all 32 NFL teams are discussed and it's put to bed. Diddykong1130 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the articles that the team released: https://www.commanders.com/team/history/80-greatest-redskins-old
https://www.commanders.com/news/commanders-announce-inductees-to-greatest-players-list Diddykong1130 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning deletion; the nomination has good points. — Dissident93 (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gergely Karácsony sidebar

[edit]

Fails navigation. Has five links of relevance, but not every politician needs a sidebar. And all links can be found on his main page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Relatively loose connection between the articles linked in the sidebar. Linking to each policy that a politician has supported is a pandora's box that don't think we should open. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 29

[edit]

Template:Nice job

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

The result of the discussion was Procedural closure. While MfD is technically the wrong venue, the discussion has been open there for some time and has already attracted numerous !votes. Per WP:NOTBURO, discussion should take place there (although it seems it may be G7'd anyway). The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template appears to have been created for the originator to mark their own work. See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:I_do_coding_so_yeah_-_consistent_creation_of_substandard_articles_&_removal_of_maintenance_tags. This template has been nominated for deletion at MFD, but that is the wrong forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per NOTBURO, leave the blooming thing alone. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:17, 29 October 2025 (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.

Template:Nonstandard list

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

Moved to my userspace. sapphaline (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. Creates non-standard lists (!?) — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:38, 29 October 2025 (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.

Template:Universal page list with custom separators

[edit]

Template not used anywhere. Seems overkill — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universal page list

[edit]

Template not used anywhere. Seems overkill — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Liberty ship table headings

[edit]

Unused ship-related table template. Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox names

[edit]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created by me. I agree with the deletion. Xjptankman (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IOS Release history legend

[edit]

Unused legend. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPAfont

[edit]

We already have Template:IPA for rendering IPA. If the font should be changed to match the one used at Wiktionary, it should be brought up on the talk page, not creating a conflicting template. Gonnym (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created this template to run some font rendering tests over multiple devices—there's really no use for this template anymore. Feel free to have it removed. Sorry for the inconvenience. MiltonLibraryAssistant ❉ talk 11:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rakuten Monkeys roster navbox

[edit]

This current roster template barely gets updated. Not needed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uni-President Lions roster navbox

[edit]

This current roster template has not been updated since 2009. No more need be said. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 28

[edit]

Template:Under Sec of State

[edit]

The office of United States Under Secretary of State used to be the No. 2 at the U.S. State Department. In 1972, it was split into various components and moved down one rung on the State Department ladder. The current Under Secretary became the United States Deputy Secretary of State, the new No. 2 at State. This template includes only the pre-1972 Under Secretaries, which is fine, but that also makes it a good candidate to fold into Template:US deputy secretaries of state. I've already added the Under Secretaries into the latter template, and all that remains is to delete the now-redundant Under Secretary template. The alternative would be to modify the Under Secretary template to include all the post-1972 Under Secretaries, but given the material differences between the pre-1972 and post-1972 office, it seemed better to highlight continuity between pre-1972 Under Secretaries and post-1972 Deputy Secretaries. I'm pinging User:Darth Kalwejt, who created the template, with the caveat that they have not edited Wikipedia since 2014. Namelessposter (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colin Farrell sidebar

[edit]

Like the two batches below - these are several unnecessary sidebars for actors. This group of sidebars meet deletion requirements for several reasons. 1) Fewer than five links outside the title subject's own article per WP:NENAN. 2) Contain only two links of direct relevance to the subject matter. 3) Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR - while generally discouraged and can be used on a case-by-case basis, it also states "are a cohesive collection of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." We don't have enough articles for navigation. 4) WP:NENAT - not every subject warrants a template for it. Be it a sidebar or navbox. These are just clutter at the top of articles. 5) Most link to characters that these actors and actresses played. Those characters have very little connection to said actors and actresses. And links to Commons and Wikiquote just add more unnecessary links that fluff up the sidebar to make it look like there is enough navigation. But use of external links even to sister projects are generally discouraged as on Wikipedia it is meant for articles or pages on Wikipedia, not anywhere else. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per all the nominators reasons! most of these already have related navboxes and these sidebars just clutter the article and are redundant. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wives of Sigismund Augustus

[edit]

Only three links. Very unnecessary to have. Template has a category by the same name and all have navboxes already for plenty of navigation. More is not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jan Smuts sidebar

[edit]

Four links and subject is better served by the navbox, Template:Jan Smuts. Not everyone needs a sidebar even for political leaders. Navbox needs work, but a navbox is sufficient. And not everyone needs both. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frank Sinatra sidebar

[edit]

Redundant to Template:Frank Sinatra which has nearly 200 links. No need for this. Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR - this is clutter on top of articles and similar per reason for Elvis Presley sidebar and Michael Jackson sidebar nominated and the Dean Martin one below. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the ones that have character pages, or at least make nav boxes. The actors who have multiple characters that are specific to their character creations as actors feels relevant to me. I can understand deleting the ones to whom the characters aren’t specific. Examples: Jessica Fletcher is exclusive to Angela Lansbury; The Tramp is exclusive to Charlie Chaplin; and so forth. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 16:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Emma Stone sidebar

[edit]

Like the nomination below. This is the second of several unnecessary sidebars for actors. This group of sidebars meet deletion requirements for these reasons. 1) Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR - while generally discouraged and can be used on a case-by-case basis, it also states "are a cohesive collection of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." We don't have enough articles for navigation. 2) WP:NENAT - not every subject warrants a template for it. Be it a sidebar or navbox. These are just clutter at the top of articles. 3) All subjects have a respective navbox and are not necessary. There is nothing that these sidebars are doing that their respective navboxes can't or are not doing. In fact, some of these navboxes have all the links of relevance for these individuals. If the navboxes are missing or are not linked, than that is an easy fix. The navboxes make these redundant and are not doing anything different or better. 4) Links to Commons and Wikiquote just add more unnecessary links that fluff up the sidebar to make it look like there is enough navigation. But use of external links even to sister projects are generally discouraged as on Wikipedia it is meant for articles or pages on Wikipedia, not anywhere else. 5) For a specific subject, Dean Martin has a giant navbox as it is. No need for him to have a sidebar when the navbox is so large that even adding links from there to a sidebar for Dean Martin would just be overkill as that template has about 100 links to articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amy Adams sidebar

[edit]

This is the first of several unnecessary sidebars for actors. This group of sidebars meet deletion requirements for several reasons. 1) Fewer than five links outside the title subject's own article per WP:NENAN. 2) Contain only two links of direct relevance to the subject matter. 3) Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR - while generally discouraged and can be used on a case-by-case basis, it also states "are a cohesive collection of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." We don't have enough articles for navigation. 4) WP:NENAT - not every subject warrants a template for it. Be it a sidebar or navbox. These are just clutter at the top of articles. 5) Most link to characters that these actors and actresses played. Those characters have very little connection to said actors and actresses. 6) Irrelevant links. For instance, Susan Sarandon's sidebar has a link to UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador. Just no direct relevance that warrants its inclusion. Many people have served as UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador. And links to Commons and Wikiquote just add more unnecessary links that fluff up the sidebar to make it look like there is enough navigation. But use of external links even to sister projects are generally discouraged as on Wikipedia it is meant for articles or pages on Wikipedia, not anywhere else. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)

[edit]

After removing a massive amount of overlinking this is a sidebar that is not needed. All links can be found directly on the main Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) article. Plus, more sidebar templates are not needed. The main article is filled with four in the lead. Two more added by me which are related and relevant. Navigation is plenty from the main article and category. Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR - not every article subject warrants a sidebar and I think this is more clutter than it needs to be despite best intentions. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 27

[edit]

Template:Governing Mayor of Berlin

[edit]

Contains nothing which was not already in Template:Mayors of Berlin created 15 years earlier. Crowsus (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Worth noting that was created by a blocked user... -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kathy Bates

[edit]

Both templates fail basic requirements for what they are supposed to do. Four links in the navbox. Too few for a navbox for sufficent navigation. And the sidebar mostly links article on characters and adds clutter and violates WP:LEADSIDEBAR. Not everyone needs a sidebar or navbox. There isn't enough for both templates to exist. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here that is helpful or warrants a sidebar OR a navbox. WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sidebar, keep navbox. The navbox has 6 valid links so more than enough. Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PoeTopics

[edit]

Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR. Poe's navbox is sufficient. Not needed. Not everyone needs a sidebar template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and the fact that Template:Edgar Allan Poe already exists and does a much better job of this. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to delete a nearly 20 year old Topics template for one of the most prominent American authors in history. Lightcrowd (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lightcrowd the fact that this is a prominent American author is irrelevant. The sidebar violates WP:LEADSIDEBAR, as clearly stated by the nominator. Your response is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:I smallsup

[edit]

No transclusions in article space. Renders text too small to comply with MOS:SMALLFONT. If the small tags are removed, and if it actually applied italic formatting, it will be redundant to {{I sup}}. Since it does not apply italic formatting, despite the name, it will be redundant to {{sup}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violates the MOS. Also lets remove these from Template:Sup and sub-related templates since that encourages users to use bad templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gene Sharp

[edit]

Too few links for a sidebar for a political scientist. All links can be found through the main article. This is just clutter and a WP:LEADSIDEBAR issue. Seven links but still a small sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clutter and unhelpful. Not everything needs a sidebar either. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the "rule of five" threshold given in Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox ("are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used?"), and there is no higher threshold set for political scientists. Without the sidebar, it would be difficult to obtain an overview of all the relevant articles, which are in diverse categories (books, films, institutions), and not listed in a single place in the primary article. This is not clutter, it is helpful. --Presearch (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All links are present on his article. You're gonna have to prove "difficult to obtain an overview of all the relevant articles" without this sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the main Gene Sharp article you can see that apart from the sidebar, the links to the articles are scattered in different sections, and they are often not easily distinguishable from the many links to topics that do not directly pertain to Sharp himself and are not included in the sidebar. And there is no single section or part of the Sharp article that contains links to all sidebarred articles. For example, some sidebarred articles are only linked from a single section (e.g., Making Europe Unconquerable from Works/1980s; Resistance, Politics, and the American Struggle... from Works/1980), whereas others are not linked from that section (e.g., Albert Einstein Institution is not linked from that subsection, nor would it be clear from anything within the Works section that the Albert Einstein Institution was any more Sharp-related than other publishers of Sharp's work, such as Princeton University Press). I think a key here is to put oneself in the position of a reader who is new to learning about Sharp, and wants to know "Within Wikipedia, how can I learn more about Sharp and his work?" The sidebar, and nothing else to anywhere near the same degree, gives a convenient answer to that question. The sidebar is not clutter, it is uniquely helpful. --Presearch (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's implying readers can't find it own their own. I was able to find all links from his article. outside of the navbox. It requires very little effort to find them. This doesn't make it easier in the same sense. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that "it requires very little effort to find" the links, however much it may apply to you, seems to me to lack understanding of the average reader. The average reader will not know what they are looking for. The sidebar shows them what there is to look for. Wikipedia should be built for readers, not for editors. --Presearch (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The average reader is not an idiot. And your statement implies as such as well intended your template was created to be. "The average reader will not know what they are looking for." Not true at all and you don't have any evidence to back it up other than what your view of the average reader is. People do know what they are looking for and if they don't know, they can try Google searching it and see if what they are looking for is also on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for readers. Our responsibility as editors to build things for their benefit. Same is applied for templates for navigation purposes. Not everyone needs a template just because one can create one. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we agree that Wikipedia is for readers. I agree with you that the average reader is not an idiot, but I disagree that my statement implies such. In my work IRL I am constantly learning about new topics and new issues, and it is much more convenient to see available coverage displayed in a single sidebar than only retrievable through a Google Search or through painstakingly sifting through a large number of links embedded in diverse article sections. I think such a benefit is relevant to a substantial portion of the Gene Sharp article's readers though not all. From that perspective, what appears to be your persistent interest in eliminating this useful sidebar strikes me as misguided. --Presearch (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thoreauviana

[edit]

Sidebar is better served by navbox Template:Henry David Thoreau. This is not a typical sidebar of individuals like US presidents or UK prime ministers. Normally, for writers, a navbox is sufficient for articles on the subject. Not to mention that the related section in this sidebar has mostly unrelated articles to Thoreau. On the articles it is used on, it clutters them up. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't even used in the parent article Henry David Thoreau and has a collection of loosely related topics at best. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steve Jobs sidebar

[edit]

We have a navbox for Jobs. This sidebar is just clutter and violates WP:LEADSIDEBAR. Not every person needs a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:100 greatest Bears

[edit]

This navbox is a list of players which is based on a snapshot from 2019 by two journalists. See Chicago Bears#100 greatest Bears list. The template contains no attribution, and there is no objective way to make changes for future players. The existing section in the Chicago Bears article is sufficient (WP:NENAN). -- Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and I thought this template would be referring to actual bears when I first saw the section title. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for all intents and purposes, this list was compiled by the Chicago Bears themselves as their "centennial list of players", and it appeared in the official book they published in 2019.[1] As mentioned above, this is similar to other NFL templates, and I see no reason to delete it. StanleyKey (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox London station

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox London station with Template:Infobox station.
Infobox London station can be better displayed with a modern up-to-date infobox template. The current London station template hasn't been updated in years and uses legacy maplinks not the embedded OSM versions Smithr32 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean support (see updated comment below) - generally I am in favor of this type of merge. We should not have custom templates for different localities that do the same thing for consistencies sake. This is why {{Infobox Cambodian district}} and {{Infobox US metropolitan area}} both redirect to {{Infobox settlement}} for example. HOWEVER, {{Infobox London station}} is widely used with over 850+ transclusions. At first glance, there are a number of parameters in it that are NOT present in {{infobox station}} so a straight merge could result in a significant loss of data. The real question there is are there too many params in {{Infobox London station}}? Could it use with some trimming down to be consistent with station articles around the world? I would say yes, but that needs to be part of this discussion.
@Smithr32: it might be helpful to do a param comparison chart (here is an example) of what data would be lost in this process. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, potential data loss needs to be addressed first. -MJ (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the data loss may be necessary, may be an improvement, may be good overall... But right now it isn't clear WHAT will be lost and that is what needs to be addressed.
@Smithr32: here is my 2 cents... I would withdraw the nomination for now. I would do a detailed analysis of what would be removed and start that discussion on Template talk:Infobox London station. Once there is a detailed breakdown of exactly what changes are being proposed, come back and renominate the templates for merger. Then you will have more information and people like myself, MJ and all the others who patrol TFDs will be in a position to make informed comments.
The problem is that right now we have no idea what will be changing and most of us are unwilling to dive into the research to figure it out so will likely just vote to keep it as is since there are too many unknowns...
If you decide to go this route, feel free to {{ping|Zackmann08}} me and I can help you close the TFD. Again, withdrawing the TFD does not preclude you from renominating it at a future time! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Zackmann08, I'll work on a comparison list betweens params in London station and Infobox station. Passenger count for previous years can be featured in the main article as a section instead of a long infobox. Smithr32 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please remove "‹ The template Infobox station is being considered for merging. ›" which is shown at the top of every page using Infobox station? Its completely irrelevant for most articles like Węgliniec railway station which has nothing to do with London. I think it should only be shown above pages that use Infobox London station. Fortek67 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying a merger notice is standard practice for all infobox templates, plus it allows interested parties who frequently edit Infobox station to add input on this merger proposal. Cards84664 21:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant for every article that uses either template. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: Please revert your edit hiding the notice from Infobox station. Cards84664 06:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Message restored to 57,000 articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least for now. I can't support a merger that would result in data loss with no indication of what data will be lost and no justification for losing that data. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now until a proposal can be put forward that addresses the data loss issue. — The Anome (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Template:Infobox London station works perfectly well as it is. Nominations containing phrases like "modern up-to-date" and "hasn't been updated in years" are a red flag. We are not some advertising agency in the business of persuading the client to part with thousands of pounds for the agency to "update" the website in the expectation that they will return eighteen months later with another wad of cash for another pointless "update". There is no issue with Infobox London station that could be fixed by merging, and it would bring about a whole bunch of hassle. Have any perceived shortfalls in Infobox London station been raised at Template talk:Infobox London station, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport? Answer: no. Has a potential merger been suggested at those same pages? Answer: no, again. How often does Smithr32 (talk · contribs) work on London station articles? Answer: never. How often does Smithr32 work on station articles of any kind? Answer: extremely rarely. In fact, I can find only two articles about railway stations with edits by Smithr32: Reading Green Park railway station and West Malling railway station, neither of which use Template:Infobox London station; and between them, they have no more than five edits by Smithr32, none of which involved the infobox. In short: Smithr32, what does this have to do with you? Why do you want us to go through all this grief again? Five years on, I am still waiting for answers to some of the questions that I asked during that debacle. I say again: Oppose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t have to edit London transport articles to know it makes more sense to use the main station template. 👀 Smithr32 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality does not help progress the discussion. Focus your criticism on the edits being proposed here, and not the editor. Cards84664 01:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will second what User:Cards84664 said. I too find User:Redrose64's overwhelming WP:OWN mentality troubling. Let's focus on the merits of the proposal not on attacking the nominator for not discussing with the right people. WP:TFD is the proper avenue for this discussion and the notices atop tens of thousands of articles are meant to draw people to the discussion. If you object that others weren't notified, FIXIT and notify them. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this Infobox has been tailored for its specific needs and if merged into the generic Infobox station, would lose the parameters and information it gives the general public about. Saying that it "has not been updated for many years" is wrong as it is updated yearly with the latest data when possible. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm going to restate what I said in 2020: it's not all obvious why London, and only London, needs its own infobox. This is what I said then: "There are fewer than a dozen station infoboxes at this point. One for the Manchester light rail system, one for the Tyne and Wear, one for stations in London, one for active British stations, one for heritage British stations, one for disused British stations, one for the New York City Subway system, and then one for the entire rest of the planet." The attitude of certain members of the UKRAIL project hasn't changed. If the idea didn't originate there, from one of their own, they're not interested. The outcome of that 2020 TfD included a senior editor maintaining a years-long public grudge against the nominator, which is unprofessional at best. Template consolidation is an accepted principle. Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate hidden minefields for the unwary. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Mackensen. There is no need to have a special template with completely different formatting and parameters for one city with <1.5% of total station articles. If there are more than a handful of London-specific parameters that are somehow essential (which I doubt), then this template should be turned into a wrapper for {{infobox station}} with those extra parameters. Certainly, the parameters for decades of ridership data are superfluous and do not need to be transferred - they violate the principle from WP:INFOBOX that The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That being said, I do think there should be some more discussion on which parameters make their way into {{Infobox station}}. I see no reason why we can't merge parameters unique to the London station infobox into the main one. However, I agree with Pi.1415926535 that some parameters might be better off omitted from the infobox – personally I'd rather they be included in the article body, if at all. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Long overdue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Changing my initial lean support to support. This is a good faith effort by the nominator to merge a template that is long overdue for a merge. There are certainly concerns about what will be removed and what will not, but those discussions can take place in the holding cell. There is MUCH precedent for this such as the recently created {{Infobox social media personality}} and {{Infobox gridiron football biography}}. Both were EXTENSIVE merges of multiple templates. The TFD agreed to merge, then numerous editors discussed how and what to merge vs what to remove. The only objections thus far have been 100%, pure WP:OWNERSHIP complaints. This is a definite yes in my book. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Zackmann. Parameter omissions and additions can be hashed out in the merger process. There is no reason why we need an infobox for specific locations, and ten other Infobox templates have already been merged into Infobox station since 2014. Cards84664 14:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Couple of suggestions above that the infobox contains decades of passenger data. This is not the case with only the last five years shown on each station article. MRSC (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Absolutely nothing special about London stations that justifies this template. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • More inclined to Oppose. I think there are plenty of parameters of the current infobox that cannot just be displayed in the newer infobox.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide some examples of which parameters cannot be displayed on the newer infobox? I'm currently doing a parameter comparison on my Sandbox page with the main Infobox station template. Smithr32 (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support for now, per Mackensen, on the condition that we can discuss exactly which parameters can be merged (rather than just redirecting the template and calling it a day). For example, a couple things I noticed:
  • The London template uses a lot of historical ridership data. Should these be kept or deleted when the infoboxes are merged?
  • The London template has some London-specific parameters like original, pregroup, and postgroup, along with some London-specific external links. Should these be retained?
  • London stations have specific accessibility categories; how should these be handled?
Overall though, in the long run, merging these templates will increase the ease of maintenance, as it means that we don't have to maintain one infobox for most of the world and ten other templates for very specific locales. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion results in "merge", I sincerely hope the passenger usage statistics on this and all other GB rail station articles are retained. As a casual reader I find this *incredibly* useful Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not clear what improvement would be achieved by merging the London station template with the generic version. There are specific features of the London station template that are not present in the generic version that would need to be added; for example the London station templates use of a set of subtemplates (i.e. {{Tubeexits2023}}) that add the usage data automatically so that individual articles don't need to be amended when new data becomes available. My biggest concern is that the the generic version is completely locked off from editing except by a Template editor.
DavidCane (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jirard Khalil

[edit]

G4, Xplay, Attack the Show, and Sea of Stars have connections to Khalil, but not very major ones; they're either just him being a host for two years, or being a now-removed cameo. The only two articles mainly about Khalil here are his main article and IndieLand. The category section also strangely links to a category of games Sakurai directed, for some reason. TheSilksongPikmin (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I didn't agree with this template's creation, but couldn't bring myself to discuss this until now. Two articles aren't enough to justify his own template, and since Open Hand Foundation doesn't have its own article (it's a redirect that doesn't quite meet GNG yet), there's little to navigate about him. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox

[edit]

single use template. no reason to have this in the Template namespace. subst into the single article that uses it. Perform this edit to place the infobox directly into the article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 26

[edit]

Template:Principal Naming Criteria

[edit]

This template is used to transclude or subst the WP:CRITERIA directly into a RM. A link to WP:CRITERIA is sufficient for that purpose, and we shouldn't encourage dumping large portions of PAGs directly into discussions: that is just adding a bunch of noise. Subst the ten transclusions and delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Liberia

[edit]

Only 1 English entry. Not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not useful in anyway. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Super Dave Osborne

[edit]

Only four links and all are linked well enough from each other. A navbox is not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nomination. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saudi Arabian elections

[edit]

Only three links. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Histadrut elections

[edit]

Only two links to articles. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belarus squad 2014 European Men's Handball Championship

[edit]

All non-winning teams. Teams that are not winners of a championship do not deserve a navbox. This violates Template creep and WP:NENAN. We are left with a bunch of clutter not just for articles where they are stubs but not tagged as such and concerns about those article are indeed a separate Xfd discussion. We have too many navboxes for teams from all over the world that are not championship teams. Non-winning teams are not notable enough for an article and by default the same has to be said for teams that have such navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editintro documentation

[edit]

I propose to delete this template per arguments laid out in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Is Template:Editintro documentation still needed? (permanent link). To summarize:

  • it was implementing a workaround for an issue fixed in 2011
  • the only remaining transclusions are in user pages
  • a local consensus to delete the template has formed in the discussion

—⁠andrybak (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hindu temples in Myanmar

[edit]

Still fails navigation from the last Tfd. Only three links. No other articles exist for this navbox subject to keep for basic navigation. All keep votes from previous discussions did not address the issue at hand. Template does not meet basic navigation and never did since creation back in 2009. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikispecies redirect

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

The result of the discussion was keep. WP:SNOW. Nom did not understand its application for taxonomist articles; no harm done. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just create a wikipedia article for the species? wikipedia is an encyclopedia and wikispecies is a species directory, they're not the same thing. Harringstars ᐸ Talk
Contribs 12:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you proposing we do with the template? (ping on reply) FaviFake (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FaviFake: Delete. Now do you support or oppose? Harringstars ᐸ Talk
Contribs 15:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposer Harringstars ᐸ Talk
Contribs 15:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate? I do not understand this deletion rationale at all honestly. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is for redirects to Wikispecies. They don't have articles here because it does not meet inclusion for English Wikipedia but it does meet inclusion on the sister site Wikispecies. – The Grid (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As much as I am not a big fan of this template, it is necessary because Wikispecies and Wikipedia have different notability criteria. WP:NSPECIES states that "In general, all extant species that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable, and all remaining species (i.e., the vast majority), subspecies, hybrids, cultivars, and morphs are notable only if they meet other applicable guidelines, such as the general notability guideline." These latter cases are what this template can be used for. I've mostly seen it on articles about taxonomists and scientists (for example, Jakob Hallermann), so not all of the articles this template is applied on are on species. element 01:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's also needed because Wikispecies has many articles on taxa and taxonomists that would pass English Wikipedia's notability standards, but nobody has created the English Wikipedia articles. In these cases, the Wikispecies redirect is the best Wikipedia can do for an admitted notable topic. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2025 (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.

Template:Infobox star system

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unused and abandoned infobox. uses the old table format. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:29, 26 October 2025 (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.

Template:Jews and Judaism category tree

[edit]

Used on over a thousand talk pages, mostly category talk pages, this is being used on the wrong spaces and takes up a majority of the space on the pages it's used on. There is no useful navigation this template provides and is very intrusive. When accessing any Judaism category page, it does not in the same sense operate as a navbox or other tree templates providing navigation with links on a subject where you can directly access by clicking the link. If it were to be reformatted, then it needs a massive overhaul, but as it is now, I don't see any use here for navigational purposes. Best to just go manually through categories for now to find something specific. Also, if its meant to navigate on category pages, then why is only one category page transcluding the template instead of over a thousand category talk pages? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator this really is more confusing than helpful. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer AAC Championships High Jump Men

[edit]

Only one link. Useless template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added 17 additional links to improve the usefulness. That being said, I don't think WP:ITSUSELESS is a P&G-based argument for deletion. --Habst (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Links are for articles that exist. Four I think is borderline. It could go either way. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but red links are also useful as pointers to create future articles. Some of the work is already done, in fact, by disambiguating the titles. --Habst (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is now 3 links. One article linked twice. Meets deletion per NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NENAN isn't a policy or guideline. I agree with the goal of removing templates that don't serve the project, but we need a valid reason not covered in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions first. --Habst (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a loose connection of people, mostly redlinks and no parent article. -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greek Athletics Championships

[edit]

All templates have less than five links needed for navboxes. Three templates, Greek, Yugoslavian, and Czechoslovak navboxes have no links to articles. None of these are needed nor meet basic navigation for navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, I think this should be withdrawn because this is far too sweeping of a nomination for 21 templates used on dozens of pages. As discussed in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 21#Template:Belarusian Athletics Championships, number of links on a navbox is not a P&G-based reason for deletion. Please, a precedent needs to be set first that deletion of these types of templates is supported by the community before doing a mass nomination like this. --Habst (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Navigation template "A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections or relevant main article and see also links within the articles' sections, as well as be merged into a larger template." Three templates have no links - being used does not mean it avoids deletion. It serves no navigational purpose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I created a merged template at {{User:Habst/National athletics championships editions}} per the explanatory essay linked. It can be split by continent or region as well should the template be too large, and the formatting can be fixed up so you don't have to expand twice. Would that be an acceptable ATD? The navigational purpose is to move between national championship editions, even if there are only four or five of them, and to know exactly what years national championships were staged (not all of these navboxes have corresponding overview articles where these are enumerated). --Habst (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because it is way too hard to navigate. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think that's a P&G-based reason for deletion. If the reason is technical (e.g. clicking expand twice), it can be fixed by someone knowledgeable with templates. If the reason is conceptual because it is large, it can be split by continent or further collapsed as in {{COVID-19 pandemic}}. --Habst (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's different and are not addressing the fact that 3 templates are just a sea of red. This putting a band aid over a hole in the wall. It does not address the failures present and yes hard to navigate is an issue. The more you argue for policy and guidelines from me, the more you are bludgeoning the conversation. I would ask for a policy and guidelines from you as to how that fixes the issue. The pandemic template does not combine respective country navboxes into one. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've only responded briefly to people that have directly addressed me by my username; that is not bludgeoning, and on Wikipedia, we generally do need policy or guideline-based reasons for deletion. How is it a failure to have red links on a navigation template? The links serve a purpose as pointers to create new articles, and some of the work is already done (i.e. disambiguating the titles) that wouldn't be done with unlinked text. --Habst (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 templates have no articles at all. The rest have less than the basic five. No, they don't. That is a Crystal argument. These navboxes have been around for a while, if articles were not created then after all this time, it is unlikely that they would be created before this nomination. It is not the responsibility of Tfd nominators to create those articles. Tfd nominations are based on the now and if someone is willing to create the articles to help these templates meet the requirements, then they can, but we can't wait around just because one day someone will. You haven't provided a policy or guideline for these to be kept. And NENAN is a long-standing precedent and not going to change soon. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having lists of red links isn't a CRYSTAL argument; that is why we have many WP:Red link lists on Wikipedia across many topics. As national championships receiving SIGCOV it's likely that these articles will be created soon; there are actually a few of them in my backlog along with hundreds of other articles.
Lastly in Wikipedia deletion discussions, generally speaking we need a policy or guideline-based reason for deletion. It doesn't quite work that way in the reverse, though I would argue in these cases that the standard WP:NAVBOX would apply in standard use.
As a compromise if you want to nominate the ones with no blue links only, I would support deleting or merging those to overview pages. --Habst (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Habst procedural keep doesn't really make any sense. These all fall under the same category and the same reason for deletion. It is MUCH easier for them to all be nominated as a batch as is routinely done at WP:TFD as opposed to having to copy and paste the same comment 15+ times. HIGHLY unlikely anyone is going to !vote to keep one and not another in this batch, but if that were to happen (and it has in the past) you can simply say "Keep these 3 because they are useful and delete the rest". But having 15+ duplicate nominations just gums up the process and makes it harder for everyone involved. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've changed my !vote to keep per your comments. For a mass nomination to succeed, generally there needs to be demonstrated some type of appetite for deletion of these types of templates among Wikipedians, and that plainly hasn't been demonstrated yet. I'm open to any solution including one I disagree with as long as there's consensus. I think it is highly likely that Wikipedians will have different opinions about these templates -- some have at least five four links (including plus the overview link) while others have only one or two, and some editions are more likely to be created than others.
Re: NENAN, as I said at comment I honestly do not have a position on the navbox debate but either way NENAN "is an essay, not a policy or guideline, that's equally refuted by WP:NBFILL". --Habst (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None nominated have five links. Title link does not count. It's about the individual article links that are the primary purpose of navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've updated my above comment to say four links plus the title instead of five. I think the argument still stands. --Habst (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as the creator of these I'm happy to move to userspace the ones with no edition links. I created them as articles exist on other wiki which can be translated, but ended up focusing on the winners lists first and never got around to the national editions for those countries. I oppose the deletion of templates with 3 or more links. I don't think there is a single reader out there who thinks the conversation of whether two links should be in navbox or a see also is worth the effort of consideration. We've all got better things to do in life. SFB 01:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belarus national football team results

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only two links. Too little for a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2025 (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.

Template:Saban Universe

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and majority of links are covered by templates such as Template:Boom! Studios, Template:Power Rangers, and Template:Hasbro Comic Book Universe. And no main article exists as it is a redirect. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was quite ahead of the facts before they were confirmed. While it's true that it isn't confirmed for now, we can't deny there could more crossovers in Power Rangers Prime with other Hasbro/Saban IPs. I turned the article into a draft again. Fico Puricelli (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 26 October 2025 (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.

Old discussions

[edit]

October 25

Template:Controversial issues

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Controversial issues with Template:Controversial.
These two templates are strikingly similar, with Controversial being far more widely used. I think either the two should be merged, or else Controversial issues should be deleted, as the latter honestly presents information that is common sense to most experienced editors. Newbzy (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any change since Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 19#Template:Controversial? One used by editors and the other by Arbitration Committee enforcement procedures (used by admins only). One template links to an essay the other to enforcement procedure.Moxy🍁 14:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This assertion that one is used for ArbCom is simply incorrect. Izno (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There is no absolutely reason to keep these two separate, especially as we risk them both being added to the same page. If there was one thing participants in the previous discussion could agree on is that they shouldn't appear both on the same page, and, in my view, this is the only solution which can guarantee that. (I still think the Controversial template should be deleted to help fight banner blindness, but it seems that ship has unfortuntely sailed.) FaviFake (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An error now appears if both used on an article due to being redundant. Perhaps the one used by editors/article stewart's should be renamed so those that don't read links and template documentation can readily see a difference. Move Template:Controversial to Template:Polemical alongside a move of the essay itself Wikipedia:Controversial articles to Wikipedia:Polemical articles.Moxy🍁 15:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe both should be deleted as prime examples of banner blindness. Second choice would be merging and requiring an explanation of exactly what is controversial. We don't need lots of boilerplate on articles. Again, neither template has anything to do with ArbCom; they just allow editors to label their articles as controversial without doing anything to help editors edit better. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above replies is an example of why I think we should separate the names of these so those unaware that one documents an enforcement procedure of the Arbitration Committee about specific contentious topics Wikipedia:Contentious topics vs a link to an essay Wikipedia:Controversial articles. Moxy🍁 16:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Template:Controversial issues into Template:Controversial, as the latter has better documentation about when to use this banner and appears in other templates. Template:Controversial issues appears to have been moved from Template:Controversial-issues, by user Newbzy, without taking the documentation at Template:Controversial-issues/doc with it. This page has a longer title appears to have been an attempt to clone the Template:Controversial, which I still think is needed. But I am not clear why we need to have two different templates that appear to say the same thing. The labelling should imply that the article is considered a controversial one, not just an article about a controversial topic, although the article might not be controversial, e.g. I see the topic of Crime is listed as being controversial, but its articles are generally not. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

Template:NTA Film Network shows

[edit]

Single-use timeline chart. Don't see why we need a timeline just for shows on a particular network. Not opposed to subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand the deletion rationale. I see you have nominated other templates because they are unused. But this one is in use. If the the reason those ones should be deleted is because they are unused, then this one likely should be kept. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its only used on one page. No reason for this to be in template space if it can't find more uses. But overall, it is not needed. A timeline for a list of shows on a network, what value does this serve to have? It provides no information for readers. Its just a chart. On article space, you can find this information in simple list prose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that a template must be used in more than one article is nonsense. WP:TFD#REASONS says that reasons for deleting a template are the following: 1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance. 2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template. 3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. 4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing. This template (and the one you nominated below) does not meet any of these criteria. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Substing templates being used in one place as a result of a Tfd has been done for years. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: nprd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DuMont network shows

[edit]

Single-use timeline chart. Don't see why we need a timeline just for shows on a particular network. Not opposed to subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand the deletion rationale. I see you have nominated other templates because they are unused. But this one is in use. If the the reason those ones should be deleted is because they are unused, then this one likely should be kept. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without subst. Not everything needs a timeline and not everything is readable with one. This one is a mess. Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus seems to be moving towards delete, but I can't officially say anything
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clone Wars infobox

[edit]

Unused and mainly fan content. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created this infobox was because the Battle of Yavin has it's own infobox so I figured that the Clone Wars may benefit from one too. It was deleted from the Clone Wars page because Template:Infobox_military_conflict is apparently not built for fictional conflicts. If that's true, then I apologise for creating the infobox unknowingly, but why is the infobox on Battle of Yavin okay, considering that is also a fictional battle? TheMinionsOfTheTrenches (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend removing it from that page. I find the article suspect in terms of notability. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been removed from Battle of Yavin per WP:INUNIVERSE, which says it's not permitted to Us[e] templates intended for real-world topics. NLeeuw (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: nprd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Template is still unused. No reason to keep presented. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TFD#REASONS #3, per WP:INUNIVERSE (which says it's not permitted to Us[e] templates intended for real-world topics.), and WP:G4 (as the template was apparently created to circumvent its removal from Clone Wars). As creator TheMinionsOfTheTrenches indicated, it was removed from Clone Wars, the only article where it had any likelihood of being used. A template rarely should be created if it is to be used on one page alone.
Besides, creator indicates they created the template to circumvent its removal from Clone Wars, which may qualify it for a speedy delete per WP:G4.
On in-universe versus behind the scenes perspectives: see WP:INUNIVERSE. On Wookieepedia, this infobox would be perfectly fine, as it treats the subject from an in-universe perspective. But both the scope and content of the Clone Wars as a fictional conflict have developed significantly over the decades (e.g. originally, the term "The Attack of the Clones" was conceived by Lucas as what is now known as Order 66, i.e. the beginning and end of the Clone Wars have been switched). And it may still evolve further as more canonical materials are added. Therefore, an infobox here on Wikipedia may simply not be the best way to summarise it. Wikipedia best treats it from a real-life / behind the scenes perspective.
At User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes#Unused and duplicative, the Campaignbox Wars of Beleriand precedent demonstrated that campaignboxes could be used for fictional battles (in this case from the Tolkienverse), as long as the linked articles were standalone articles about fictional battles that have independent notability. In this case, they didn't. Edit: But WP:INUNIVERSE overrules this, because it's not permitted to Us[e] templates intended for real-world topics.
Creator TheMinionsOfTheTrenches also argued that the fictional Battle of Yavin has an infobox military conflict, so why shouldn't the fictional Clone Wars? Of course, this is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that boomerangs back to Battle of Yavin itself, where it was apparently removed in April 2024. At Talk:Battle of Yavin, User:Zxcvbnm said: Military conflict infobox is not supposed to be used for fictional battles, period. It uses words like "belligerents" and "casualties" that only apply to real-world conflicts, as the word "fictional" is not amended to them. I will simply be deleting it until further notice, please add the specifics to the article prose itself instead.
This statement does not necessarily enjoy community consensus. But it does make a good point that we should consider, particularly because campaignboxes linking to standalone articles about fictional battles were okay, at least in theory. Edit: Zxcvbnm's edit and comment are in line with WP:INUNIVERSE, which says it's not permitted to Us[e] templates intended for real-world topics.
I'll check up on how this was done in similar disputed cases such as Hebrew Bible battles and fictional Three Kingdoms / End of Han dynasty battles like the Battle of Hulao Pass. NLeeuw (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NLeeuw (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting myself from 3.5 years ago: About the excluding fictional battles rule, I just now remembered: material related to the Three Kingdoms period in Chinese history has a strict policy of separating fact from fiction; the 14th-century novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms (ROTK) is considered historical fiction and not a reliable source for the end of the Han dynasty and military history of the Three Kingdoms. The Template:Three Kingdoms editnotice warns editors about this in many articles. Therefore, Template:Campaignbox End of Han and Template:Campaignbox Three Kingdoms may not feature fictonal battles such as the Battle of Hulao Pass that is based on the ROTK.
Given the fact that Battle of Hulao Pass is now no longer a standalone article, but redirects to List of fictitious stories in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, where it has no infobox, this is another argument against using infobox military conflict for fictional battles. The only counter-argument one could make against that is that events in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and such are so clearly fictional that there is no need to have a strict policy to distinguish them from historical events. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to agree with Zxcvbnm on this point, especially when combined with my argument above that Wikipedia should always take a real-life / behind the scenes perspective, unlike dedicated fan wikis that prioritise the in-universe perspective. Similarly, when it comes to conflicts described in religious texts, Wikipedia should describe them from a real-life / scholarly perspective (what we do and don't know to be reliable and accurate), not an in-religion perspective. It's preferable not to present some event as factual when there is significant doubt as to how factual the event was, if it ever did take place. The infobox military conflict is overwhelmingly used for historical events, and that should be its main purpose. NLeeuw (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Correction: per Using infoboxes intended for real-world topics. in WP:INUNIVERSE, summarising historical events is the only purpose of Template:Infobox military conflict. It should never be used for fictional battles, no matter how clear we might presume that is to the reader. We've got an obligation to make it clear to the reader. NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian Syllabics sidebar

[edit]

Sidebar that only links to article sections. No direct article links outside the main article link which is a redirect. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This characterization appears to be a misunderstanding of the sidebar. This is not linking to sections within a single article, but rather between different articles that cover the whole of the characters derived from the Brahmic script, with many of the Canadian Syllabic characters having their own place within that historic context. The fact that the content is not forked into a separate article is irrelevant, the sidebar is for navigation between different pages, and the pertinent information is found at a particular section within those pages. Several other characters, on the other hand, don't have well documented context like that and AFAIK Wikipedia lacks that content currently. But this sidebar is positioned to facilitate navigation to and from that content when the need arrives. Lastly, the redirect objected to is a redirect from other capitalization and only exists because of a technical limitation of mediawiki.
I would have no objection to creating redirects from the base characters to the appropriate article sections and then link to those, ala the Vowels and Syllabic Consonants sections of {{Devanagari abugida sidebar}} if that is somehow deemed more proper. But this related content is not otherwise linked together in any way, so the sidebar has clear and non-redundant purpose and needs to remain. However, I'm going to add links to Cree syllabics, Eastern Cree syllabics, Western Cree syllabics, and Inuktitut syllabics for additional related content, and I would encourage any other pertinent content others can find. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 16:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its good you added more links for the subject, but sidebars are not immune from navigation requirements like those of navboxes. "But this sidebar is positioned to facilitate navigation to and from that content when the need arrives". Sidebars like navboxes are not created just so a need can be created or be in a position for an article to be created so it can be linked for the subject. That is a Crystal argument. Either there is enough articles to navigate for or there isn't. And I did not mischaracterize my nomination about links to article sections. Those are links to article sections as in sections of articles. It does not mean I said a single article's sections. Prior to your edits those were the only links, and following the addition of four articles, they still outnumber direct article links. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When this was nominated, there was content at eleven different articles being linked. That is current needs, not even remotely "when the need arrives" - navigation between that content is unavailable by any other means, and WP:Crystal is completely non-sequitur. Even if there are an additional 7 possible future targets, their non-existence does not negate the now extant 15 articles for which this sidebar provides current internavigation. Navbars and navigation sidebars routinely contain full lists of category members for which many may not have extant content for linking.VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 18:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are to link to articles directly. We only have four links to articles outside the main title link for this subject. Links to article sections especially when they out number direct article links fail the navigational purpose a sidebar is for. And links to article sections do not count as links to articles because they don't count even if related. Content is not the right word to use. Content can mean anything outside of articles. It can even mean links to Wikipedia sister projects. I would say if there is a fifth article for the sidebar, then it can pass the bare minimum to be kept and I don't think the characters should be hidden. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you are getting that from, but its application runs completely contrary to WP:Splitting for content splits. Are you perhaps misreading guidance on navigation links among sections within an article? Because that would actually make sense. You know exactly what I mean by content here, and it has nothing to do sister projects or whatever else you are implying. I am not a strawman. I don't even know how to respond to an argument so baffling - that somehow the intricacies of internal article organization would make a link to completely separate pages somehow not count for the purposes of navigation because that content isn't found in the lede. The link subject is clear for every single one of these. The content linked in these sections would make an independent stub/start class article with two references - but splitting the content would strip it of context, remove pertinent content from the current article, and is specifically discouraged by the actual guidance Wikipedia has on splitting content. So no, we had 11, and now 15 articles linked, and I do not accept a counterintuitive and anti-policy interpretation deflating that number. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 22:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would the remaining articles in Category:Canadian Aboriginal syllabics be okay to add? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through that list, probably only Ojibwe and Carrier. Ostensibly Blackfoot as well, but there's a confounding alternate syllabic script that is based partially on UCAS that I don't know enough about. Paging @Kwamikagami: to see if they have some idea how to get that article in a position to handle that mess. As for the Unicode blocks, those pages are about computer technology, and while it is right up my wheelhouse as a Unicode contributor, they are more appropriate in a Unicode technical context than navigation within graphemics. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 23:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sidebars are generally inadvisable and four articles is certainly not enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a navbox and remove redirects or section links. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template is primarily used in locations where a navbox is not appropriate. A companion navbox might have some alternate use case, but it will not work as a replacement for the primary purpose of this sidebar - navigating between information on the derivation, usage, and variations of archetype letterforms of the Canadian Syllabic script - which is found in context with the related letters of Indic scripts. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 03:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgian alphabet sidebar

[edit]

Unused and redundant to Template:Georgian language. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest revamping the Georgian alphabet letter pages to have the sidebar template, since it offers much better visual representation of the script. Template:Georgian language could still be kept at bottoms of the pages. Bababashqort (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sidebars are generally inadvisable and this one adds nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Babashqort. Much like {{Latin alphabet sidebar}}, {{Arabic-script sidebar}}, {{Greek alphabet sidebar}}, {{Indic letters sidebar}}, and {{Kana gojuon sidebar}}, a sidebar is the standard means of navigation between archetype characters within a script, often placed shortly after the infobox. Navbars can be useful supplements for cases like the basic Latin letters, where diacritic-modified forms of a letter may be accessed, and of course for general and technical topics on the script as a whole. Keep and implement. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 22:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've not checked the edit history, so perhaps someone's improved the template since this was nominated, but now it adds significant value over the language template: it's formatted to appear higher in the article (and maybe would appear on mobile, unlike the navbox; I'm unsure), versus all the way at the bottom, and more importantly it shows the letters instead of merely providing their transliterated names, as the navbox does. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either merge to Template:Georgian language or convert this to a navbox (whichever is better). These pages already use an infobox so the addition of the sidebar creates a massive block of boxes at the top of the page, which isn't reader friendly. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: it could go either way
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manx monarchs

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in July 2025. There probably are not enough valid blue links to make this navbox useful. Some of the listed people may or may not have been monarchs of the Isle of Man. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly Rename This is quite a complex area, and a navbox (or even two) could be useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I've checked all four of the bluelinks on the template. None of them seems to indicate that the king in question was specifically a ruler of Man — Báetán mac Cairill and Áedán mac Gabráin sought to conquer it and include it in their broader ricks, and Edwin of Northumbria and Tutgual of Galwyddel ruled kingdoms of which Man was merely a part. None of them ruled only Man, or ruled Man as a separate entity from another domain, so I dispute the inclusion of all four on this template. (Otherwise we might as well expand it by adding Charles III, Lord of Man, and his predecessors.) We can't know anything from this template about the remaining rulers, and I'm uncomfortable assuming that any of them belongs here. Unless I'm misunderstanding badly, this template's flaws really can't be fixed without deletion. Nyttend (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's often something that can't be fixed by deletion, but we can pretend it didn't happen. We should certainly add the Stanleys and maybe a generic link to the monarchs of the greater entity after them. Lord of Mann is a simple renaming of King of Mann. As for the question of the parent kingdom in earlier days, it could be made as clear as possible when one polity is subsumed in another. It's certainly the case that further south a king could be the king of more than one kingdom, or kingdoms could be divided or united.
    Simply renaming this (with the better name anyway, since most of the rulers weren't Manx) Monarchs of the Isle of Man would obviate the semantic component of the issues you raise. Sectioning by parent polity can also help. As for the red links, it's a question of creating the targets.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    I mention the redlinks because we can't easily know whether those people belong here; of course it's fine on principle to have redlinks in these places. This template really ought to concentrate on monarchs for whom Man has been the sole domain, or for whom it's been a significant component of the entire rick; that's definitely not the case for Charles III or for any previous UK/GB/English monarch, unless I'm forgetting about something. Man is a bit of a protectorate anyway, hardly a completely separate kingdom, even though it's not strictly part of the UK; it's more analogous to Anguilla or the Falklands, not like Tuvalu or St Lucia, let alone Australia or Canada. We probably wouldn't make a template for "Monarchs of the Falklands" without monarchs for whom the Falklands were a significant territory. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no post-relist discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even with a rename to a better title and one that makes sense for the subject matter, still too few links for navigation purposes. If one more link/article is created, then keep, but for now delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ItemCost

[edit]

Found this during the clean up of {{AircraftCost}} which was deleted at this TFD. In principal I love the idea of this template, the problem is it isn't maintained (the current value given is from 2023) or really used (131 transclusions). What's more there is a FAR superior and far better maintained template at {{Inflation}}. Suggest deleting this and replacing its instances with {{inflation}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody complained that ItemCost needed maintenance. Inflation is only an auxiliary template compared to this. Trigenibinion (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trigenibinion: What do you mean by is only an auxiliary template?s It is used in over 25,000 articles... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean these are higher level templates that call Inflation Trigenibinion (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the point of having an unmaintained, inaccurate template when another one exists that does the same thing and is up to date... - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you call it inaccurate? A lot of time was spent on this. If there's no maintenance it's because nobody reported any bugs. They do no do the same thing, otherwise I would not have written them. Stop asking to delete things that you don't understand. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trigenibinion: I think you are taking my criticism personally. That is not my intention. I do not doubt that a lot of time was spent on it, but this template is not maintained, the other is. The fact that nobody reported any bugs is not the point. You are using data from 2023. If you are going to maintain a template like this it needs to have the latest up to date data or it is not serving its purpose. You have not in anyway address why this template cannot be replace with {{Inflation}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is other templates called by this one that would have to be updated. This is a general presentation template that can be called by normalizing ones like the one you deleted, AircraftCost. Inflation is a lower level building block. The point was that in infoboxes Inflation was being called directly without consistency in the display of information.
Thanks for pointing out that nobody bothered about updating the currency templates. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now updated To USD to 2023. Somebody was working on the 2024 data but I don't know what happened, so I will have to look at it myself. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
INRConvert was updated by the maintainers to 2023, so ToUSD now takes advantage of that too. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To EUR now takes advantage of the To USD and INRConvert 2023 data. The last time someone updated its own data was for 2021 so I will have to take a look at that too. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Inflation you will see that it is not usually updated. I don't work on that. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no post-relist participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pronunciation audio requested

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Pronunciation audio requested with Template:Pronunciation requested audio.
These templates both seem to do the same thing: request that someone make and add an audio recording of a pronunciation of the article's title.

The documentation does try to draw a distinction between them — it says PAR is for article text or language pronunciation whereas PRA is for article title pronunciation only — but because the current wording of both references the article title, this clearly isn't happening.

These should either be merged or a clear difference between them articulated. The accompanying categories — Category:Wikipedia requested pronunciation audios is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia requested audio of pronunciations — should also be handled accordingly per whatever we decide to do. Sdkb talk 19:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect for the nominator's reason and we shouldn't have separate templates for "article text or language pronunciation" and "article title pronunciation only". Maybe merge/redirect Template:Pronunciation requested audio to the other one. BodhiHarp 16:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: not enough participants to fully determine consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete sub pages. If the feature for a title distinction is needed, a parameter can be added and probably a category to go along with it. Also delete one of the current categories as redundant. Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyright violation

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Copyright violation with Template:Copyvio.
I propose we redirect this template because it is redundant to {{copyvio}} and {{copyvio}} is better then adding a maintenance template. Additionally, if you are sure it is a copyright violation, it shouldn't be kept. BodhiHarp 22:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not commenting on the possible redundancy of {{copyright violation}}, but I (and I am sure many others) would be wholly opposed to redirecting it to {{copyvio}}. The former is an annoying and poorly used maintenance template; the latter a template that requires specific usage scenarios and instructions for those adding it. – Isochrone (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: unknown consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect {{copyright violation}} to {{copyvio}} as the whole point of the copyvio process is to determine the license and compatibility. An inline tag does nothing to benefit a reading editor. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first template and redriect per Awesome Aasim. Short excerpts are unlikely to be infringing. In most cases, the infringing text makes up a large portion of an article or section. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Izno. I'm one of the admins that regularly handles {{copyvio}}. Copyright violations in small amounts should be removed as soon as they are identified and we should not be fishing for copyvio either - all this falls to the overworked folks at WP:CCP in the end. Our efforts are better spent on article-wide issues rather than tagging for a sentence or paragraph of copyrighted text. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syfy Shows

[edit]

The shows listed here are simply too loosely related to merit a navbox. They do not "refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" as is the guideline in WP:NAVBOX #3. It is also obvious from the ludicrous and continually growing amount of shows that List of programs broadcast by Syfy is more appropriate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not at all too loosely related. If navbox size is a major concern, then the first step is to do an Rfc or just a plain new discussion on the template's talk page to see if a split is warranted based on consensus. Netflix original programming templates have been split off and contain many articles for original shows on the platofmr --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral about the size concern, but I don't find the nominator's relatedness concern to be persuasive. Readers very well might have a SyFy subscription (or whatever it is they're selling these days) or an affinity for their programming and be looking for info about their shows. Sdkb talk 01:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Azerbaijan

[edit]

Only 1 English entry. Note that the Indian embassy in Azerbaijan links to a redirect. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AeroRoutesRef

[edit]

This template generates a citation to Aeroroutes.com, which is a deprecated source per WP:AEROROUTES. Danners430 tweaks made 11:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if we do delete, can we make sure we replace it with a citation needed tag where it’s removed, since this would be a reference we’re removing? Danners430 tweaks made 16:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Idaho State Legislature district

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Idaho State Legislature district with Template:Infobox United States legislative district.
Low-use (on 3 of 35 district pages) state-specific template with no unique utility to it. The only substantive difference I see is the voter demographic label 'Unaffiliated/other party', which makes more sense than the 'No party preference' label in the standard U.S. template since Idaho has closed primaries. Perhaps there could be a custom/alternative label in the U.S. template to accommodate this? (if the difference is deemed significant enough to accommodate).
— LifelongDisciple (Talk) 06:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete we don't need state specific instances of this. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08, @WikiCleanerMan — I replaced the three uses of this (two of which I had added originally) so the Idaho-specific template is now orphaned.
Hopefully it wasn't out of line (it seemed uncontroversial and trivial to do or undo); I did see that it's noted on the TfD page that templates are rarely orphaned before a decision is made. I haven't nominated anything for discussion before. (: @LifelongDisciple talk 18:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox military exercise

[edit]

This is a low-use single-purpose wrapper template to remove the word "civil" from {{Infobox civil conflict}}, however that parameter has been removed from the parent template. Suggest deleting and redirecting to {{Infobox civil conflict}}. Phuzion (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Exercises occur during peacetime, not war or conflict. They are COMPLETELY different things. For example, Exercise Talisman Sabre is an exercise. But a "civil conflict" is something that involves conflict. Exercises are TRAINING. They do not involve live fire, unless there is no one being fired at.
Guylaen (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, I'm confused because there aren't any modules in the infobox. I was just going to put it into a couple of pages, but without any modules it's useless. When there are modules to include important information, it belongs on all of the pages included here: Military_exercise#List of military exercises Guylaen (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this template does is remove the word “civil” from {{Infobox civil conflict}}, but as I mentioned, that parameter was removed almost 3 years ago. It COULD be rewritten as an infobox for military exercises, but at this time it does nothing to that effect. Phuzion (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to {{Infobox civil conflict}}, this is no longer needed now that the "civil" word has been removed. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to {{Infobox civil conflict}}. As Frietjes said, this is no longer needed. I encourage people (User:Guylaen in particular) to actually LOOK at the code for this template. Technically it IS functioning as a redirect at this point. Zero additional params are added or manipulated in any way except for |conflict_type=. That parameter (|conflict_type=) isn't even defined in {{Infobox civil conflict}} so this is just dumping pages needlessly into Category:Pages using infobox civil conflict with unknown parameters (11). I see the value in having a redirect, but this template doesn't do anything of value at this point. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but make new modules to actually make it useful
    Guylaen (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zackmann08 – either keep or delete, but in no cases redirect. It is completely contrary to logic to redirect this to any page involving conflict at all.
    I need people here to understand that an Exercise HAS NOTHING TO DO with Conflict. Guylaen (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guylaen: I think you are focusing on the name while I am focusing on the technical side of this...
    For example {{Disappeared date and age}} and {{Death date and age}} do exactly the same thing which is why I'm currently working to merge them. Disappeared is ABSOLUTELY different than Death, but if the result for the end user is the same thing....
    I won't speak for other editors, but I'm certainly not suggesting that an exercise is the same as a conflict... But if I can use {{Infobox military exercise|name=Foo|...}} and get the exact same result as {{Infobox civil conflict|name=Foo|...}} then from a technical side a redirect makes sense.
    This is why {{Infobox Cambodian district}} & {{Infobox Azerbaijan region}} (two completely different countries) both redirect to {{Infobox settlement}}.
    Or why {{Infobox youtube channel}} and {{Infobox streamer}} both point to {{Infobox social media personality}}... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I just think we have some sort of duty to the curious minds who read this website to provide links so that people who go down the wikipedia hole can learn about the world.
    The technical aspects should be built around the core mission of encyclopedic function is what I think. Guylaen (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is pointed to another infobox (which I'm fine with), THAT INFOBOX WILL NEED NEW MODULES. If we want to do the redirect to Template:Infobox civil conflict OR Template:Infobox event, these are the modules that I believe need to be added for an exercise to function properly.
    These are modules that specifically are not found in either event or civil conflict, and should be added to make the infobox appropriate for use on an exercise:
    • Blankdata (about 10)
    • Blankname (about 10)
    • Equipment/Transport and deployment/training aids
    • Type of exercise (e.g., command post, field training, tabletop, computer-assisted, live-fire)
    • Observers / controllers
    • Evaluation criteria / metrics
    • Security classification (Top Secret/Eyes Only, etc.)
    • Real world conditions (e.g., DEFCON, FPCON, THREATCON, Boevaya Gotovnost, etc.)
    • Control elements (e.g., EXCON, White Cell, Red Cell, Blue Cell)
    • Domain(s) (land, air, maritime, space, cyber, irregular, multidomain)
    • Budget in dollars / funding source
    • Simulation or training aids
    • Media / public affairs policy (media allowed to observe yes or no)
    I am still trying to learn how to code infoboxes, but there's a lot of steps involved. Guylaen (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So wherever this decision winds up, I would very much like to see these modules added so I can make use of them. Guylaen (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, now I need to make the article Boevaya Gotovnost, which was the USSR version of DEFCON. Adding it to my TBWs now. Guylaen (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guylaen: so what I'm hearing is that this template needs a complete overhaul. FWIW, if the decision is ultimately made to merge, there is nothing to stop you from later recreating the template in a new way. In its current form it isn't doing anything to make it worth not redirecting... If you add the parameters listed above, that changes the game. I'll ping you on your talk page, but I would recommend letting this TFM run its course, and instead focusing on creating a new incarnation of the Infobox. . Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: noticable amount of recent activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image hoax

[edit]

Images suspected to be a hoax should be removed from mainspace until it is confirmed that they are not a hoax. No need to tag anything. This template is not used and there is no need to ever use it. Polygnotus (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The template is not for article space. It is for File space. The code to link to the relevant talk page has "File talk:" hard-coded. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Jonesey95 and the templates documentation that very clearly says This template may have no transclusions. This is because it is substituted by a tool or script, it is used as part of a short-term or less active Wikipedia process, or for some other reason.. -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of the !voters above seem to understand the deletion rationale. Polygnotus (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus: What do you mean? You said This template is not used... It clearly says it is SUBSTITUTED so therefore it won't have any transclusions... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zackmann08 See here. 1 result, with a template since April 2023. It is October 2025 (allegedly).
    I can't imagine a scenario in which this template is useful. Polygnotus (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus: It is added, and then removed once things are verified (or the file in question deleted)... So unless you were able to do a search of all file histories... your search doesn't really tell us anything of value. Plus, as has been said, The template is SUBSTITUTED, not transcluded. Your search ONLY looks at transclusions, but still there is no way to look for files where this has been substituted, the file investigated, then cleared (determined NOT to be a hoax) or deleted because it IS a hoax.
    Your statement that you can't imagine a scenario in which this template is useful is because you don't understand it. That is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zackmann08 No, I don't like it is about liking/disliking, not understanding/not understanding. So unless you were able to do a search of all file histories I am, although the dump is rather big so it would take some time.
    Can you imagine a scenario in which this template is useful? Or do you just assume that it is? Someone finds a file, and thinks it might be a hoax. They can tag it as such, which does nothing, or remove its usage from mainspace (which seems like the correct thing to do until they can confirm it is not a hoax). But let's say they tag it. How does that help anyone? The template seems to invite drive-by tagging. Polygnotus (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus: seriously... READ the code. Do SOME kind of WP:BEFORE... The template places the image in Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax images... It is literally the FIRST LINE of the documentation. This template will categorise articles into Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax images. Those maintenance categories are monitored by people... I don't PERSONALLY monitor this particular one (look at my userpage for all the categories I monitor), but I guarantee you that others do. A 5 second look at the history shows this discussion about the category which has been around since at least 2009 and is clearly used by people. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zackmann08 If you claim that there is a dedicated team of CIA operatives who check and doublecheck if a file is indeed a hoax when the template is used then that would indeed be a benefit I hadn't considered. I doubt it, but there is the theoretical possibility. I might give it a try if I ever find a hoax image. But it would be nice if you could maybe, you know, relax a bit? We are disagreeing about something that is incredibly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. A "comment out usages" or "uncomment usages" button would be cool. Polygnotus (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, just because you don't like something or don't see its usefulness doesn't mean it should be deleted. It is clearly a driveby nomination from someone who has not bothered to look at what the template does or how it works. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: recent activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the OP simply misunderstands how this template is used. The documentation says "it is used as part of a short-term or less active Wikipedia process". That means that there is a process that looks like this: suspected hoax images are tagged, which puts them in Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax images. File pages in that category are processed by editors. If the image is a hoax, it is deleted. If the image is not a hoax, the template is removed. Between such nominations, the template will have no transclusions. The burden is on the nominator to show that this template is never used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

Template:Death date and age text

[edit]

The functionality of this template has now been replicated in {{death date and age}}. Thus there is no longer a need for this template. It is my suggestion that this template be redirected to {{death date and age}} thus reducing the number of date templates that must be maintained. A side by side comparison of the two templates can be found here with various testcases. (Please feel free to add more testcases!) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95, Gonnym, and Frietjes: any thoughts? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:DATE allows for the abbreviation of months, which can be a boon in some infoboxes (where these templates are used). Unless I'm missing something, while {{death date and age text}} allows for this (e.g. {{death date and age text|3 Oct 2025|1809-02-12}}), {{death date and age}} does not. As such, I would oppose redirecting or changing the template. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fourthords: you are partially corrrect, see below:
    • {{death date and age|3 Oct 2025|5 Dec 1990}} → October 3, 2025(2025-10-03) (aged 34)
    • {{death date and age|1990-02-12|1980-03-12}} → February 12, 1990(1990-02-12) (aged 9)
    Basically {{death date and age}} overrides Oct with October. It still works just fine! It just overrides the display value. Thank you for pointing this out. It should be a very easy fix. I'll put that on my todo list for this afternoon as regardless of this merge, that should not be the case.
    That being said, given that it works (and that I will fix it so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed) what are your thoughts on merging? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: It's probably not a good idea to relist discussions you're involved in. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery I felt that since there had been very little traffic on this discussion there was no harm in relisting it. To be clear, I would absolutely never have closed a discussion I was involved in... But moving forward I will avoid relisting discussions I have been involved in as well. Appreciate the advice. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox bullfighting career

[edit]

By my count this is only used 16 times.. It is also mostly not in english and doesn't even function as a standalone Infobox... It has |child=yes hardcoded in it so it can ONLY be used as a module in {{Infobox sportsperson}}.

Either replace the limited instances with {{Infobox sportsperson}} and eliminate the custom (mostly Spanish) parameters or this template needs a complete overhaul. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "Spanish" parameters are used in the English article about bullfighting. Probably the right terms. Christian75 (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War

[edit]

Propose splitting Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War into...

Nominator's rationale: This sidebar is evidently overgrown; a problem which I myself substantially contributed to (7%) over the years. Splitting it after the Hundred Years' War model is in line with the policies, guidelines, conventions, precedents and suggestions I've gathered at User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes, more specifically the 1 war rule. The idea to split this infobox was also previously discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 28#Template:Campaignbox Spanish colonial campaigns. Technically, discussion is not necessary, as I could split this whole sidebar myself WP:BOLDly as proposed, but the sheer number of pages involved and the fact that it was discussed previously makes me think it would be courteous to talk about it before I do anything. If nobody objects, I'll proceed anyway, but if there are objections, this is the time to discuss them. NLeeuw (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Note that the nl:Tien jaren (Tachtigjarige Oorlog) article already has a period-specific sidebar (zijbalk) listing only the battles occurring in the 1588—1598 period. (The Ten Years (Eighty Years' War) was a sort of "Mauritian phase"). NLeeuw (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @RobertJohnson35 and Benjitheijneb: you two engaged with me the most during the May 2025 TfDs on overgrown campaignboxes. I think you'll be interested in discussing this proposal as well (originally suggested by RobertJohnson35). NLeeuw (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Template:Belarusian Athletics Championships

[edit]

Only three links. The three articles are suspect as is but that's a different discussion. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022 Belarus Winter Olympic team

[edit]

Not an Olympic team. There was no one team and all of these athletes listed were involved in different sports. Normally, one team is involved in one sport. Not multiple as this template alleges. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the Olympic Games, all team members of a nation are called the "Olympic team." Sczipo (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a source for your claim. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smallsub

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Smallsub with Template:Sub.
MOS:SMALL violation (using this template produces font size 68% of the page's default). Should be redirected to template:sub. sapphaline (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If consensus supports this, then I support deletion, not redirect. This redirect will be misleading as it does not change the text size. Gonnym (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smallsup

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Smallsup with Template:Sup.
MOS:SMALL violation (using this template produces font size 68% of the page's default). Should be redirected to template:sup. sapphaline (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If consensus supports this, then I support deletion, not redirect. This redirect will be misleading as it does not change the text size. Gonnym (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Template:Disappeared date and age

[edit]

Propose redirecting Template:Disappeared date and age to Template:Death date and age.
This template functions exactly as {{death date and age}} except that the later has been moved to Lua and has error checking for invalid params and dates that are not possible (age over 130). In fact in the documentation for this template it says Note: This template is based on, and has exactly the same syntax as Error: Need valid death date (first date): year, month, day. I checked in Special:ExpandTemplates and the only difference between the two is that Death date and age adds a hidden span with a machine readable date. I don't see any reason that this template cannot be simply redirected... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. By that argument there is nothing to merge. Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Touché... I guess this is more of a sanity check to make sure I'm not missing anything. I'll correct the text above to say redirecting not merging. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: redirect, delete all sub-pages (do not redirect them). --Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, only if the instructions for how to correctly use the death template for people who disappeared are explicitly added to the documentation. If that's not possible or would be confusing, then the disappeared template should be converted into a wrapper instead. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: can you clarify? There is no additional documentation that is needed. They function EXACTLY the same and produce the EXACT same output (except for the "See TFM" of course).
  • {{Disappeared date and age|2020|10|5|1990|6|2}}→‹See TfM›October 5, 2020 (aged 30)
  • {{Death date and age|2020|10|5|1990|6|2}}→October 5, 2020(2020-10-05) (aged 30)
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Death date and age/doc currently makes absolutely no mention of how to use the template for someone who disappeared. If {{Disappeared date and age}} is just redirected to {{Death date and age}} someone who doesn't know that the two templates are the same under-the-hood will likely just be confused about where they've ended up where they have and/or have no idea how to get the template to produce what they want. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: that makes sense! We can ABSOLUTELY add a sentence to {{death date and age}} that says {{Disappeared date and age}} redirects here. They do the same thing and produce the same result so use this as you would use that. (That is TERRIBLE language, perhaps you have a suggestion for a better explanation?). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Object - there are families holding out hope that their disappeared loved ones are not dead. Kire1975 (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kire1975: that doesn't really have ANYTHING to do with what we are talking about here... The two templates do the exact same thing? What is the reason you feel there should be duplicate code? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
factual accuracy Kire1975 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

Template:Disappeared year and age

[edit]

This template is an exact copy of Template:Death year and age. The fact that the template is named "Disappeared" or "Death" has no actual difference in the code. Gonnym (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

Template:Invisible list item

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in July 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: The DCWC coordinators were using this template as recently as two weeks ago (via the redirect {{ili}}). I think this has the potential to be used again in projectspace, and has similar functionality to its cousin template {{i*}}. Let me know what you think. (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and put down a keep (as the template creator) with that in mind. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We shouldn't hide text in pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: This template does not hide text; it hides the bullet in a bulleted list or the number in a numbered list (using <li style="list-style: none;">). I've fixed the documentation to make this clearer. The use case I mentioned above for the DCWC coordinators was to hide the number when two participants on the leaderboard were tied with the same point total, which you can also see in the diff I linked. (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not need any template and is much clearer:
  1. First place
  2. Second place
  3. Tied for third
    • Person one
    • Person two
  4. etc.
Gonnym (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: But that list is incorrect: in your scenario the person named "etc." should be in fifth place, not fourth. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This may be overcome with <li value=5> as follows:
  1. First place
  2. Second place
  3. Tied for third
    • Person one
    • Person two
  5. etc.
I first used it some fifteen years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a valid alternative for representing the same information in this case. It isn't, however, a reason to delete the template, so my !vote above stands. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

[edit]

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

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

  1. ^ Mayer, Larry (20 May 2019). "Centennial Scrapbook chronicles Bears history". ChicagoBears.com. Chicago Bears. Retrieved 28 October 2025.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1317386574"